Is Modern Music terrible?

From Unfocusgroup.org

Originated by Brendan Fernandes

It's often said that most modern music is highly derivative and boring.

What's certainly true is that the 1950s and 1960s were a bit of a "golden age" of popular music. This was the period when the genre was being defined, and it was more about the music than the marketing. There was also a lot more focus on melody and harmony, and in my opinion, better use of the major scale.

As we have progressed through generations, ideas such as "coolness" have emerged, and other ideas peripheral to the process of writing good tunes. This has led to fewer periods of mass innovation.

People often accuse me of placing far too much emphasis on originality, rather than looking at each song in its own right. But I cannot help seeing things in relation to other things, and wondering why most of the music was so much better in the olden days. I remember seeing Status Quo on Wogan, where Terry Wogan accused them (quite rightly) of writing the same old tunes over and over again, to which they replied that "It's like having a drink. If you like one, you would be happy to have another one". But I don't see things this way, and believe that the idea of music is to provoke an emotional response, not to simply satisfy a physical need.

There are some glimmers of hope, such as the emerging phenomenon of Little Boots, who writes all of her own tunes and plays her own instruments as well as having innovation, glamour and originality in equal measure. She also doesn't take herself too seriously. A sort of cross between Kylie Minogue and Kate Bush.

Too Many Instruments

One of the problems of modern music is that it's too easy to lazily just add instrumentation. In the olden days when people played all of their own instruments, there were only so many instruments that could be played at a time, and so the songwriters had to come up with more straightforward, punchy tunes that worked with only 3 or 4 instruments. Harmonies were also tighter, as they tended to rely on just their own 3 or 4 voices, rather than having loads of layers of vocals. Of course, they could always keep overlaying in recording, but they tended to record in a more "live" manner and do less post-production.

Nowadays, songs have a tendency to be so cluttered that the overall sound suffers. It's like taking a reasonable meal and whizzing it up in a blender and adding loads of chilli powder. It's a lazy substitute for writing a good, simple song in the first place.

So in a way, technology has caused a problem, but not in the way that most people describe. It's not because musicians aren't as good as they used to be, but rather because the technology has made them lazy. Instead of adding melodic interest or contrapuntal harmony, songwriters rely on adding extra layers.

They also have a tendency to over-process vocals. Good singers sound much better live these days than on record, because sound engineers are too efficient at getting rid of "imperfections" that in fact add to the tonal interest and beauty of the human voice.

Back to Media