Bingo! Bingo, and further more; bingo. Let me also say that I agree with you and think you are completely right and that nothing you said in your sentence was wrong. When you are right you are right and you are right! Should I maybe agree with you in Latin and Korean as well or would that be beating some poor dead horse here? But anyway, you make a good point about him making the same point over and over again, and have I said bingo! yet?
The problem with modern pop is it feels "good." Bohemian Rhapsody takes me on a journey and not all of it feels good. There are bitter and sour notes. Like gourmet food.
Your analogy, it's like comparing wallpaper to paintings from great artists. Totally different purpose, totally different product. However, the well of brilliant (often way left of mainstream) music nevertheless runs very deep, and potential for discovery (of artists past and present). You could spend a lifetime excavating and listening, and still so many stones would be left unturned. I like to consider this more positive message whenever I get depressed thinking about the average consumer's musical interests.
There is no pain present in the kind of music you're alluding to because it's marketed and sold as musical prozac to subdue and mollify the exploited working classes. It's just a cheap, cringe-worthy spectacle on one hand; on the other, there's the more anonymous "elevator music," pre-fab playlists for a morning jog, buying groceries, pumping gas. It is by design that the product is sanitized not to contain any jarring or distracting "bitter" or "sour" or otherwise dissonant content; the product is engineered to avoid any challenge or distraction to its user(s), therefore it would not be serving its intended purpose. Like wallpaper is made to be seen rather than observed, the record industry cartel's music is made to be heard, rather than listened to, or explored, or grappled with.
It's sort of like fast food, cheap, plentiful, ubiquitous, and it appeals somehow to people's most irrational, base urges even despite knowing on some level that it's "bad." Even if they enjoy it on some level (i have no idea how...), most would acknowledge it is not "good" per se, even though they admit to "liking" it. I think when it comes to music, this principle does not apply for people; what one "likes" and what is "good" are seen as synonymous, no matter how uncompromisingly vapid the music. Ok no more analogies.
He missed a major point, although he's right about the repetitiveness. A song like Bohemian Rhapsody could be analyzed and interpreted deeply in terms of it's story, meaning, and feeling expressed through it, whereas the Beyonce song can be reduced simply to "girl power!" It's not the repetition that frustrates critics of modern music, but the lack of raw, authentic feeling in an original and compelling style that the listener can truly connect with and feel. Even simple melodies and simple lyrics can do this, but songs about the club and cliche catch phrases simply don't. Repetition isn't the problem, it's the content.
If you look at the chart and compare it to eras considered to have produced some of the finest music ever you'll see a surprising trend of repetitiveness falling.
O_o if it wasn't catchy no one would listen... Like no one. Not you, not me, not the next door neighbor. He's right, and he's done the research, repetitive is catchy. You can't have a song all over the damn place without rhyme or reason. It can't start one way, suddenly swap a different, then end in something completely different from the first two. No one would listen. Period. It goes for everything, from classical, to current age. Moonlight Sonata is very repetitive. So is pachelbel's canon. It's the same set of notes, over and over and over again (I rather enjoy both pieces of classical music). Today it just has words to it now.
@@Leylaashley I don't know a single cellist or even a single experienced violinist who likes Pachelbel. (Not that I'm disagreeing. Just adding that for the musician, repetitive can equal boring)
"Around the world" should not be treated as lyrics, as vocals, but as a rhythmic part of instrument, which this loop sample actually is in this context. It's not a vocalist singing a song with three words, it's electronic dance music with composition and rhythm based 100% on cut short sound samples.
I tought the same about treating "la la la la la la la la la" as lyrics - to me that's more just a melody, sung by a human, than actual "lyrics". "La" is not even a word, what does "la" mean? Nothing, there's no such word. If I'm humming some melody, that's not lyrics. So "la la la la la la la la la" is not "lyrics".
@JM Coulon Exactly! So many times explaining "why they sing that way you cannot even understand the lyrics" because it's not about hearing the lyrics, if you want to know what they sing just check in a cd cover, on google or ask them
I thought that too. "Around the world" isn't a lyric, it's a sample. It's essentially an instrumental song. Then again, the video is more about mathematics and algorithms than it is about the actual percieved decline of creativity in pop music.
This, exactly. For some reason music is this 'but everything is subjective' thing whereas every other art form, including cooking is at least open to some sort of objective interpretation. You might like fast food and that's ok, and fast food has a really interesting process and history behind it and it works, but you'd be damned if you could convince chefs that it's holistically great food. Having a little fast food every now and then (or pop music) is fine but most people who listen to pop are restricted to the same old formula.
Seriously. I love at the end where he says "Music ain't what it used to be, but maybe it's better" and he's standing in front of Freddy Mercury and Beyonce Knowles! Too much ear-candy can rot the brain...
What this guy is saying is pretty cool and it's interesting to see new ways to visualize and interpret songs. But I'm of the opinion that pop music is degrading not necessarily because of the quality of the content that's being put out but primarily because of the intent of the songs that lead to the quality of what's being put out. Pop music is very clearly being treated as an industry run by people who are mostly motivated by money. They've found a method for economic success by means of exploiting the mere exposure effect leading to only promoting songs that sound like other songs, have a lot of repetition, etc. and then essentially brainwashing the public into thinking that those songs are good because they play them everywhere at all times. I would like to see what pop music would be like if it wasn't run by people like that.
This has been happening for as long as there has been pop music though; it's not a modern phenomena. Look at the Brill Building writers from late 50's early 60's for example. But, music isn't run by "people like that", it isn't run at all in the way you suggest, because there are other artists out there that do it very differently; in other words, those making the music he is describing in the video, are not preventing other syles of music from being made. The real issue is presuming that the only purpose in making music is to gain fame and untold wealth, but really, music exists independently of those things. The proliferation of repetitive pop music does not halt the individual creative process that enables musicians to produce diverse forms of music.
Convincing the public that a song is good because they play it everywhere, isn't possible, per-say. When you hear a song playing in the store, or on the radio, can you tell if it's cheap? Because I can, and everyone I know can. People can tell when a song is bad. Saying that "Those People" are brainwashing the community is a falsehood. What he said, about people enjoying repeating songs, is true. The majority of people I know enjoy repetitive songs. The record labels and the producers take advantage of that. They have found a way to make money, what's wrong with that? Also, you would be surprised by how many artists write their own songs. Take NF for example, he has some reasonably repetitive songs (Hands up, If you want Love, Just being me...) He writes his own songs. The label gave him a contract because they saw an opportunity. Faith Marie writes her own songs, and 98% of her songs are repetitive. Your argument has several flaws, although I see where you are coming from. But why should that stop us from enjoying songs like Bad Blood or Cheap Thrills?
I liked the analysis in one way, but it's very strange to focus purely on lyrics. The melody and rhythm are just as important and tend to be even more repetitive than the lyrics, even in songs with great lyrical diversity. So the whole analysis is a little misleading imo. For example, Hit me baby one more time's stresses are more to do with the rhythm and the melody rather than the lyrics behind it. If I were to guess (and I'm 90% sure) I would say the melody was written first in that song, and then the lyrics were written after. So the analysis of stresses on the lyrics are a little misguided, you could have totally different lyrics in those parts, and the stresses would be the same in order to follow the rhythm and melody. Let's not forget that even bohemian rhapsody has repetitive verses in terms of melody and rhythm, and it definitely has hooks and repeated elements (the piano riff being the main one) even if the lyrics are mostly unique.
Hit me baby one more time was written by Max Martin, a songwriter that is notorious for writing the melody first and then making everything fit to that melody. So you're probably right.
Good point. Still you can't really blame him for that. It's always better to pick a focus first and then compare it to others in order to get a wider picture, because you can only take so much into account in one study. Otherwise your paper is gonna lose on accuracy and detail.
And modern pop is more complex in ways any sort of music ever was since the beginning of time. Texture and tone and beat are so much more complex in modern pop than orchestral music which is extremely similar from one to the next. I didnt see him analyze lyrical content of choral music from catholic masses from hundreds of years ago. Kyrie e leison the whole song. Or all of the music that only say alleluia over and over
It really irritates me when people assert that the lyrics are the most important part of music. Instead of the actual music, which is what distinguishes song lyrics from poetry. Repetitive GOOD music is enjoyable. What we get today is repetitive music of an extremely poor quality.
@LegoGuy87 I don't care about inane lyrics if the tune is worth listening to. Good lyrics are just a bonus, but good melody is an essential in most cases. I don't even like most of Bob Dylan's original songs, due to the lack of a melody, and usually find that the covers are better. 21st century pop just has nothing going for it at all, and even if they had Bob Dylan quality lyrics, that still wouldn't compensate for the terrible musical quality.
@@micgooflander95 What do you mean about Bob Dylan songs lacking a melody? Covers of his songs still use his original melodies. Anyway the part I really wanted to reply to was the phrase "What we get today". There is so much good modern music, and its never been easier to access it and discover it. Its totally up to you to find music that you enjoy. You dont have to listen to any music you dont like. Theres no single type of music being served up for everyone. I could never stand to listen to radio music for example, but I never would so its not an issue.
@@NowhereMan7 The original songs don't generally have much of an instrumental arrangement. I have heard very little good music from the last 2 decades, although admittedly I don't go out of my way to hear a broader range than what usually plays on the radio, in supermarkets, etc. Usually when someone recommends some good obscure music, it's just as tuneless as what you would normally hear on the radio, but perhaps without the 'millenial whoop' considering that it's not composed by committee with input from focus groups.
@@micgooflander95 yeah the early 60s songs are almost all just acoustic guitar and harmonica and vocals. Still have vocal melody though but I can see how he's not for everyone. I actually prefer 70s Dylan albums with a full band myself
If we are talking about songs - yea, lyrics matter. Just like without music rhymes are just poetry. The same way music without lyrics is just music, not song. But at the same time we can make a song without any music(acapella). So yea, lyrics matter for a song.
Funny how he picked that Britney song, written by Max Martin. Max Martin who happens to be the writer of most of the recent top pop songs. There IS a reason music has become more repetitive and it ain't because we like it.
Exactly. And I might add that the sum of music can't be characterized by its lyrics alone. The music itself is being dumbed down. It is much less intricate.
The Beatles' first release, 'Love Me Do' is one of the most repetitive songs ever, as is the song from which it is loosely derived, Buddy Holly's only slightly less repetitive 'Peggy Sue'. Both are immortal. 'Love Me Do' has just one verse of four simple syllables per line, with the verse repeated six times. It has an equally minimalistic bridge and no chorus.
If you want to know about that part, it's been proven new music has started to make songs louder by modifying the lowest parts of a song to amp up the volume a little bit, and it ends up taking a lot of details that you can't hear anymore. And that's BAD, it's like desaturating a picture, eventually it becomes a gray tile.
@@tvnorminstudio3080 well now that's not entirely true. I'd like an analysis about why billie eilish is so popular and how she's seen as a counterculture hero
I think the big thing missing from this and many of these style commentaries is that this is not a sign of music or even pop music getting worse. What we are seeing is the emergence of a new genre: corporate pop. In recent years we have seen a shift towards heavily manufactured music being the mainstream, rather than an artist with a voice. That meme just shows that despite there being 5 times as many people involved, it is nowhere near 5 times as good.
Hey, can I steal that genre name for private use in conversations? because honestly Corporate-Pop(or Corp-Pop) perfectly describes the condition of the music industry of today.
"Corporate music" has been with us for fifty years now. Ever since Woodstock lost money for the festival organizers but made millions for Warner Bros. as a movie and soundtrack album, corporations have gotten more and more involved in all aspects of the music business as time passes.
Corporate Pop has been around for decades. The Brill Building in the early 60s was basically a factory full of song writers.Tin Pan Alley was a street choc full of publishers churning out commercial music from way back in the 1880s.
Sort of how like how explosion-filled action movies sell better than many oscar-winning titles or well-written books do not sell as much as many teenage love stories. Nothing wrong with that, neither of them are objectively "better". I think there will always be a divide of consumers of culture and media between the simple hedonistic consumer and the analytical consumer/collector.
His argument falls flat on the dunning-kruger effekt. People having less understanding of something and liking it out of plain ignorance isn't universally just "better". It's like saying we should go back to using leeches for every ailment instead of modern western medicine and saying "you know what. since people seem LIKE the idea of leeches, perhaps it's just BETTER?"
@@collectorduck9061 Even though I do like music with complex content, and not regarding only the lyrics specifically, I can't say your example is very accurate. Contrary to medical treatments that often provide objective data, music is almost completly subjective. So naturally, opinion matters. Everything can be good and bad, depending only on listeners opinion. If many people think a song is good, then given subjective statistical standard as a measurement, it is. I wouldn't say Dunning-Kreuger is as applicable in such a case either. Complexity is also very undefined here, and does not equal to good production quality in any way. For example: "Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis confirmed a separation of the polypeptides." or "Hi" are both complex statements, and the filter used and task at hand will decide which one is more complex. To find a pattern in 2 letters is very hard to do, for instance, and it might also be the sum of a long assumed context of thought. I do wish music was not simplified, because I like metal, blues, jazz and so forth, but there will always be a market for that too. Don't worry, just make an effort to find what you like and it will be there :)
Ah, the good old "X vs Bohemian Rhapsody" example to show how repetetive music has become. This example has kind-of lost its power. The example I know compares Queen to Justin Bieber, and it goes like: Baby, baby, baby ooh Like baby, baby, baby no Like baby, baby, baby ooh I thought you'd always be mine (mine) ~ Justin Bieber - Baby, My World 2.0 (2010) Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see ~ Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody, A Night at the Opera (1975) And then you simply pick two different examples: I just can't sleep tonight Knowing that things ain't right It's in the papers, it's on the TV, it's everywhere that I go Children are crying Soldiers are dying Some people don't have a home ~ Justin Bieber - Pray, My Worlds Acoustic (2010) Sweet lady Sweet lady Sweet lady... stay sweet Stay sweet Oh, run away Come on Yeah yeah, yeah yeah Sweet lady Wooh ~ Queen - Sweet Lady, A Night at the Opera (1975) And there goes your point by showing that you're just cherry-picking your examples to "prove" it.
Actually it doesn't because the Queen song may repeat words but not inflections, it's not just repeating, it's spoken words over a chorus and solos. There are plenty of repetitions in 70s rock, but it's way more dynamic than the copy pasting we are seeing today. Not only that the point of the original comparison is to compare two widely popular songs. Where you selected whatever would prove your point. I'm not saying you're wrong but you're not playing by the same rules here.
@@RupeeRhod I was illustrating the point that one can't make a point regarding a trend by comparing two more or less arbitrary examples. So you are right in a sense that while the example "Baby vs Bohemian Rhapsody" alone is not suitable to prove the trend, "Pray vs Sweet Lady" alone is not capable of refuting it. Luckily he used some more sophisticated methods to analyze the repetition. On a side note, while "Sweet Lady" may not be comparable regarding popularity, "Bicycle Race" from 1978 somewhat is: Bicycle, bicycle, bicycle I want to ride my Bicycle, bicycle, bicycle I want to ride my bicycle I want to ride my bike I want to ride my bicycle I want to ride it where I like ~ Queen - Bicycle Race, Jazz (1978) The best thing about this talk is that the methods he used are useful to investigate other aspects about repetition. What I think could be interesting to look at as well is to have all songs from various artists printed in those self similarity matrices, and then lay those images out in a grid in order of the songs' appearances. I wonder if you could see that former artists had less of a universal pattern they always stuck to compared to modern artists, where every song could be structurally more similar to the others.
@@zenithquasar9623 I did. I know it is not the only example. I'm not even contradicting his point, I'm just objecting to this particular method. I love the compressabilty metric and the self similarity matrices though, those are quite clever tools to use.
He did take this into account by compressing 20k songs. The compression algorithms will give him the amount of repetitiveness over time. I don't think you really paid attention to the video.
i think the point he missed was that it’s not just the lyrics that make pop music so repetitive it has a lot to do with the chords used and the arrangements of such. if you listen to pop songs without words many of them sound exactly the same. He totally glossed over that and i think he did it because it would have proved him wrong lol. Pop music is getting worse and it’s not a good thing.
I don’t see how repetitive chords are sow different from repetitive lyrics. Most likely they are also a product of highly skilled professional, trying to produce most likeable music by the average consumer. If you want to change it, you should consider consuming (using money) music that you enjoy.
Pop songs usually follow the same structure, he goes over it - verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, and chorus. Every chorus chord progression will probably be identical, lyrics and all. Using lyrics is a good measure, but he could have used chords. Either way, lyrics are weighted a lot because even the compression algorithm showed that "Around the World" by Daft Punk was the most repetitive song. Agreed, a lot pop songs use G - D - Em - C, but you're arguing similarity and not repetitiveness.
@pietkrijger When I was younger I wrote poetry in german that tried to incorporate expressionism from fien de siecle and stuff from authors like rimbaud and baudelaire... now im all about that gucci gang... (not anymore thiough - thats songs alsomst a year now :P) dunno... maybe ive had a strong decline in intelligence but .... then again... gucci gang was good!
Lol to all these people in the comment talking about how they listen to superior music, yet Gucci Gang is still objectively better than whatever their favourite song is.
They are catchier, not better, I vastly prefer the song on the right to the song in the left, bohemian rhapsody is excellent, there is a line where a song becomes far too repetitive, I’m a millennial yet I believe that music is getting worse, it depends on how well the repetition is used, as well as the actual notes being repeated, not just how many times the same sequence occurs.
When he uses "hits" to measure song quality or likeability, he sets up a false foundation. Songs do not become "hits" because they are popular. They become popular because they have been paid into the status of "hit". This was true in the 60s, to a lesser degree, and is more true now. You can't argue that "hit" songs are more liked due to their repetition because songs are chosen to be "hits" before listeners even hear it.
And "hits" these days are only so because as Thoughty2 pointed out in his video - The Truth Why Modern Pop Music is so Awful. Is that it's essentially brainwashing.
@@alienspacebat5218 It's not a conspiracy theory it's just business. Music that is highly marketed is more commercially successful. As with any product, if it weren't so marketing wouldn't exist.
I feel his analysis is fundamentally flawed. He is only looking at the lyrical content and not the rhythmic and harmonic devices which have been the key contributors to how degraded today's music has become. There's also a trend in recording today that makes everything sound similar to everything else. There was a time in history when radio shows were programmed by the hosts and disk jockeys and they weren't afraid to take chances so there was more diversity and variety. These days everything is very calculated.
Not everything, there's alternative radio station which was actually the first private station around here and it has still a lot of variety because it's selected only by independent DJs, moderators, and hosts. They still manage to showcase upcoming music which may not be mainstream popular but it's interesting and good quality, yet still remaining unique. In this age to remain at least somewhat unique you need to have some amount of complexity and try to take on composition in untraditional way, using unusual instruments and techniques because everything simple has been done and repeated several times already. This can't be captured from only counting similar words in the lyrics. There's plenty of good new music but it stays relatively underground.
@@jan.tichavsky Sure, of course you have Public Radio, College and Private Local Stations and if you can manage to get promotion and publicity through that, it would be quite the accomplishment, although it does happen every once in a while. I am speaking of about the major networks of the big cities in the United States which rely on advertising to keep them in business.
You know why everything sounds the same? Because it is all in bloody english! How many foreign languages have ever made it to the US top 100? Music already is a lingua franca in itself. The english-ization of today's music is commercially understandable, fits repetitiveness and monoculture.
I equate pop music to being a cup of lone, strong coffee in the morning instead of a full actually balanced nutritious meal... This is a world of quick fixes, and it feels like everything and everyone is trying to grab you in and use you for a quick buck with as much flash and clickbait and what-have-you as possible. It's nice to sit down and actually listen to more thought out and thought-provoking music that uses dynamics, differing rhythms, other things that are seldom found in pop. ('nother food analogy here, meow) It's like a public school that serves poptarts to it's students instead of something with actual nutritional value... All the students love it, of course, but at their own expense, oblivious that there is something much better for them out there.
Like Baby Metal, or Give some one a good pair of headphones to put on and turn them on to Animals by Pink Floyd, some one who never herd Floyd then ask them, so any Questions?
If I hear Iron Maiden while driving car my concentration for the traffic is slightly reduced. Even though listening to it while not in the car is far better. It's not the right music for the car. Many people don't actually listen actively. They do something else and also listen to music. I also like Sia's "cheap thrills". One of the best music videos. Reminds me of "Back to the future". I think 21 pilots are nowhere as sophisticated as Metallica. But I'm amazed how they master the art of varying speeds. Simple music becomes a pleasure. Different situations require different music.
I am a 64 year old journeyman musician who has played top 40 for 50 years. I was SO ready to bash this but as I watched it I was fascinated by the lengths Colin went to; employing new techniques to an ageless discussion. There was a book published back in the mid-60's called TWILIGHT OF THE GODS. It was fascinating in the same way - a massive deep dive into the historical musical patterns ascribed by "scholars" vs. the notion that maybe, just maybe, the writers wrote it the way they did because it sounded good. I actually really enjoyed your presentation Colin!
Respect for your journey, Sir. I'm also (not that long as you) a musician and I enjoyed to watch new approaches to discuss something that seems to have no answer. Even if I have some points on his speech, like the way he put the ostinato - what obviously is so much more important in a context of a Bach's mass than being the whole structure of a pop song - it is important and desirable to have new possibilities of think the music we listen to (or the ones we do not). Pleasure to share those feelings. Cheers from Brazil.
The problem for me is that lyrics in pop songs don't relate to my life experiences. The compositions are generally hideous because they are extremely disposable and the concepts are painfully simple. Pop music is just not my cup of tea in general. Sure some songs are "fun" but it doesn't strike me deeply and I disagree that repetitive songs are memorable for a good reason. They are memorable because there is hardly anything going on. Guess people just want mathematically catchy songs in the background while they are honking their horns in traffic.
Songwriters are giving producers what they want and the producers are giving audiences what producers think will sell. Audiences listen to what producers give them because they are generally too distracted by life to seek music beyond what’s on the radio or on their Spotify playlist. This feedback loop feeds on itself like an ouroboros until music becomes nothing but single word repeated over the same four-chord progression that too many modern songs already use. The issue not being addressed in this talk is the lack of melodic inventiveness, which is an issue in modern music, especially if you listen to rap or hip hop.
You got that right. There are many good things that come out of pop music, but there is so much profit driven "music" that lacks the true elements of music that short changes the public from a higher level music and more variety. Music has been turned into a competive sport on TV. All razzle dazzle ad glitter and no substance. The folk singer or jazz trumpet player is out of work....Repetition is only one tool or trick in music than can be used in music. What about melody, harmony, tone quality, rhytthm variety and style, musical form - outside of the common song form, dynamics ranging from loud to soft, ritardando (slowing down) the algorythm study does not address the whole picture and is lacking in full scope of the musical preference mind control problem in this country. From a former music teacher.. .remember, commercial music is an industry for profit...not to enlighten or to educate or necessarily broaden your musical horizons. Of course I am preaching to the choir here lol.
Music is not just about structure, but originality and creativity. Nowadays pop music is a *product,* not a piece of original art. It's *designed* to be consumed and discarded right away. It's not fair, in the slightest, to be compared with Queen, which music creation was driven by truthful spirit of art.
And Bach's Masses weren't a product for the church to be consumed on a Sunday and then discsrded? Shakespeare wrote plays to be performed in front of paying audiences. Product. Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistene Chapel. Product. You're criticizing art as "bad" based on the perceived motivation behind its creation. Form your opinion of art based on its own merit and how it makes you feel regardless of how it was made.
A work of art is supposed to be a work to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power, but some songs or pieces of music are trite -- they are "junk" rather than "art". But the existence of the junk shows me how very grateful I can be for the good stuff -- like Händel's Messiah and Haydn's Die Schöpfung.
@@Jinni_SD It must be a symptom of my tendency towards attention-deficit disorder, but what you said reminds me of food -- "form your opinion of food based on its own merit and how it makes you feel regardless of how it was made".
I wouldn't say "nowadays". The fact is there has always been commercial pressure and the interest of patrons who make the art possible. The extent of that design, the enormous level of competition, and our knowledge about writing effective earworms are all new. The dollars funding the artwork are not.
IF "everyone loves repetitive music" 7:11 (yes i quoted him) then why is 'Bohemian Rhapsody', a song which has no chorus, verses and virtually no repetition whatsoever thought of as the greatest song of all time and is still extremely popular to this day
@@kradicalkaymeom2969 The fact that 'everyone likes repetitive music, he translates that from the scientific research mentioned, does not exclude the fact that a lot of people name bohemian rhapsody the best song. Almost everyone I know likes the taste of crisps. But if you ask everyone what the best tasting food is, it would probably not be crisps
When I was young, we actually used to listen to music. That is to say, we'd put on an album and pay attention to it for an extended period of time (usually the album side, around 20 minutes) with actual concentration and focus. We found this rewarding because we appreciated the depth that went into the compositions. I am referring to album-oriented-rock -- the Dark Side of the Moon, Close to the Edge, In the Court of the Crimson King. People will not take the time to do that these days; they "listen" thru cheap earbuds on their phones while they are going about their daily lives, thinking about what they need from the grocery store, that kind of thing. No concentration is given, so music which doesn't require concentration is what becomes popular. It still has less substance, IMHO, but who's going to listen to substantive music these days? Sheesh, you kids. Get off my lawn!
Those cheap earbuds probably have better sound quality than the sound system you had when you were young and listening on the go does not preclude paying attention. Granted, the people who are paying attention to their earbuds are probably mostly listening to audiobooks, but that's because tuning out music is an effect of bad music not an effect of multitasking.
@@nathanbrown8680 Cheap earbuds do NOT sound better than headphones from years ago. There is no evidence to support that. Pop music to me is not bad because it's repetitive..it's because it is not really relevant to me anymore. It seems that we have just about reached the end of 4 chord songs. I like the new electronic beats, there more to explore.
That moment when you realize being an intellectual doesn't equate to being wise... or human even. Let's face it, the guy's persona reeks of cognitive technical overload. I would otherwise wonder what musical instrument he plays, but I honestly don't see any evidence toward that type of expressive personality.
Great analysis! I loved the way you thought about this subject and how you employed such interesting tools to dissect and deep dive into it further. I may not necessarily agree with the final conclusion :) but I definitely LOVED the analysis. 👍🏾
I was reading the comments looking for this exact sentiment! The presenter definitely didn't focus on the entirety of the elements of music, like rhythm and meaning, but the element they did focus on and the techniques they used were really cool! Thanks for being nice on the internet!
Anyone ever listened to the radio and thought: "Man, I don't like this song.". And then you hear that song multiple times throughout the day/week/month. The song gets stuck in your head at some point. You get the urge to listen to the song for satisfaction. Do you genuinely like it then or have you been brainwashed? Any thoughts? I'm curious. Thanks :)
It doesn't really happen to me. I don't get an urge to listen to it. Even if I download it anyway, I end up listening to it only once or twice and then forgetting about it. conversely, I might hear a song that's somewhat good. I download it but then I realize before long that it's not really all that good and I forget about it too. So, I'm hard to impress.
Not only for this reason. It's because before pop music were made by using actually real instruments like guitar, keyboard, drums while today music is made using a computer. Everything is artificial now...
America says we love a chorus But don’t get complicated and bore us Though meaning might be missin' We need to know the words after just one listen so Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff - *Bo Burnham, Repeat Stuff*
@@kamisawze1552 I am tempted to tell *all* the Italians; is there something like an authentic ancient Italian ritual passed down from one nana to the next, like carving a pentagram on a round focaccia with rosemary and sea salt, and then drizzling it with olive oil while doing wild hand gestures? 'Cause I am fairly certain if I tried that, it *could* potentially call all Greeks instead, seeing how we're similar enough in these regards, you know? Seriously, though, you have to admire the fact that so many people know just enough to completely stumble over some things that even a slightly better grasp of the matter would had otherwise dispelled.
@@AmitKohli1 I meant the English word "nana" (which means the same thing), but I do agree that typing "nona" would had been better by all means! As for his point... kinda, but they did use the wrong descriptor for it still. It's like saying: "a respectable-sounding German word for it" - but the word in question being Swedish, for instance (this is the closest analogy I can think of, and it still doesn't quite work, because Greek is under its own language family, which is separate from Italian; the word doesn't even have a direct Greek cognate, you see).
Panagiotes Koutelidakes I only said what I said because where I live in New England, there are a ton of Greek and Italian restaurants which serve essentially the same variety of Mediterranean based foods like pizza and pasta. I can usually tell the difference of which pizza is which, but the families that run them will vehemently defend their county of ancestry’s claim to have invented the food and make it better. I like both for different reasons, so it’s just entertaining to stir the pot.
The fact that seems to get missed here is the newer, 'catchier', more repetative songs also disappear in a short period of time. More complex songs - such as Bohemian Rhapsody here used for example have endured the test of time (40 years actually!) and will endure for time to come. Can we really say the same about the repetative newer song list??? We will see if anyone is listening to Kesha in 40 years......
You forget the vast quantities of mediocre music that was around back then that faded into obscurity. you just remember specific songs from that era. This will never change. There will be music from now that will still be heard many years from now. Repetitiveness isn't inherently a bad thing, take many daft punk songs, or for an older example something like Roxanne from The Police.
I agree mostly, but I don't think it's the complexity that grants staying power. Best example would be stuff like death metal which is actually some of the most complex music out there yet no one seems to care outside of a small sub-set of metalheads. I think it's the ability of a song to tell a story that we can all connect to at an emotional level. Songs like Simple Man, Tears in Heaven, Lightning Crashes, Jeremy, Stairway to Heaven, they all are songs that tell a story that we can emotionally empathize with. Best possible example would be Billy Joel and his songs "We didn't start the fire" and "Piano Man". Both were chart topping hits, and while "We didn't start the fire" is the more lyrically complex song, its "Piano Man" that tells a story we can connect to that is still universally loved and likely will continue to be.
and it puts people in a hypnotic trance or makes them angry. Science has show this and the ancient greek even knew this to some degree and would imprison people for doing it.
Exactly. Catchiness is addictiveness, and the same analogy applies to Little Debbie cupcakes vs gourmet cupcakes. Which is bought more often? Yet we know gourmet cupcakes are higher quality...
Not only that but also the assumption: what is popular = what is good. He literally brought nothing to the table, his whole argument is "pop songs are good because they are popular." But no-one is arguing that repetitive songs aren't popular, quite the opposite, really.
If you're going to judge music, you cant judge it by a single component. any one component of a music piece can ultimatley butcher All the others. you have to judge how theyre put together over all. nothng in music ever surprises me because it is art
The problem with repetitive songs is not only that they lack depth, but they sound the same. There's also a big difference between a song that literally repeats one or two lines throughout the whole song and a song with a repeating chorus.
Funny- I’ve always preferred instrumental music. It’s funny how people think words and lyrics are the main part of music. Try listening to King Crimson instrumentals.
Tried it and I have to say that this is why i read the comments, I'm always hoping someone backs their opinion with actual data to prove their point. You sir, have proved your point.
King Crimson instrumentals would most likely perplex most pop music listeners... Maybe Discipline could win some over with its 4/4 beat hidden under all the polyrhythmic grooves. Then again probably not...
Isn't modern pop music written by a couple of people now-a-days? I think he fails to address the problems with the modern music industry, and the conditions of what makes the "Top 10" has changed drastically over the years.
I was talking to a chef one day and he had this amazing sandwich on special that day. I wish i could remember what it was but it was years ago. He said "it was the second best sandwich ever created." Then i asked "what's the best?" He said "easy, the hamburger sandwich"
Yea it's kinda funny, but I don't think it is necessarily fitting or pointing out what the video is about. Most people don't like pop music, it's just the one that most people know and which is broadcasted and listened to and also "relativly positive" received the most. And just because you have something that is "meta" doesn't mean it is gourmet or high end, top of the notch. But what he wanted to express is that it is still good (maybe for volume) for the good basic stuff to exist. also "talks" or presentations kind of always need a conclusion, this one should maybe have focused more on how these snowflake patterns of compressed song lyrics are like a mandala and a fractal of nature too, even though it is also man made, then he could also have compared it to other structures like this in nature, like the repetitiveness of flowers and how they additionally might also be repetitive in bloom (like tulips can bloom once a year for like 4-7 years) and how that would imply that the universe is kind of singing a song too, the joy of life or sth like that. Ending the presentation with a conclusion of whether or not something should be considered good is maybe a representation of the guy's thoughts about presentation rules and I also think of him being autistic. Yes it is not really good ether xD but comparing it to "gourmet burgers"... Wait that's a different thing altogether haha
It makes sense when you think about it though, because that's how the major music industry has dialed it in. They've analyzed even the tiniest elements in terms of profitability, and the music is built off of that equation. So when you're putting that connection together, you can't look at or explain an analytical profit margin like it's still music.
@@ossiehalvorson7702 I recently started thinking about this as my interest in music has piqued over the past few weeks. I noticed some specific "feeling" to every song with millions of views, meaning the extremely successful songs. I realized there's gotta be some parody going on. If I were trying to make it big I would dissect every big song and try to emulate the similarities that draw across lots of the biggest hits.
Instead of the music telling a story and evoking thought, it strokes our brains desire for a beat. Background music for digital media addicts. Doesn’t make it better.
Take away... Colin Morris leaves out the intention of a contingency of industrial complexes to condition consumers through repetitive media products like "pop music" (but also repetitive themes in films, commercials and news propaganda) to be emotionally influence consumers to the point of neurochemical imbalance resulting in their habitual conditioning resulting in consumers consuming more and objectively thinking less. This is a brilliant study with a limited contrived feel good conclusion.
I basically break down music into the “At home” listening experience and the “Public/event” listening experience. When I’m at home I prefer more complex and introspective music. When I’m in public like a festival/bar/club, I prefer more simple and repetitive music. It can be hard really enjoy introspective or lower BPM music in a public space. Both have their place for me.
Something I deduced on my own a long time ago, was that older songs were about telling a story, and more modern ones less so; and also about repetition, I figured that a repetitive song has more chance to be liked by more ppl, since if the part of the song you happen to like, is the repetitive part, then you'll have plenty of it before the song ends, whereas in a song that doesn't repeat anything, it becomes harder for one person to like the whole song, most likely they will only like a few parts, which then they'll have to wait until they hear the song again to hear the parts they liked. So in that sense, it seems logical to make songs that repeat themselves.
They like catchy background noise, and sometimes a track they can sing along to. But they listen to "music" very casually and never really take a moment to analyse and think about what they're hearing.
I completely agree with you! I lent my phone to a friend on a long train journey after her ipod went flat once. Watching her face as she explored sounds she'd never even imagined before was great fun. Her finding out that Prince (as great as he was) was not the only multi-instrumentalist in history, and that funk-fusion was a style he explored with others, and that is still being explored today was amazing. But finding her still actively exploring the boundaries of her own (very different to mine, but now clearly owned and enjoyed) musical taste was priceless. I wish more people could experience the joy she now gets from the music she loves. Even the weird awkwardness that comes with showing each other our newest audio love affairs only to cringe at each other's god awful taste is fun!!
Artificial music created by marketing analysis is not better. Haha. This doesn't make all unrestricted and freely inspired music necessarily better. The key is to feel the rhythms, melodies and lyrics that are better, and I am not sure that an algorithm can figure that out any better than humans can do. Awesome TEDx talk anyway and thanks a lot.
Using Bach's Mass as an example is sorta disingenuous. That piece of music is close to two hours long and goes all over the place. It's also held to a physically imposed structure. The Latin Mass. The song does what it does to fit the timing of actions inside a rigidly defined ceremony. Yes, there are repetitive parts, because the ceremony is repetitive in places and the song is meant to mirror what's going on in reality. For all intents and purposes it isn't a song, it's a musical score. The very first musical score. It's also wildly inventive with chord substitution. The brain gets caught listening to a particular key in this case Mass is in B Minor, but it's not always playing it straight. It'll jump from key to key in repetitions to keep the listener interested. It'll play something close to the original variation outside of the way we're expecting to hear it. Not to mention it's an orchestra piece, so slapping up any particular snippet of sheet music doesn't really have anything to do with how it actually sounds as a finished product.
Michael Holloway Wow it sounds like you really know your stuff! Thanks for saying what needed to be said! Do you have anything explaining those types of pieces in more detail?
@@luismerces6479 Best answer, listen to Beethoven's 5th. It's wildly famous for a reason. Objectively and cynically, the entire thing is 4 notes. Mostly. The big deep 4 notes the french horn opens the piece with the lower register of the string section acting as a fill, then it moves to high strings, wind, and even timpani as the piece goes on. All repeating those 4 notes. But, and this is important. None of it sounds the same. Because Beethoven constantly moves from key to key, instrument to instrument, up and down the register. We never stay with anything long enough to get bored, for it to be repetitive. It speeds up, slows down, sometimes the 4 notes are played light and airy, other times with the sound of a thunderstorm. To listen to it is to not believe it's all just 4 notes repeating, but it is once you sit down to the sheet music. It only looks repetitive, it sounds anything but because he has the entire orchestra to play with. Everything at some point or another plays lead.
Michael Holloway first of all I want to thank you for the awesome, it was highly informative! Second, you expressed exactly the point, repetition is only present for a long period of time if not noticed. I would also ad that having to much repetition is precisely the reason why songs have diminished in size. I’ve been observing and the truth is that we can stand large youtube videos, movies and even technical podcasts. I think that we just don’t pay attention to boring things, and although accessible looped music tends to become incredibly boring, what do you think?
His defense of melodic repetitiveness was inadequate. In classical music, an ostinato is typically used to frame more complex music that is played over it (also the word is Italian, not Greek). It's true that a certain amount of repetition sounds nice, but it's totally fair to call out a simplistic, uncreative melody for what it is. Also, I think that a big point of criticism for pop lyricists is not merely the repetitiveness of the lyrics, but the vacuous nature of many of those lyrics. Take the example from the video of "Run the World (Girls)". The repetitiveness is much more apparent when the lyrics don't have a lot to say. And, sure, people have been writing repetitive songs forever, but I still think it's fair to call out musicians who write boring, thoughtless, overly simplistic tripe, appealing to ever more atrophied attention spans. I think it's clear that this presenter does not play an instrument.
This is an important point. The problem isn't repetition, it's information content. Information content is what compression really measures, but to get a good measure you have to filter out the noise first. A lot of pop music is entirely devoid of meaning. "Run the World (Girls)" could be simplified to the singer just chanting "feminism." The compression test gives a misleadingly high information content because of this.
Yes, exactly. Why do we feel bad when we like something popular when popularity is defined by appealing to large numbers of people? Must I be special ALL the time?
It's one of the reasons why the few folk songs we know, among countless we don't, are remembered for centuries. Repetitiveness makes catchy. Celtic folktunes for example have the same melody for verse and chorus, and sea-shanties are one line verses, with one line choruses. The term popular in pop music means folk. It's the same thing, the music of the masses.
The thing is that people ignore the change in listening habits. In the 60s people still collected disks and sat down to listen to the music (later cassetes or CDs). Nowadays, people do 100 different things while the music is blaring in the background from their phone. Complex music can be distracting while simple repetitive music is not. So perhaps the change in preference is also partly due to this change.
missing is the fact that the popular music during the swing era required a group of relatively talented musicians to play together as an ensemble, whereas todays repetitive music is pre-recorded repetitive backing tracks synced to people who ½sing, ½talk/yell & are primarily performers not musicians.
@@Chierushi (Apology beforehand for the unintentionally long paragraph) It's something you can't understand unless you expand your horizon in what your listening to. I could sit here and explain how absolutely simple and lazy the lyrics are, how overdone the melody's are, how manufactured and uninspired every hit is nowadays. But you wont agree at the moment. People only like repetition because most of the population likes stuff that sounds like other stuff they already like, and are afraid or (unwilling) to jump out of their bubble of only top charts music. That's why pop music is popular. They don't feel like there's any reason to expand because they're perfectly comfortable where they are. But for those who DO take the time looking for other artists/genres that aren't on the top charts... they find themselves enjoying music a lot more and will never go back to listening to only top charts music. Their tastes have (evolved) if you will. For example if you're only listening to top charts music, you're only listening to like a max of 10 artists and probably only certain hits off of certain albums from each artists. But once you expand... You'll have like 100's of different artists you know and even listen to certain artists entire discography. Your love for music has evolved. And more people should do this. It'd give actual talented artists and bands more attention and it'd show that talent should be cared about more than just Looks and auto-tune. Modern pop sucks most of all in my opinion for it's thievery of fame. Leaving all the other artists and bands to crumble and rot away never to be remembered by anyone except their small following.
@@Chierushi What I said was partially in jest but most of Pop music today is unoriginal, lacks almost any kind of decent timbre, and is made for musically unsophisticated people who just want something catchy they can dance to and don't really have to think about it. Now that's not to say that there is no talent in write a super catchy "ear worm" of a song that can sell millions but that fact that music has come to the point where all you need is some kind of synthesizer computer program and a few words and THIS is what most people want to hear is just plain sad...and is thus, why most modern pop music ultimately SSSSUUUUUUCCCCKKKKSS!..But we have to blame the average listener more than anything since its their lazy ear that is leading to this generally inartistic, musically unsophisticated junk on the radio.
@@JRHockney "Some kind of synthesizer", "lacks decent timbre"? I can already tell you know nothing about pop production, it's one of the hardest genres to produce for and it definitively has the most diversity of timbre of any genre. Most genres use the same instruments over and over, pop uses all those instruments and everything else, too. Go and try to make "some synthesizer" sound good, lol. What a load of rubbish.
@@SubscribersWithoutAnySubscribe I may not have direct experience in 'pop' music production but being a musician myself, I know a thing or two about timbre and musical creativity and I've also spent time in the studio. But the reason I even brought up Timbre is because of a video I saw not too long ago that talked about how researchers seem to think the height of musical Timbre within pop music recordings being back in the 60s and its gone down hill ever since. Look up 'The TRUTH Why Modern Music Is Awful' by Thoughty2 here on CZcams and I've seen similar TED talks that talk about this as well. Granted, looking back at the video, it appears to be talking more about Timbre 'variety' and I'm not sure which researchers he's using but my ears tend to agree with its conclusions. I'm sure you pop producers spend alot of time making sure your interesting and weird keyboard sounds are crisp and don't sound like they came from an 80s walmart keyboard but in my opinion (which is admittedly a bit oldschool), its still sounds synthetic and played out to my ears even if the tone itself is higher quality than it was 10 years ago.
I'm with you on this. The presenter makes the argument that this is somehow okay simply because it's effective. But I would make the argument that it works not because it's "good" but because it's exploitative. He even gives an example where classical songs were dumbed down and made more repetitive and a sizable portion of the, let's just say, "consumers" preferred them more. So, put in marketing terms: catchy hooks sell. And of course it's generally much easier to create a catchy repetitive hook than to make a well-crafted song in the usual way. While he makes a good point that some of these are much more complex than they would appear at first glance it's also true that many of them were probably just the result of laziness that just happened to work. Basically since this stuff is so easy to make it's a valid tactic to just throw sh*t at a wall and see what sticks. If you can pump out 10 of them there's a good chance at least one will have a catchy ear worm and become popular. And this is even worse when the actual music is considered. That's truly lazy as it is just a side-effect of how insanely simple it is to make a chunk of music and loop it in a sequencer. A proper song might use that as a base and then add layers. But a lazy musician can just call it done.
I've got to say... I am more of a classical music person, but I like how this was presented. I don't exactly care for pop music, but a lot of people do, and they shouldn't feel bad.
If the entire field is becoming more repetitive and it necessarily follows the top 10 become the most repetitive, it does not follow that artists are just giving us what we want. We are getting what they give us. More than 85% of Spotify's streams come from 3 companies.
As pattern seeking mammals, it's not surprising repetitive lyrics and musical content appeal to the masses. But to argue that content geared toward our basic animal instincts is somehow better or more sophisticated is limiting artistic quality down to something that appeals to that animal instinct. In the end, art is subjective: We can't argue (reasonably) song A is 'better' than song B because more people listen to song A.
Reasonable thesis, but one dimensional. Modern pop is driven by the bottom line, $$$$$$$, hence the reduction of risk and homogenisation of pop music. he is right, there is nothing wrong with repetition, but there are many more aspects to modern mass produced pop that have eroded creativity and force fed the modern youth with what the industry wants.
To play devils advoacate, isn't that a motivation for a lot of musicians? Even people we look at as classic artists, did they always play the creative route and never go with something just catchy? Were they always challenging norms and creating something new? And who is to say that modern songwriters are purely doing it for money? Is it fair to say a songwriter who has made tons of money will always keep just writing songs purely for money? Will they never want to try to experiment at all and put something creative in it? That they have no creative ideas they want to express in any sort of way? I mean money can corrupt but to pretend like it completely squashes out any creative ambition or drive out of someone seems like an over reaction.
I found that he went in-depth on this topic. The impact of money on the music industry is another topic. I agree with what he said, listening to pop songs shouldn't be a guilty pleasure. Not taking risks is often what corresponds well to the majority of people, which is why pop songs make so much money in the first place. I am all for experimenting with music but I don't think we should shun producers for following a template that people like and will give success.
I disagree sort of- there were a lot of artists emerging from soundcloud and other platforms that were marketed way AFTER they did their thing in primitve matter and had success! A lot of forced stuff fails at teh end to gain the same sort of mass appeal!
Using a phrase like "the industry" is largely meaningless when the way that people [especially young people] consume and enjoy music (thanks the internet, youtube, spotify, soundcloud, bandcamp, etc. !) is completely different and divorced from what it was not even 10 years ago. You're a little out of touch and late to the party with your criticism. It might have been more valid in the 2000s but now it's completely different.
So, hooks are very important to a song's value to the listener. Beethoven started with "dit-dit-dit-dah" and repeated that throughout the entire symphony. The problem with "pop" is there is not enough meat on the bones to satisfy the ear after a couple of listenings.
Hear the sound of music Drifting in the aisles Elevator Prozac Stretching on for miles The music of the future Will not entertain It's only meant to repress And neutralize your brain Soul gets squeezed out Edges get blunt Demographic Gives what you want Now the sound of music Comes in silver pills Engineered to suit you Building cheaper thrills The music of rebellion Makes you want to rage But it's made by millionaires Who are nearly twice your age One of the wonders of the world is going down It's going down I know It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares No-one cares enough - Steven Wilson
If the brain gets fed with repetitive, thus "comfortable" songs... doesn't it stop being stimulated? In comparison to listening to a song like Bohemian Rhapsody, where it is "surprised" by changes in rhythm etc...?
Some good analysis, but the problem with "repetitive music" is over-reliance on it and limited horizons in using samey-sounding audio parts, albeit instruments or voice.
Repetitiveness in pop songs not about the lyrics, at least not to the degree he would have you believe. It's about rhythm, chord choices, color, and feel. In the domain of rhythm, pop music, although not alone in this category, is entirely in 4/4. Not a be thing on its own. The next domain of music is chord choices. And suffice it to say, as a musician, analyzing pop songs is fairly easy. Chord progressions are used, reused, and re re used over and over again. Repetitive, unimaginative, and boring. The nest domain is color and feel. In pop, there is very little diversity here. Slow love songs, girl power songs, upbeat love songs, doing crack in the basement songs (aka doing every girl I come across songs), and breakup songs. 5 song types for every pop song ever written. Great work guys. Glad we can sum up the human experience through art so creatively. This really is frustrating as some people work really hard to create and never get anywhere. Rock, jazz, blues, classical, you name it, there's an underpaid musician working on it. And then Kesha has her 16 songwriters re order the same chords from Taylor swifts music and makes a million dollars with adoring fans screeching all the way. It's sad. Wake up. Listen to some dream theater.
Repetitive, unimaginative, boring.... and safe. Safe for the composer, safe for the listener. Safe to sit in one's little box, following the crowd, but pretending to be edgy and thoughtful because the live performance has some new light display and skimpier costumes that when analyzed are not really anything new at all, just another repetitive scrambling of someone else's thoughts. So yeah, easy, safe, and happy as we park our brains and go along for the ride - but is that better just because everyone likes it? Isn't it just another instance of being famous for being famous?
u kinda almost had me for a sec-ish, and then boom u turn out to be the "i hate sampling as a concept and dream theater is uncomparably superior to any present music, i bet ya'll can't wait to hear me rant about fedoras for 30 minutes"-kinda guy wake up sheeple. progressive metal is the only real music. 😆😅😅😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
@@nightmareTomek the music that have given me the most listening pleasure came my way via word of mouth or random discovery. I do wonder how much of that is my brain tricking me into thinking the discovery is mine and only mine.
Loved this Ted talk. Really well presented, and loved the analysis. Witty and thoughtful. Made me think a little bit differently about what's clearly a touchy subject!
The argument that adding repetitiveness to classical music makes more people enjoy it means repetitiveness is good is a terrible conclusion to draw and is the most un-artistic analysis ever. There’s a balance, dude. That’s what artistic expression is about. And the associations being made in rhythms and repetitiveness with classical music and poetry are these one-off examples, and why would you make the comparison in the first place if those similarities existed to any reasonable degree? I grew up on punk so I won’t say all repetitive music is bad, or that even pop music is bad, but the basis for your argument is pretty awful. You can take pretty much any data and make it look pretty and unique. Music is still subjective, and there’s far better evidence to support the opposite if it was objective. Primarily, the authority of people who play and listen intently, which is kind of the opposite of the demographic of pop... On the other hand, this video is kind of like a robot trying to understand a Van Gogh, so I can’t really blame him. He just wants to have logic behind why he loves what he loves. Here’s a shortcut dude: “I just like it. Don’t judge me. You can like whatever you want, just leave me alone so I can finish coding.” You don’t need to justify it. It’s art. That was your first mistake. I really like the compression analysis thing, tho. That’s funny.
The attempt to explain WHY we like art is not a new thing. I get really tired of people wanting to shut down conversations of analysis when it comes to music/movies/art by chalking it all up to taste that can never be influenced or changed. It devalues the integrity and intellectual aspects of these things for which some of us long to appreciate on a deeper level.
Aaron Branson Taste is influenced and changed all the time, and there’s nothing wrong with analysis. What I’m actually criticizing is his context of doing so, and the flaws in his reasoning for what constitutes “good.” If you think solely manipulating the human psyche for mass appeal and profit is art, that’s a very limited view of art.
Lol, "manipulating the human psyche", what nonsense. The people who make pop listen very intently, it's one of the hardest genres to produce and it's full of subtlety and nuance. The fact that the broader demographic doesn't consciously analyse it that way doesn't mean that they don't hear what they're listening to.
Edgy Music I would actually agree with that and I never said there was anything wrong with pop. I said his justifications for claiming that repetitive music is objectively better music don’t actually make sense, as they are way out of context. I was actually trying to avoid mentioning any genre. Still, when I listen to a lot of pop, I find it insulting, but at least I’m fully willing to admit that that’s just me and that people have different tastes. There’s not really an objective good or bad, necessarily, and you can still analyze music without needing for it to be a competition.
@@almightytreegod Alright, fair enough. But I think what he was trying to say was that repetitive *pop* is objectively better, although I acknowledge that he didn't specify that in his statement as he probably should have.
I'd love to see him apply his algorithm and self-similarity matrix to other genres of music. That would be fascinating to me. Also, I think it would be cool if he somehow managed to apply the same ideas to the music (melody?) to see what happens.
It seems like you could make MIDI files of the notes in a song, perhaps with a bit of quantization applied judiciously and accounting for "swing", and then run those through the compression test. Perhaps normalizing the notes to convert the time offset into the song into an offset within the current measure???
@@The757packerfan They're not even giving us what we want, they're deciding for us what we want. When producers pays millions dollars to radios so their song are aired at least 10 times a day, this is not what people want. Music is not like painting, you generally tend to like music you've heard several times, no matter what this music sounds like.
I was expecting a thorough defense about why metal is superior
For that topic, I would refer you to Tenacious D's CZcams channel. 👍
Lmao fuckin same man
Hopefully he comes back for a part 2
So was i wouldnt it be awesome if he were to analyze dream theater or gojira
Some pop songs are catchy and don't make me want to vomit, but yes, metal is superior.
I liked this video because he made the same point over and over again.
Bingo! Bingo, and further more; bingo. Let me also say that I agree with you and think you are completely right and that nothing you said in your sentence was wrong. When you are right you are right and you are right!
Should I maybe agree with you in Latin and Korean as well or would that be beating some poor dead horse here?
But anyway, you make a good point about him making the same point over and over again, and have I said bingo! yet?
Yep. I liked it too because he repeated his point every now and then. I agree with you.
I believe he's also Dean of the Department of Redundancy Department ;-)
See, now you made me fall off my chair.
The problem with modern pop is it feels "good." Bohemian Rhapsody takes me on a journey and not all of it feels good. There are bitter and sour notes. Like gourmet food.
I like this comment. Good comparison.
Pop has always learned toward feeling good, that's not a question of being modern. And Bo Rhap is rock (with a big of opera!), not pop.
Your analogy, it's like comparing wallpaper to paintings from great artists. Totally different purpose, totally different product. However, the well of brilliant (often way left of mainstream) music nevertheless runs very deep, and potential for discovery (of artists past and present). You could spend a lifetime excavating and listening, and still so many stones would be left unturned. I like to consider this more positive message whenever I get depressed thinking about the average consumer's musical interests.
There is no pain present in the kind of music you're alluding to because it's marketed and sold as musical prozac to subdue and mollify the exploited working classes. It's just a cheap, cringe-worthy spectacle on one hand; on the other, there's the more anonymous "elevator music," pre-fab playlists for a morning jog, buying groceries, pumping gas. It is by design that the product is sanitized not to contain any jarring or distracting "bitter" or "sour" or otherwise dissonant content; the product is engineered to avoid any challenge or distraction to its user(s), therefore it would not be serving its intended purpose. Like wallpaper is made to be seen rather than observed, the record industry cartel's music is made to be heard, rather than listened to, or explored, or grappled with.
It's sort of like fast food, cheap, plentiful, ubiquitous, and it appeals somehow to people's most irrational, base urges even despite knowing on some level that it's "bad." Even if they enjoy it on some level (i have no idea how...), most would acknowledge it is not "good" per se, even though they admit to "liking" it. I think when it comes to music, this principle does not apply for people; what one "likes" and what is "good" are seen as synonymous, no matter how uncompromisingly vapid the music. Ok no more analogies.
He keeps saying that music is becoming more and more repetitive. I could squeeze his talk into a compression algorithm.
Indeed
Jon Gilbertson he is describing how music is repetitive whilst being repetitive himself 0.0
@@ryanl5460 Maybe that was the point
This video is an advanced version of "Leave Britney Alone"
It's "leave Britney alone" but in iambic pentameter
@@MrTomservo85 And ends with trochaic emphasis.
Or, I'm just a barbaraian and sophistication sucks.
britney.exe has been added to the safe list.
info addict people do seem to enjoy sophistication...
He missed a major point, although he's right about the repetitiveness. A song like Bohemian Rhapsody could be analyzed and interpreted deeply in terms of it's story, meaning, and feeling expressed through it, whereas the Beyonce song can be reduced simply to "girl power!" It's not the repetition that frustrates critics of modern music, but the lack of raw, authentic feeling in an original and compelling style that the listener can truly connect with and feel. Even simple melodies and simple lyrics can do this, but songs about the club and cliche catch phrases simply don't. Repetition isn't the problem, it's the content.
You should listen to lemonade🍋🍋
THIS. Thank you sir
Time will take care of that. 50 years from now NO ONE will remember Beyonce. But I'm pretty sure people will still be listening to Queen.
@@hattrickster33 ... That's a huge reach
@@MrSoleyn Beyonce is musical diarrhea.
Catchy isn't always good. Clamidia is terribly catchy and no one wants it.
True, but its soooooo catchy.
Chlamydia
If you look at the chart and compare it to eras considered to have produced some of the finest music ever you'll see a surprising trend of repetitiveness falling.
O_o if it wasn't catchy no one would listen... Like no one. Not you, not me, not the next door neighbor. He's right, and he's done the research, repetitive is catchy. You can't have a song all over the damn place without rhyme or reason. It can't start one way, suddenly swap a different, then end in something completely different from the first two. No one would listen. Period. It goes for everything, from classical, to current age. Moonlight Sonata is very repetitive. So is pachelbel's canon. It's the same set of notes, over and over and over again (I rather enjoy both pieces of classical music). Today it just has words to it now.
@@Leylaashley I don't know a single cellist or even a single experienced violinist who likes Pachelbel. (Not that I'm disagreeing. Just adding that for the musician, repetitive can equal boring)
Sometimes I want to listen to something repetitive, sometimes I want to listen to something with deep meaning.
Ikr I like both
"Around the world" should not be treated as lyrics, as vocals, but as a rhythmic part of instrument, which this loop sample actually is in this context. It's not a vocalist singing a song with three words, it's electronic dance music with composition and rhythm based 100% on cut short sound samples.
Because 2 men did
I tought the same about treating "la la la la la la la la la" as lyrics - to me that's more just a melody, sung by a human, than actual "lyrics". "La" is not even a word, what does "la" mean? Nothing, there's no such word. If I'm humming some melody, that's not lyrics. So "la la la la la la la la la" is not "lyrics".
@@sc00f It's called "vocalise"
@JM Coulon Exactly! So many times explaining "why they sing that way you cannot even understand the lyrics" because it's not about hearing the lyrics, if you want to know what they sing just check in a cd cover, on google or ask them
I thought that too. "Around the world" isn't a lyric, it's a sample. It's essentially an instrumental song. Then again, the video is more about mathematics and algorithms than it is about the actual percieved decline of creativity in pop music.
People also like high fructose beverages, that doen´t mean it´s a high quality food
That's what he meant by cheap thrills
This, exactly. For some reason music is this 'but everything is subjective' thing whereas every other art form, including cooking is at least open to some sort of objective interpretation. You might like fast food and that's ok, and fast food has a really interesting process and history behind it and it works, but you'd be damned if you could convince chefs that it's holistically great food. Having a little fast food every now and then (or pop music) is fine but most people who listen to pop are restricted to the same old formula.
chicoarraes it's an amazing calorie source though...
@@ronruddick2972 but theyre empty calories
Seriously. I love at the end where he says "Music ain't what it used to be, but maybe it's better" and he's standing in front of Freddy Mercury and Beyonce Knowles! Too much ear-candy can rot the brain...
What this guy is saying is pretty cool and it's interesting to see new ways to visualize and interpret songs. But I'm of the opinion that pop music is degrading not necessarily because of the quality of the content that's being put out but primarily because of the intent of the songs that lead to the quality of what's being put out. Pop music is very clearly being treated as an industry run by people who are mostly motivated by money. They've found a method for economic success by means of exploiting the mere exposure effect leading to only promoting songs that sound like other songs, have a lot of repetition, etc. and then essentially brainwashing the public into thinking that those songs are good because they play them everywhere at all times. I would like to see what pop music would be like if it wasn't run by people like that.
This has been happening for as long as there has been pop music though; it's not a modern phenomena. Look at the Brill Building writers from late 50's early 60's for example. But, music isn't run by "people like that", it isn't run at all in the way you suggest, because there are other artists out there that do it very differently; in other words, those making the music he is describing in the video, are not preventing other syles of music from being made. The real issue is presuming that the only purpose in making music is to gain fame and untold wealth, but really, music exists independently of those things. The proliferation of repetitive pop music does not halt the individual creative process that enables musicians to produce diverse forms of music.
Pop music is being used to put people into trances -- it's just noise now.
Right on !
How is that any different from the radio stations back in the 70-80's choosing every song being put out?
Convincing the public that a song is good because they play it everywhere, isn't possible, per-say.
When you hear a song playing in the store, or on the radio, can you tell if it's cheap? Because I can, and everyone I know can. People can tell when a song is bad. Saying that "Those People" are brainwashing the community is a falsehood. What he said, about people enjoying repeating songs, is true. The majority of people I know enjoy repetitive songs. The record labels and the producers take advantage of that.
They have found a way to make money, what's wrong with that?
Also, you would be surprised by how many artists write their own songs. Take NF for example, he has some reasonably repetitive songs (Hands up, If you want Love, Just being me...) He writes his own songs. The label gave him a contract because they saw an opportunity. Faith Marie writes her own songs, and 98% of her songs are repetitive.
Your argument has several flaws, although I see where you are coming from.
But why should that stop us from enjoying songs like Bad Blood or Cheap Thrills?
I liked the analysis in one way, but it's very strange to focus purely on lyrics. The melody and rhythm are just as important and tend to be even more repetitive than the lyrics, even in songs with great lyrical diversity. So the whole analysis is a little misleading imo.
For example, Hit me baby one more time's stresses are more to do with the rhythm and the melody rather than the lyrics behind it. If I were to guess (and I'm 90% sure) I would say the melody was written first in that song, and then the lyrics were written after. So the analysis of stresses on the lyrics are a little misguided, you could have totally different lyrics in those parts, and the stresses would be the same in order to follow the rhythm and melody. Let's not forget that even bohemian rhapsody has repetitive verses in terms of melody and rhythm, and it definitely has hooks and repeated elements (the piano riff being the main one) even if the lyrics are mostly unique.
Hit me baby one more time was written by Max Martin, a songwriter that is notorious for writing the melody first and then making everything fit to that melody. So you're probably right.
Good point. Still you can't really blame him for that. It's always better to pick a focus first and then compare it to others in order to get a wider picture, because you can only take so much into account in one study. Otherwise your paper is gonna lose on accuracy and detail.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Not to mention tempo, timbre, and dynamics in music.
And modern pop is more complex in ways any sort of music ever was since the beginning of time. Texture and tone and beat are so much more complex in modern pop than orchestral music which is extremely similar from one to the next. I didnt see him analyze lyrical content of choral music from catholic masses from hundreds of years ago. Kyrie e leison the whole song. Or all of the music that only say alleluia over and over
Ah yeah even Kraftwerk's "The Model" doesn't have repetitive lyrics but has an *extremely* repetitive beat.
Britney Shakespeares
smart guy
Hit me baby, one more time!
beautiful. I'm going to use that in my English class tomorrow.
Britney shakes beers
I came looking for this video to tell you I accidentally called her this yesterday because of this comment. Illuminati confirmed XD
It really irritates me when people assert that the lyrics are the most important part of music. Instead of the actual music, which is what distinguishes song lyrics from poetry. Repetitive GOOD music is enjoyable. What we get today is repetitive music of an extremely poor quality.
@LegoGuy87 I don't care about inane lyrics if the tune is worth listening to. Good lyrics are just a bonus, but good melody is an essential in most cases. I don't even like most of Bob Dylan's original songs, due to the lack of a melody, and usually find that the covers are better. 21st century pop just has nothing going for it at all, and even if they had Bob Dylan quality lyrics, that still wouldn't compensate for the terrible musical quality.
@@micgooflander95 What do you mean about Bob Dylan songs lacking a melody? Covers of his songs still use his original melodies. Anyway the part I really wanted to reply to was the phrase "What we get today". There is so much good modern music, and its never been easier to access it and discover it. Its totally up to you to find music that you enjoy. You dont have to listen to any music you dont like. Theres no single type of music being served up for everyone. I could never stand to listen to radio music for example, but I never would so its not an issue.
@@NowhereMan7 The original songs don't generally have much of an instrumental arrangement. I have heard very little good music from the last 2 decades, although admittedly I don't go out of my way to hear a broader range than what usually plays on the radio, in supermarkets, etc. Usually when someone recommends some good obscure music, it's just as tuneless as what you would normally hear on the radio, but perhaps without the 'millenial whoop' considering that it's not composed by committee with input from focus groups.
@@micgooflander95 yeah the early 60s songs are almost all just acoustic guitar and harmonica and vocals. Still have vocal melody though but I can see how he's not for everyone. I actually prefer 70s Dylan albums with a full band myself
If we are talking about songs - yea, lyrics matter. Just like without music rhymes are just poetry. The same way music without lyrics is just music, not song. But at the same time we can make a song without any music(acapella). So yea, lyrics matter for a song.
Funny how he picked that Britney song, written by Max Martin. Max Martin who happens to be the writer of most of the recent top pop songs. There IS a reason music has become more repetitive and it ain't because we like it.
Fact
Because the same guy (Max Martin) is using the same formula creating the same sound over and over again. Boring!
Brainwashing. Catchy. Appealing to more audience faster.
@G G Yes. This.
Exactly. And I might add that the sum of music can't be characterized by its lyrics alone. The music itself is being dumbed down. It is much less intricate.
It's interesting how sensitive people are about their opinions about pop vs not-pop music
Probably because music is a part of the soul. And having part of your soul rejected really hurts.
>fancy greek word
>ostinato
Italian blood boiling
mhmm, smells like tomato sauce
@@pumpkinman681 and my white blood cells are mozzarella
I love when Italians get mad about food
@@pumpkinman681 😆
esattamente
This is not about pop music it 's about pop lyrics !
Music includes the lyrics
The Beatles' first release, 'Love Me Do' is one of the most repetitive songs ever, as is the song from which it is loosely derived, Buddy Holly's only slightly less repetitive 'Peggy Sue'. Both are immortal. 'Love Me Do' has just one verse of four simple syllables per line, with the verse repeated six times. It has an equally minimalistic bridge and no chorus.
I wish the analysis focused on the musical aspect rather than the lyrics.
i think it is easier (and already done) to analyse the musical aspect
If you want to know about that part, it's been proven new music has started to make songs louder by modifying the lowest parts of a song to amp up the volume a little bit, and it ends up taking a lot of details that you can't hear anymore. And that's BAD, it's like desaturating a picture, eventually it becomes a gray tile.
This comment saved me 14 minutes
@@tvnorminstudio3080 well now that's not entirely true. I'd like an analysis about why billie eilish is so popular and how she's seen as a counterculture hero
Repetition is meditative, its mantra, its prayer. Beware of WHAT is being repeated...
Then you listen to Pink Floyd and realize how wrong that is.
Hogabooogadooonnaitaafeeedooolaameeeiii!.....
*cough* Trump's claims *cough*
It's good to be alive.
This one's name is @@Minecraftrok999, but there's always one on every single CZcams video...
Christ, it must be such a *miserable* existence...
I think the big thing missing from this and many of these style commentaries is that this is not a sign of music or even pop music getting worse.
What we are seeing is the emergence of a new genre: corporate pop.
In recent years we have seen a shift towards heavily manufactured music being the mainstream, rather than an artist with a voice.
That meme just shows that despite there being 5 times as many people involved, it is nowhere near 5 times as good.
Hey, can I steal that genre name for private use in conversations? because honestly Corporate-Pop(or Corp-Pop) perfectly describes the condition of the music industry of today.
@@moobles2998 Haha, sure, go for it :)
"Corporate music" has been with us for fifty years now. Ever since Woodstock lost money for the festival organizers but made millions for Warner Bros. as a movie and soundtrack album, corporations have gotten more and more involved in all aspects of the music business as time passes.
@@enossifiedossified3145I said corporate pop as a genre, not corporate music as a business model
Corporate Pop has been around for decades. The Brill Building in the early 60s was basically a factory full of song writers.Tin Pan Alley was a street choc full of publishers churning out commercial music from way back in the 1880s.
"Music is not what it used to be, but you know what? maybe it's better"
me: no
Yeah there is no way Beyonce is better than Queen
says the guy whose logo is acdc (though i do agree with you--just thought it was funny)
Sort of how like how explosion-filled action movies sell better than many oscar-winning titles or well-written books do not sell as much as many teenage love stories. Nothing wrong with that, neither of them are objectively "better". I think there will always be a divide of consumers of culture and media between the simple hedonistic consumer and the analytical consumer/collector.
His argument falls flat on the dunning-kruger effekt. People having less understanding of something and liking it out of plain ignorance isn't universally just "better". It's like saying we should go back to using leeches for every ailment instead of modern western medicine and saying "you know what. since people seem LIKE the idea of leeches, perhaps it's just BETTER?"
@@collectorduck9061 Even though I do like music with complex content, and not regarding only the lyrics specifically, I can't say your example is very accurate.
Contrary to medical treatments that often provide objective data, music is almost completly subjective. So naturally, opinion matters. Everything can be good and bad, depending only on listeners opinion. If many people think a song is good, then given subjective statistical standard as a measurement, it is.
I wouldn't say Dunning-Kreuger is as applicable in such a case either. Complexity is also very undefined here, and does not equal to good production quality in any way.
For example:
"Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis confirmed a separation of the polypeptides."
or
"Hi"
are both complex statements, and the filter used and task at hand will decide which one is more complex. To find a pattern in 2 letters is very hard to do, for instance, and it might also be the sum of a long assumed context of thought.
I do wish music was not simplified, because I like metal, blues, jazz and so forth, but there will always be a market for that too. Don't worry, just make an effort to find what you like and it will be there :)
Ah, the good old "X vs Bohemian Rhapsody" example to show how repetetive music has become. This example has kind-of lost its power. The example I know compares Queen to Justin Bieber, and it goes like:
Baby, baby, baby ooh
Like baby, baby, baby no
Like baby, baby, baby ooh
I thought you'd always be mine (mine)
~ Justin Bieber - Baby, My World 2.0 (2010)
Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality
Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see
~ Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody, A Night at the Opera (1975)
And then you simply pick two different examples:
I just can't sleep tonight
Knowing that things ain't right
It's in the papers, it's on the TV, it's everywhere that I go
Children are crying
Soldiers are dying
Some people don't have a home
~ Justin Bieber - Pray, My Worlds Acoustic (2010)
Sweet lady
Sweet lady
Sweet lady... stay sweet
Stay sweet
Oh, run away
Come on
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah
Sweet lady
Wooh
~ Queen - Sweet Lady, A Night at the Opera (1975)
And there goes your point by showing that you're just cherry-picking your examples to "prove" it.
Actually it doesn't because the Queen song may repeat words but not inflections, it's not just repeating, it's spoken words over a chorus and solos.
There are plenty of repetitions in 70s rock, but it's way more dynamic than the copy pasting we are seeing today.
Not only that the point of the original comparison is to compare two widely popular songs. Where you selected whatever would prove your point.
I'm not saying you're wrong but you're not playing by the same rules here.
@@RupeeRhod I was illustrating the point that one can't make a point regarding a trend by comparing two more or less arbitrary examples. So you are right in a sense that while the example "Baby vs Bohemian Rhapsody" alone is not suitable to prove the trend, "Pray vs Sweet Lady" alone is not capable of refuting it. Luckily he used some more sophisticated methods to analyze the repetition.
On a side note, while "Sweet Lady" may not be comparable regarding popularity, "Bicycle Race" from 1978 somewhat is:
Bicycle, bicycle, bicycle
I want to ride my
Bicycle, bicycle, bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride it where I like
~ Queen - Bicycle Race, Jazz (1978)
The best thing about this talk is that the methods he used are useful to investigate other aspects about repetition. What I think could be interesting to look at as well is to have all songs from various artists printed in those self similarity matrices, and then lay those images out in a grid in order of the songs' appearances. I wonder if you could see that former artists had less of a universal pattern they always stuck to compared to modern artists, where every song could be structurally more similar to the others.
@@NFSHeld I wouldn't respond to that
@@zenithquasar9623 I did. I know it is not the only example. I'm not even contradicting his point, I'm just objecting to this particular method. I love the compressabilty metric and the self similarity matrices though, those are quite clever tools to use.
He did take this into account by compressing 20k songs. The compression algorithms will give him the amount of repetitiveness over time. I don't think you really paid attention to the video.
i think the point he missed was that it’s not just the lyrics that make pop music so repetitive it has a lot to do with the chords used and the arrangements of such. if you listen to pop songs without words many of them sound exactly the same. He totally glossed over that and i think he did it because it would have proved him wrong lol. Pop music is getting worse and it’s not a good thing.
it sounds like gremlins pelting tin cans with their jizz
or he covered it and provided examples and you did not want to accept it...
To be fair pop hasn't been particularly good at utilizing more Chords in the past either.
I don’t see how repetitive chords are sow different from repetitive lyrics. Most likely they are also a product of highly skilled professional, trying to produce most likeable music by the average consumer. If you want to change it, you should consider consuming (using money) music that you enjoy.
Pop songs usually follow the same structure, he goes over it - verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, and chorus. Every chorus chord progression will probably be identical, lyrics and all. Using lyrics is a good measure, but he could have used chords. Either way, lyrics are weighted a lot because even the compression algorithm showed that "Around the World" by Daft Punk was the most repetitive song. Agreed, a lot pop songs use G - D - Em - C, but you're arguing similarity and not repetitiveness.
He forgot Gucci gang...
Edit: why are you guys even liking this comment so much...
@pietkrijger When I was younger I wrote poetry in german that tried to incorporate expressionism from fien de siecle and stuff from authors like rimbaud and baudelaire... now im all about that gucci gang... (not anymore thiough - thats songs alsomst a year now :P) dunno... maybe ive had a strong decline in intelligence but .... then again... gucci gang was good!
Yeah we really don't appreciate enough how great this song is.
Lol to all these people in the comment talking about how they listen to superior music, yet Gucci Gang is still objectively better than whatever their favourite song is.
100% compression
I guess he doesnt consider that to be music
They are catchier, not better, I vastly prefer the song on the right to the song in the left, bohemian rhapsody is excellent, there is a line where a song becomes far too repetitive, I’m a millennial yet I believe that music is getting worse, it depends on how well the repetition is used, as well as the actual notes being repeated, not just how many times the same sequence occurs.
Yes, repetition works--it's a well-known principle in visual design, as well. The point is to use it in a balanced way.
When he uses "hits" to measure song quality or likeability, he sets up a false foundation. Songs do not become "hits" because they are popular. They become popular because they have been paid into the status of "hit". This was true in the 60s, to a lesser degree, and is more true now.
You can't argue that "hit" songs are more liked due to their repetition because songs are chosen to be "hits" before listeners even hear it.
And "hits" these days are only so because as Thoughty2 pointed out in his video - The Truth Why Modern Pop Music is so Awful. Is that it's essentially brainwashing.
@Jefferson Montoya Spot on 100% correct. Payola is bigger then ever.
Normally I don't agree with conspiracy theories, but this is pretty convincing.
Yup, 100%
@@alienspacebat5218 It's not a conspiracy theory it's just business. Music that is highly marketed is more commercially successful. As with any product, if it weren't so marketing wouldn't exist.
I feel his analysis is fundamentally flawed. He is only looking at the lyrical content and not the rhythmic and harmonic devices which have been the key contributors to how degraded today's music has become. There's also a trend in recording today that makes everything sound similar to everything else. There was a time in history when radio shows were programmed by the hosts and disk jockeys and they weren't afraid to take chances so there was more diversity and variety. These days everything is very calculated.
Honestly the most accurate comment I could have expected. Thank you for your input and I completely agree.
Not everything, there's alternative radio station which was actually the first private station around here and it has still a lot of variety because it's selected only by independent DJs, moderators, and hosts. They still manage to showcase upcoming music which may not be mainstream popular but it's interesting and good quality, yet still remaining unique. In this age to remain at least somewhat unique you need to have some amount of complexity and try to take on composition in untraditional way, using unusual instruments and techniques because everything simple has been done and repeated several times already. This can't be captured from only counting similar words in the lyrics. There's plenty of good new music but it stays relatively underground.
@@jan.tichavsky
Sure, of course you have Public Radio, College and Private Local Stations and if you can manage to get promotion and publicity through that, it would be quite the accomplishment, although it does happen every once in a while. I am speaking of about the major networks of the big cities in the United States which rely on advertising to keep them in business.
Have you ever noticed this in royalty-free music used in CZcams videos? They all sound so similar
You know why everything sounds the same? Because it is all in bloody english! How many foreign languages have ever made it to the US top 100?
Music already is a lingua franca in itself. The english-ization of today's music is commercially understandable, fits repetitiveness and monoculture.
I equate pop music to being a cup of lone, strong coffee in the morning instead of a full actually balanced nutritious meal... This is a world of quick fixes, and it feels like everything and everyone is trying to grab you in and use you for a quick buck with as much flash and clickbait and what-have-you as possible. It's nice to sit down and actually listen to more thought out and thought-provoking music that uses dynamics, differing rhythms, other things that are seldom found in pop. ('nother food analogy here, meow) It's like a public school that serves poptarts to it's students instead of something with actual nutritional value... All the students love it, of course, but at their own expense, oblivious that there is something much better for them out there.
I like the analogy you use here.
MILI
Like Baby Metal, or Give some one a good pair of headphones to put on and turn them on to Animals by Pink Floyd, some one who never herd Floyd then ask them, so any Questions?
If I hear Iron Maiden while driving car my concentration for the traffic is slightly reduced. Even though listening to it while not in the car is far better. It's not the right music for the car.
Many people don't actually listen actively. They do something else and also listen to music.
I also like Sia's "cheap thrills". One of the best music videos. Reminds me of "Back to the future".
I think 21 pilots are nowhere as sophisticated as Metallica. But I'm amazed how they master the art of varying speeds. Simple music becomes a pleasure. Different situations require different music.
@@alancoop7419 Listen to S.I.S 'I'VE GOT A FEELING'
I am a 64 year old journeyman musician who has played top 40 for 50 years. I was SO ready to bash this but as I watched it I was fascinated by the lengths Colin went to; employing new techniques to an ageless discussion. There was a book published back in the mid-60's called TWILIGHT OF THE GODS. It was fascinating in the same way - a massive deep dive into the historical musical patterns ascribed by "scholars" vs. the notion that maybe, just maybe, the writers wrote it the way they did because it sounded good. I actually really enjoyed your presentation Colin!
Respect for your journey, Sir. I'm also (not that long as you) a musician and I enjoyed to watch new approaches to discuss something that seems to have no answer. Even if I have some points on his speech, like the way he put the ostinato - what obviously is so much more important in a context of a Bach's mass than being the whole structure of a pop song - it is important and desirable to have new possibilities of think the music we listen to (or the ones we do not). Pleasure to share those feelings. Cheers from Brazil.
"La La La" is not a lyric. It's more of a background musical element.
It's a substitute for lyrics when writers are out of ideas
"po po po poker face po po poker face" is that a background element as well?
Carlitox b no
The problem for me is that lyrics in pop songs don't relate to my life experiences. The compositions are generally hideous because they are extremely disposable and the concepts are painfully simple. Pop music is just not my cup of tea in general. Sure some songs are "fun" but it doesn't strike me deeply and I disagree that repetitive songs are memorable for a good reason. They are memorable because there is hardly anything going on. Guess people just want mathematically catchy songs in the background while they are honking their horns in traffic.
I experience the exact opposite though- whenever I listen to songs - so often I can relate in some way or another! Statement is obv. true though!
lyriiiics not their repetitions
Brittin Frielink dont listen to it then
I love your comment. Have a nice day full of meaningfull and non-repetitive music. As a musician, you are the kind of person I write to! :)
@@BionicHorseBeats I'm on it
That guy sounds a bit like Dave from Boyinaband
Just dumber
He looks like him too
Yeah except from the fact that he's got a completely different accent
I really like the idea that you can measure sameyness using zip compression algorithms.
Songwriters are giving producers what they want and the producers are giving audiences what producers think will sell. Audiences listen to what producers give them because they are generally too distracted by life to seek music beyond what’s on the radio or on their Spotify playlist. This feedback loop feeds on itself like an ouroboros until music becomes nothing but single word repeated over the same four-chord progression that too many modern songs already use. The issue not being addressed in this talk is the lack of melodic inventiveness, which is an issue in modern music, especially if you listen to rap or hip hop.
You got that right. There are many good things that come out of pop music, but there is so much profit driven "music" that lacks the true elements of music that short changes the public from a higher level music and more variety. Music has been turned into a competive sport on TV. All razzle dazzle ad glitter and no substance. The folk singer or jazz trumpet player is out of work....Repetition is only one tool or trick in music than can be used in music. What about melody, harmony, tone quality, rhytthm variety and style, musical form - outside of the common song form, dynamics ranging from loud to soft, ritardando (slowing down) the algorythm study does not address the whole picture and is lacking in full scope of the musical preference mind control problem in this country. From a former music teacher.. .remember, commercial music is an industry for profit...not to enlighten or to educate or necessarily broaden your musical horizons. Of course I am preaching to the choir here lol.
Says the lily white guy.
Have you ever listened to rap outside of what's on the radio?
Music is not just about structure, but originality and creativity. Nowadays pop music is a *product,* not a piece of original art. It's *designed* to be consumed and discarded right away. It's not fair, in the slightest, to be compared with Queen, which music creation was driven by truthful spirit of art.
And Bach's Masses weren't a product for the church to be consumed on a Sunday and then discsrded? Shakespeare wrote plays to be performed in front of paying audiences. Product. Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistene Chapel. Product. You're criticizing art as "bad" based on the perceived motivation behind its creation. Form your opinion of art based on its own merit and how it makes you feel regardless of how it was made.
A lot of Queens repertoire is just shallow and catchy
A work of art is supposed to be a work to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power, but some songs or pieces of music are trite -- they are "junk" rather than "art". But the existence of the junk shows me how very grateful I can be for the good stuff -- like Händel's Messiah and Haydn's Die Schöpfung.
@@Jinni_SD It must be a symptom of my tendency towards attention-deficit disorder, but what you said reminds me of food -- "form your opinion of food based on its own merit and how it makes you feel regardless of how it was made".
I wouldn't say "nowadays". The fact is there has always been commercial pressure and the interest of patrons who make the art possible. The extent of that design, the enormous level of competition, and our knowledge about writing effective earworms are all new. The dollars funding the artwork are not.
Brought to you by the record industry.
I'll agree with you on that
yep. record labels ruins musicians.
In pop music you don't need a word for repeated sounds because your whole music is based on it
IF "everyone loves repetitive music" 7:11 (yes i quoted him) then why is 'Bohemian Rhapsody', a song which has no chorus, verses and virtually no repetition whatsoever thought of as the greatest song of all time and is still extremely popular to this day
One does not exclude another.
what do you mean
Because he's talking nonsense and I don't think he has any serious musical background
@@kradicalkaymeom2969 The fact that 'everyone likes repetitive music, he translates that from the scientific research mentioned, does not exclude the fact that a lot of people name bohemian rhapsody the best song.
Almost everyone I know likes the taste of crisps. But if you ask everyone what the best tasting food is, it would probably not be crisps
people can like multiple types of songs einstein
When I was young, we actually used to listen to music. That is to say, we'd put on an album and pay attention to it for an extended period of time (usually the album side, around 20 minutes) with actual concentration and focus. We found this rewarding because we appreciated the depth that went into the compositions. I am referring to album-oriented-rock -- the Dark Side of the Moon, Close to the Edge, In the Court of the Crimson King. People will not take the time to do that these days; they "listen" thru cheap earbuds on their phones while they are going about their daily lives, thinking about what they need from the grocery store, that kind of thing. No concentration is given, so music which doesn't require concentration is what becomes popular. It still has less substance, IMHO, but who's going to listen to substantive music these days? Sheesh, you kids. Get off my lawn!
Well said.
Those cheap earbuds probably have better sound quality than the sound system you had when you were young and listening on the go does not preclude paying attention.
Granted, the people who are paying attention to their earbuds are probably mostly listening to audiobooks, but that's because tuning out music is an effect of bad music not an effect of multitasking.
@@nathanbrown8680 Cheap earbuds do NOT sound better than headphones from years ago. There is no evidence to support that. Pop music to me is not bad because it's repetitive..it's because it is not really relevant to me anymore. It seems that we have just about reached the end of 4 chord songs. I like the new electronic beats, there more to explore.
Old Man Yells At Cloud
Thank you, next
"Music just ain't what it used to be, but maybe it's better... " I think I've had enough internet for today
That moment when you realize being an intellectual doesn't equate to being wise... or human even.
Let's face it, the guy's persona reeks of cognitive technical overload. I would otherwise wonder what musical instrument he plays, but I honestly don't see any evidence toward that type of expressive personality.
Grab your torch and pitchforks.
Read your comment and realized I don't need to watch this video, thx bro
No lyrical intelligence ... Thank you Max Martin
Andrew Hakomaki Granger same! Also he’s an insufferable bore!
Great analysis! I loved the way you thought about this subject and how you employed such interesting tools to dissect and deep dive into it further. I may not necessarily agree with the final conclusion :) but I definitely LOVED the analysis. 👍🏾
I was reading the comments looking for this exact sentiment! The presenter definitely didn't focus on the entirety of the elements of music, like rhythm and meaning, but the element they did focus on and the techniques they used were really cool!
Thanks for being nice on the internet!
Anyone ever listened to the radio and thought: "Man, I don't like this song.". And then you hear that song multiple times throughout the day/week/month.
The song gets stuck in your head at some point. You get the urge to listen to the song for satisfaction.
Do you genuinely like it then or have you been brainwashed? Any thoughts? I'm curious. Thanks :)
It doesn't really happen to me. I don't get an urge to listen to it. Even if I download it anyway, I end up listening to it only once or twice and then forgetting about it.
conversely, I might hear a song that's somewhat good. I download it but then I realize before long that it's not really all that good and I forget about it too. So, I'm hard to impress.
Not really. Or atleast not for pop. It's catchy and that's why I get the urge to "sing-a-long". Not because I genuinely like it
This video was interesting at the beginning, but then he got repetitive.
Oooh touche’!
Absolutely barbaric slaughter
He is brought to you by "The New Music Industry".
Does this explain why I thoroughly enjoy older pop songs but have no interest in modern day pop music?
Yes.
Not only for this reason. It's because before pop music were made by using actually real instruments like guitar, keyboard, drums while today music is made using a computer. Everything is artificial now...
Electronic music been there sice 60s. Computer assisted electronic music lets say 80s. Its not about computers. Its about the art form.
Probably.
Dude is wearing a plaid shirt. My God, repetitive patterns are everywhere!
Dude how is he wearing a plaid shirt. I mean my God, are repetitive patterns really everywhere?
Not to mention that he's symmetrical. What a lazy way to be.
he's canadian: he has never owned any other types of shirts in his whole life.
But, he doesn't have a beard or tattoos, which makes him a rebel.
My 333rd like made the the number of likes to your comment look pretty repetitive.
America says we love a chorus
But don’t get complicated and bore us
Though meaning might be missin'
We need to know the words after just one listen so
Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff
Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff
Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff
Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff
- *Bo Burnham, Repeat Stuff*
It's a hella catchy song though, can't deny it!
It worked, bo... very effective
Put that to a catchy tune and you probably have a 10 hit.
That is "... top 10 hit."
(one you could have easily found by Googling the lyrics I posted)
"a respectable-sounding Greek word for it -- 'ostinato' "
I hate to tell you this, but...
Panagiotes Koutelidakes don’t tell the Italians, they’ll throw a fit.
@@kamisawze1552 I am tempted to tell *all* the Italians; is there something like an authentic ancient Italian ritual passed down from one nana to the next, like carving a pentagram on a round focaccia with rosemary and sea salt, and then drizzling it with olive oil while doing wild hand gestures? 'Cause I am fairly certain if I tried that, it *could* potentially call all Greeks instead, seeing how we're similar enough in these regards, you know?
Seriously, though, you have to admire the fact that so many people know just enough to completely stumble over some things that even a slightly better grasp of the matter would had otherwise dispelled.
You mean Nona? :) I think his point still is valid tho, no?
@@AmitKohli1 I meant the English word "nana" (which means the same thing), but I do agree that typing "nona" would had been better by all means!
As for his point... kinda, but they did use the wrong descriptor for it still. It's like saying: "a respectable-sounding German word for it" - but the word in question being Swedish, for instance (this is the closest analogy I can think of, and it still doesn't quite work, because Greek is under its own language family, which is separate from Italian; the word doesn't even have a direct Greek cognate, you see).
Panagiotes Koutelidakes I only said what I said because where I live in New England, there are a ton of Greek and Italian restaurants which serve essentially the same variety of Mediterranean based foods like pizza and pasta. I can usually tell the difference of which pizza is which, but the families that run them will vehemently defend their county of ancestry’s claim to have invented the food and make it better. I like both for different reasons, so it’s just entertaining to stir the pot.
The fact that seems to get missed here is the newer, 'catchier', more repetative songs also disappear in a short period of time. More complex songs - such as Bohemian Rhapsody here used for example have endured the test of time (40 years actually!) and will endure for time to come. Can we really say the same about the repetative newer song list??? We will see if anyone is listening to Kesha in 40 years......
You forget the vast quantities of mediocre music that was around back then that faded into obscurity. you just remember specific songs from that era. This will never change. There will be music from now that will still be heard many years from now. Repetitiveness isn't inherently a bad thing, take many daft punk songs, or for an older example something like Roxanne from The Police.
Who's Ke$ha?
@@Kreb2 interesting point. Survivor bias maybe
You tell 'em
I agree mostly, but I don't think it's the complexity that grants staying power. Best example would be stuff like death metal which is actually some of the most complex music out there yet no one seems to care outside of a small sub-set of metalheads.
I think it's the ability of a song to tell a story that we can all connect to at an emotional level. Songs like Simple Man, Tears in Heaven, Lightning Crashes, Jeremy, Stairway to Heaven, they all are songs that tell a story that we can emotionally empathize with.
Best possible example would be Billy Joel and his songs "We didn't start the fire" and "Piano Man". Both were chart topping hits, and while "We didn't start the fire" is the more lyrically complex song, its "Piano Man" that tells a story we can connect to that is still universally loved and likely will continue to be.
"ostinato" is actually Italian, like all the music notation system language
Which, by the way, has its roots in Latin (obstinatus), instead of Greek
Not all, french/german sometimes show up too
and it puts people in a hypnotic trance or makes them angry. Science has show this and the ancient greek even knew this to some degree and would imprison people for doing it.
The entire talk requires the assumption that catchiness is equal to a songs quality and/or enjoyment factor. Aaaaand, not it isn't
this
Exactly. Catchiness is addictiveness, and the same analogy applies to Little Debbie cupcakes vs gourmet cupcakes. Which is bought more often? Yet we know gourmet cupcakes are higher quality...
lgolem09l you just can’t write anything catchy
Not only that but also the assumption: what is popular = what is good. He literally brought nothing to the table, his whole argument is "pop songs are good because they are popular." But no-one is arguing that repetitive songs aren't popular, quite the opposite, really.
Trent Michael I think he doesn't compress the songs themselves, but rather their lyrics in plain txt.
I especially judge music on melody, less on lyrics. This dude is one-sided.
If you're going to judge music, you cant judge it by a single component. any one component of a music piece can ultimatley butcher All the others. you have to judge how theyre put together over all. nothng in music ever surprises me because it is art
But some some music is just (f)art.
@@freakbass Well-said.
SAMEEE
his topic is the analysis of patterns in the lyrics of music over time- it is one-sided on purpose- you can't hate on bacon to not be a doughnut
The problem with repetitive songs is not only that they lack depth, but they sound the same. There's also a big difference between a song that literally repeats one or two lines throughout the whole song and a song with a repeating chorus.
Funny- I’ve always preferred instrumental music.
It’s funny how people think words and lyrics are the main part of music.
Try listening to King Crimson instrumentals.
Or, for that matter, Around the World by Daft Punk.
Tried it and I have to say that this is why i read the comments, I'm always hoping someone backs their opinion with actual data to prove their point. You sir, have proved your point.
King Crimson has a lot of interesting lyrics...... they are a top progressive band......
King Crimson instrumentals would most likely perplex most pop music listeners... Maybe Discipline could win some over with its 4/4 beat hidden under all the polyrhythmic grooves. Then again probably not...
Thela hun ginjeet has more musical innovation than some artists entire catalogue.
Isn't modern pop music written by a couple of people now-a-days? I think he fails to address the problems with the modern music industry, and the conditions of what makes the "Top 10" has changed drastically over the years.
That sure seems to account for his astonishing stat that things are getting more repetitive. lol
Sia actually does a ton of writing for other artists. It’s how she makes her money.
@@micklepickle0159 no one cares
@@thoticcusprime9309 ... and no one cares about your arrogant comment, but you still wrote it.
Yeah there are 2 guys that have written almost every top 10 song for the past couple decades.
This talk: Everybody likes hamburgers, hamburgers must be gourmet food.
I'd rather have a burger than some weird bubble of french goo in a cellophane wrapper dotted with origami parsley
Blair Snurtburgler good one
I was talking to a chef one day and he had this amazing sandwich on special that day. I wish i could remember what it was but it was years ago. He said "it was the second best sandwich ever created." Then i asked "what's the best?" He said "easy, the hamburger sandwich"
He did not make any such claim!
Yea it's kinda funny, but I don't think it is necessarily fitting or pointing out what the video is about. Most people don't like pop music, it's just the one that most people know and which is broadcasted and listened to and also "relativly positive" received the most. And just because you have something that is "meta" doesn't mean it is gourmet or high end, top of the notch. But what he wanted to express is that it is still good (maybe for volume) for the good basic stuff to exist. also "talks" or presentations kind of always need a conclusion, this one should maybe have focused more on how these snowflake patterns of compressed song lyrics are like a mandala and a fractal of nature too, even though it is also man made, then he could also have compared it to other structures like this in nature, like the repetitiveness of flowers and how they additionally might also be repetitive in bloom (like tulips can bloom once a year for like 4-7 years) and how that would imply that the universe is kind of singing a song too, the joy of life or sth like that. Ending the presentation with a conclusion of whether or not something should be considered good is maybe a representation of the guy's thoughts about presentation rules and I also think of him being autistic. Yes it is not really good ether xD but comparing it to "gourmet burgers"... Wait that's a different thing altogether haha
Nice. Viewing music in a completely non-musical way
It makes sense when you think about it though, because that's how the major music industry has dialed it in. They've analyzed even the tiniest elements in terms of profitability, and the music is built off of that equation. So when you're putting that connection together, you can't look at or explain an analytical profit margin like it's still music.
@@ossiehalvorson7702 I recently started thinking about this as my interest in music has piqued over the past few weeks. I noticed some specific "feeling" to every song with millions of views, meaning the extremely successful songs. I realized there's gotta be some parody going on. If I were trying to make it big I would dissect every big song and try to emulate the similarities that draw across lots of the biggest hits.
Instead of the music telling a story and evoking thought, it strokes our brains desire for a beat. Background music for digital media addicts. Doesn’t make it better.
DylanRGerdingMusic Still more enjoyable than Old Town Road
Take away... Colin Morris leaves out the intention of a contingency of industrial complexes to condition consumers through repetitive media products like "pop music" (but also repetitive themes in films, commercials and news propaganda) to be emotionally influence consumers to the point of neurochemical imbalance resulting in their habitual conditioning resulting in consumers consuming more and objectively thinking less.
This is a brilliant study with a limited contrived feel good conclusion.
I basically break down music into the “At home” listening experience and the “Public/event” listening experience. When I’m at home I prefer more complex and introspective music. When I’m in public like a festival/bar/club, I prefer more simple and repetitive music. It can be hard really enjoy introspective or lower BPM music in a public space. Both have their place for me.
Steffan I play music at events, bars. It'd be a nice change if people didn't take it for granted
Yeah boring repetitive music is fine when you're not actually listening to it.
You must be under 30.
This TED talk could be compressed 43%. :D
Something I deduced on my own a long time ago, was that older songs were about telling a story, and more modern ones less so; and also about repetition, I figured that a repetitive song has more chance to be liked by more ppl, since if the part of the song you happen to like, is the repetitive part, then you'll have plenty of it before the song ends, whereas in a song that doesn't repeat anything, it becomes harder for one person to like the whole song, most likely they will only like a few parts, which then they'll have to wait until they hear the song again to hear the parts they liked. So in that sense, it seems logical to make songs that repeat themselves.
I'm gonna need some Coltrane after this.
@Juarez Do it!
I'll put on Steve Reich's Music for 18 musicians ,
@@hermask815 clapping music ftw
Agree with you, my friend
@@AcornFox
Or _Come Out._
60s and 70s minimalism is some of the best music ever made. Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass, just so much good music.
I've believed a long time now that most people don't even like music they just think they do.
Andre Richard Agreed. A lot of people “like” music the same way they like a post on Facebook
FACTS TO BOTH OF THESE COMMENTS
They like catchy background noise, and sometimes a track they can sing along to. But they listen to "music" very casually and never really take a moment to analyse and think about what they're hearing.
I completely agree with you! I lent my phone to a friend on a long train journey after her ipod went flat once. Watching her face as she explored sounds she'd never even imagined before was great fun. Her finding out that Prince (as great as he was) was not the only multi-instrumentalist in history, and that funk-fusion was a style he explored with others, and that is still being explored today was amazing. But finding her still actively exploring the boundaries of her own (very different to mine, but now clearly owned and enjoyed) musical taste was priceless. I wish more people could experience the joy she now gets from the music she loves. Even the weird awkwardness that comes with showing each other our newest audio love affairs only to cringe at each other's god awful taste is fun!!
Artificial music created by marketing analysis is not better. Haha. This doesn't make all unrestricted and freely inspired music necessarily better. The key is to feel the rhythms, melodies and lyrics that are better, and I am not sure that an algorithm can figure that out any better than humans can do. Awesome TEDx talk anyway and thanks a lot.
I'm a simple man: I see the title, I click expecting a TED Talk on how Metal is lyrically, musically and compositionally superior to Pop music.
Shorter: Britney is no Shakespeare, but maybe Shakespeare was a Britney?
He shakes pears, Britney's pears.
😂😂😂😂
Keep Shakespeare alone!
Using Bach's Mass as an example is sorta disingenuous. That piece of music is close to two hours long and goes all over the place. It's also held to a physically imposed structure. The Latin Mass. The song does what it does to fit the timing of actions inside a rigidly defined ceremony. Yes, there are repetitive parts, because the ceremony is repetitive in places and the song is meant to mirror what's going on in reality. For all intents and purposes it isn't a song, it's a musical score. The very first musical score. It's also wildly inventive with chord substitution. The brain gets caught listening to a particular key in this case Mass is in B Minor, but it's not always playing it straight. It'll jump from key to key in repetitions to keep the listener interested. It'll play something close to the original variation outside of the way we're expecting to hear it. Not to mention it's an orchestra piece, so slapping up any particular snippet of sheet music doesn't really have anything to do with how it actually sounds as a finished product.
Michael Holloway Wow it sounds like you really know your stuff! Thanks for saying what needed to be said! Do you have anything explaining those types of pieces in more detail?
@@luismerces6479 Best answer, listen to Beethoven's 5th. It's wildly famous for a reason. Objectively and cynically, the entire thing is 4 notes. Mostly. The big deep 4 notes the french horn opens the piece with the lower register of the string section acting as a fill, then it moves to high strings, wind, and even timpani as the piece goes on. All repeating those 4 notes. But, and this is important. None of it sounds the same. Because Beethoven constantly moves from key to key, instrument to instrument, up and down the register. We never stay with anything long enough to get bored, for it to be repetitive. It speeds up, slows down, sometimes the 4 notes are played light and airy, other times with the sound of a thunderstorm. To listen to it is to not believe it's all just 4 notes repeating, but it is once you sit down to the sheet music. It only looks repetitive, it sounds anything but because he has the entire orchestra to play with. Everything at some point or another plays lead.
Michael Holloway first of all I want to thank you for the awesome, it was highly informative! Second, you expressed exactly the point, repetition is only present for a long period of time if not noticed. I would also ad that having to much repetition is precisely the reason why songs have diminished in size. I’ve been observing and the truth is that we can stand large youtube videos, movies and even technical podcasts. I think that we just don’t pay attention to boring things, and although accessible looped music tends to become incredibly boring, what do you think?
I am Discount American Boyinaband and thank you for coming to my Tedtalk
One song made from the heart, the other for money.
Hehey, I didn't know boyinaband made a ted talk
Or the producer of Redbone by Childish Gambino
So I wasn't the only one
What
@@ferdsmand_ just type boyinaband into the search bar
Hasn't made a video in so long, looks like the red hair has grown out
His defense of melodic repetitiveness was inadequate. In classical music, an ostinato is typically used to frame more complex music that is played over it (also the word is Italian, not Greek). It's true that a certain amount of repetition sounds nice, but it's totally fair to call out a simplistic, uncreative melody for what it is.
Also, I think that a big point of criticism for pop lyricists is not merely the repetitiveness of the lyrics, but the vacuous nature of many of those lyrics. Take the example from the video of "Run the World (Girls)". The repetitiveness is much more apparent when the lyrics don't have a lot to say. And, sure, people have been writing repetitive songs forever, but I still think it's fair to call out musicians who write boring, thoughtless, overly simplistic tripe, appealing to ever more atrophied attention spans. I think it's clear that this presenter does not play an instrument.
This is an important point. The problem isn't repetition, it's information content. Information content is what compression really measures, but to get a good measure you have to filter out the noise first. A lot of pop music is entirely devoid of meaning.
"Run the World (Girls)" could be simplified to the singer just chanting "feminism." The compression test gives a misleadingly high information content because of this.
Let's STOP feeling guilty about stuff we enjoy that doesn't hurt anyone else.
Yes, exactly. Why do we feel bad when we like something popular when popularity is defined by appealing to large numbers of people? Must I be special ALL the time?
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" - Francis Vincent Zappa
It's one of the reasons why the few folk songs we know, among countless we don't, are remembered for centuries. Repetitiveness makes catchy. Celtic folktunes for example have the same melody for verse and chorus, and sea-shanties are one line verses, with one line choruses.
The term popular in pop music means folk. It's the same thing, the music of the masses.
Wow
Lost me at "why this is a good thing"
Same. Stopped there, upvote your comment and leave
Me too
Yup. I kept watching. But this guy is nuts.
The thing is that people ignore the change in listening habits. In the 60s people still collected disks and sat down to listen to the music (later cassetes or CDs). Nowadays, people do 100 different things while the music is blaring in the background from their phone. Complex music can be distracting while simple repetitive music is not. So perhaps the change in preference is also partly due to this change.
lol, you guys are the kind of people no one wants to talk to, because you don't even care about other people's oppinions
missing is the fact that the popular music during the swing era required a group of relatively talented musicians to play together as an ensemble, whereas todays repetitive music is pre-recorded repetitive backing tracks synced to people who ½sing, ½talk/yell & are primarily performers not musicians.
Since you mentioned swing era I think you might enjoy the song MINSEO 'IS WHO'
Agreed. A lot of today's popular singers are performers, not musicians. Japan still place high value on musicianship, thankfully.
"La.
La. La. La. La.
La. La.
La. La. La. La. La."
There. I'm a creative genius.
Lalala by bbno$?
Sorry, you didn't convince me...most modern pop still sucks ;p
But why
@@Chierushi (Apology beforehand for the unintentionally long paragraph)
It's something you can't understand unless you expand your horizon in what your listening to. I could sit here and explain how absolutely simple and lazy the lyrics are, how overdone the melody's are, how manufactured and uninspired every hit is nowadays. But you wont agree at the moment. People only like repetition because most of the population likes stuff that sounds like other stuff they already like, and are afraid or (unwilling) to jump out of their bubble of only top charts music. That's why pop music is popular. They don't feel like there's any reason to expand because they're perfectly comfortable where they are. But for those who DO take the time looking for other artists/genres that aren't on the top charts... they find themselves enjoying music a lot more and will never go back to listening to only top charts music. Their tastes have (evolved) if you will. For example if you're only listening to top charts music, you're only listening to like a max of 10 artists and probably only certain hits off of certain albums from each artists. But once you expand... You'll have like 100's of different artists you know and even listen to certain artists entire discography. Your love for music has evolved. And more people should do this. It'd give actual talented artists and bands more attention and it'd show that talent should be cared about more than just Looks and auto-tune. Modern pop sucks most of all in my opinion for it's thievery of fame. Leaving all the other artists and bands to crumble and rot away never to be remembered by anyone except their small following.
@@Chierushi What I said was partially in jest but most of Pop music today is unoriginal, lacks almost any kind of decent timbre, and is made for musically unsophisticated people who just want something catchy they can dance to and don't really have to think about it. Now that's not to say that there is no talent in write a super catchy "ear worm" of a song that can sell millions but that fact that music has come to the point where all you need is some kind of synthesizer computer program and a few words and THIS is what most people want to hear is just plain sad...and is thus, why most modern pop music ultimately SSSSUUUUUUCCCCKKKKSS!..But we have to blame the average listener more than anything since its their lazy ear that is leading to this generally inartistic, musically unsophisticated junk on the radio.
@@JRHockney "Some kind of synthesizer", "lacks decent timbre"? I can already tell you know nothing about pop production, it's one of the hardest genres to produce for and it definitively has the most diversity of timbre of any genre. Most genres use the same instruments over and over, pop uses all those instruments and everything else, too. Go and try to make "some synthesizer" sound good, lol. What a load of rubbish.
@@SubscribersWithoutAnySubscribe I may not have direct experience in 'pop' music production but being a musician myself, I know a thing or two about timbre and musical creativity and I've also spent time in the studio. But the reason I even brought up Timbre is because of a video I saw not too long ago that talked about how researchers seem to think the height of musical Timbre within pop music recordings being back in the 60s and its gone down hill ever since. Look up 'The TRUTH Why Modern Music Is Awful' by Thoughty2 here on CZcams and I've seen similar TED talks that talk about this as well. Granted, looking back at the video, it appears to be talking more about Timbre 'variety' and I'm not sure which researchers he's using but my ears tend to agree with its conclusions. I'm sure you pop producers spend alot of time making sure your interesting and weird keyboard sounds are crisp and don't sound like they came from an 80s walmart keyboard but in my opinion (which is admittedly a bit oldschool), its still sounds synthetic and played out to my ears even if the tone itself is higher quality than it was 10 years ago.
"Most people like repetitive songs". Well, I can also argue that the population of the world has more idiots than geniuses...
😂😂 that's what the corporations know all too well
@@PureHoney_ASMR Can you point out specifically where did I say that "I'm a genius and listen to complex music"?
Thanks babe.
@@ShadzWins "Most people don't like repititve songs". wElL, I CAn AlsO AruGue ThaT thE PopULATiOn oF tHe WorLD HaS MorE IdiotS tHan GeniUseS...
ShadzWins
, Oh, there's zero argument there my friend, sad but true.
I'm with you on this. The presenter makes the argument that this is somehow okay simply because it's effective. But I would make the argument that it works not because it's "good" but because it's exploitative. He even gives an example where classical songs were dumbed down and made more repetitive and a sizable portion of the, let's just say, "consumers" preferred them more. So, put in marketing terms: catchy hooks sell.
And of course it's generally much easier to create a catchy repetitive hook than to make a well-crafted song in the usual way. While he makes a good point that some of these are much more complex than they would appear at first glance it's also true that many of them were probably just the result of laziness that just happened to work. Basically since this stuff is so easy to make it's a valid tactic to just throw sh*t at a wall and see what sticks. If you can pump out 10 of them there's a good chance at least one will have a catchy ear worm and become popular.
And this is even worse when the actual music is considered. That's truly lazy as it is just a side-effect of how insanely simple it is to make a chunk of music and loop it in a sequencer. A proper song might use that as a base and then add layers. But a lazy musician can just call it done.
I've got to say... I am more of a classical music person, but I like how this was presented. I don't exactly care for pop music, but a lot of people do, and they shouldn't feel bad.
If the entire field is becoming more repetitive and it necessarily follows the top 10 become the most repetitive, it does not follow that artists are just giving us what we want. We are getting what they give us. More than 85% of Spotify's streams come from 3 companies.
As pattern seeking mammals, it's not surprising repetitive lyrics and musical content appeal to the masses. But to argue that content geared toward our basic animal instincts is somehow better or more sophisticated is limiting artistic quality down to something that appeals to that animal instinct. In the end, art is subjective: We can't argue (reasonably) song A is 'better' than song B because more people listen to song A.
finally someone who is able to use the term masses without sounding like a misanthrope who wants to shoot up a school.
Reasonable thesis, but one dimensional. Modern pop is driven by the bottom line, $$$$$$$, hence the reduction of risk and homogenisation of pop music. he is right, there is nothing wrong with repetition, but there are many more aspects to modern mass produced pop that have eroded creativity and force fed the modern youth with what the industry wants.
To play devils advoacate, isn't that a motivation for a lot of musicians? Even people we look at as classic artists, did they always play the creative route and never go with something just catchy? Were they always challenging norms and creating something new?
And who is to say that modern songwriters are purely doing it for money? Is it fair to say a songwriter who has made tons of money will always keep just writing songs purely for money? Will they never want to try to experiment at all and put something creative in it? That they have no creative ideas they want to express in any sort of way? I mean money can corrupt but to pretend like it completely squashes out any creative ambition or drive out of someone seems like an over reaction.
I found that he went in-depth on this topic. The impact of money on the music industry is another topic. I agree with what he said, listening to pop songs shouldn't be a guilty pleasure. Not taking risks is often what corresponds well to the majority of people, which is why pop songs make so much money in the first place. I am all for experimenting with music but I don't think we should shun producers for following a template that people like and will give success.
I disagree sort of- there were a lot of artists emerging from soundcloud and other platforms that were marketed way AFTER they did their thing in primitve matter and had success! A lot of forced stuff fails at teh end to gain the same sort of mass appeal!
Using a phrase like "the industry" is largely meaningless when the way that people [especially young people] consume and enjoy music (thanks the internet, youtube, spotify, soundcloud, bandcamp, etc. !) is completely different and divorced from what it was not even 10 years ago. You're a little out of touch and late to the party with your criticism. It might have been more valid in the 2000s but now it's completely different.
@@missychick1359 well said! Although there still is an industry - and its still about that dollar!
So, hooks are very important to a song's value to the listener. Beethoven started with "dit-dit-dit-dah" and repeated that throughout the entire symphony. The problem with "pop" is there is not enough meat on the bones to satisfy the ear after a couple of listenings.
Hear the sound of music
Drifting in the aisles
Elevator Prozac
Stretching on for miles
The music of the future
Will not entertain
It's only meant to repress
And neutralize your brain
Soul gets squeezed out
Edges get blunt
Demographic
Gives what you want
Now the sound of music
Comes in silver pills
Engineered to suit you
Building cheaper thrills
The music of rebellion
Makes you want to rage
But it's made by millionaires
Who are nearly twice your age
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough
- Steven Wilson
"repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff" - bo burnham
If the brain gets fed with repetitive, thus "comfortable" songs... doesn't it stop being stimulated? In comparison to listening to a song like Bohemian Rhapsody, where it is "surprised" by changes in rhythm etc...?
heard "Rhapsody" million times and still find it interesting......
How many chocolate bars do you have to eat before you're tired of chocolate bars? This is exactly why bridges exist in pop music.
No not at all - repetition can be incredibly mind-opening, as Coltrane, Steve Reich and Howlin' Wolf knew all too well.
I'm sure the band would be famous even without the film... anyhow, somehow I think you're not the brightest person around here...
Some good analysis, but the problem with "repetitive music" is over-reliance on it and limited horizons in using samey-sounding audio parts, albeit instruments or voice.
OSTINATO is an italian word, not a greek word ! Even in current contemporary italian
Repetitiveness in pop songs not about the lyrics, at least not to the degree he would have you believe. It's about rhythm, chord choices, color, and feel. In the domain of rhythm, pop music, although not alone in this category, is entirely in 4/4. Not a be thing on its own. The next domain of music is chord choices. And suffice it to say, as a musician, analyzing pop songs is fairly easy. Chord progressions are used, reused, and re re used over and over again. Repetitive, unimaginative, and boring. The nest domain is color and feel. In pop, there is very little diversity here. Slow love songs, girl power songs, upbeat love songs, doing crack in the basement songs (aka doing every girl I come across songs), and breakup songs. 5 song types for every pop song ever written. Great work guys. Glad we can sum up the human experience through art so creatively. This really is frustrating as some people work really hard to create and never get anywhere. Rock, jazz, blues, classical, you name it, there's an underpaid musician working on it. And then Kesha has her 16 songwriters re order the same chords from Taylor swifts music and makes a million dollars with adoring fans screeching all the way. It's sad. Wake up. Listen to some dream theater.
Repetitive, unimaginative, boring.... and safe. Safe for the composer, safe for the listener. Safe to sit in one's little box, following the crowd, but pretending to be edgy and thoughtful because the live performance has some new light display and skimpier costumes that when analyzed are not really anything new at all, just another repetitive scrambling of someone else's thoughts. So yeah, easy, safe, and happy as we park our brains and go along for the ride - but is that better just because everyone likes it? Isn't it just another instance of being famous for being famous?
Jesus christ this is cringeworthy.
Of course the guy with the Dream Theater Logo for a profile pic would say something like this. Rock on, mate! \m/
Dream Theater is awesome, cool profile pic. I'm excited for their new album!
u kinda almost had me for a sec-ish, and then boom u turn out to be the "i hate sampling as a concept and dream theater is uncomparably superior to any present music, i bet ya'll can't wait to hear me rant about fedoras for 30 minutes"-kinda guy
wake up sheeple. progressive metal is the only real music. 😆😅😅😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
Good music is still being made, it's just not on the radio. The good music is underground and not popular.
Like Mike Dawes. Have fun!
Monstercat Intensifies
Not promoted by corporate interests. Music, I don't think, should be treated as a commodity, yet I'll charge people to play a show....
Better music is popular, only not promoted into "popular" charts. And people searching for good quality also stay away from charts.
@@nightmareTomek the music that have given me the most listening pleasure came my way via word of mouth or random discovery.
I do wonder how much of that is my brain tricking me into thinking the discovery is mine and only mine.
Loved this Ted talk. Really well presented, and loved the analysis. Witty and thoughtful. Made me think a little bit differently about what's clearly a touchy subject!
all I have to say is:
"Baby shark tutututututu......."
The argument that adding repetitiveness to classical music makes more people enjoy it means repetitiveness is good is a terrible conclusion to draw and is the most un-artistic analysis ever. There’s a balance, dude. That’s what artistic expression is about.
And the associations being made in rhythms and repetitiveness with classical music and poetry are these one-off examples, and why would you make the comparison in the first place if those similarities existed to any reasonable degree?
I grew up on punk so I won’t say all repetitive music is bad, or that even pop music is bad, but the basis for your argument is pretty awful. You can take pretty much any data and make it look pretty and unique. Music is still subjective, and there’s far better evidence to support the opposite if it was objective. Primarily, the authority of people who play and listen intently, which is kind of the opposite of the demographic of pop...
On the other hand, this video is kind of like a robot trying to understand a Van Gogh, so I can’t really blame him. He just wants to have logic behind why he loves what he loves. Here’s a shortcut dude: “I just like it. Don’t judge me. You can like whatever you want, just leave me alone so I can finish coding.” You don’t need to justify it. It’s art. That was your first mistake.
I really like the compression analysis thing, tho. That’s funny.
The attempt to explain WHY we like art is not a new thing. I get really tired of people wanting to shut down conversations of analysis when it comes to music/movies/art by chalking it all up to taste that can never be influenced or changed. It devalues the integrity and intellectual aspects of these things for which some of us long to appreciate on a deeper level.
Aaron Branson Taste is influenced and changed all the time, and there’s nothing wrong with analysis. What I’m actually criticizing is his context of doing so, and the flaws in his reasoning for what constitutes “good.”
If you think solely manipulating the human psyche for mass appeal and profit is art, that’s a very limited view of art.
Lol, "manipulating the human psyche", what nonsense. The people who make pop listen very intently, it's one of the hardest genres to produce and it's full of subtlety and nuance. The fact that the broader demographic doesn't consciously analyse it that way doesn't mean that they don't hear what they're listening to.
Edgy Music I would actually agree with that and I never said there was anything wrong with pop. I said his justifications for claiming that repetitive music is objectively better music don’t actually make sense, as they are way out of context. I was actually trying to avoid mentioning any genre.
Still, when I listen to a lot of pop, I find it insulting, but at least I’m fully willing to admit that that’s just me and that people have different tastes. There’s not really an objective good or bad, necessarily, and you can still analyze music without needing for it to be a competition.
@@almightytreegod Alright, fair enough. But I think what he was trying to say was that repetitive *pop* is objectively better, although I acknowledge that he didn't specify that in his statement as he probably should have.
I'd love to see him apply his algorithm and self-similarity matrix to other genres of music. That would be fascinating to me. Also, I think it would be cool if he somehow managed to apply the same ideas to the music (melody?) to see what happens.
It seems like you could make MIDI files of the notes in a song, perhaps with a bit of quantization applied judiciously and accounting for "swing", and then run those through the compression test. Perhaps normalizing the notes to convert the time offset into the song into an offset within the current measure???
He is also forgetting the fact that they exploit repetitivity not to create a piece of art but to massively profit.
He pretty much did. He said they (music producers) are just giving us what we want
@@The757packerfan They're not even giving us what we want, they're deciding for us what we want. When producers pays millions dollars to radios so their song are aired at least 10 times a day, this is not what people want. Music is not like painting, you generally tend to like music you've heard several times, no matter what this music sounds like.
Jack Torrance wrote the most repetitive book of all time: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." x 10,000