My rant on today's pop music

Jon, I remember you once talking about how all those old performers we loved like The Beatles would have jumped at the chance to be more perfect, yet we embrace the imperfection.

Yes, we embrace flaws and fluctuations as things from a time when it was permissable, from a time when we didn't know the difference. People, not just musicians, listen with a much more critical ear now. Most of that old genuine organicness, innocence, or just plain human-ness is regarded as sloppy by today's standards. Maybe that's unfortunate, and unforgiving to human players, but that's where music (for the most part) has been heading over the last 30-40 years or so. Even in the early-seventies Steely Dan was as precise-minded as it gets, and fans and musicians loved them for it. I don't know if they recorded with a click then, but it wouldn't surprise me.

In short, I appreciate the Beatles for what they did then, Steely Dan and Zappa for they did then, synth pioneers for what they did then, and the people who make music for what they're doing now. It's all a process. Maybe it'll come full circle some day.

Bermuda
 
bermuda said:
Maybe it'll come full circle some day.

It is actually coming full circle, at least in academic circles. There's been a lot written about in the last ten years that addresses these issues specifically. It's not making a significant mainstream appearance, but I study the material and compose within that field. This is probably the most famous text:

http://www.noiseforlight.com/constrat/read/cascone.pdf
 
It is interesting to note that the new developments in digital technology underscore that first time in modern history where major changes to the way people produce and access music are being made not only outside of the realm of academia but also outside the realm of tradition. All of the major changes in audio technology happened in the realm of classical music and opera. Even the 78 featured operatic arias and then the album developed from the idea of having an album of 78s that could hold highlights from an opera or operetta, or even longer symphonic works. The lp came along to house symphonies and even the CD is 78 minutes long so as to house Beethoven's ninth.

But now with download technology classical music and any longer form works are out of the picture. It is specifically designed for the single and to feature the performing artist. When you download an opera or musical theater piece on to Itunes, you will end up with a myriad of listings based on the performing artist. Even a CD like Herbie Hancock's The Joni Letter will come up the same way.

This phenomenon has to have significant consequences for the way listeners develop a musical palette. One of those consequences is that music becomes a passive listening experience because there is no breadth of time allotted for anything interesting to happen. It becomes a sound bite, like a television news story or commercial. I don't want to get into any type of moral criticism of the three minute pop song. But there is a note to be said that music is capable of more than a good hook and a rhythm you can dance to. Certainly this has been discussed before, and I leave it to FZ to turn any conversation toward a discussion of ejaculation. But I do find it somewhat interesting and maybe should find it somewhat troubling that we have left a notion of great music on the bonfire of history. You may be able to blame John Cage for that. :)
 
More of a rhetorical question....

If you have an 80's New Wave band, and the track has a drummer with decent time, playing to a click, playing a very straight beat, but playing on an 80's Simmon's kit (or other such electronic device) so it sounds very electronic, how many people would just assume it is a machine playing?

And if you took the same track, and programmed a computer to play the same exact part, and trigger the same exact sounds as the above example, and used the "random" feature to make the timing not-quite machine perfect, would anyone really be able to tell the difference between the two versions?
 
More of a rhetorical question....

If you have an 80's New Wave band, and the track has a drummer with decent time, playing to a click, playing a very straight beat, but playing on an 80's Simmon's kit (or other such electronic device) so it sounds very electronic, how many people would just assume it is a machine playing?

And if you took the same track, and programmed a computer to play the same exact part, and trigger the same exact sounds as the above example, and used the "random" feature to make the timing not-quite machine perfect, would anyone really be able to tell the difference between the two versions?

In theory, no.

But it does touch on the question of where does one draw the line in terms of too much technology in music? Is a live drummer tracking to ProTools a sin? How about the simple act of EQ'ing the drums? I mean, it is the electronic alteration of a drum's sound. What about using a Kurzweil piano module and controller instead of a 9-foot Steinway, won't they sound the same on playback?

And likewise, should those Simmons drums have been used at all?

There's a certain amount of tolerance necessary in order to keep from being a hypocrite. If you can't accept electronic tomfoolery at any level in the arts, there'd be precious little music you could listen to or TV shows you could watch, and just about any action/thriller/horror/animated movie is also off the list. And no Photoshopping images for web sites, ebay, etc. And no more EQ on drums - record 'em like they are..

Actually, that was a part of the Memphis Sound way back, to use as little EQ as possible on things. Listen to classic Al Green for a taste of that, it sounds very real and up-close.

Bermuda
 
Pretty weird situation when a drummer of Danny Seraphine's calibre is deemed as less desirable than a drum machine! If it was Krautrock or techno, sure, but otherwise it's bizarre.

I laughed when I read "when you would see band members looking around at each other in bewilderment during a song, you know - that "deer in the headlights look" when someone is panicking because they aren't sure if they're on it or not".

It's a digression but I know that look so well! I'm a big believer in bluff when performing. Things go wrong at times and there's no point chucking a nellie over it.

Our bassist has the ability to look worried even when he's happy (you can see it on my live clips). I'll say "What's wrong?" to him when he looks pensive after a song and he'll say "nothing". I'll press him "Did you think anything was out?" and he'll say no. IMO when you're on stage, no matter how stinky things are sounding, if you look at someone for more than a moment it should have that "Yeah baybee - diggin' that!" vibe rather than, "Hmm, is this right?".

For some reason, audiences seem to find the former more inspiring.

Of course, a brief, furtive poisonous glance or laughing is fair enough when someone's being a klutz - that's just an automatic reaction :)

LOL - We had two main problems - our sound guy always kept my volume down (which caused me to pound harder with baseball bat sticks and crack many many cymbals), and we had the crappiest monitor system you could imagine. Then our lead guitarist would just take off on his own at times, realize it, and then look towards me with this panicked look. He would have to move close to my set to even hear the drums, but would ultimately correct himself. The rest of the band would be glaring at him with murderous looks. This was all caused by our sound guy, of course.

As for Danny, he did a pretty good job programming drum tracks on that album. Here is a good example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejNf2_aj7cA

Nowadays, that would be some nightmarish straight beat with cartoonish drum sounds that would drive one crazy with it's repetitiveness.

But for comparisons sakes, listen to this remake from their 1970 album Chicago II:

25 or 6 to 4 in 1986 with programmed drums (perfect timing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0jVS_-4nhQ

25 or 6 to 4 in 1974 with manual drums (imperfect timing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCAbdNXx2sE

I picked up one spot at about the 3/4 mark of the 1974 recording where the tempo hit adrenalin overdrive. However, with all of it's imperfections, one has to ask one's self - is it really the listeners who don't accept that imperfections or was it just David Foster? What Frank Zappa was basically saying was that his (my) generation produced many self appointed "experts" in the music industry that were saying that to appeal to the young people you must do this or that, without exception. But did the audience really care, or will it ever care? The old system of putting everything out and seeing what takes versus the current system of having a jury of self proclaimed experts filter out what they say the public wants is essentially taking the decision away from the people, and could very likely be why the music industry is a trainwreck today.
 
Last edited:
In theory, no.

But it does touch on the question of where does one draw the line in terms of too much technology in music? Is a live drummer tracking to ProTools a sin? How about the simple act of EQ'ing the drums? I mean, it is the electronic alteration of a drum's sound. What about using a Kurzweil piano module and controller instead of a 9-foot Steinway, won't they sound the same on playback?

And likewise, should those Simmons drums have been used at all?

There's a certain amount of tolerance necessary in order to keep from being a hypocrite. If you can't accept electronic tomfoolery at any level in the arts, there'd be precious little music you could listen to or TV shows you could watch, and just about any action/thriller/horror/animated movie is also off the list. And no Photoshopping images for web sites, ebay, etc. And no more EQ on drums - record 'em like they are..

Actually, that was a part of the Memphis Sound way back, to use as little EQ as possible on things. Listen to classic Al Green for a taste of that, it sounds very real and up-close.

Bermuda

There are a lot of drum tracks that sound programmed and this goes back to the 1980s in tracks like Ain't Nobody or Billie Jean, or bands like Devo and Depeche Mode. Questlove is known for doing this.

I think the controversy is really in the use of automated performance devices as opposed to live musicians, though I don't think you can match a Kurzwell against a live grand.
I've probably been through more acoustic concerts than most people, having listened to well over two hundred symphony concerts alone, never mind opera, singer songwriter or recitals. Never mind that I listen to myself everyday. Even when I play electric jazz, many times I am still the acoustic guy.

There are many functions of electronic music: enhancing the sound, amplifying the sound, manipulating the sound, or using electronics to generate a sound. I would just have to side with the OP in his statement that much of the programmed music on pop today is trash. Should that surprise anybody that most pop is trash? You've asked , how many people are making these judgments but have listened to little if any new popular music? I used to get together with my old buddies on a Friday night to play cards and they would be excited about finding a station on Satellite that played AC/DC or Aerosmith b sides, or acoustic versions of well known artist. They haven't purchased music by a new artist in 2 decades.

Electronic music does put musicians out of business. Gigging musicians have been losing gigs to deejays for almost forty years. And a lot of electronic soundtrack music can now be done by one guy rather than the myriad of instrumentalists used years ago. And our musical culture has been usurped by deejay culture and with its relations to third world countries: pre-recorded riddum tracks, non developmental music, and a lack of sophistication in lyric writing. Of course this is not always the case, and there have been many great thJrd world artist, Bob Marley, Jimmy Cliff, Fela, etc. AS the old joke says, what do you call a trombone player with a cell phone? An optimist.
 
There are a lot of drum tracks that sound programmed and this goes back to the 1980s in tracks like Ain't Nobody or Billie Jean, or bands like Devo and Depeche Mode.

Billie Jean is a good one. It is a real drummer, but sounds rather mechanical.

Bands like Berlin, Flock of Seagulls and others sound like they used machines in the studio, but those bands had real drummers in the band.

Then there is this video for "Talk Talk" by the band Talk Talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqjttpl3peI
The into sounds mechanical, but then you see the image of the drummer playing a simmons kit, and suddenly, it starts to sound more human. Or is it just power of suggestion.

And then in the late 90's, everyone started mixing loops with real drums. Even in my band, I started to wonder if the average listener could tell where the real drums stoped and started as opposed to the "fake" drums. And some loops were me playing shorter bits on an e-kit, then looped, and real drums put on top of it. Was I playing with a loop or playing to myself? Not that it matters, it was just funny to think about.


Gigging musicians have been losing gigs to deejays for almost forty years. .

And so many people consider DJ's musicians now.
 
It seems like nowadays a lot of the most innovative and fresh drummers are embracing electronics and music synthesis with an organic sensibility. Questlove, Chris Dave, Adam Deitch -- all great producers of hip hop/pop along with being excellent drummers. You can't really avoid today's musical advances, so why try to remain in the past? I'm all for the 'old school,' but nowadays, that's not getting people very far.
 
A lot of metal drummers use triggers and electronic kits.

Listen to any Daniel Erlandsson drum solo.
 
More of a rhetorical question....

If you have an 80's New Wave band, and the track has a drummer with decent time, playing to a click, playing a very straight beat, but playing on an 80's Simmon's kit (or other such electronic device) so it sounds very electronic, how many people would just assume it is a machine playing?

And if you took the same track, and programmed a computer to play the same exact part, and trigger the same exact sounds as the above example, and used the "random" feature to make the timing not-quite machine perfect, would anyone really be able to tell the difference between the two versions?

I can't believe my rant has resulted in 6 pages of discussion!

My biggest beef is not that they are using computers to generate the sound, it's that the sound they are generating doesn't resemble a drum set in any way, shape or form. As I said before, what you hear on many pop songs is a clicking or snapping sound to keep the beat, usually coupled with a loud booming bass-type sound. That is not music to my ears, so to speak. I like a bass drum, hi-hat, ride cymbals and different toms. I like to hear rolls, even in a pop song.

Remember Tone Loc song Wild Thing? I'm sure some type of drum synthesizers were used, but I love the sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=387ZDGSKVSg
 
My biggest beef is not that they are using computers to generate the sound, it's that the sound they are generating doesn't resemble a drum set in any way, shape or form.

You would probably hate what I'm working on right now... I had to dig deep to find where I'd stashed this old gem -

syn.jpg


(Yes those are cassettes... yes that's a Partridge Family lunchbox... yes I have both Mac & PC.)

Welcome to the hell that is my workspace this week.

Bermuda
 
Snydrum! I didn't know any of those still existed!


Cassette tapes? Wow.... why?


Your work table looks like it came from the same store mine did. hahah.....
 
Some very good points were raised in this post. There was no real singing, becasue almost noone can sing these days!!! Todays music is not geared towards people who appreciate music, like it was in the good old days. Todays pop music is geared towards people who just want to hear something playing in the background, as opposed to listening to a great drum beat or fill, catchy guitar riff, killer bass line, or lyrics with artisic value.
 
inneedofgrace said:
My biggest beef is not that they are using computers to generate the sound, it's that the sound they are generating doesn't resemble a drum set in any way, shape or form. As I said before, what you hear on many pop songs is a clicking or snapping sound to keep the beat, usually coupled with a loud booming bass-type sound. That is not music to my ears, so to speak. I like a bass drum, hi-hat, ride cymbals and different toms. I like to hear rolls, even in a pop song.

So what?

Hasn't this always been the case? Is it not true that Orchestral music rarely uses a drum set? Or is it just a specific dislike of synthesised sound? I don't understand what the issue is. When the drum set was first developed, the idea was to generate rhythm through a collection of organised sound. Now, technology is just doing exactly the same thing and the software has been developed for exactly the same reason. Just because a person isn't always playing it doesn't mean that skill hasn't gone into its creation.

Sure, there are cliches and there is the rabid overuse of tools and textures - like the hand clap. But I could say exactly the same thing about a lot of the 'Rock' back catalogue. Pentatonic guitar riffs, poodle-haired (no offence to Al, Bermuda!) singers screaming about their 'wohman!' or someone elses' 'wohman!', fat backbeats and heavy bass-drum sounds. The simple fact is that 'Rock' music is largely dying at the expense of the newer forms of music because it really hasn't moved on since about 1983 and yet I STILL hear bands like Wolfmother playing out the same tired cliches, thirty years after those cliches were in vogue.

And you know what? I don't even like the kind of music you're referring to. I just think your argument is hollow. It's like a security blanket that covers you because you don't want to move out from under the rock (pun intended) that you found some thirty years ago. If you don't like it, why don't you do something about it and try to create something that is truly beautiful and artistic rather than ranting on a forum.

No tool is inherently bad, no sound is inherently 'false' and nothing is inherently 'unartistic'.

DrumEatDrum - I use cassette tapes sometimes. So many memories!
 
Last edited:
And you know what? I don't even like the kind of music you're referring to. I just think your argument is hollow.

This is kind of what I've been saying. I don't begrudge anyone for disliking 'pop' or dance music or whatever, I begrudge them for disliking it for the wrong reasons. I've been trying to instill some perspective, but it's largely falling on deaf ears. I'm not stuck in the '60s or '70s, or stuck in a genre... I'm stuck in music. It's all just music, period. Some good, some bad, some simple, some complex, some real bands, some lone producers with a keyboard, serious lyrics, and silly lyrics. I don't quite understand how someone can make their listening decisions based strictly on genre, or on which parts are real or synthesized. Every song deserves to be liked or disliked on its own merits, or lack of.

It's no different than saying "I got one of those Forum kits and they're terrible! All Pearl drums suck, and I'll never play a Pearl drum again!" It doesn't actually matter whether Pearl drums suck or not - it's the reasoning that's faulty.

Bermuda
 
This is kind of what I've been saying. I don't begrudge anyone for disliking 'pop' or dance music or whatever, I begrudge them for disliking it for the wrong reasons. I've been trying to instill some perspective, but it's largely falling on deaf ears. I'm not stuck in the '60s or '70s, or stuck in a genre... I'm stuck in music. It's all just music, period. Some good, some bad, some simple, some complex, some real bands, some lone producers with a keyboard, serious lyrics, and silly lyrics. I don't quite understand how someone can make their listening decisions based strictly on genre, or on which parts are real or synthesized. Every song deserves to be liked or disliked on its own merits, or lack of.

It's no different than saying "I got one of those Forum kits and they're terrible! All Pearl drums suck, and I'll never play a Pearl drum again!" It doesn't actually matter whether Pearl drums suck or not - it's the reasoning that's faulty.

Bermuda

Thank you Bermuda. You're far more diplomatic than I.
 
I think that their are two sides to this argument; both with very valid points. As much as one side may feel that their arguments have fallen of deaf ears, I think the other side feels the same way. You can't stifle creativity by saying that this or that sound or music is invalid. But you can call it as it is when you say that a lot of this music has little or no artistic merit and it's made by people with little or no artistic ability, as well intentioned and passionate as they may be.


I actually like Pearl Forums. When you teach a lot of beginners with their crappy sets you're happy when one actually has something that sounds okay.
 
So what?

Hasn't this always been the case? Is it not true that Orchestral music rarely uses a drum set? Or is it just a specific dislike of synthesised sound? I don't understand what the issue is. When the drum set was first developed, the idea was to generate rhythm through a collection of organised sound. Now, technology is just doing exactly the same thing and the software has been developed for exactly the same reason. Just because a person isn't always playing it doesn't mean that skill hasn't gone into its creation.

Sure, there are cliches and there is the rabid overuse of tools and textures - like the hand clap. But I could say exactly the same thing about a lot of the 'Rock' back catalogue. Pentatonic guitar riffs, poodle-haired (no offence to Al, Bermuda!) singers screaming about their 'wohman!' or someone elses' 'wohman!', fat backbeats and heavy bass-drum sounds. The simple fact is that 'Rock' music is largely dying at the expense of the newer forms of music because it really hasn't moved on since about 1983 and yet I STILL hear bands like Wolfmother playing out the same tired cliches, thirty years after those cliches were in vogue.

And you know what? I don't even like the kind of music you're referring to. I just think your argument is hollow. It's like a security blanket that covers you because you don't want to move out from under the rock (pun intended) that you found some thirty years ago. If you don't like it, why don't you do something about it and try to create something that is truly beautiful and artistic rather than ranting on a forum.

No tool is inherently bad, no sound is inherently 'false' and nothing is inherently 'unartistic'.

DrumEatDrum - I use cassette tapes sometimes. So many memories!

In theory I understand what you are trying to say, but I'll have to respectfully disagree.. In high school my best friend was a top notch musician and trumpet player - this was before I even played drums. My world at the time was mostly heavy rock n roll. My friend opened my eyes to other genres of music, and looking back I'm forever grateful to him. We went to see the symphony in NYC, Buddy Rich twice, and I went to see him play many times in Drum Corp. He used to make me mixed tapes of jazz and classical music, which I still have today. I just went back and downloaded a lot of this old music to my iPod so I can listen on the road or at the gym.

I have an appreciation for a wide array of music, and play in two bands that specialize in significantly different types of music. So I don't need to be lectured that I'm close minded when it comes to today's pop. With a few exceptions, most of this type of music does not:

1) cause me to contemplate the relevance of my existence or spirituality
2) sooth my soul
3) get me pumped up at the gym or in the car
4) allow me to relax
5) rebel against authority, such as with a cause or purpose
6) help enhance a romantic moment
7) inspire me to try and reproduce the music when I play drums

Sorry, but I say that it is not my argument that is hollow, it is this music that is hollow. And I'm not going to feel guilty for not liking it. John Lennon said give peace a chance. It doesn't mean I'm going to like all peace movements or people.
 
Back
Top