PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production The Real Reason Why Today's Music Is Starting To Sound The Same

By sheer fluke I came across the video regarding production yesterday and besides agreeing with so much said, I was really surprised how waveforms have changed in modern pop as I get more variation just using BiaB samples. I'm interested to read what others think

The Real Reason Why Today's Music Is Starting To Sound The Same

He's a nice guy and makes a lot of good points, but he's starting from a false premise, which makes his arguments much weaker.
The main reason that uniqueness in the charts(!) is less is that everyone and their little sister is trying to copy successful concepts to increase the chance of success.
And they try to hire the same people.
That's the mindset of the labels.

But - we've never had as many independent artists as we do today, and there's a lot of not-so-same music out there.
Just go over to the Showcase forum - we all use the same software and the same sounds for our songs, so at least the base of our songs must sound the same.
But do you sound like me?
Or like anyone else there?
I don't think so.

I makes me unhappy that a lot of the “get off my lawn” generation forget that alongside the great music they grew up with, there's a lot of new music that's great too.
It's a bit harder to find because there's just too much new music out there, but it's definitely there.

He doesn't have a clue.

Interesting video. Suspect he's right based on what I know.

The sound of "modern" music has evolved with technology since the first shellac 78s appeared in the 1890s. There are always folks who think the "old sound" is better. Remember when CDs first came out? There were audiophiles who believed vinyl was "better". In many cases they were right, but in the long view, digital music rules. And there may not be a better sounding album (to me) than Brother in Arms (1985) on CD. I digress.

All that being said, I do prefer the organic texture of older music to most of the shiny new music I hear. But if others feel differently, as so many obviously do, that's ok, too.

The reason modern music sounds like it does is because it sells. Not to me, but you already knew that.

[img][/img]

B.D., I agree with a lot of what you say, but it's not so much that folk are using the same software - in fact there's oodles of new software springing up all of the time - but that when many use the same software they use it in the same way. When I've been on Fiverr looking for female vocalist it's horrible how many use the same voice altering software, similar to the example given in the video, and they all end up sounding the same. I also loathe that sound they use. Comparing the main points in the video to BiaB only holds so far because BiaB samples are used in place of live instruments, while the guy's points are about effects used and such as copying and pasting the same choruses so that there's no variation and a lack of dynamics. I was particularly surprised by the evolution in the waveforms of the recordings he showed as that alone says so much, while as I wrote at the top there's more going on and more highs and lows in my BiaB compositions than in the professionally factory-produced material. I took a screenshot of a slow piece I'm just finishing the final balances on as an example, but alas I can't upload it here without a URL

That's a pointless non-point, Mike. If in over 50 years as a professional recording engineer he hasn't got a clue, then who the heck has? If you're going to say he hasn't a clue - which is patent nonsense anyway - you've got to demonstrate it.

Thanks for the response, Ron. There are pros and cons to both analogue and digital. Just re the pros, digital gives a more pristine and detailed sound, while analogue gives music more atmosphere. Probably 20 years ago I had Ennio Morricone's "Once Upon A Time In The West" theme in an analogue compilation of instrumentals and I love the 'colourful' imagination-provoking atmosphere in it. Then I bought a new Morricone CD with a different version of the piece and while it was far more pristine all of that atmosphere had just vanished. My 1st reaction was "They've killed all of that magic!" But since then I've listened to both versions many times and once I got used to the digital version I love it too, but the contrast between the 2 is so noticeable. I have the 1969 vinyl album of Neil Young's "Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere" which I've never heard a digital copy of, but an old friend of mine says he can't listen to the digital version as it loses its body, while he loves the analogue. These days complex programs and simpler apps are continually being replaced by either upgrades, better versions or new programs - AI is also taking over as it's evolving so fast - but fingers crossed one day there may come a new form of music recording which combines both the depth and atmosphere of analogue with the pristine quality of digital.

It can be done now, but that is not the target for a lot of people.
Even the clickety-pop of authentic analogue vinyl can be done!

I've watched a bunch of the fellow's videos and they are chaotic.
He also contradicts himself across time though less often in the same video.
The "industry" has always favoured milking a trend until the cash cow dies.
Modern pop music history is full of cycles of sameness...how many Beatle alike bands/songs/hits were there? How many bubblegums songs? Pop psyche..Nirvanainpyjamas...the country rocky road, the So Cal sound, the Brownsville country sound, honky tonk, singersongwriter, Baroque pop, power pop, NWOBHM, (horribly cutnpastesoundalike), etc.
These days it's easier to set up a session, use all the genre specific presets, (Death Metal - now there's a set of sonic rules that enforce conformity), and plugins to achieve a "contemporary" sound as well as 1 squillion Youtube videos telling one how to "do it like the pros".
I tried watching the fellows "how to" videos and, again, the chaos was overwhelming. He has a niche and is building his little place in the world after admitting to himself that he wasn't going to be a star...good on him.
He's also, often, an antidote to the platitudes alternating with whining of Beato.

"The Real Reason Why Today's Music Is Starting To Sound The Same..." - I watched this few weeks ago. He is an interesting fellow, but with this topic, too much voodoo theory

My take, it comes down to personal perception and accessibility, and while sound obviously plays a part, it's not it.
30 years ago, unless you had a friend or two who had a taste and a collection of non-commercial music, how would you broaden your horizons? TV, Radio, or a club in a city that had open mics and was friendly to new and diverse non-cover bands. But for the most part new (non MTV/VH1) music was "discovered" by word of mouth.... and a good tape deck

With near unlimited access to 100+ years of recorded (audio) music... When you heard too much of everything, you are harder to surprise. You are too quick to find analogies in melodic and harmonic patterns with something you heard before. Those layers create illusion that "Music Is Starting To Sound The Same".

There are hundreds of amazing and thousands of great and unique active bands. As I've mentioned, it's all in perception.... and desire for discovery.

Speaking personally, 30 years ago I used to go to record stores and browse around what they had, mostly but not exclusively in the World and Jazz categories. I'd look at the label, the producer, the artistes, the effort that went into the presentation. I'd usually buy based just on those, though sometimes I'd listen to some in the store (one can't really listen to enough that way). Most of my buys were good, a few were duds I just put down to experience. Talking to the right people in the store often highlighted good choices, too.

I guess I started buying like that when I ran the mobile disco. There just wasn't time or opportunity to listen to and review all the new releases, so I'd buy on the Saturday morning, spend the middle of the day listening, evaluating, cataloguing, and in the evening I'd roll out some of the new stuff at a gig. I bought mostly 12" singles and albums, so there was a lot of listening.

Back in my teens and early 20s it was mostly word of mouth.

Today record stores are no more, so I'm back to word of mouth and browsing the Web. The occasional CD at a concert.

"I used to go to record stores and browse around"

Sure, but the problem was, you were buying them mainly for the cover. In early 90s, with CDs at around ~$20 a pop without preview (and gas at around $1.10 per gallon) , it was a VERY conscious decision. Tapes were around $15.

J&R store in NY had many "opened" demos. You would nicely ask store "curator" to preview CDs and he would escort you to CD listening "station" with headphones

But that only supports my statement. Why would you buy an sound alike underdog for $20 if you have the real McCoy?
In the last 25 years internet leveled plain field, with all the lookalikes sounding in unison, there is only so much average human ears can take before they can take no more. Like after spending 2 hours in all-you-can eat buffet, even fancy and exotic food would taste same. Perception...



P.S. Thinking about this, music, after 30 years buying-to-own music is still about $1 a track.

No, the cover (presentation) was the last item on my list for a good reason.
I'd usually go for musician or label+producer. The artistry of the cover might swing me between a choice of two.

I think CDs were a little cheaper here then, though I couldn't swear to that. Yes it was a very concious choice. I'd buy one or maybe two a month. I never bought cassettes as I always felt the sound quality was too poor. I didn't even have a cassette player.


Hmm, the last time I thought about buying a CD, it was around $40, though that was a price in Japan and I'd have had to pay the P&P as well. I decided with regret than it was more than I was prepared to pay.

I actually thought the guy had some good points and interesting insights about the nature of hardware and live recording and such.

It doesn't make much sense to me to argue about meandering videos like this, because his points are really just points and not concrete arguments in and of themselves, so there's nothing to disprove.

But it is fairly impossible to disprove at least some of the things that he's saying because a lot of people ARE using the same loops and stems and samples in their music and a lot of people ARE squashing all of the dynamic range.

You also can't say that he's starting with a false premise because he doesn't really have a much of premise, just a bunch of random insights.

But, if anyone were to ask me why a lot of music sounds the same (or is starting to sound the same) I would say it's probably because of laziness.

It doesn't really take much effort to hastily grab a bunch of samples or loops or stems generated by a machine to throw something together in a couple of hours and post it on the Internet, or upload it to Spotify.

SO, I might come up with a premise:

The length of time spent producing a piece of music is directly proportional to the quality of that music.

I can test that.

And that makes it a premise.

Just throwing it out there.



* I realize, however, it is possible to spend a month on a tune and still have it be horrible no matter what approach you use but that is for another day. (And from time to time I have seen someone write and record a masterpiece in 3 hours but not all that often.)

Like hell, I do!

I am quite comfortable in understanding why that video is nonsense. Everybody is chasing the same brass ring and think it can be done by trying to sound like others. There's an entire multi-billion $ industry bent on enabling that notion but that doesn't mean that anyone spending all that money and using those tools has any chance of success. There has to be something new and original somewhere or the music consumers won't care.

Hi Waoband

While the video is interesting, I think (IMHO) there is a far bigger cause for why today's music (i.e. the top selling/streaming songs - there is heaps of hidden/hard to find really good music) is sounding the same, and I think it is to do with - in this order -
1) Melody and harmony - far too much using the same chord progressions and the same melody lines, and also sticking to the diatonic. Not as many songs venturing outside the key to introduce a key change or use a borrowed chord etc. See this post from the songwriting forum:
Are key changes making a comeback?
2) Genre - too many songs that live in the same genre, tempo, feel. When was the last time you heard a modern top 10 Spotify song with a swing feel or in 3/4 time? Off the top of my head, the last 3/4 songs I can remember were Elliott Smith - and he's not exactly mainstream or recent!
3) Homogenised vocal stylings - remember back when we had The Beatles, Elvis, Neil Young, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan etc.? They were natural and flawed, and each artist was distinctive. That's why I don't mind my vocals being sub-par - at least they're distinctive. I don't call mine singing - I emit pitch controlled throat noises!
4) A fascination with rhythm - if a song doesn't have a lot of melodic or harmonic distinctiveness, you have to fall back on rhythm, arrangement and instrumentation, and lot of recent songs make a focus on this. There are only so many times a lo-fi kick drum can sound interesting.
5) A fascination with lyrics - don't get me wrong, good lyrics partly convey the idea and emotions of the song, but after all, the lyrics are just the vehicle for the music. Otherwise, you might as well just concentrate on poetry. Rap and all variations of it have helped cause this situation. My theory is that Rap is an acronym for Rhythm And Poetry, and in this genre, music is treated as a 'dusting of sugar' rather than the main game.

The main focus of the points in the video relate to technology as the cause. The real problem is the lack of musical diversity based on the fundamentals of melody and harmony. Use all the tech you want, but you can't make a silk purse out a sow's ear!

Andrew

I think this proves the point:



NOTE - there are a couple of F-bombs at the start but it is clean after that.

Quite brilliant, I'd forgotten about that one. Very clever indeed.
Maybe I've still got a chance

This has been going on for a long time in "modern" country.

Yep, another good example.

I do most of my music listening on these forums. There is such great talent here with a lot of diversity.

This is a very interesting subject.

My observation of the sameness of new music comes mainly from awards programs such as the Grammys, American Music Awards, MTV Video Music Awards, Billboard Music, iHeartRadio Music, CMT Music Awards, Academy of Country Music, Latin Grammy Awards, BET Awards, etc. We don’t seek these programs out, but while channel flipping in the evening we have stumbled upon these over the years. And year after year we hope that this is the year that some quality music will finally be presented. Sadly, we have been disappointed for well over 10 years. We will listen to a song or two and then conclude our time is too valuable to be wasted on such uninspiring “music”. Am I a music snob? . . . Probably, and I wish more people were.

Stale, emotionless, dumbed-down, regurgitated, commercialized, flat, soul-less, formulaic, unoriginal, unintelligent and lowest common denominator are ways that I would describe music that is showcased on these ceremonies. Clearly the culture at large has moved on and I’m glad to stay where I am.

There are always exceptions to the rule and one exception was when Seattle Grunge hit the airwaves. I found that genre, refreshing, inspiring and passionate.

Over the years I have often thought about why music creativity has declined and have concluded that all the good stuff must have already been written. There are only so many chord progressions, bass lines, piano or guitar riffs and drum solos that are truly inspiring and perhaps most of them have been written already. When Elvis, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Hank Williams, etc. were doing their thing, their genres were much newer than they are today. They plowed new ground.

I watched the Billy Hume video and I think he makes many good points. However, imho, those points may not add up to the dominant root-cause. Musicians and produces may be able to tell if everything is “on the grid” or this or that same piano plugin is being used over and over again. But the general public is oblivious. Such folk have attention spans of maybe 60 seconds and many of them probably want everything to sound the same anyway.

The most thoughtful response in this thread so far is from Andrew Dee. I think his 5 points much better explain what is going on that Mr. Hume’s points.

The worst response is from Mike Holleran. “He doesn't have a clue.” Is far from a thoughtful response and far from accurate. Mr. Hume does have a clue and makes several good points from the perspective of a pro in the business.

Hi mates! Very interesting topic. In my opinion, the main reason why most music sounds the same is because technology has developed too much and allows all kinds of lazy people to copy other people's music that has already become famous. You can easily use almost ready-made beats, whole loops, melodies and claim to be a musician. In general, most people want to copy famous music and not create their own ....

I totally agree with oodles of what's been written by contributors above - thanks to all - but it's time to mark this thread as done with and stop following it. Once again thanks to all who've contributed to the topic.