Is music evolving less these days?

[778]

Music seems to be changing less than it does in the past. When you hear a song on the radio from the 60s, 70s 80s or 90s it is quite easy to tell which decade it is from. I heard a song called "Living in a Box" for the first time last week (I may have heard the song many years ago but had forgotton it). Even though I was not familiar with the song, it was obvious it was from the 80s, because of the songs production.

When I hear music from the 2000s, 2010s and 2020s it is a lot harder to tell what decade it is from. A song from 1962 sounds a lot different to a song from 1982, a song from 1982 sound a lot different to a song from 2002, but a song from 2002 does not sound much different than a song from 2022 (with some exceptions).

Is this because music has limits and artists are running out of ideas? I don't think all music made since 2000 is crap (I quite like a lot of it), but it seems to be changing less, or am I just getting old and don't notice the changes?

 

[J-2739]

Must be an age thing really. To me, a 2002 song sounds very different from a 2022 song.

 

[Huntergreed]

I think there’s a few factors at play here.

Firstly, as you correctly identify, a lot of the distinctive and easily identifiable musical features for each decade in the latter half of the 1900’s are down to the limitations of the production hardware available at the time (some key giveaways being the quality of microphones, the preference for electric/acoustic instrumentation, the level of effects applied (you wouldn’t expect to hear electrically applied autotune in the 60’s to the extent you do in the later decades!) Even simple things like the quality of the microphones used can be a giveaway)

Secondly, stylistically there are some clear differences between each era. 60’s was mainly rock and the birth of modern “pop” music, 70’s we see the rise of disco music featuring much richer textures and more powerful orchestrations. 80’s saw the huge rise in popularity of electronic music and EDM in particular, the synth being a key sound of the 80’s. 90’s sees a further exploration of these styles established in previous decades with much more advanced recording techniques, as well as the rise of hip-hop.

Whilst there are certainly still notable differences between music recorded in say 2000 and 2020, music written in the last 2 decades tends to be less distinctive simply due both a massive increase in the number of popular artists (each with their own, often very distinctive style) and the ability to stream music, meaning that exposure to music is often much more personalised and subjective, combined with the fact that many of the radio stations often still play music from the 60’s - 90’s, with 2000+ music often being limited to a few “popular” tracks, meaning exposure is very limited.

 

[Bevan Price]

Well - I suppose it is an age thing. But most of what you hear is what the radio stations choose to play. Plenty of original music exists and is produced regularly. It is just that most radio stations ignore it, often because some geek has decided that it is not fashionable / "trendy" - or it does not match their "age-targetting profiles". It seems that they are only interested in "3 minute pop" songs (current or past) and anything else is irrelevant.

 

[D365]

I'm quite lucky in that my taste for 80s-inspired 'synthwave' is satiated by the many independent artists who publish new music on Spotify every month. In that genre, obscure as it is, I have noticed a steady evolution over the past 10-15 years.

Don't ask me to put it into words though!

 

[Ediswan]

I'm quite lucky in that my taste for 80s-inspired 'synthwave' is satiated by the many independent artists who publish new music on Spotify every month. In that genre, obscure as it is, I have noticed a steady evolution over the past 10-15 years.

There has been a resurgence in new model 80s style synth hardware. Artists no longer need to pay silly money for flaky original units. I recently bought a cheap(ish) Juno 60/106 clone. I can't get a tune out of it, but it is interesting to fiddle with. Online comparisons with original hardware are generally complimentary.

 

[450.emu]

Well - I suppose it is an age thing. But most of what you hear is what the radio stations choose to play. Plenty of original music exists and is produced regularly. It is just that most radio stations ignore it, often because some geek has decided that it is not fashionable / "trendy" - or it does not match their "age-targetting profiles". It seems that they are only interested in "3 minute pop" songs (current or past) and anything else is irrelevant.

Also the most popular songs are played to death by the likes of Capitsl Xtra... Rihanna's latest song for Black Panther being a case in point. Radio is losing the battle to online streaming, the days of recording most of a favourite song on cassette before the DJ starts speaking are long gone

Drill music on the urban scene is quite unique and controversial with hidden messages to the artist's Opps or rivals who they threaten to chef or stab up... the usual theme of cars/money/lifestyle remains a constant

 

[Ashley Hill]

I agree with the OP that mainstream music has not moved on in the last 20 years. It has IMO become stuck in a rut and industry led where record companies churn out homogenised music for a fast buck. Perhaps that’s why the 2000’s have no era defining sound that previous decades had. Even Stock,Aitkin and Watermans sickly 80s and 90s output sounds dated and of its time.
Radio doesn’t help by having official playlists that DJs are reluctant to stray from. Ask for something obscure from your favourite band on a request show (remember them?) and you’ll probably end up hearing one of their most popular songs instead. E.g ask for Being Boiled by the Human League (no6 in 1982) and you’ll end up with Don’t You Want Me (no1 in 1981).

 

[birchesgreen]

Mainstream music maybe hasn't but i couldn't be bothered about that (i left that behind in the 80s), i am happy discovering amazing and inventive synthwave and shoegaze bands and songs every day.

 

[dgl]

I suppose the big difference in the last 15 or so years is that thee hasn't really been any advances in technology in music production, you can run more effects/synths virtually and have more tracks as processor power has increased but that doesn't change all that much, plus with the rise of streaming and therefore album/single sales aren't the money makers they once were there just isn't the money generally to bother making quality music. Why bother to keep reinventing the wheel when your market will buy whatever you put in front of them and if they get bored just bring in a new act playing a variation on the same thing.

One of the biggest changes in music in more recent times, I believe, came with autotune and the digital audio workstation. Now you no longer require any real talent from an artist, previously you'd at least have to be able to sing somewhat (though OMD's Souvenir used multiple vocal tracks to hide Pauls bad singing) and you'd need some sort of half decent band. Now you can easily edit bits out, copy and paste so you don't necessarily have to record a whole song if say the chorus is the same throughout the song and sampling off other records is easier than ever. No more trying to splice a 2" tape because you wanted that bit from that take on that take.

The mainstream market will buy what ever they are "told" to buy and forget radio 1 or their ilk playing any new music from most older artists, OMD found that out when despite being a current chart act Radio 1 would not play Walking On The Milky Way, as such Woolies would not stock it and sales were drastically affected.

Luckily all this technological improvement has made it easier for independents to release their own stuff, you wouldn't have had the likes of iamamiwhoami 20 years ago!

Also to demonstrate the change in technology here is a tour of a dance music studio of a well know band from 2002/3, now it could all be done and a lot of the time is done on computers.

 

[Ashley Hill]

though OMD's Souvenir used multiple vocal tracks to hide Pauls bad singing

You’re not Andy McCluskey are you?
I think it also comes down to what our parents used to ask when we were younger.
“What’s that rubbish you’re listening to” was no doubt heard by most teenagers as you spun your latest purchase. Likewise I would never have listened to Jim Reeves or Alma Cogan from their era.
I guess that it is easy to get stuck in the musical era you grew up in. For me I could listen to mid 70s/80s all day long but it’s not fashionable amongst the yoof of today so they may ask “what’s that rubbish you’re listening to?” Likewise I won’t be tapping my foot to Some rapper ft Some other rapper.
That said as @birchesgreen says,there are plenty of new electronic band to satisfy ones saw wave craving. Sadly few of the trouble the charts or radio. As I type I’m listening to Peak and Delay by Chrom.

 

[nw1]

I would agree to some extent.

The 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s all had fairly distinctive sounds. The individual decades of the 21st century have less of an obvious "sound", though it is possible to detect subtle change within that time. The 00s seem a bit more "old school" and influenced by previous eras than the 10s onwards - though there isn't really an "00s sound" as such. I would probably say that things haven't really changed that much since around 2010 - and I'd also say that while much of 00s music seemed to appeal across the generations (there was plenty of stuff which appealed to me as a late-20 or thirty-something) 2010+ music seems to be much more obviously teenage-oriented.

There also seems to be less of anything genuinely new - but perhaps that's not entirely accurate. Perhaps there is, but unlike in the old days the radio doesn't pick up on it very much.

Also to me most "current" music that I hear on the radio sounds the same; I wouldn't have made that claim in the 80s or 90s.

What also amazes me is that apparently the Top 40 charts barely change week on week. Back in the 80s or 90s there'd be plenty of turnover, while I wouldn't mind betting that half of this week's top 40 entered the chart in September or before. As testament to that, apparently the 3rd longest run at number one in the UK (behind Bryan Adams and Wet Wet Wet) was a track by Drake released in the 2010s that I've never even heard; so unless I'm very atypical, something clearly a lot less part of popular culture than the aforementioned BA or WWW tracks, indicating perhaps that it was only no.1 so long because of the slow turnover these days.

The sleepy charts are surprising really; I'd have expected the inclusion of streaming to mean both more diversity in the charts (because it's not restricted to physical singles buyers, so ought to attract a wider demographic) and more variation week on week (again due to the greater accessibility of streaming and wider range of songs meaning that the top tracks ought to be more volatile). Instead, by all accounts, the charts are far more samey and slow-moving than they ever were in the past.

 

[Jamiescott1]

I think that now music is just music. Certainly in the past the music you listened to influenced the way you dressed, where you went out, even what you drank / consumed. It was a scene. The punk scene, the grunge scene, the rave scene, mods, rockers, rare Grove, reggae, northern soul. Now there's none of that

 

[778]

I would agree to some extent.

The 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s all had fairly distinctive sounds. The individual decades of the 21st century have less of an obvious "sound", though it is possible to detect subtle change within that time. The 00s seem a bit more "old school" and influenced by previous eras than the 10s onwards - though there isn't really an "00s sound" as such. I would probably say that things haven't really changed that much since around 2010 - and I'd also say that while much of 00s music seemed to appeal across the generations (there was plenty of stuff which appealed to me as a late-20 or thirty-something) 2010+ music seems to be much more obviously teenage-oriented.

There also seems to be less of anything genuinely new - but perhaps that's not entirely accurate. Perhaps there is, but unlike in the old days the radio doesn't pick up on it very much.

Also to me most "current" music that I hear on the radio sounds the same; I wouldn't have made that claim in the 80s or 90s.

What also amazes me is that apparently the Top 40 charts barely change week on week. Back in the 80s or 90s there'd be plenty of turnover, while I wouldn't mind betting that half of this week's top 40 entered the chart in September or before. As testament to that, apparently the 3rd longest run at number one in the UK (behind Bryan Adams and Wet Wet Wet) was a track by Drake released in the 2010s that I've never even heard; so unless I'm very atypical, something clearly a lot less part of popular culture than the aforementioned BA or WWW tracks, indicating perhaps that it was only no.1 so long because of the slow turnover these days.

The sleepy charts are surprising really; I'd have expected the inclusion of streaming to mean both more diversity in the charts (because it's not restricted to physical singles buyers, so ought to attract a wider demographic) and more variation week on week (again due to the greater accessibility of streaming and wider range of songs meaning that the top tracks ought to be more volatile). Instead, by all accounts, the charts are far more samey and slow-moving than they ever were in the past.

Guitar music seems to be less popular these days, especially since 2010. There were quite a lot of popular guitar bands in the 2000s (Franz Ferdinand, Kings of Leon, Hard Fi etc), but the majority of guitar bands these days have cult followings and don't sell that many albums.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Must be an age thing really. To me, a 2002 song sounds very different from a 2022 song.

Agreed.

 

[DanNCL]

The change is becoming less noticeable. For example I notice much more of a style difference between 2010 and 2015 music compared to between 2015 and 2020 music.

I keep thinking that people’s tastes in Music have changed over the last few decades. Then I remember that Running Up That Hill by Kate Bush was number 1 in the charts earlier this year - maybe music tastes haven’t changed that much!

 

[adc82140]

All music since 2000 is just noise!

Well not really, but it's one I throw in to conversations occasionally! The question we have to ask is whether music radio stations are evolving, rather than the music itself. Radio evolved and expanded a lot up to the turn of the century, it's now in consolidation mode, treading water if you like.

Also the way the charts are put together has changed a lot. Back before the 2010s, in order for a single to chart, a record company had to choose to physically release it. They had control over what genre they wanted to push. Now any streamed song can chart, so the chart is more in the hands of the consumer, and consumers go with the familiar.

 

[david1212]

I suppose the big difference in the last 15 or so years is that thee hasn't really been any advances in technology in music production, you can run more effects/synths virtually and have more tracks as processor power has increased but that doesn't change all that much, plus with the rise of streaming and therefore album/single sales aren't the money makers they once were there just isn't the money generally to bother making quality music. Why bother to keep reinventing the wheel when your market will buy whatever you put in front of them and if they get bored just bring in a new act playing a variation on the same thing.

One of the biggest changes in music in more recent times, I believe, came with autotune and the digital audio workstation. Now you no longer require any real talent from an artist, previously you'd at least have to be able to sing somewhat (though OMD's Souvenir used multiple vocal tracks to hide Pauls bad singing) and you'd need some sort of half decent band. Now you can easily edit bits out, copy and paste so you don't necessarily have to record a whole song if say the chorus is the same throughout the song and sampling off other records is easier than ever. No more trying to splice a 2" tape because you wanted that bit from that take on that take.

The mainstream market will buy what ever they are "told" to buy and forget radio 1 or their ilk playing any new music from most older artists, OMD found that out when despite being a current chart act Radio 1 would not play Walking On The Milky Way, as such Woolies would not stock it and sales were drastically affected.

Luckily all this technological improvement has made it easier for independents to release their own stuff, you wouldn't have had the likes of iamamiwhoami 20 years ago!

Also to demonstrate the change in technology here is a tour of a dance music studio of a well know band from 2002/3, now it could all be done and a lot of the time is done on computers.

Up to the 1980's even for the high earning groups music had to be live, except of course if mimed to what still had to be a recording made live. What changed as electronics progressed was the development of effects boxes etc. Synth's then became mainstream. Following Digital / computer development allowed more and more processing while the cost reduced reaching the point where so much can be totally generated without any instrument ( whether a synth is an instrument could be an interesting debate ) and one step back processed.

I lost interest as the synth music of the the 1980's generally appealed far less than that from the 1970's and even 1960's. Of the tracks from the last 30+ years the ones that appeal even if totally computer generated sound as if they could be performed by a group with the instruments available 40+ years ago.

 

[kermit]

There are only 12 musical notes in Western music. In the 1980s there was a band who spotted the inevitable consequence of this limitation, they called themselves Pop Will Eat Itself. And it has.

 

[dgl]

Up to the 1980's even for the high earning groups music had to be live, except of course if mimed to what still had to be a recording made live. What changed as electronics progressed was the development of effects boxes etc. Synth's then became mainstream. Following Digital / computer development allowed more and more processing while the cost reduced reaching the point where so much can be totally generated without any instrument ( whether a synth is an instrument could be an interesting debate ) and one step back processed.

I lost interest as the synth music of the the 1980's generally appealed far less than that from the 1970's and even 1960's. Of the tracks from the last 30+ years the ones that appeal even if totally computer generated sound as if they could be performed by a group with the instruments available 40+ years ago.

Yes, some bands used backing tracks to be able to play live what they did in the studio, though Sailor created their own combo piano/glock/organ/synth behemoth to play live without extra musicians called The Nickelodeon,

Naturally as technology improved samplers and MIDI really helped, although early samplers like the Mk.1 Fairlight sounded terrible and you had to do a lot of work to make it sound acceptable. Also hardware advances allowed quite complex songs to be sequenced live rather than simply run off a backing tape, The Pet Shop Boys liked to sequence their songs live as it was seen to be more respectful than a simple tape backing. Here's a couple of setups they used, the second one is playback but shows off the kit well.

You'd have to use multiple Fairlights before better multitimbral samplers and MIDI sequencers came along, with the later Synclaviers and Fairlight Series III, Art Of Noise used 3 for their Tube performance, that 90k of equipment before you count the Memorymoog, PPG Wave, Linndrum, Mixer and effects! and supposedly the Propaganda A Secret Wish was done a lot using a Fairlight, Synclavier and PPG Wave 2.x and waveterm System synced together, again the total cost would cause a lot of people to faint.

And if you want to see the ultimate of what one man can do with a decent MIDI setup, lots of volume pedals and velocity switching, here's a Vangelis live studio performance with no backing/sequencing, all played by him live.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Yes, some bands used backing tracks to be able to play live what they did in the studio,

Indeed. Even bands such as Kraftwerk used backing tracks. OMD and the Human League Mk1 openly had a pre-recorded tape machine on stage with them. IIRC OMDs was called Winston.

 

[birchesgreen]

Indeed. Even bands such as Kraftwerk used backing tracks. OMD and the Human League Mk1 openly had a pre-recorded tape machine on stage with them. IIRC OMDs was called Winston.

I went to a gig a few years ago, two girls with guitars on stage, and they plugged their MP3 player (their "third member") in where the backing track was stored. Great gig / band actually.

 

[dgl]

Indeed. Even bands such as Kraftwerk used backing tracks. OMD and the Human League Mk1 openly had a pre-recorded tape machine on stage with them. IIRC OMDs was called Winston.

Yes, it was the only easy way to do it back then, although Kraftwerk generally used backing tapes minimally preferring sequencers and live drumming, and of course now Kraftwerk do the same live control of sequencers but using Windows Laptops/tablets (starting with custom VAIO's and I believe it's now Microsoft surfaces). New Order were also a band that used sequencing rather than tape playback, though as their Blue Monday TOTP performance showed it's not always the best option!

 

[nw1]

Well not really, but it's one I throw in to conversations occasionally! The question we have to ask is whether music radio stations are evolving, rather than the music itself. Radio evolved and expanded a lot up to the turn of the century, it's now in consolidation mode, treading water if you like.

Also the way the charts are put together has changed a lot. Back before the 2010s, in order for a single to chart, a record company had to choose to physically release it. They had control over what genre they wanted to push. Now any streamed song can chart, so the chart is more in the hands of the consumer, and consumers go with the familiar.

I'd have expected the opposite to happen in all honesty. Streaming is not restricted to the traditional teenage market for singles, anyone can stream a track in the privacy of their own home which opens it up to a wider demographic than traditional singles buyers.

I'd have expected, as a result, the charts to be faster moving, as there are more tracks to choose from when streaming, so therefore the charts ought to be more volatile week on week - and also more varied in terms of genre, because a streaming-based chart would not be restricted to teenagers' desires.

Perhaps Kate Bush getting to no.1 earlier this year was evidence of that, but in general, I get the impression (from what little I've heard of the top 40 since it moved to the silly time of 4pm on Friday, or whatever it is, when most people can't listen anyway) that it's become both more teenage-oriented than ever before, less varied (I heard some of the top 40 in a shop recently and every song sounded basically the same), and slower-moving. So much so that one wonders whether there is any point in a weekly top 40 anymore, maybe they could drop it to fortnightly or monthly. Or even scrap it, so seemingly irrelevant has it become: and I say that as someone who was obsessed with the top 40 in my teens and 20s.

 

[ABB125]

My view (as a 20-year-old with a musical background) is that whilst individual songs may sound different, on the whole most mainstream music (ie: pop music) at the moment is pretty much the same (and, as far as I'm concerned, mostly rubbish). Every song seems to be about love/relationships/heartbreak/"I hate you", with very little else. I don't really listen to music much (I get distracted and focus on the music rather than what I'm meant to be doing!), but stuff from the last few years definitely sounds different to a decade ago (although the lyrics are still very similar!), and so on back through the decades.
There are a few less copy and paste styles of music around. That doesn't necessarily mean they're any good though! Take, for example, drill "music": something I've only come across recently, and as far as I can tell appears to consist of rapping about stabbing/killing/drug use/using racist language (but it's ok, because it's black people saying it...)/gang crime etc. Absolute rubbish stuff (in my opinion; I accept that some people must like it for some reason!), although I hold that opinion about all forms of rap.

 

[Ashley Hill]

There seems to be less variety these days. Looking back to the late 70s and early 80s the charts contained a wide variety of music styles. From Rockabilly to New Romantic. Cheesy Pop to New Wave. Ska to NWOBHM. Even oddballs like Hooked on Classics made the charts. Nowadays it all seems to be modern variations of R&B and rap or soundalike clones.

 

[mikeg]

There seem to be fewer technical advancements, or those there are are software defined. There's certainly no evolution to rock music nowadays. But rock is the new jazz and I don't care.

That's not to say there's no innovation within the confines of the technology to this date, or within the strictures of the given genre.

 

[Basil Jet]

There seems to be less variety these days. Looking back to the late 70s and early 80s the charts contained a wide variety of music styles. From Rockabilly to New Romantic. Cheesy Pop to New Wave. Ska to NWOBHM. Even oddballs like Hooked on Classics made the charts. Nowadays it all seems to be modern variations of R&B and rap or soundalike clones.

The charts are a disaster, because twelve-year olds are the only people who haven't figured out how to steal music. There are still bands making good music in all of the above styles, but they don't get in the charts anymore.

 

[SJL2020]

There's plenty of great music around at the moment. There especially seems to be a wave of young female singer/songwriters with interesting things to say. e.g. I went to see Julia Jacklin in Manchester a few weeks ago, it was a great gig. Looking forward to seeing Big Thief in a few months time. Also, each new Nick Cave album seems to be better than the last one, which doesn't seem possible.

Yep, the 1970s had some great music, but I was there at the time and >90% of music in the charts back then was dross too. e.g. I don't think 'evolutionary' bands like The Stooges were on the radio that much.

 

[DustyBin]

Is it just me or is there a lot of sampling/reworking/ripping-off(!) of older music at the minute?

On the subject of how music has evolved, we sometimes play a little game in the car whereby you have to play a song (or two) from the year the car was registered. Unfortunately I spend most of my time in a car that's only 2 months old which is a bit boring, and we each have cars registered in 2017 which can evoke a little nostalgia, but again a lot of the music is played regularly on the radio anyway. It get's a bit more interesting when we're doing 1991 as I can remember some of the songs, although I was only very young and not really into music at that age. 1984 is before my time but it's fun anyway; playing Laura Branigan through a state of the art smartphone, whilst cruising along in a car that's older than I am is actually slightly surreal!

You could do the same thing on trains thinking about it....