The variety of popular top 40 music is at an all time low. There's barely been any rock/alt music in the singles chart this year, and any tracks that have made the top 40 only stick around for a week (with Noah and the Whale being the notable exception).

 

There's no rock and indie music, but there's lots of pop music, lots of dance music, lots of RnB music and lots of hip hop music. And most songs in the charts are various combinations thereof.

 

If the charts were dominated by rock, hip hop, RnB and indie, that would be the same amount of variety as we have now tbh.

The iTunes thread always goes off-topic. It's like a haven of random music and chart discussion, with occasional iTunes talk.

 

It's not the premise of this thread that I find bizarre - it's perfectly understandable that someone would think popular music is poor right now, and they're allowed that opinion. I just find it completely ridiculous that it comes from someone who seemed to love the charts two months ago and now thinks they're at an ALL TIME LOW. It essentially reads to me as an "I don't like the songs in the charts right now as much as before" thread, headlined under a more attention-grabbing title, and with reasons that could apply for any chart from the last couple of years. Hence why I made my previous comment.

 

For what it's worth though, I agree that popular music is at a low right now (although not an all-time one), although I'd say it's more because of the complete lack of variety that Brett-Butler mentioned. This was more of a gradual process though (I'd say from 2005 onwards), rather than a literal one month thing. I have no idea how someone can swing to that opinion so quickly in such a short time frame :lol:

 

I don't know, like I said it's the state of mind I'm in atm :wacko: I'm seeing my counseller tomorrow to speak about it

Yes, but the indie songs went Top 20. The indie songs right now (bar Noah & The Whale) don't get near Top 30!

Not always - as I said, it is a cycle. I have been following the charts since the late 80s and I can see we are in bit of a mixed phase right now (look at 2001 for comparison - lots of variety then in genre). Who knows what the next big sound will be? If previous decades are anything to go by, the mid 2010s should see some indie resurgence.

And I remember the Top 4 consisted of ballads for 2 weeks!!! :wub: Good times...

 

Did that actually happen!! :o Don't know how I survived! :lol:

 

There were 2 weeks where California Gurls, Airplanes, We No Speak Americano and Love the Way You Lie were the top 4. I quite liked that. :lol:

I agree with the opening post. I would go as far as to say that popular music has been $h!t since Bad Romance. Pop music (as in what was in the charts) in 2010 was almost completely devoid of any decent songs. Worst year since I started listening to music in 1987. This year has been rubbish too - apart from Adele's 2 singles.

 

I blame David Guetta.

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by tonyttt31

There's no rock and indie music, but there's lots of pop music, lots of dance music, lots of RnB music and lots of hip hop music. And most songs in the charts are various combinations thereof.

 

If the charts were dominated by rock, hip hop, RnB and indie, that would be the same amount of variety as we have now tbh.

 

That makes no sense and only adds to my arguement. :lol:

Not always - as I said, it is a cycle. I have been following the charts since the late 80s and I can see we are in bit of a mixed phase right now (look at 2001 for comparison - lots of variety then in genre). Who knows what the next big sound will be? If previous decades are anything to go by, the mid 2010s should see some indie resurgence.

Really??? I don't see that happening.......

Did that actually happen!! :o Don't know how I survived! :lol:

 

There were 2 weeks where California Gurls, Airplanes, We No Speak Americano and Love the Way You Lie were the top 4. I quite liked that. :lol:

 

:puke2: :puke2: :puke2: :puke2:

 

Sorry, I make my posts sound like I only listen to Heart. :lol:

 

The 4 songs were: X Factor Finalists "Heroes", Ellie Goulding "Your Song", JLS "Love You More" & Take That "The Flood"!

 

Ellie Goulding :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Griffo

I agree with the opening post. I would go as far as to say that popular music has been $h!t since Bad Romance. Pop music (as in what was in the charts) in 2010 was almost completely devoid of any decent songs. Worst year since I started listening to music in 1987. This year has been rubbish too - apart from Adele's 2 singles.

 

I blame David Guetta.

 

THIS MAN took the words out of my mouth! -_-

Really??? I don't see that happening.......

Well, you never know, that's my point - you can't tell which direction music will go next.

Well, you never know, that's my point - you can't tell which direction music will go next.

 

Fair enough.

 

Let's hope!

I don't think what helps is, there is too many similar sounding artists. There is a lack of variety and it seems radio stations will only pick up on a) those with the big fan base and B) the in thing being hyped.

 

That makes no sense and only adds to my arguement. :lol:

 

What doesn't make sense?

 

The charts are dominated now by, I'd say, four genres: pop, RnB, dance and hip hop. People say there is no variety.

 

If the charts were dominated by four other grenres: pop, dance, rock and indie, would you say there is no variety in this scenario? Yes or no?

 

I don't know if indie is really a genre, but you know what I mean. :lol:

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

THIS MAN took the words out of my mouth! -_-

 

Sorry. I'll put them back when I'm finished with them.

There's no rock and indie music, but there's lots of pop music, lots of dance music, lots of RnB music and lots of hip hop music. And most songs in the charts are various combinations thereof.

 

If the charts were dominated by rock, hip hop, RnB and indie, that would be the same amount of variety as we have now tbh.

I think you miss the point though. There IS a lack of variety in the charts these days, and it's not just because of the lack of rock/indie music - but because pop music essentially has turned into one whole trend-following cult. It's all very much in the same club-ready style. There are only a few exceptions. The fact that people can easily draw comparisons between modern songs just says it all, really. Too many pop acts work with the same producers, I guess, and thus you have loads of Dr. Luke, Max Martin, RedOne, etc. songs which all sound fairly similar to each other as each producer has their own personal fingerprint, so to speak.

 

I hate to sound like a boring old "things were better before" kind of moron (I always promised myself I wouldn't ever be like this :lol:), but back in the 90s - and possibly before, I don't know much about the 70s, 80s, etc - there were loads of genres in the charts represented, and in ADDITION there was a lot of variety in pop music. I mean, if we go back to the late 90s only for argument's sake (just because I know this period very well).

 

Back then you had the likes of Spice Girls, Steps and B*Witched - acts that a lot of older people openly criticised at the time for being "awful", but all were DIFFERENT - B*Witched had that whole Irish vibe to their music, Steps had a more dance-pop vibe, and Spice Girls were basically out-and-out pop who jumped between different kinds (like the Latin-influenced Viva Forever, the soul-influenced Stop, the classic ballads like Too Much, the in-your-face pop like Wannabe with a hint of rap(!), or the more R&B-influenced Say You'll Be There, I could go on). They were all pop music, and all were aimed at the same market, but you could never say their songs were that similar, and they often drew from different influences. Almost every Spice Girls single was distinct and easily recognisable, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a fan of theirs. Not so much the same with Steps and B*Witched, but they were still easily differentiated from the other pop acts of the time.

 

Then you had Robbie Williams who was again very different to the other British pop acts at the time due to the hint of Britpop that he retained from his days where he was best mates with Liam Gallagher :lol: All Saints - again, completely different to the other British pop acts. The Beautiful South, The Corrs, Texas - more 'adult pop' acts, I guess - but again, all different to each other. I suppose the most similar at the time was probably Boyzone and 911 or something, but even they were very different to another British boyband like Five.

 

And even in American pop at the time, you had the likes of Madonna, Cher, Mariah Carey, Ricky Martin, Céline Dion, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Shania Twain etc, who were all popular at similar times and none of them sounded the same as each other, or even THAT similar, and they all had their own kind of style, plus they all had that recognisable kind of voice that made them different (one thing that autotune is guilty of is taking away that to an extent, although I'm not necessarily criticising it here).

 

There are so many pop acts nowadays who stay in the same style with almost every song. Admittedly some do jump about quite a bit (Rihanna springs to mind), but they seem to be in the minority. But then you have a million Taio Cruz's, Ke$ha's and Lady Gaga's who never seem to do anything that different, always drawing from the same electropop/dance/R&B influences. Then you have the fact that a lot of R&B and hip hop acts are drawing from the same influences as the pop acts, which even further makes things sound so similar.

Well, you never know, that's my point - you can't tell which direction music will go next.

 

 

I hope you are right but - and I'm sorry to bring this old chestnut back up - I think the download age has changed things.

What doesn't make sense?

 

The charts are dominated now by, I'd say, four genres: pop, RnB, dance and hip hop. People say there is no variety.

 

If the charts were dominated by four other grenres: pop, dance, rock and indie, would you say there is no variety in this scenario? Yes or no?

 

I don't know if indie is really a genre, but you know what I mean. :lol:

 

Yes. :P

I think you miss the point though. There IS a lack of variety in the charts these days, and it's not just because of the lack of rock/indie music - but because pop music essentially has turned into one whole trend-following cult. It's all very much in the same club-ready style. There are only a few exceptions. The fact that people can easily draw comparisons between modern songs just says it all, really. Too many pop acts work with the same producers, I guess, and thus you have loads of Dr. Luke, Max Martin, RedOne, etc. songs which all sound fairly similar to each other as each producer has their own personal fingerprint, so to speak.

 

I hate to sound like a boring old "things were better before" kind of moron (I always promised myself I wouldn't ever be like this :lol:), but back in the 90s - and possibly before, I don't know much about the 70s, 80s, etc - there were loads of genres in the charts represented, and in ADDITION there was a lot of variety in pop music. I mean, if we go back to the late 90s only for argument's sake (just because I know this period very well).

 

Back then you had the likes of Spice Girls, Steps and B*Witched - acts that a lot of older people openly criticised at the time for being "awful", but all were DIFFERENT - B*Witched had that whole Irish vibe to their music, Steps had a more dance-pop vibe, and Spice Girls were basically out-and-out pop who jumped between different kinds (like the Latin-influenced Viva Forever, the soul-influenced Stop, the classic ballads like Too Much, the in-your-face pop like Wannabe with a hint of rap(!), or the more R&B-influenced Say You'll Be There, I could go on). They were all pop music, and all were aimed at the same market, but you could never say their songs were that similar, and they often drew from different influences. Almost every Spice Girls single was distinct and easily recognisable, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a fan of theirs. Not so much the same with Steps and B*Witched, but they were still easily differentiated from the other pop acts of the time.

 

Then you had Robbie Williams who was again very different to the other British pop acts at the time due to the hint of Britpop that he retained from his days where he was best mates with Liam Gallagher :lol: All Saints - again, completely different to the other British pop acts. The Beautiful South, The Corrs, Texas - more 'adult pop' acts, I guess - but again, all different to each other. I suppose the most similar at the time was probably Boyzone and 911 or something, but even they were very different to another British boyband like Five.

 

And even in American pop at the time, you had the likes of Madonna, Cher, Mariah Carey, Ricky Martin, Céline Dion, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Shania Twain etc, who were all popular at similar times and none of them sounded the same as each other, or even THAT similar, and they all had their own kind of style, plus they all had that recognisable kind of voice that made them different (one thing that autotune is guilty of is taking away that to an extent, although I'm not necessarily criticising it here).

 

There are so many pop acts nowadays who stay in the same style with almost every song. Admittedly some do jump about quite a bit (Rihanna springs to mind), but they seem to be in the minority. But then you have a million Taio Cruz's, Ke$ha's and Lady Gaga's who never seem to do anything that different, always drawing from the same electropop/dance/R&B influences. Then you have the fact that a lot of R&B and hip hop acts are drawing from the same influences as the pop acts, which even further makes things sound so similar.

 

Yeah, there have been songs which sound very similar, especially in pop (i.e. the Dynamite, Tik Tok, We R Who We R, California Gurls, etc. group, but I think they're all produced by the same person).

 

However, at the same time, I can't tell the different Arctic Monkeys songs apart tbh.

 

Yes. :P

 

Fair enough I guess. :lol: I wouldn't, because I think dance and indie guitar songs are very different. I would be upset in that scenario, that there would be no hip hop in the chart, but I wouldn't say there was no variety.

 

A situation where there is claimed to be variety, yet there isn't any at all, is Heart FM's playlist. The only songs they play that sound different to everything else they play are Only Girl and I Gotta Feeling. Yet their motto is "more music variety"! :blink:

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

I think you miss the point though. There IS a lack of variety in the charts these days, and it's not just because of the lack of rock/indie music - but because pop music essentially has turned into one whole trend-following cult. It's all very much in the same club-ready style. There are only a few exceptions. The fact that people can easily draw comparisons between modern songs just says it all, really. Too many pop acts work with the same producers, I guess, and thus you have loads of Dr. Luke, Max Martin, RedOne, etc. songs which all sound fairly similar to each other as each producer has their own personal fingerprint, so to speak.

 

I hate to sound like a boring old "things were better before" kind of moron (I always promised myself I wouldn't ever be like this :lol:), but back in the 90s - and possibly before, I don't know much about the 70s, 80s, etc - there were loads of genres in the charts represented, and in ADDITION there was a lot of variety in pop music. I mean, if we go back to the late 90s only for argument's sake (just because I know this period very well).

 

Back then you had the likes of Spice Girls, Steps and B*Witched - acts that a lot of older people openly criticised at the time for being "awful", but all were DIFFERENT - B*Witched had that whole Irish vibe to their music, Steps had a more dance-pop vibe, and Spice Girls were basically out-and-out pop who jumped between different kinds (like the Latin-influenced Viva Forever, the soul-influenced Stop, the classic ballads like Too Much, the in-your-face pop like Wannabe with a hint of rap(!), or the more R&B-influenced Say You'll Be There, I could go on). They were all pop music, and all were aimed at the same market, but you could never say their songs were that similar, and they often drew from different influences. Almost every Spice Girls single was distinct and easily recognisable, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a fan of theirs. Not so much the same with Steps and B*Witched, but they were still easily differentiated from the other pop acts of the time.

 

Then you had Robbie Williams who was again very different to the other British pop acts at the time due to the hint of Britpop that he retained from his days where he was best mates with Liam Gallagher :lol: All Saints - again, completely different to the other British pop acts. The Beautiful South, The Corrs, Texas - more 'adult pop' acts, I guess - but again, all different to each other. I suppose the most similar at the time was probably Boyzone and 911 or something, but even they were very different to another British boyband like Five.

 

And even in American pop at the time, you had the likes of Madonna, Cher, Mariah Carey, Ricky Martin, Céline Dion, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Shania Twain etc, who were all popular at similar times and none of them sounded the same as each other, or even THAT similar, and they all had their own kind of style, plus they all had that recognisable kind of voice that made them different (one thing that autotune is guilty of is taking away that to an extent, although I'm not necessarily criticising it here).

 

There are so many pop acts nowadays who stay in the same style with almost every song. Admittedly some do jump about quite a bit (Rihanna springs to mind), but they seem to be in the minority. But then you have a million Taio Cruz's, Ke$ha's and Lady Gaga's who never seem to do anything that different, always drawing from the same electropop/dance/R&B influences. Then you have the fact that a lot of R&B and hip hop acts are drawing from the same influences as the pop acts, which even further makes things sound so similar.

 

Don't forget S Club 7! :wub: :wub: :wub: Much better than the Spice Girls & Beatles put together! This is, of course, a different arguement...................

Don't forget S Club 7! :wub: :wub: :wub: Much better than the Spice Girls & Beatles put together! This is, of course, a different arguement...................

 

Agree with this!!! :D

 

Although I loved the Spice Girls too.