# Why is pop music so popular?



## novicecomposer (Aug 12, 2016)

Looking at Spotify Global Top 50 or USA Top 50, or iTunes charts, or any charts for that matter today, I don't see a single soundtrack/classical/orchestral piece on them. No JW, Zimmer, Beethoven, or Mozart found there. It's pretty much pop songs everywhere and they are making millions. Many film/orchestral composers think writing pop songs is trivial and even for novice composers like me they sound so simple. Then why not write a hit song and start raking in money instead of trying to compose complicated orchestral music and living on ramen noodles from the earnings.

One theory I have is that pop songs actually pop out from and sound great even on my crappy laptop speakers, while I can't stand listening to grand symphonies or zimmer on them. And most people don't own $500 speakers or monitors. What do you guys think?


----------



## ghostnote (Aug 12, 2016)

Pop songs, like the name suggests, are aimed to be popular. They are products. They have to be loud. Film music is dynamic by nature.

Talking Pop: Performer (and sometimes singer ), composer, writer, producer, engineer etc. They all contribute creatively to that, but in the end it's the one on top who will give green light if it's worth it, just like an investment. Remember the late80s/90s? Record Companys started to realize that their "bands" don't need to be able to play instruments to sell records: They would just need to look good and sing. It's all marketing. In the end It's called music business. Cui bono.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 14, 2016)

novicecomposer said:


> Many film/orchestral composers think writing pop songs is trivial and even for novice composers like me they sound so simple. Then why not write a hit song and start raking in money instead of trying to compose complicated orchestral music and living on ramen noodles from the earnings.


I think pop music is more "simple" now than used to be. ABBA, ELO, James Taylor, Bread, Air Supply, etc. were all pop but not simple at all. But even today, there are bands like One Republic who are very talented songwriters.


----------



## pixel (Aug 14, 2016)

novicecomposer said:


> Many film/orchestral composers think writing pop songs is trivial and even for novice composers like me they sound so simple



Well it's true that they sound simple but it's not quite true when you look closer. For example simple track like 'Just Dance' by Lady Gaga have about 100 tracks(!) You can look closer here: http://www.soundonsound.com/people/secrets-mix-engineers-robert-orton
As for composer it sound simple, for producers it's a lot of work to polish these songs and from producer/sound engineer perspective I can say that most of Pop songs are masterpiece of recording/mix/mastering. 

To be honest I can't listen to actual mixture of Pop/Rap/EDM music but from time to time we can find really good music in this mess. 
A Great Big World - Say Something - this song can't be more simple but makes me cry every time when I hear it.
Of course IMO Pop songs from 50's to 90's are much better than 2000 and up and a lot of them is not simple at all. Damn! Cheesy 80's Pop is better than any cinematic soundtrack ever created!   

A lot of people trivialize pop songs and they say that it's simple to do. But somehow not even one of them did Top10 song that gave him/here these 'millions of $'. Of course there's answer: 'I'm not doing crap music' which is silly answer IMO. If someone swear that Pop is so simple I challenge him/her to make Billboard Top10 hit song.


----------



## Krale (Aug 17, 2016)

I feel pop music is popular because it's digested much more easily than more complicated and intricate genres due to to the nature of the four chord progressions and easily recognizable simple melodies, but it's also very much due to marketing... It's much easier to market a good looking singer to the masses with live performances, social media etc. than an equally good looking composer writing behind the scenes. Image is more important than ever in the mainstream music industry, which is part of the reason attractive artists or those who's image appeal to the masses in others ways are much better off to sell records than an equally talented person with a less appealing image to the masses. It isn't ideal, though I feel that recently the whole pop scene has been making more room for more independent artists on the charts... Very slightly and gradually straying away from the Disney Star monopoly we've all come to know, and that's partly because of the nature of people wanting to relate with artists they look up to a lot more. Being "down to earth" or "real" in the pop industry is becoming a hot commodity for fans.

Catchy melodies over simple chords help, but it's probably very much also because the image of a pop star is much more appealing to most people than a composer.


----------



## dannymc (Aug 17, 2016)

> Catchy melodies over simple chords help, but it's probably very much also because the image of a pop star is much more appealing to most people than a composer.



exactly. stick a few hot girls in hot pants and get them to sing your catchy pop song and you're laughing all the way to the bank.

also i think alot of kids and teenagers are into pop music and they are a massive market. they are into simple music because they have simple lives. then there are the grown adults who just aren't fussy when it comes to music and will think every pop song they hear on the radio sounds good, and alot of those pop songs are constructed to work well on the dance floor in a bar or club so that's another way they get so popular.

but on top of all of that i actually think there is a massive marketing machine behind all of these acts. they are not so much concerned with the quality or talent of their artists but more concerned with how they can shove there product down the throats of people enough that eventually people are convinced its good music.

Danny


----------



## Krale (Aug 17, 2016)

dannymc said:


> but on top of all of that i actually think there is a massive marketing machine behind all of these acts. they are not so much concerned with the quality or talent of their artists but more concerned with how they can shove there product down the throats of people enough that eventually people are convinced its good music.



That's also a reason why simple chords and melodies dominate the scene. Pop music is designed to be as accessible as possible and the nature of the simplicity of the melodies and chords make the music much easier to grow into liking than songs with more complicated musical elements. Listen to a pop song that annoys you enough times and you'll almost be guaranteed to have it stuck in your head whether you want it there or not.


----------



## pixel (Aug 17, 2016)

dannymc said:


> but on top of all of that i actually think there is a massive marketing machine behind all of these acts. they are not so much concerned with the quality or talent of their artists but more concerned with how they can shove there product down the throats of people enough that eventually people are convinced its good music.
> 
> Danny



Of course there's massive marketing machine and they're geniuses in their (not easy) job. 
By long time I thought that it work that way that people behind major labels are telling masses what is 'Hit' and what they should listen to by promoting such type of music. But then I began Music Business course where I found out that it's actually kind of opposite. Do you watch 'American Idol' and such stuff? All these programs are big research projects. By people votes they know what people like and what they want. So it's not that people are forced to listen to cheap simple music. People (masses) actually want that. For majority of people music is only background, just addon to help them have fun and something to dance when they're getting drunk. And it's not bad thing, because nobody is forced to listen to Pop music.


----------



## Uncle Peter (Aug 18, 2016)

I often shake my head uncontrollably at the drivel pouring out of the gym speakers. It’s not even worth going into….

I’m now the older guy vociferously proclaiming ‘music was better in my day’ .. how depressing.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 18, 2016)

Uncle Peter said:


> I often shake my head uncontrollably at the drivel pouring out of the gym speakers. It’s not even worth going into….
> I’m now the older guy vociferously proclaiming ‘music was better in my day’ .. how depressing.



Don't feel bad. I'm now the older guy saying "How nice to be young and have the music be the only thing keeping someone out of the gym". (Not that I went to the gym even when I was young, ha ha)


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 18, 2016)

I was in the Nike store in Portland recently.

_"Zot! - Zot! - Zot!"_

I'm glad I don't work there.

_"Zot! - Zot! - Zot!"_

I don't dislike dance/house music.

_"Zot! - Zot! - Zot!"_

But I can't imagine listening to it for 40 hours a week.

_"Zot! - Zot! - Zot!"_


----------



## dannymc (Aug 23, 2016)

> Of course there's massive marketing machine and they're geniuses in their (not easy) job.
> By long time I thought that it work that way that people behind major labels are telling masses what is 'Hit' and what they should listen to by promoting such type of music. But then I began Music Business course where I found out that it's actually kind of opposite. Do you watch 'American Idol' and such stuff? All these programs are big research projects. By people votes they know what people like and what they want. So it's not that people are forced to listen to cheap simple music. People (masses) actually want that. For majority of people music is only background, just addon to help them have fun and something to dance when they're getting drunk. And it's not bad thing, because nobody is forced to listen to Pop music.



i actually still dont 100% agree with that and that's because i have had first hand experience of the former in my life time. as an ex dj i use to pride myself in making discoveries of tracks or artists that i would feel would be the next big thing. often these artists were released in places like germany first and would not hit the UK/Ireland/US scene until 6months to a year later if at all. it made me realize that there are many music markets around the world and they are all kept separate from each other only pushing their individual catalogs in their markets. if all the best stuff was released on sony music germany then sony music uk would have a serious problem with that. so they effectively created different market places per region. i'll give an example of a track i had 1 year before it was released to the main stream, run DMC -"its like that". played it in the clubs and on local radio and people looked at me like i had 10 heads. "what the fuck is this shit" i could hear them mutter. the point is they didn't know the track and rather than follow their own minds to whether it was good or not they went with the mass consensus based on whether it was in the charts or not. fast forward a year and these same crowds are coming up and demanding i play the song because now it is acceptable to like the track since its released into the mainstream. i could name about 20 other tracks that i had the same experience so it made me understand the psychology of people a lot better when it came to music. mass consensus/marketing sheep mentality trumps quality every time. its sad its that way as i'm sure there is a time in history where only quality music could and would be appreciated by the listener.

Danny


----------



## pixel (Aug 24, 2016)

Hey Danny I'm ex dj to  but I was on purely underground electronic music scene. I can add another funny fact: when I became more popular (as a dj) I could play more and more not popular tracks and crowd enjoyed it more than when I was not so popular at the beginning. 
Another thing: even on underground music scene there is a fashion and even people who call themselves 'open minded' they prefer what is actually popular in specific genre. 


dannymc said:


> its sad its that way as i'm sure there is a time in history where only quality music could and would be appreciated by the listener.


Can you please answer me question: what is quality music? That one that you prefer? Because it's all personal preferences. Important wisdom that I learned in my life is that there's no superior music above any other. 
Because you like one genre it doesn't mean that it's better than other one.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 24, 2016)

pixel said:


> Because you like one genre it doesn't mean that it's better than other one.


"Better" is indeed a subjective term, but some music is more traditionally "musical" than other music.


----------



## muk (Aug 25, 2016)

pixel said:


> Can you please answer me question: what is quality music? That one that you prefer? Because it's all personal preferences. Important wisdom that I learned in my life is that there's no superior music above any other.



That's an opinion I strongly disagree with. Beethoven's eighth symphony (or any of his symphonies really) is better music than, say, one by Georg Christoph Wagenseil. And it is better music than Britney Spear's 'Hit me baby one more time'. The definition for quality in music, in my understanding, is that good music is analyzable, and allows to form sophisticated interpretations about how and why it is structured the way it is. In good music you can explain why each phrase is written the way it is, and why it could not have been written any other way. To quote Salieri from 'Amadeus': "Displace one note and there would be diminishment. Displace one phrase and the structure would fall."
Good music is music that you can think about, and form theories about how and why it is built the way it is. And not just one theory, but a limitless number. As you might see, this understanding of quality in music doesn't only apply to certain genres, but can apply to music in any genre. That's why I wouldn't say that all classical music is better music than pop music per se. Some classical pieces are better music than some pop songs, but I'd also say that some pop songs are better music than some classical pieces.

As an analogy you could ask if Alfred Brendel was a better pianist than Murray Perahia is. Who can say? But that doesn't mean that you can't judge the quality of pianists at all. Because if you ask if Perahia is a better pianist than me, there can be no doubt about the answer.


----------



## pixel (Aug 25, 2016)

And it's still your subjective opinion. If someone else tell you that he think that Georg Christoph Wagenseil one is better than 8th symphony then what? Who is right? You?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 25, 2016)

Yes, it's all measurable. But the winner depends on the criteria.

If the criteria is note efficiency, John Cage wins.


----------



## muk (Aug 25, 2016)

pixel said:


> If someone else tell you that he think that Georg Christoph Wagenseil one is better than 8th symphony then what? Who is right? You?



Yes.

It's not all subjective, it's about plausibility. While I have a myriad of points where I can argue why Beethoven's 8 is great music - some of which you might find plausible, others less so - I doubt that anyone could find even a third as much for any Wagenseil symphony. And all of them being of much lesser striking originality and depth of thought. Much of a Wagenseil symphony, be it structure, orchestration, melodic invention etc., is simply trivial. Whereas in a Beethoven symphony, you won't find much you would call that. Everything is intertwined - composed! - and has a precise function in the big picture of the work. The orchestration is attuned precisely to the structure. The structure itself follows not a mere schoolbook sonata scheme, but is a sophisticated, witty, genius development of and play with what is known as sonata form. The musical material, in turn, again is fine-tuned to fit that composing with sonata form. If you look closely, you can even argue that the following structure is developed out of this material. Again, depth of thought vs shallow funneling of musical material into a preexisting, rigid form.

Of course you can argue that the qualities I hinted at above do not make a difference. And despite the ones originality and depth of thought vs the others boring triviality, both are indistinguishable in terms of musical quality. It's a position, but not one that I find very plausible. One is reasoned opinion, the other is mere claim.
If a father claims that his 5 year old boy, who began playing the piano last week, is a better pianist than Alfred Brendel. I would say: 'But he hasn't even the faintest reminder of the technique, the imagination, the subtlety of Brendel's playing'. In my eyes these are valid and plausible arguments. Still, the father can insist that none of these make the slightest difference in what constitutes a good pianist. But to make me believe him, he would have to give me some strong arguments as to why he thinks his son is a better pianist. If he could, I would gladly change my position.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 25, 2016)

OP is correct about quality of audio and projection.
I am an IEM addict.
I wear them on stage, when practicing, listening to music driving I have a Bose System for high end Cadillacs and prefer IEMs.

Pop music is cool though in its inclusivity and allows anyone to start production themselves.

If I had only Chopin to emulate as a kid I would have been discouraged.
Thankfully we had Credence Clearwater Revival to prep us for Yes ELP Headhunters, etc.
Actually made Chopin easier to study since I woodsheded pop music.

As long as you're enjoying the organization of sound you're on the right track.


----------



## cmillar (Sep 15, 2016)

There's some great pop music around...always has been...going back to Mozart and Beethoven.

And there's always some unmemorable pop music around.

Why is some music more "popular" than other music?

Maybe because it's memorable, or catchy and is universally appealing to our human senses that like rhythms and melodies.

And throughout history some music always made despite lack of "marketing"

Because people liked it. 

Pretty simple answer to the original question. No need to overthink it.


----------



## ptsmith (Sep 26, 2016)

For every big pop hit, there are thousands of other pop songs that meet the definition of what a pop hit should be, that never go anywhere. The hits have an appeal and catchiness that, at least for me, is an unknown quantity. I can't tell you what a hit is, I just know one when I hear one.


----------



## Fab (Oct 3, 2016)

I think the top ones usually have easily memorable and well delivered melodies.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 4, 2016)

It's hard to know what will resonate with audiences.

Consider these movie quotes:
"Play it again, Sam."
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges."

These lines resonated with movie goers. Only they weren't written or delivered that way. 

In Casablanca, the woman, Ilsa, says:
"Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake."
"Play it, Sam. Play 'As Time Goes By'."

Rick (Bogart) later says:
"You played it for her, you can play it for me!"

If the screenwriters knew what the audience wanted, they would have had Bogie say, "Play it again, Sam." Oh well, they got close enough.

In Treasure of the Sierra Madre, the real line is:
"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges."

Again, the screenwriter wasn't tuned in to the crowd well enough to write the simpler line. Probably had no idea that they had create a meme.

In both cases, the audience found the essence of the dialog, even if the writer didn't.

It's no surprise that pop composers have a hard time finding that resonant thing without over complicating it.


----------



## impressions (Oct 4, 2016)

JonFairhurst said:


> In Treasure of the Sierra Madre, the real line is:
> "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges."






I wouldn't underestimate the power of pop music, it still gives you a shot at making huge money, and being able to "speak musically" to millions of people. also there is a myth that its easy, yet millions of people have a go at that, and still only a handful do get in as the top ones.
you still have to be current and sensitive to a moment in this period much like fashion. which is exactly what was classical music at their times-it was pop music duh.


----------



## Red (Oct 4, 2016)

I love pop music. but it's a different game entirely.

Speaking as a disciple of Mozart, who cries to his music on a regular basis,

that song is better than quite a few of Mozart's stuff.
The main synth line drop is almost Mozartian, no?

There's quality in pop music. It's just a different aesthetic.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 4, 2016)

That synth line is a bit more like Bach - played at half speed with the needle skipping back every two measures.

To me that's the main difference with music today. It's repetitive. Find a riff. Don't develop it. Repeat it. If you develop it, it starts to sound a bit too smart, no?

Many of Bach's pieces amaze me in that they don't repeat at all (though some do.) Many of them just keep unwinding like a spool of thread that never takes the same path as before. But there is enough consistency from phrase to phrase that it's like a coherent conversation or a well-delivered monologue. The only music that does anything like that (but rarely with Bach's intricacy) is film music in that the story continues to move forward so the music moves forward with it without repeating itself.

I play in a community orchestra and have started doing a small number of pop song arrangements for orchestra. A lot of songs simply wouldn't work. There's not enough there there. The harmonies are thin, the melodies are just small fragments, there's no development, and it's too repetitive. Pop songs get away with it with driving rhythms (that small orchestras don't emulate well), with thick sounds that let a few notes from one instrument fill the space, and with moving vocals (which we aren't doing at all with the orchestra.) It's the lyrics/story and small changes in vocal performance that tend to bring motion to a pop song, not the composition. Still, there are some songs that have enough meat on the bone to work, and with some creative, changing orchestration, you can do the different verses so it's not like, "wait, didn't you already play that exact thing three times?"

As others have said, that doesn't make it easy. To get a unique, compelling sound, a memorable hook, and a moving performance over a simple, repeating beat is tough. And then to make it just complex enough to be interesting but as simple as possible so people "get it" on first listen is a real art. And then, it's got to be timely and not be cheesy or trite.

Bach might be the better technical composer than, say, the writers for The Partridge Family, but Bach never got a TV series.


----------



## ptsmith (Oct 4, 2016)

Red said:


> I love pop music. but it's a different game entirely.
> 
> Speaking as a disciple of Mozart, who cries to his music on a regular basis,
> 
> ...




I mainly listen to alternative and don't ever listen to pop, so I've never heard that song. But I like it! Very catchy. Its also musically very simple, but its got that unknown something, that at least to me, makes it good.


----------



## ghostnote (Oct 5, 2016)

JonFairhurst said:


> It's hard to know what will resonate with audiences.
> It's no surprise that pop composers have a hard time finding that resonant thing without over complicating it.


Yeah, it's this so called "mandela effect" which is btw total nonsense, similar to memberberries  I was rewatching the Empire Strikes Back the other day and was kinda unimpressed, they went with decisions which weren't the best in my opinion BUT on the other hand (and that's the big plus here) it contributed greatly to the authenticity and originality of the genre. You can't do that nowadays. Something we can also see happening in pop music. Why? Reasons... and with reasons I mean... yeah... money...

Zappa brings it to the point:


Another point why pop music sounds so similar these days (yes, I feel bad for posting this shit):


----------



## pixel (Oct 6, 2016)

While listening to Will Smith's songs on YT, I've remembered my old philosophical question to people who love non-mainstream music and hate pop: if there is a non-mainstream/underground song that someone love, what will happen if this song after some time become a top hit? Does it become crap because it's now mainstream? 

Also talking about similar sounding music: every genre have this problem. More or less but do and Trailer music is number one on this list :D


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 6, 2016)

If you think about it, pop music has its root in religions hymns.

The pianist/organist start with a short intro. It gives the congregation the key and just enough notes so they know which tune it is. The hymn then repeats chorus and verse for as long as it has variations on the words, or until the leader is sick of singing it. The music simply repeats. Finally, there is an ending; the cliche being a sustain followed by the tonic.

Hymns needed to be simple enough that people in the pews could "get" them right away and sing them, and so the so-so pianist/organist could play them. And the ending didn't need to be written out. People would go to the sustain chord at the end out of habit.

Just add drums and now you can (heaven forbid!) dance to it.

Bach and Beethoven wrote more interesting music for the church. But they didn't prompt people to sing along and start dancing.


----------



## ghostnote (Oct 7, 2016)

I think this explains pretty much everything. Would a smart artist sign such a recording deal?


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 10, 2016)

novicecomposer said:


> Looking at Spotify Global Top 50 or USA Top 50, or iTunes charts, or any charts for that matter today, I don't see a single soundtrack/classical/orchestral piece on them.



I think your second big fault is to equal _orchestral_ to _classical_.
Just because music uses orchestra, it's not automatically "classical" music.
It's not automatically "better" in any way than music that doesn't use orchestra.
It's not automatically no-pop-music.
There's tons of music that uses orchestra, a big lot of todays successful soundtracks, that are in their very core nothing more (and nothing less) than pop music. 
It not even stops there: The fact that listeners who are convinced of their taste (but in fact have a poorly developed taste) think that "orchestral" elements provide "classical" music is very old.
And it's very old that the music industry had an interest to feed those people with simple popular music in the disguise of "classical music". This trend started in the 19th century and it comes regularly back in many, many flavors.(remember "Rondo Veneziano"?) Per se, that's nothing bad, however, personally i don't like it if simple things pretend to be complex. (i also don't like it if [specially in avantgarde-music] complicated but banal things pretend to be complex).

That doesn't mean that "banality" is bad or wrong, what seams banal can be extremely tricky; and simplicity, if it catches the core of an idea is an artistic ideal, that's extremely difficult to reach...

I just think there is something like an appropriate way of arranging a musical thought.
The pop music of the last 50 years often has an astonishing production technique, tons of creativity which are an essential part of the music.
Give a typical Joe Cocker song to an opera singer and the result will be instant crap.
Why? Because Cocker's voice has a microcosm of articulation, intonation which is essential.
And give simple functional harmonic textures that sounds great on a synth to an orchestra without intelligent voicings: that's how you turn simplicity into banality (however, it's a subjective thing to like that...)

If you really want to distinguish between pop and non-pop, it's more difficult than looking at the participation of orchestral elements.
The biggest art in pop - in my opinion - is to perfectly catch an idea, a mood, a situation an put it into a recognizable form (but then again: many, many classical masterpieces include those catchy ideas)
On the other hand, the essence of "classical" music is the art of developing ideas, of transforming the material, of generating new motifs out of the old etc. It's in fact rather building an organism with a complex inner network of inner relations and meanings. (Once this was also really essential in film scoring, but in the last 20-30 years it has continually lost its importance)

However, i started with the "second" big fault.

The first is the assumption that the dominance of pop music is somehow a "new" phenomenon.
The thing that is really new is the fact that pop music generates the most money.
In the past, pop songs were viral among the population, everybody knew them; but there was no big money to make with them. But: in most occasions people always favoured simple, catchy tunes. That's just normal. Even lots of the famous composers (like Mozart, Schubert) sometimes wrote some simple tunes.
Those composers that are known today were usually paid by and wrote their masterpieces for persons who usually had a big understanding of music. That was not a mass culture.
We know that Bach was highly regarded as an organist. And some influental persons also loved his music. But the people? it's known that there were complaints about his organ playing during masses. His improvisations were too complex from time to time. And the passion of Matthew bored the listeners. Maybe also because it was a poor performance. In contrast to Haendel and others Bach mostly had to work with amateurs...


But enough grabbing in history, in the very first place i just think it's dangerous to complain about the bad taste of other people.
The amount of people who are extremely proud of their musical taste is extremely high. And they all look down to the other people with a bad taste and this makes them feel superior. It's so absurd that it's funny.

As a musician, if you come to the conclusion that the masses listen to the wrong music, begin with yourself. 
Develop your taste, train your ear, write music that sets a new road for intelligent music for the masses


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 20, 2016)

pixel said:


> So it's not that people are forced to listen to cheap simple music. People (masses) actually want that. For majority of people music is only background, just addon to help them have fun and something to dance when they're getting drunk. And it's not bad thing, because nobody is forced to listen to Pop music.



Exactly!

It takes a lot of work to make Pop music actually be popular. Most musicians who complain about how bad pop music is don't really have an understanding behind the business of music. And they certainly don't have the work ethic to create pop music. 

I find the people complaining to be the reason that pop music thrives.


----------

