Why We're All Out of Good Songs
Many rock purists and music snobs (myself included) often lament the quality of most modern pop/rock music. “Music these days is so trite and derivative,” they say. “It’s just been downhill since the 60’s and 70’s. Those were the days.”
A few years ago, Rolling Stone magazine added fuel to the music snobbery fire with its “500 Greatest Songs of All Time” list. Anyone casually paging through the list would notice that the bulk of the list was comprised of songs from the 60’s and 70’s, just like the music snobs always say.
Lee at Overthinking It, however, wasn’t content with the casual analysis. So he punched the list into Excel, crunched some numbers, and found an interesting parallel between the decline of rock music quality and, of all things, the decline in US oil discovery and production:
;)
Click image to enlargersize it
Notice that after the birth of rock & roll in the 1950’s, the production of “great songs” peaked in the 60’s, remained strong in the 70’s, but drastically fell in the subsequent decades. It would seem that, like oil, the supply of great musical ideas is finite. By the end of the 70’s, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, the Motown greats, and other genre innovators quickly extracted the best their respective genres had to offer, leaving little supply for future musicians. …
I don’t think I’m being pessimistic about the outlook on pop/rock music or snobbish about my retro music tastes. I think the same idea applies to other creative fields that follow a similar arc of rapid exploration followed by derivative works. Assuming some constraints on the definition of the form, the amount of innovation that can be done within that form is finite. Most of it will come early and fast, then decline after the peak. Impressionist paintings. Star Wars movies. I could go on. …
Doug
10 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (10)
Interesting (he said with tongue in cheek).
Just proves that you can show parallels between almost anything if you (1) take the time, and (2) properly customize the data set.
I have to agree with Lee. Although our thirst for good rock remains insatiable, the delivery system is drying up. To wit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm3mMs33Npg
I rest my case.
This is what happens to young minds when they take Statistics 101 in college.
I think someone has too much time on their hands :))
Let's be honest, you can make a similarly telling comparison between almost any two statistical data sets if you try. But the implication that the two correlate is often misleading. For example, a more relevant comparison might have been made by overlaying baby boomers.
But I still got a laugh from the article which I guess was the whole point.
Enlargersize. Funny.
It should be noted that music, in order to join the RSM Best of All TIme list, must withstand the test of time. The older songs on the present list have done so. Newer and otherwise worthy songs have not and so are rightly omitted from the list.
That is not to say they won't after time join or even replace the ones now on the list. The point is, the correlation the graph attempts to illustrate is flawed.
But we and the author know that. It's statistical analyst humor. (insert dry laugh here).
Another flaw is that the graph confuses "quality" with "popularity". Quality implies tenure while popularity is fleeting.
Silly, silly, silly. Fun, but silly. I'm with Ulrica, too much idle time on someone's hands.
Just gimme some Hendrix!!!! That is rock with a capital R!!!!