as somebody who pretty much doesn't listen to any top 40, and rarely knows what's in it (save for a handful of accidental crossovers into my universe), it's always fascinating to see these kinds of analyses because rock is still so prevalent in my own listening patterns and recommendations. i have no beef with top 40; it's just funny to get these reminders about how far removed i am from the real world sometimes.
Same. This was a great read, but it's funny to me that nickelback and Creed are the big modern rock influences when Jack White, Fontaines DC, and King Gizzard exist.
I play and listen to a fair bit of traditional music (think The Chieftains). Some of this music has been around for several hundred years, maybe longer. We don't know who wrote a lot of it. Some of it is brand new and sounds like it's 200 years old. There are established 'classics' that have stood the test of time and for me stand with the best of the best music in terms of melodic beauty or danceability (or for the true gems, both!). Oral cultures tended to save and refine the best.
So it's odd to think of how quickly pop-music has morphed in just a few decades. Or looking back farther, how 'classical' music emerged in the west as high brow and distinct from working music, military music, or peasant music. And then changed stylistically every few decades.
Before the 19th century, people didn't travel as much, paper and scores were expensive (if musicians could even read or use them), and recordings did not exist. Instruments were pricy - but people wanted to make music for dance, for ceremony, for working. So people sang, clapped, built their own instruments. Not surprising that the traditional tunes that was passed down and the written records both suggest a lot of stability in folk music and dance music. Did anyone mind? I'm not sure we can say, but they kept playing and learning the same tunes for the most part. New tunes were composed in the same styles, with subtle differences plus some new approaches.
That suggests to me that stability was broadly ok. Creating and playing music - good, necessary! Innovation - nice to have? A wildly different cultural space and mindset. But is it that far off the repeated 'revivals' of pop genres? The continued performance of symphonic classics because they are important? People saying you have to listen to the Beatles, or Hendrix, or Stevie Wonder because those are the classics? A few days ago Ted pointed out Rumer, who sounds just like a contemporary of Carole King. Or maybe Feist. If a style or approach is good and loved, keeping it going can be cool. Talented and thoughtful artists find the sweet spot between stability and respect for a musical style and their own need to create and innovate.
So a place that's interesting musically at the moment is the continuing revival of Gaelic music in Scotland and Ireland. It's partly about playing great tunes that have been part of these communities for decades and generations. It's partly about identity. It's also very much about reviving and protecting the Gaelic languages - Scottish Gaelic and Irish, which have been in decline for centuries. Some of it is explicitly anti-colonial. So you have Irish language rappers KNEECAP from Northern Ireland who are both anti-colonial and explicitly Irish Republicans, while at the same time celebrating sex, drugs, party lifestyle and street culture. They are general shit-disturbers. They are probably the biggest, most popular example and made news at Coachella. But other artists are at work, too. EDM music and electronic soundscapes are merging into folk ballads and traditional pieces, using both new and old melodies. You have Gaelic language songs with a big-band style backing piece (ok at least one song). More and more trad or pop acts seem to perform in Gaelic, period. Many of these acts are on the edge of what we might call pop music, but they still want to sell music and book shows. They aren't trad the way the Chieftains were.
Bits and pieces of this pop/ trad/ folk mash-up happened in past decades (Ashley MacIsaac, Pogues, Drop Kick Murphies) but something seems different this time: maybe the number of acts? the fact it seems to be going for years now? the quality of the musicians? the 'indie' DIY approach that seems common? the explicit connection to the language? the comfort in being 'modern' musicians that are stretching out musically and thematically? Maybe it's nothing more than how easy it is to find these bands and get their music? Regardless, I like it, but I don't expect it to be top 40 anytime soon ;-)
The great changes in music as we know it probably began around the 16th century, with the generation of Buxtehude, followed by the generations of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, and others.
These were tremendous transformations. If you were born in 1750, I dare say you would have witnessed more change in music by 1825 than someone born in 1950 sees today in 2025.
The same could be said for someone born in 1650 or 1850.
For example, Mozart and Beethoven were rebels in their time.
The major change we see today is that the audience is largely passive, with much less musical knowledge; eager for something that sounds a bit different, but is essentially the same as last season.
Fascinating. One obvious point: The platforms for finding new music have changed even more dramatically than the music itself. Elvis and the Beatles found their audiences through network television and AM radio stations. 📻 All that seems quaint as vaudeville today.
I believe the role of music in "identity formation" was severed sometime in the 1990s or early 2000s. If kids today still form tribes (and I'm not sure they do), music has almost nothing to do with it. Whereas from the 50s to the 80s, it was arguably the very thing that distinguished one subcultural group from another. So I'm not sure that the "thrill of identify formation" is still part of the equation.
Fun stuff. I was hoping to see some song examples and their composition index scores, so I could get a picture in mind of what those scores mean.
How did you choose your "top artists" examples for each decade? Is that based on actual record sales or something? When I think of "90's music", none of those artists pop into my mind. I think of Nirvana, Guns N Roses, Red Hot Chili Peppers, No Doubt, Weezer, Fiona Apple, Britney Spears.
Also, you used the average for each year. What would happen if you looked at the top n from each year? Would the outlier songs tell us anything? After all, don't new trends come from the outliers, not the averages?
Finally, how do cover songs and samples factor in to this? That song "Anxiety" that is heavily sampling Gotye has been quite popular lately. And Olivia Rodrigo ripped off Paramore. Is your system agnostic to samples?
The Billboard top 100 was always dominated by mainstream pop. Some of the biggest changes in rock in 30 years happened in the 90s, but doesn't seem to have been captured by the billboard charts.
Smell's Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana is an example. It peaked at Number 6 on the Billboard Top 100 in the US, in January 1992. At that time the top six songs were by Michael Jackson, Color Me Badd, Mariah Carey, Boyz II Men, M.C. Hammer and Nirvana.
It's fun looking through the charts around that time. There's lots of rock in there (GNR, grunge, Chilli Peppers, U2, REM) but you're right, lots of pop and light rock right at the top: MJ, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Paula Abdul, Madonna, Bryan Adams, Michael Bolton.
Thank you for the article. As a recovering stats geek, I was happy to see the application of principle components analysis to art/music.
Through out your article, the discussion is laced with an underlying assumption that popular music and their associated genres are always the result of some organic process, where the free market kind of magically produces and distributes the music that the masses demand.
It seems pretty obvious to me that this is rarely the case. In fact, I strongly suspect that this process is exactly what the music industry abhors. For example, this can be clearly demonstrated the industry (Clear Channel ?) spending billions, buying up all the FM radio stations in the 80`s and 90`s. Generally, they are not searching the world high and low to bring us the next Bob Dylan, or whatever. I mean, what would happen to their existing portfolio of mediocrities with their giant marketing budgets/investments.
To give a more micro example of the industry managing the process by which music/culture is produced/distributed. Your article mentions the introduction of syn drums and its association with Madonna, et al; I might be off here, but would it not be more accurate to say these are drum machines? And that maybe these were more efficient in the engineering/recording process? And that you would not have to pay a drummer?
What do you think the decision making process was where by suddenly virtually all popular music had drum machines? It seems pretty clear that this is not driven by the intersection of creative process and technology. I can`t imagine an awesome drummer saying in the early 80`s `man, I really like my drums but I really want to sit down to the key board and fiddle around with a bunch of pull down menus. That would be awesome!`
It wasn`t uncommon for top bands to spend a million in 1970 dollars in the studio and bring in studio musicians and top recording engineers and take months to come out with new album. How much does it cost to produce a rap album? With no musicians? Nobody is actually singing. Nobody even knows how to read music. Isn`t it more akin to highly stylized karaoke with a huge marketing budget than music?
I could go on here....you postulate what would happen if we just had hand-b-down rock posters in our room. Why is this even relevant? You present it as if it is a final capper to your argument. WHy is this a problem that needs to be solved by the recording industry?
Anyway...I think the above mentioned processes can explain a lot of the long periods of musical dearths and why you are never going to see/hear multiple artists covering Madonna or Michael Jackson songs from the 80`s. or have a Michael Jackson revival trend, or whatever.
Thanks again for the article...and letting me vent a bit here....much appreciated!
Almost perfect, except Chapell is clearly a retread. Those who don't get her think it's been done better. Brat if anything is the album old folks don't get.
I'm gonna go out there and stand up for Pink Pony Club - that song kills it for me. Honestly it's the only song by Chappell Roan I know. BUT a big voice, good melody, dramatic story, solid construction, nice build up, plus a kicking beat. Retread - maybe. I don't know enough to say. But I like it.
My observation about cover bands and soloists in pubs and venues, is there is still a strong weight to 80's rock and pop with 60's-90's generally being the majority of songs. Soloists do that older stuff as well as more recent pop stuff like Ed Sheeran, Jason Mraz etc, but those songs would not have been out of place in the 80's
Without statistical analysis but with reasonably solid knowledge about popular music history, I'd argue that the 1950s were the decade with the greatest shifts. More accurately, the period between 1945-1960.
As a performer, teacher, and composer, I am living under a rock.
Having taught composition and percussion at a university for the last 28 years, I know that I am beyond a neophyte regarding popular music. When students struggle to use manuscript paper and pencils to write drafts, the craft suffers. Yes, I'm a boomer.
When Donald Fagen used a drum machine and synth marimba on "The Goodbye Look" from the album "The Nightfly," my pop sensibilities were shaken. Pop music became machine-driven and spiritless.
The lack of credits on recordings has made the music impersonal and the creators of the music unknown quantities, like the anonymous person putting a car together in Detroit.
There is a wealth of good music being written and performed, but much of it gets lost in the niche markets and lacks the industry's push.
Often on social media, one can see a photo of The Lawrence Welk Band accompanied by derogatory rhetoric. Those musicians were playing TV, film, and record dates. Paul Humphries played drum set on "Tutti Frutti" by Little Richard and changed rock drumming; yet he played polkas for dollars with the "Welk" band.
Notes are notes; each generation has its share of good music and bad music.
In the end, the music industry is truly the epitome of the Hunter S. Thompson quote that appears on social media once a month.
A 2011 study from scientists at The University of Bristol used something like these criteria to model the possibility a particular song might be a hit. They built a predictive algorithm and ran a particular song through it, then compared their results to the song’s actual performance on the charts. The algorithm had an average success rate of 60 percent, although that fell off around 1980 before rebounding in the mid-90s. Here’s a link: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2011/8116.html
It seems to me that the greatest music transition came in the 1950s. This is when Perry Cuomo was replaced by Jerry Lee Lewis, and the Brothers Four by Bill Haley and the Comets, etc., etc. These were radical changes. Case closed!
I love lots of new music but theres definitely a lot of modern pop that feels alien to me, as it should. I quite liked Chapell Roans album though cos it felt like a throwback to the late 90s, early 2000s. I found it much easier to digest than say a Taylor Swift album from which I may understand the hook but not much else.
Very interesting. I am from the classic rock generation, but enjoy some of the post rock music, except for Rap, a genre a never really understood or like. I can’t even imagine listening to oldies years from now and choosing rap.
as somebody who pretty much doesn't listen to any top 40, and rarely knows what's in it (save for a handful of accidental crossovers into my universe), it's always fascinating to see these kinds of analyses because rock is still so prevalent in my own listening patterns and recommendations. i have no beef with top 40; it's just funny to get these reminders about how far removed i am from the real world sometimes.
Same. This was a great read, but it's funny to me that nickelback and Creed are the big modern rock influences when Jack White, Fontaines DC, and King Gizzard exist.
I play and listen to a fair bit of traditional music (think The Chieftains). Some of this music has been around for several hundred years, maybe longer. We don't know who wrote a lot of it. Some of it is brand new and sounds like it's 200 years old. There are established 'classics' that have stood the test of time and for me stand with the best of the best music in terms of melodic beauty or danceability (or for the true gems, both!). Oral cultures tended to save and refine the best.
So it's odd to think of how quickly pop-music has morphed in just a few decades. Or looking back farther, how 'classical' music emerged in the west as high brow and distinct from working music, military music, or peasant music. And then changed stylistically every few decades.
Before the 19th century, people didn't travel as much, paper and scores were expensive (if musicians could even read or use them), and recordings did not exist. Instruments were pricy - but people wanted to make music for dance, for ceremony, for working. So people sang, clapped, built their own instruments. Not surprising that the traditional tunes that was passed down and the written records both suggest a lot of stability in folk music and dance music. Did anyone mind? I'm not sure we can say, but they kept playing and learning the same tunes for the most part. New tunes were composed in the same styles, with subtle differences plus some new approaches.
That suggests to me that stability was broadly ok. Creating and playing music - good, necessary! Innovation - nice to have? A wildly different cultural space and mindset. But is it that far off the repeated 'revivals' of pop genres? The continued performance of symphonic classics because they are important? People saying you have to listen to the Beatles, or Hendrix, or Stevie Wonder because those are the classics? A few days ago Ted pointed out Rumer, who sounds just like a contemporary of Carole King. Or maybe Feist. If a style or approach is good and loved, keeping it going can be cool. Talented and thoughtful artists find the sweet spot between stability and respect for a musical style and their own need to create and innovate.
So a place that's interesting musically at the moment is the continuing revival of Gaelic music in Scotland and Ireland. It's partly about playing great tunes that have been part of these communities for decades and generations. It's partly about identity. It's also very much about reviving and protecting the Gaelic languages - Scottish Gaelic and Irish, which have been in decline for centuries. Some of it is explicitly anti-colonial. So you have Irish language rappers KNEECAP from Northern Ireland who are both anti-colonial and explicitly Irish Republicans, while at the same time celebrating sex, drugs, party lifestyle and street culture. They are general shit-disturbers. They are probably the biggest, most popular example and made news at Coachella. But other artists are at work, too. EDM music and electronic soundscapes are merging into folk ballads and traditional pieces, using both new and old melodies. You have Gaelic language songs with a big-band style backing piece (ok at least one song). More and more trad or pop acts seem to perform in Gaelic, period. Many of these acts are on the edge of what we might call pop music, but they still want to sell music and book shows. They aren't trad the way the Chieftains were.
Bits and pieces of this pop/ trad/ folk mash-up happened in past decades (Ashley MacIsaac, Pogues, Drop Kick Murphies) but something seems different this time: maybe the number of acts? the fact it seems to be going for years now? the quality of the musicians? the 'indie' DIY approach that seems common? the explicit connection to the language? the comfort in being 'modern' musicians that are stretching out musically and thematically? Maybe it's nothing more than how easy it is to find these bands and get their music? Regardless, I like it, but I don't expect it to be top 40 anytime soon ;-)
The great changes in music as we know it probably began around the 16th century, with the generation of Buxtehude, followed by the generations of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, and others.
These were tremendous transformations. If you were born in 1750, I dare say you would have witnessed more change in music by 1825 than someone born in 1950 sees today in 2025.
The same could be said for someone born in 1650 or 1850.
For example, Mozart and Beethoven were rebels in their time.
The major change we see today is that the audience is largely passive, with much less musical knowledge; eager for something that sounds a bit different, but is essentially the same as last season.
Fascinating. One obvious point: The platforms for finding new music have changed even more dramatically than the music itself. Elvis and the Beatles found their audiences through network television and AM radio stations. 📻 All that seems quaint as vaudeville today.
I believe the role of music in "identity formation" was severed sometime in the 1990s or early 2000s. If kids today still form tribes (and I'm not sure they do), music has almost nothing to do with it. Whereas from the 50s to the 80s, it was arguably the very thing that distinguished one subcultural group from another. So I'm not sure that the "thrill of identify formation" is still part of the equation.
Fun stuff. I was hoping to see some song examples and their composition index scores, so I could get a picture in mind of what those scores mean.
How did you choose your "top artists" examples for each decade? Is that based on actual record sales or something? When I think of "90's music", none of those artists pop into my mind. I think of Nirvana, Guns N Roses, Red Hot Chili Peppers, No Doubt, Weezer, Fiona Apple, Britney Spears.
Also, you used the average for each year. What would happen if you looked at the top n from each year? Would the outlier songs tell us anything? After all, don't new trends come from the outliers, not the averages?
Finally, how do cover songs and samples factor in to this? That song "Anxiety" that is heavily sampling Gotye has been quite popular lately. And Olivia Rodrigo ripped off Paramore. Is your system agnostic to samples?
The Billboard top 100 was always dominated by mainstream pop. Some of the biggest changes in rock in 30 years happened in the 90s, but doesn't seem to have been captured by the billboard charts.
Smell's Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana is an example. It peaked at Number 6 on the Billboard Top 100 in the US, in January 1992. At that time the top six songs were by Michael Jackson, Color Me Badd, Mariah Carey, Boyz II Men, M.C. Hammer and Nirvana.
It's fun looking through the charts around that time. There's lots of rock in there (GNR, grunge, Chilli Peppers, U2, REM) but you're right, lots of pop and light rock right at the top: MJ, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Paula Abdul, Madonna, Bryan Adams, Michael Bolton.
Thank you for the article. As a recovering stats geek, I was happy to see the application of principle components analysis to art/music.
Through out your article, the discussion is laced with an underlying assumption that popular music and their associated genres are always the result of some organic process, where the free market kind of magically produces and distributes the music that the masses demand.
It seems pretty obvious to me that this is rarely the case. In fact, I strongly suspect that this process is exactly what the music industry abhors. For example, this can be clearly demonstrated the industry (Clear Channel ?) spending billions, buying up all the FM radio stations in the 80`s and 90`s. Generally, they are not searching the world high and low to bring us the next Bob Dylan, or whatever. I mean, what would happen to their existing portfolio of mediocrities with their giant marketing budgets/investments.
To give a more micro example of the industry managing the process by which music/culture is produced/distributed. Your article mentions the introduction of syn drums and its association with Madonna, et al; I might be off here, but would it not be more accurate to say these are drum machines? And that maybe these were more efficient in the engineering/recording process? And that you would not have to pay a drummer?
What do you think the decision making process was where by suddenly virtually all popular music had drum machines? It seems pretty clear that this is not driven by the intersection of creative process and technology. I can`t imagine an awesome drummer saying in the early 80`s `man, I really like my drums but I really want to sit down to the key board and fiddle around with a bunch of pull down menus. That would be awesome!`
It wasn`t uncommon for top bands to spend a million in 1970 dollars in the studio and bring in studio musicians and top recording engineers and take months to come out with new album. How much does it cost to produce a rap album? With no musicians? Nobody is actually singing. Nobody even knows how to read music. Isn`t it more akin to highly stylized karaoke with a huge marketing budget than music?
I could go on here....you postulate what would happen if we just had hand-b-down rock posters in our room. Why is this even relevant? You present it as if it is a final capper to your argument. WHy is this a problem that needs to be solved by the recording industry?
Anyway...I think the above mentioned processes can explain a lot of the long periods of musical dearths and why you are never going to see/hear multiple artists covering Madonna or Michael Jackson songs from the 80`s. or have a Michael Jackson revival trend, or whatever.
Thanks again for the article...and letting me vent a bit here....much appreciated!
Almost perfect, except Chapell is clearly a retread. Those who don't get her think it's been done better. Brat if anything is the album old folks don't get.
I'm gonna go out there and stand up for Pink Pony Club - that song kills it for me. Honestly it's the only song by Chappell Roan I know. BUT a big voice, good melody, dramatic story, solid construction, nice build up, plus a kicking beat. Retread - maybe. I don't know enough to say. But I like it.
This was a splendid read. I love your work so much
My observation about cover bands and soloists in pubs and venues, is there is still a strong weight to 80's rock and pop with 60's-90's generally being the majority of songs. Soloists do that older stuff as well as more recent pop stuff like Ed Sheeran, Jason Mraz etc, but those songs would not have been out of place in the 80's
Without statistical analysis but with reasonably solid knowledge about popular music history, I'd argue that the 1950s were the decade with the greatest shifts. More accurately, the period between 1945-1960.
As a performer, teacher, and composer, I am living under a rock.
Having taught composition and percussion at a university for the last 28 years, I know that I am beyond a neophyte regarding popular music. When students struggle to use manuscript paper and pencils to write drafts, the craft suffers. Yes, I'm a boomer.
When Donald Fagen used a drum machine and synth marimba on "The Goodbye Look" from the album "The Nightfly," my pop sensibilities were shaken. Pop music became machine-driven and spiritless.
The lack of credits on recordings has made the music impersonal and the creators of the music unknown quantities, like the anonymous person putting a car together in Detroit.
There is a wealth of good music being written and performed, but much of it gets lost in the niche markets and lacks the industry's push.
Often on social media, one can see a photo of The Lawrence Welk Band accompanied by derogatory rhetoric. Those musicians were playing TV, film, and record dates. Paul Humphries played drum set on "Tutti Frutti" by Little Richard and changed rock drumming; yet he played polkas for dollars with the "Welk" band.
Notes are notes; each generation has its share of good music and bad music.
In the end, the music industry is truly the epitome of the Hunter S. Thompson quote that appears on social media once a month.
A 2011 study from scientists at The University of Bristol used something like these criteria to model the possibility a particular song might be a hit. They built a predictive algorithm and ran a particular song through it, then compared their results to the song’s actual performance on the charts. The algorithm had an average success rate of 60 percent, although that fell off around 1980 before rebounding in the mid-90s. Here’s a link: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2011/8116.html
It seems to me that the greatest music transition came in the 1950s. This is when Perry Cuomo was replaced by Jerry Lee Lewis, and the Brothers Four by Bill Haley and the Comets, etc., etc. These were radical changes. Case closed!
I love lots of new music but theres definitely a lot of modern pop that feels alien to me, as it should. I quite liked Chapell Roans album though cos it felt like a throwback to the late 90s, early 2000s. I found it much easier to digest than say a Taylor Swift album from which I may understand the hook but not much else.
Very interesting. I am from the classic rock generation, but enjoy some of the post rock music, except for Rap, a genre a never really understood or like. I can’t even imagine listening to oldies years from now and choosing rap.
I’ve always enjoyed your writing, but the negativity about specific bands in this article really turned me off.