[bitwize]

"Clichés like this are beautiful, because they reflect us and we are beautiful. Take, for example, this chord progression. It only became taboo because it was too powerful -- that's why you won't forget it." --Porter Robinson

Pop music isn't gruel. A lot of it may be slop, but it's deeply appealing. Somebody somewhere solved for what "works", and a million copycats cloned it with minimal effort because it works.

So don't think gruel. It's more along the line of... McDonald's. Bad food, but it's appealing. And people do bond over it, or at least they used to before people stopped caring and fast food places became utter hellscapes. You still see kids bonding over McD's in Japan.

[_DeadFred_]

In order to be heard, truly heard, you have to be able to be understood. Music is 80% familiarity. Rarely can you just add your 20% uniqueness and be understandable. All music starts with 80% gruel as the base recipe.

[quesera]

This is a good point. I'd argue well more than 80% though.

Time signatures, instrumentation, arrangements, chord progressions, etc are the base gruel that forms the core of almost all (western/popular) music.

The "new" contributions of most artists are more like flavorings or spices with the occasional unexpected twist on the base. And, critically, this is necessary to find an audience.

Even bands that "change music" are just permuting on the basic gruel. And, usually, just popularizing the permutations that other bands have tried first but were too early/didn't break out of their local audience/etc.

Often these permutations only get popular because they bring with them a new and appealing (or under-represented) aesthetic. It's not even really the music, necessarily.

There are exceptions, there are some real musical innovators. They rarely get popular though, no matter how much respect they earn from their peers.

[whythre]

That is fair. I do not find pop appealing, but the fast food analogy is apt.