[apeacox]

Nice job! :-) I think that music (melodies, riffs, combination of sounds and notes, etc...) are getting very stupidier. I don't have tools nor skills to test this assumption, just my hears. Try to listen MTV for some month and you'll see that a lot of new songs are very similar to other ones. I mean, too much similar.

[sanoli]

A musician friend of mine (classically trained, but works with pop music for decades now) says that's true, and the reason is that much music today is heavily rhythm centric, and everything else around it is ending up less complex or less diverse (don't remember which). I don't really know if it makes sense, as I haven't really been keeping up with mainstream stuff. Not that I don't like it, I just don't have as much time, and I found a suprising new love for older music that has kept strong and my music time goes towards it.

[grumblestumble]

The idea that rhythm is somehow less "intelligent", "complex", or "diverse" has all kinds of terrible connotations. Does your friend wear a powdered wig and perform for the ladies of the court?

[sanoli]

No, the idea is that today's pop music is rhythmically less diverse. Where is this mainstream pop music with such complex, diverse rhythms? Let me know where to tune it. He compared contemporary jazz rhythm sections to contemporary pop as an example, vs. both genres in past decades.

[blake_himself]

I'll venture Radiohead's 'Reckoner': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wCJPm19XYQ

[cheald]

I'm not sure it's fair to call Radiohead "pop". Their shtick is experimental stuff, very different from the bulk of pop.

[return0]

that's not particularly rhythmically diverse, compared to , e.g. paranoid android

[prewett]

That's 'cause they've been recycling the same four I, IV, V, vi chords for years :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ