"The melody is not interesting, the lyrics are not interesting, the chord progression is not interesting, the production isn't good...
Other than that sounds great!!"

 

So, dude, here’s how I see it: When he says that, he’s not simply trying to tear everything down or question it all. He dedicates himself, through his channel, to analyzing music from different styles and periods. His criticism points to a leveling down. Just think: in the past, melodies with 32 bars were composed, while today almost everything is reduced to loops of four or eight. There is a measurable loss here.

If we compare the rich harmonic progressions, or even the concept of dramatic curve applied to harmonization, of bands like The Beatles, Steely Dan, Queen, Earth, Wind & Fire, Radiohead, Tears for Fears, or Nile Rodgers with the simplicity of much of today’s output, we clearly see a reduction in creative labor. This is not just opinion: he relies on statistical data.

Music is always a reflection of its time (politically, culturally, ethically). And in contemporary production, there is an excessive simplification: techniques such as modulation or motivic variation have practically disappeared. This is not nitpicking, it’s a fact. Against statistics, there is no argument, I believe. Of course, all music expresses something (feelings, sensations, concepts, memories). But his point is not about expressiveness; It’s about how much one masters and applies the codes of “musical language,” instead of using blunt cuts just to "sell more, show me the money bitch". He constantly warns of the loss of creative work in this field. That’s all.

Therefore, before criticizing as if it were merely a generational attack, it’s important to focus on the content of the message, not just the criticism itself. And above all, not take it personally. That way, understanding becomes much clearer.

 

Last edited: Apr 18, 2026 at 12:56 PM

Look, I agree that taste is subjective and that each person seeks something different in music: some want melodic and harmonic depth, others prefer just groove, and still others are satisfied with short, catchy hooks. That’s legitimate and part of the plurality of art. And sure, if a musician misses a chord, it’s like, yeah, nah. But if an air traffic controller makes a mistake, it’s a whole different matter.

Still, recognizing this diversity doesn’t erase the fact that, structurally, there has been a major simplification in contemporary popular music. Techniques such as modulation, motivic variation, or more elaborate harmonic progressions have practically disappeared from the mainstream. This isn’t a matter of taste, it’s a fact: just compare statistically the complexity of compositions from past decades with today’s predominance of short loops and repetitive formulas (which some argue stem from the massification of short-form video formats).

Therefore, it’s not about saying that "good" or "bad" music depends only on taste (especially if you consider what ends up being mass-produced!). The point is that, regardless of individual preference, there is an objective loss of richness in the handling of the code of "musical language". And this deserves to be discussed, especially when it impacts the creative diversity that music can offer future generations.

 

I don't mind Rick's videos but I did find this video of his a little irritating. I get he's trying to hammer home this point about modern music having become less and less creative, but at times during the video his fixation on these songs needing to have more complexity is in my opinion flat out wrong. Not every song needs clever and/or unique chord progressions. Not every song needs to change up it's feel from section to section or continually introduce new musical ideas.

I personally think Rick needs to retire this tired and redundant series and replace it with something where he listens to and analyses lesser known and alternative musicians stuff. Rather than just dunking on commercial music and stuff everybody already knows, have a top 10 independent music finds breakdown and showcase "interesting stuff" by people trying to break through, pretty sure they'd appreciate the reach and exposure of being on such a big channel.

 

I agree, and this is definitely something that can be quantified and measured. There are a lot of discussions about this (and have been for the last couple of hundred years probably, but it's nothing new).

But as with any communication (which art definitely is) we have to take context into account. Music consumption has changed because the world has changed. I think that we can ingest only a certain amount of information at the time and the amount of stuff fed to our sensory systems and cognitive processes has grown exponentially and does so further ahead we look.

Therefore I contend that because we have all the worlds music at our fingertips at all times the amount of musical information ingested is roughly the same as it's always been or more (it's not like poor people could attend concert halls back in the day) so the amount of stuff in an individual piece is immaterial.

So let's say I paste a tune that's basically a piece based on an 8 bar sample into some social media there's a lot of stuff already there: the fact that the sampled piece is recontextualized into something new and the communication carries the context of my previous communication and whatever discussion it's part of which will inevitably lead to further music posted leading into an impromptu mixtape-ish string of sound. That in itself can carry musical stuff that's roughly the same as a complex composition.