Never bought into the art is subjective thing. Like everything else in this world, be it factory or hand made, physical objects or music from vibrating air molecules, it all can be assigned an objective quality rating from 0 to 100 based on every criteria known throughout history and evolution, for what comprises high, low and everything in between quality.
There is subjectivity only in that there will always be at least one or more persons among a population of 8.3 billion, that will think even the worst pieces of shit in existence, deemed by every single criteria know to man along with 99.999999% of everyone else, is really good.
So yeah, just because one likes something everyone else considers awful, doesn't mean it's 'subjectively' good. It just means you have real shit taste, heh.

 

Last edited: Apr 19, 2026 at 6:47 PM

Our alphabet consists of 26 letters, and our entire language is made up of just these 26 letters.
Our entire musical system consists of 7 tones and 5 semitones.
We've come a long way, and everyone has the opportunity to perceive music in all its forms and colors and to compose it themselves.

Never before has it been as easy as it is today, thanks to the internet, software, samples, and books, to make good to very good music. The entire world, with all its countries and cultures, has long since become interconnected.

It's more a matter of your brain: what musical knowledge can you store, absorb, or understand? In other words, what musical knowledge do you actually want and are you capable of, and how can you translate that musicality into a final product, such as a song?

 

Dude, my comment has nothing to do with the longing for some "perfect complexity." In fact, the very idea is abstract and irrelevant to artists like Nile Rodgers, Tom Jobim, Tears for Fears or ABBA, all of whom managed to bring harmonic, melodic and structural depth to the mainstream without losing commercial appeal. What has changed is that today’s dominant aesthetics are shaped far more by advertising logic than by musical invention. The principles are clear:

-Emphasizing a single central idea (and hammering it ad nauseam);
-Information hierarchy (hooking the ear in the first few seconds and repeating the profitable formula to fix it in place);
-Reducing richness and variety in the auditory channel to avoid “listening fatigue”;
-Information control (maximizing the so‑called useful message and minimizing decorative elements or anything considered distraction).

This has nothing to do with complexity being perfect or imperfect. What I am pointing out is that mainstream music once embraced structural sophistication, in harmony, melody, and motivic development, while remaining accessible and commercially successful. Today, however, advertising logic has pushed the mainstream toward "softer" formulas, reducing the diversity and inventiveness that were once present.

A careful reading of your response leads me to think that you are trying to neutralize the debate by saying there is no fixed parameter: you propose that there is no beginning or end, that everything is relative, that any pursuit of a "ideal degree of complexity" is irrelevant outside its own generation. In short, you defend a view that relativizes everything, making it impossible to speak of loss or gain (cultural relativism taken to the extreme!).

So, for you, it is as if there were a clash between critical realism (my position, defending that there are data, facts and evidence showing a decrease in diversity/inventiveness) and cultural relativism. Look, that's not quite right, Iagree with your argument about cultural relativism: complexity and simplicity do alternate across generations. However, even if the "ideal degree of complexity" ends up being an arbitrary construct, what can be measured objectively is variety, or the lack thereof, even statistically! That’s the point! When mainstream music is restricted to a handful of formulas without diversity or inventiveness, the loss is not just about "subjective taste"... it is the notorious cut‑down effect, a reduction in the diversity of options once available to the collective ear. Understand: diversity/inventiveness, which would add sophistication to the mainstream, are being denied to the general public!

As for niches and avant‑garde movements, as I said earlier, they may continue to explore complexity, but their reach is far more limited compared to the mainstream. And since the mainstream shapes the collective perception of what is considered "the spirit of the time", homogenization has real consequences. Your whole explanation about relativism does not erase the fact that today the public is exposed to less diversity and inventiveness than before. This is an objective and measurable reduction of diversity, regardless of whether one prefers simplicity or complexity... which is not even the central point of my entire argument!

 

Last edited: Apr 20, 2026 at 12:16 AM

I don't think it's talked about enough how "charting" has changed in the modern streaming era. Charting doesn't really measure what people enjoy listening to the most anymore, the music with the most streams is mostly the stuff that's listened to passively, ie vibes music. We all have the ability to essentially listen to music during every waking moment and task now. When you look at other metrics, a different pattern emerges though. There are quite a few instances around the world where people vote for their favourite tracks of the year, like Australia's TripleJ Hottest 100 for instance, the quality of the tracks on that list is way higher compared to the 100 most streamed tracks of the year.

 

More then half of the streams are bot's too, so someone who have organic streams can't even get in Top 50, let alone Top 10, this is like OnlyFans thing, where they fake their income to appear more popular then they are, get more attention, this goes in that same way, you kinda feel FOMO for not checking what's trending and what's trending is carefully inflated with bot's and your curiosity. Spotify as a metric is a joke, they pretty much only had issue in the past if more then 90% of your streams are bot's, even if it's 50% now which I doubt, it's enough to push any organic one out of the charts with bot's alone.

 

I love his interviews. I wish he would focus solely on that.

 

I highly recommend you people watch this video:

In short: In the past, sophistication was the result of hard work and the joy of the process: eccentric engineers building equipment that looked like the creations of mad scientists, real musicians looking at each other in the studio and playing together like normal people, with performances full of contributions (let’s use a suspension on this chord here, because of this, maybe that), nuances, breaths out of time, notes played off-beat, and that delicious imperfection that gave music breath and life. Nowadays? The industry has turned into a digital sausage factory: maximum speed, algorithms in charge, everyone chasing the sterile "less is always more"! The result? A sea of identical, predictable productions that sound as if they were all made on the same day, by the same person (or group of people), using the same template. There’s no longer room for mistakes, for "let’s try this chord here," for the happy accident that turned a recording into something magical. Today, an accident is considered a bug, and the producer discards it before it’s even born.

On top of that, harmony, melody, theme, development… all those things that used to be built with soul, coffee, and heated discussions among people are now replaced by a fast-food musical aesthetic: MIDI chord progression libraries, advertising-market logic, efficiency, ready in 15 minutes, optimized for all social networks. The goal is no longer to captivate or surprise, but to generate quick engagement, sell playlists, and rack up followers as fast as possible… before the algorithm changes its mind!

In the end, the audience is being blatantly robbed: they traded a vivid musical experience, full of interesting nuances, charming imperfections, and genuine emotions, for a pasteurized mashed potato purée (tasteless, textureless, and with a two-week expiration date!). All in the name of "efficiency" and the much-desired visibility on social media. Because, well… why make art when you can make content?

 

Last edited: Apr 20, 2026 at 4:37 AM

I would totally agree except for one area that for me is irrefutable.

ANY piece of music is creative or it is not and shows imagination and a desire to develop on a theme or not. The style or genre is irrelevant when discussing theme development and creativity.
A tune is musical volume and musical intensity dynamic and goes somewhere like telling a story or it is like a hamster on a wheel, the same thing over and over and over again ad nauseum. This is true for any music time period.

 

There's only three types of music, good, bad or indifferent regardless of genre or century.

For me, the only major difference between this und the other great song i posted is six decades, i could easily post another from hundreds of years ago, all great music shares the same thing, excellent voice-leading, that's what makes Justins a strong melody a hook in fact.

Art,especially music, should be memorable, otherwise wot's the point?


What i luv about Akers amazing tune is there's no production and the poxy pianos und strings aren't even needed, fabulous musicianship coupled with excellent voice-leading is a hard thing to pull off.

Like i say, a good tune's a good tune no matter what century it was written but not everybody can hear that, depends how much you've soaked up to date. If my music's any good it's because of what i listened to as a maturing youth, i guess i'm unconsciously trying to copy it, eg i never write reggae, haven't got any reggae albums so not surprising eh.

As a songwriter you are wot you listen to, so choose wisely, folk like Rick will suffer cos they have a vey narrow appreciation of current and past genres, i've only ever listened to great music regardless of genre and reading the many many flattering reviews and comments on my stuff, it seems it shows.

Perhaps one of yous will let Rick know about this eh.

 

After listening to Aker I couldn't resist it, nice production of this one, fab vocal

 

Kind of making my point for me here. Tiny time window of cultural relevance - confined to a ~generation.

Depth relative to other mainstream music of that era?

Things that popular music has always been accused of, with good reason. Includes the artists you named earlier, as judged by the generation that came before them.

When? And don't say "well, my generation of music, obviously".

Yes, that is indeed true.

I agree with you here. But arguing "depth" in (~contemporary) mainstream music is like arguing which is better: Jell-O Salad or TV Dinner. Neither. They're both culinary atrocities. Let's just move on.

While one can objectively measure that there has been a change in variety, measuring the degree of that change is extremely difficult.

The two anchors you're using are: "Music I like", and "music I don't like".

That's pretty damn silly! But very human.

Note that I actually agree with you, mostly. I want to see more variety, diversity and inventiveness, too. I just won't pat myself on the back for liking "better" music or argue that the other guy's music, which is only 20–25 years removed from my own music, makes any meaningful difference to me, him, humanity, music as a whole.

(But if you held a gun to my head, I'd admit it: Today's music is shit)

The erosion of the qualities you mentioned will continue and it won't be stopped. It is what it is.

We're not bringing back quality food either. We're at the point where it's "take your damned medicine or the food will kill you", rofl.

 

If we shut down the internet and invested more money in music education, we'd have good music again in five years!
On the other hand, the age of good music is over...! Thank goodness we were able to save all the good songs...!

 

I like this quote. Sounding expensive has more to do with harmonic depth than meaningless complexity or silly simplicity. And i also like the mentioned artists for the very same reason.

But in between guitar shredders and TikTok rappers there are people who have the need of comunicating through the language of music and will do their best to get better at this task.

 

Those who rap express themselves by rapping, after all! They are certainly creative.

However, the quality standards of some adults are different from those of young people. In other words, for many of us earthlings, pieces of music that you find stupid and inadequate are perfectly sufficient. You can't fly a Lufthansa plane with three YouTube courses. You need a high school diploma and a qualified education for that.

Looking at the figures for music universities worldwide, there is still hope that high-quality music will continue to exist.

 

Last edited: Apr 20, 2026 at 5:23 PM

Oh please, as if cultural relevance is measured solely by how long a TikTok trend lasts before it gets replaced by the next brain-dead dance. Cultural relevance isn’t just about surviving one measly generation. It’s about the structural impact artists leave behind. Jobim, ABBA, or Rodgers didn’t just have their 15 minutes of fame, they actually shaped entire generations that came after them and are still being referenced decades later. That’s what real sophistication looks like: the kind that doesn’t evaporate the moment the algorithm gets bored... Unlike whatever disposable slop is topping the charts this week!

It doesn’t even matter if we compare it inside the mainstream of each era or outside it. The data still slaps: there was way more harmonic, melodic, and structural diversity from the 60s all the way through the mid-90s than the musical oatmeal we’re being served today. This isn’t about "taste": It’s about cold, hard, measurable statistical variety. You can literally count it.
But sure, keep pretending today’s cookie-cutter bangers are just as rich and complex (following your reckless relativism, anything can be justified!) But the charts don’t lie... they just all sound exactly the same.

Yeah, sure, people have been complaining about music getting "simpler" since forever. But here’s the thing, champ: there’s a massive difference between "people always whine" and actual, measurable decline. Back then, even inside the mainstream there was still room for experimentation, weird ideas, and actual musical risks. Today? The homogenization is statistically proven: fewer chords, less rhythmic variation, fewer interesting timbres. It’s not nostalgia talking... it’s data. The charts have turned into a sonic McDonald’s menu where everything tastes like the same processed cheese. So yes, critics have always bitched about simplification... but this time the numbers actually agree with them!

Relax, I’m not about to pull the "back in my day" card. This is straight-up historical fact, not grandpa yelling at clouds.
The mainstream from the 60s through the 80s actually had the balls to embrace real structural sophistication (and still earning some big fat money) We’re talking Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Tom Jobim, Pink Floyd, Earth Wind & Fire… all of them sitting comfortably at the top of the charts while casually dropping chord progressions, modulations, and melodic complexity that would make most current "hitmakers" spontaneously combust. They were commercial as hell, insanely accessible, and still sounded rich.
Meanwhile today’s mainstream is out here serving the musical equivalent of plain white rice: safe, repetitive, and somehow proud of how little flavor it has. So yeah… "when?" Exactly then. Not "my generation". Just the last time popular music wasn’t afraid of sounding smart.

We agree on that part... both are indeed culinary war crimes. But let’s not pretend that admitting "everything is relative" magically erases the actual point. Yes, today’s mainstream is a competition between different shades of musical beige… but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re objectively witnessing a measurable reduction in harmonic, melodic, rhythmic, and timbral diversity. Screaming "it’s all relative!" from the rooftops like it’s some profound philosophical mic drop doesn’t delete the data. The charts have become a statistical wasteland of repetition. You can call both Jell-O Salad and TV Dinner trash, sure… but one era at least had the decency to occasionally serve a delicious and juicy steak, and we know exactly what it is, thanks to statistics, my dear!

Difficult doesn’t mean impossible. There are actual statistical studies analyzing chord variety, harmonic progressions, melodic phrasing, timbral diversity, and they clearly demonstrate a significant decline. This isn’t just my opinion. It’s research. Published data. You can look it up... or not! After all, everything is relative when the numbers don’t support the "right vibe", right?

Not quite. The argument isn’t rooted in personal taste at all. If it were just "music I like vs. music I don’t like", we wouldn’t have objective, measurable data showing a clear reduction in harmonic inventiveness, melodic variety, and structural complexity over time. This isn’t about subjective preference, it’s a structural observation. The numbers don’t care about my playlist or yours. They simply reveal that mainstream music today operates with a noticeably narrower palette than it did in previous decades. Calling it "It's just taste dude!" is a convenient way to dodge the actual conversation about what those data points are showing. Sometimes it’s not about taste in music... sometimes it’s just cognitive dissonance "crashing on your trends" (I trust you’re not currently residing in that state of mind)!

I appreciate the honesty (especially that last part you only admit under gunpoint!)
But this isn’t about patting ourselves on the back for having "superior taste". It’s simpler than that: the current mainstream is objectively offering the public a much narrower range of musical diversity.
Whether someone personally likes today’s sound or not is beside the point. The structural inventiveness (harmonic depth, melodic sophistication) has clearly diminished. That loss affects what’s available to everyone, not just those of us who notice it.
Admitting "today’s music is shit" in private is funny, sure... but pretending the decline doesn’t exist just because it’s only 20–25 years old doesn’t make the data disappear.

So you admit there’s erosion. Great! we’re already in agreement on the main point.
The difference is that I see this as a real cultural and artistic problem: a genuine loss of richness, inventiveness, and diversity that leaves millions of common listeners with a poorer musical experience. You prefer to frame it as relativistic inevitability: "it is what it is."
But calling something inevitable doesn’t erase the loss, it just shrugs at it with a casual "rofl"!
It’s like watching a beautiful landscape being paved over for a parking lot and saying, "Well, progress... I guess..." It might be true that turning things around won’t be easy... but recognizing the erosion and simply resigning yourself to it are two very different things. OBS: And it’s honestly refreshing that at no point did you claim this erosion is happening "for the greater good", 'cos if you had, I’d be genuinely worried!

 

Last edited: Apr 20, 2026 at 10:10 PM

This whole conversation is pointless since Rick's videos are actually advertisements disguised as content.
No need to argue about sophistication and complexity when the Beato Utimate Bundle provides the solution for $79.99 @ https://rickbeato.com/

The bottom line in modern music is that money talks and a 32 bar melody isn't making anywhere near as much anymore as mispronouncing "APT" repetitively nowadays.

 

GO AWAY OLD BOY ...OUT OF DATE ..

 

Old man yells at cloud and people love watching it, that's why

 

How can you label others music crap, when you yourself can't even write crap, or can you?

Pulse wave rattles on about education being the key, when all the stuff from the past that i assume he digs was written mostly by blokes 'oo ' ad no music lessons, it's the worst thing you could do to a child.

It's precisely cos I'm self-taught that I still have a 'childlike' fascination with making music.

All Beato etc can do is recite wot his stupid teacher told him, circle of 5ths, Supertonic, a specially named minor 'mode, that i cant even name, basically absolutely nowt. Oh yeah i know, one is called Dorian mode, a useless label, I didnt know the name 'til years later but had written 50 or more songs in a Dorian mode, but nobody told me too. Think about that.

No way is music ever complicated, it may appear so to some who have limited knowledge. Complex perhaps.

The big mistake folk make about creating music is that you need a certain education, YOU DON'T, the only thing that stops you from writing a great song is you, beacause you think there's a special way and some people have this amazing secret knowledge, they dont, there isn't any.

Yes, anybody can be a songwriter, but not every body can, as there are definately certain traits that certain particular people have that enables them the work it out for themselves, that is a huge part of it, you need to be sensitive, logical, astute, intuitive, other qualities too, not everybody is like that.

Majority of musicians are not songwriters, think about that.

The only reason why any of you cannot write a great song today and without any prior knowledge is you, even if it is your first time. Period.

You could write a hit song at your first attempt as many have before.

If you think a piece of music is crap that means you could do better, really, could you, then do so, only you can do what you can do, so just do it eh.