Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulcole | Hacker News Reader

Except the conclusion isn’t scientific at all. It’s 100% based on opinion. The author identified trends, yes, but that’s about it.

Simpler and more repetitive doesn’t mean worse — it means simpler and more repetitive. Never once have I listened to a song and thought, “Wow, this sucks, these lyrics would compress really easily.”

View on HN

I do. Something like Hotel California that invokes a vivid imagery in one's mind seems unthinkable today. I don't know whether this affects the imagination or lingual abilities of the listeners, but it certainly can not produce the same emotions.

I honestly don’t know whether you’re praising or criticizing Hotel California.

• https://www.laweekly.com/the-eagles-hotel-california-why-thi...

• https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/12/lets-talk-abo...

Think what you want about the song, but the lyrics are descriptive yet metaphorical. I made this example because I assumed everyone is familiar with it. The point is: the lyrics don't just consist of "I did this, I did that, yeah yeah yeah".

Are you saying no recent music contains "descriptive yet metaphorical" lyrics?

No, but it hardly exists in the mainstream and most indie music I've heard is mainly ambience stuff.

The bottom line is that older music seem better because time is a filter - we remember the good stuff. People have always complained that "music nowadays" is crap.

There is a hypothesis that older music seems better because it is cherry picked, and is being unfairly compared against a random selection of new music.

That hypothesis is, unfortunately, starkly false.

Music nowadays really is crap; time is not helping it. If we use our 20/20 hindsight and pick the best music of, say, the past 50 years, it will be heavily weighted toward the first 20 of those years.

Thirty years ago, sure, I thought that a lot of "music nowadays" was crap; but, unlike today, I also thought that a good deal of it wasn't.

> That hypothesis is, unfortunately, starkly false.

OK...why do you think is it false? That you don't care about contemporary music doesn't really disprove it.

Simpler and repetitive does mean worse.

Apologies in advance, there must be something wrong with my browser. The link to your source isn’t working.

Try again, this time by reading the page with your eyes open.

Simpler and repetitive does mean worse - for you. I actually agree with you, but I know plenty of people that love club/dance music, which is about as simple and repetitive as you can get. I think it's important to take the context of the music being played/performed as well: a simple, repetitive piece would likely not be received well in an orchestra hall, while a song with complex melody, deep lyrics, and rich harmony would likely be skipped at a football tailgate party. Music serves several functions in many different environments, and labeling a piece or style as universally worse is almost never true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com