The Domestication of Sound in Pop Music

Of all the characteristics that make pop music memorable, two stand out as being especially significant: a well-defined sound and a distinguishable melody. Of the two, melody is seemingly the more important; however, the sound (recording technique, production choices, instrumentation, etc.) provides the 'context' for the melody, and contributes to the overall quality of the piece.

It may not be possible to define the characteristics of great melodies, other than to say that they tend to survive the vagaries of public taste. As anyone could observe, some melodies endure, while the majority fall into obscurity. However, 'sound' is easier to pinpoint. Recording techniques are analyzable, orchestration and scoring may be broken down, influences determined, and so forth.

Take, for example, the garage rock sound that existed for only about two to three years (1965-67). The best garage groups had a handful of memorable songs. However, there were hundreds, or even thousands more garage rock bands that are also remembered, not so much for their compositions, but for their sound, which today many people still find noteworthy. The fact remains that without any truly memorable melodies to their names, most of these groups will remain obscure to all but the most die-hard enthusiasts. Yet, for being exemplars of a distinctive rock sound, they will never be completely forgotten.

It is a common complaint about the pop music of recent years that songwriters no longer have the sense for a good melody that their predecessors had. While I would tend to agree with this, it is with the awareness that the passage of time is the true judge of good melody, not the opinion of contemporaries. The more justifiable charge one could make is that pop music performers are not creating a distinctive sound for their music.

Actually, it is not a case for blame entirely. Through technology, we have tamed the sound of the rock combo. It used to be that sound, especially in live performance (but also to a degree in the studio) was hit-or-miss. There were just too many things that could go wrong. Also, PA systems were inadequate, monitoring was primitive or non-existent, and the science of amplifying instruments was not developed. However, live music could occasionally be electrifying, because it was solely up to the individual players to get their performance across to the audience by means of their instrument and whatever primitive amplification they had.

Now, we have the technical ability to make live performance more consistent. Performers themselves certainly can't be blamed for wanting things to be better. It is no pleasure to have to play and sing out of tune because you can't hear yourself, for example. Touring is hard enough as it is; it isn't too much to ask to have the sound of your performance under control. Audiences aren't complaining either as, having paid a high price for admission, they at least get to hear sounds that are presentable and listenable.

Listenable, yes. Interesting, less so. Part of the reason is that live sound is homogenized, as it is being managed. Every sound is mediated, by means of instrument microphones, guitar direct boxes, soundboards, and so forth. A second reason has to do with musical culture (which I have discussed in other essays). A certain abandon is missing from even the best records and live performances. You go to a concert, and, as good as it may be, you always pretty much know what's going to happen next. Lastly, the notion that a band should be "greater than the sum of its parts" has been somewhat forgotten. If you want to hear interesting interplay between instrumental parts, spontaneity, and a developed melodic sense in the instrumental accompaniment, as a general rule you have to go back to an earlier musical era.

I have very briefly outlined the technical practices that force a certain tameness on our music (though I haven't addressed some of the techniques used in commercial pop music: the pitch-correction used on vocals and other manipulations that give the very biggest artists their uniformity and polish). However, there are cultural forces at work too. All of our music is currently branded (in the marketing sense), much of it overtly and crassly; the rest is branded nonetheless, as 'niche' music, or 'independent', or whatever soothing label one may choose. Since brands are meant to reinforce certain ideas we carry around about ourselves, and do not, as a rule, risk surprising us with things we may find strange or unpleasant, it is not surprising that the sound of pop music has also become more uniform.