I think that pop music corresponds to the economic situation. Granted, I only really have the American pop market to draw from, but if you trace back to the 1920s, i think it at least roughly corresponds. There was great economic prosperity in the 20s and it was the heydey of upbeat jazz and swing music. In the 30s, you get the music slowing down, the blues and 'country' music starting to find their feet. The 40s are a little trickier because of the War, but Big Band music is popular and the original rock and roll starts to poke its head out at the tail end of the decade. In the 50s, when the whole country is rolling along with all the new industry and suburbs and Leave It To Beaver crap, you get alot of silly bubblegum music (teenage crooners). In the mid 60s, you have a nation in economic transition in a lot of ways. The kids are coming from families with money, so they listen to poppy stuff like early beatles, like motown, etc. but things are on the downturn because of Vietnam and other things. You see protest music and then in the 70s lots of angry, reactionary, depressing music as the economy starts to dry up and nobody can seem to get anywhere. the 80s see the likes of Springsteen being huge as everyone's dealing with the depression and he's singing about what it's like to be sad and poor. Similar situation with the beginnings of rap music. During the bulk of the 90s, the US economy gets much better, everyone's got an extra SUV in the driveway, and suddenly everyone's listening to Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys. Over the past couple years, the economy has started shrinking, and suddenly really angry music is coming back.

Just a really long thought...

nice theory! hehe very very long thought, altho i think music has little effect on the overal world economy or even US, it shurely influences us and by that it could influence what and how many we buy, in little margins, the same as colour does.

interesting idea. i don't think of it that way, but right on, nice thought

It follows with my general world view that economics drives everything. By that logic, as shallow as it is, people are generally happier when they have lots of money, and therefore don't feel the need for thoughtful, depressing music when they can just dance and be vapid.

I see what your getting at.

Music is, obviously, what people want to make, so it's their own thoughts and feelings. Music therefore represents people's attitudes/concerns etc. Economics will have a profound effect on the way people live their lives and so will effect how the feel - so it domino's into music. That's what I figure anyway.

good theory dear. At first I was too lazy to read it all, but now I'm bored so I read it, and it was very interesting. I never really thought about it that way. But it's right...

no comment..

The theory, i think, applies far more too underground/alternative music than pop. Pop usually has one sole purpose, which is purely commercial. On the other hand, other music is more of the time made as a form of expression. It would therefore mirror feelings much more that pop as that will more or less be the same through time.

I agree with you about the underground stuff, but I think it's reflected in pop as well.

I'm not saying that this theory has no holes or exceptions, but if you think about the eras of teeny-bob stuff, it was the 50s-mid 60s and the 90s-mid 00s that have been the biggest. Certainly there has been pure pop during the 70s and 80s as well, but if you look at disco, and you look at the pop of the 80s (mall rock), it's more escapist than indulgent, whereas in the 50s and 90s it was indulgent. In that sense I think pop reflects the time as well.

Yes OK I suppose it does, it's just the extents that differ. Wow, does this mean I actually agree with someone on this forum?! That's never happened before!

i won't tell if you don't