Why do all songs on the radio sound the same?

[thebigcheese]

I'm not talking about the genre, but the actual sound. Granted, I am talking mostly about rock, so it might be related, but...

I've noticed that all the snare drums sound almost identical. There's always a little bit of character, but they seem to all share the exact same characteristic sound at a certain frequency, kind of like a crackly smack when the snare hits. Well, now that I think about it, drums in general seem to sound the same. I know that when I listen to the songs off my mp3 player or computer, there are definitely more differences between them. I'm sure there's an explanation for why radio sounds the way it does, but I can't think of what it is right now. Compression? Side effect of being transmitted over radio waves?

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

Interestingly enough, the reason for the similar sound, both sonically AND genre-wise, is that humans prefer sounds they're familiar with. They associate it with safety. And, as the majority of listeners are passive and couldn't give a shit less about lyrical or emotional content, it makes more sense for the radio to play things people feel instantly comfortable or familiar with. The radio is in the business of selling commercial time: the purpose of the music is to fall into the background just enough to prevent you from changing the channel. Whenever you hear something genuinely new, or at least unfamiliar, you have to make a conscious decision whether or not you like it. Generally, you've got a 50/50 chance you'll like it enough to keep listening. However, if the newest "Fall Out Boy" or whatever song comes on, and it has the same sound sonically, as well as generally the same lyrics, song structure, chord progressions, etc., 99% of people that liked the LAST Fall Out Boy song will like the "new" one. Thus, they stay tuned in for the commercials, which the real reason for radio to exist in the first place.

Before any of you argue, do some research: these are facts, not opinions.

 

[Rokket]

Interestingly enough, the reason for the similar sound, both sonically AND genre-wise, is that humans prefer sounds they're familiar with. They associate it with safety. And, as the majority of listeners are passive and couldn't give a shit less about lyrical or emotional content, it makes more sense for the radio to play things people feel instantly comfortable or familiar with. The radio is in the business of selling commercial time: the purpose of the music is to fall into the background just enough to prevent you from changing the channel. Whenever you hear something genuinely new, or at least unfamiliar, you have to make a conscious decision whether or not you like it. Generally, you've got a 50/50 chance you'll like it enough to keep listening. However, if the newest "Fall Out Boy" or whatever song comes on, and it has the same sound sonically, as well as generally the same lyrics, song structure, chord progressions, etc., 99% of people that liked the LAST Fall Out Boy song will like the "new" one. Thus, they stay tuned in for the commercials, which the real reason for radio to exist in the first place.

Before any of you argue, do some research: these are facts, not opinions.

That is the reason behind it, and the hardware is the compression that radio uses.

 

[Erockrazor]

Interestingly enough, the reason for the similar sound, both sonically AND genre-wise, is that humans prefer sounds they're familiar with. They associate it with safety. And, as the majority of listeners are passive and couldn't give a shit less about lyrical or emotional content, it makes more sense for the radio to play things people feel instantly comfortable or familiar with. The radio is in the business of selling commercial time: the purpose of the music is to fall into the background just enough to prevent you from changing the channel. Whenever you hear something genuinely new, or at least unfamiliar, you have to make a conscious decision whether or not you like it. Generally, you've got a 50/50 chance you'll like it enough to keep listening. However, if the newest "Fall Out Boy" or whatever song comes on, and it has the same sound sonically, as well as generally the same lyrics, song structure, chord progressions, etc., 99% of people that liked the LAST Fall Out Boy song will like the "new" one. Thus, they stay tuned in for the commercials, which the real reason for radio to exist in the first place.

Before any of you argue, do some research: these are facts, not opinions.

I would like to thank you for that post..

 

[gethypedmusic]

Interestingly enough, the reason for the similar sound, both sonically AND genre-wise, is that humans prefer sounds they're familiar with. They associate it with safety. And, as the majority of listeners are passive and couldn't give a shit less about lyrical or emotional content, it makes more sense for the radio to play things people feel instantly comfortable or familiar with. The radio is in the business of selling commercial time: the purpose of the music is to fall into the background just enough to prevent you from changing the channel. Whenever you hear something genuinely new, or at least unfamiliar, you have to make a conscious decision whether or not you like it. Generally, you've got a 50/50 chance you'll like it enough to keep listening. However, if the newest "Fall Out Boy" or whatever song comes on, and it has the same sound sonically, as well as generally the same lyrics, song structure, chord progressions, etc., 99% of people that liked the LAST Fall Out Boy song will like the "new" one. Thus, they stay tuned in for the commercials, which the real reason for radio to exist in the first place.

Before any of you argue, do some research: these are facts, not opinions.

That is 100% fact. Im sure noone would see a reason to argue with you. Im saving what you said because its that impressive.

 

[BushmasterM4]

That is the reason behind it, and the hardware is the compression that radio uses.

2nd that. Compression gear. Makes everyone sound the same (so to speak). Now, I have not experienced HD Radio. Is it like putting on a record or cd of the artist, or is it compressed and processed too ? Anyone ?

 

[gecko zzed]

Interestingly enough, the reason for the similar sound, both sonically AND genre-wise, is that humans prefer sounds they're familiar with. They associate it with safety. And, as the majority of listeners are passive and couldn't give a shit less about lyrical or emotional content, it makes more sense for the radio to play things people feel instantly comfortable or familiar with. The radio is in the business of selling commercial time: the purpose of the music is to fall into the background just enough to prevent you from changing the channel. Whenever you hear something genuinely new, or at least unfamiliar, you have to make a conscious decision whether or not you like it. Generally, you've got a 50/50 chance you'll like it enough to keep listening. However, if the newest "Fall Out Boy" or whatever song comes on, and it has the same sound sonically, as well as generally the same lyrics, song structure, chord progressions, etc., 99% of people that liked the LAST Fall Out Boy song will like the "new" one. Thus, they stay tuned in for the commercials, which the real reason for radio to exist in the first place.

Before any of you argue, do some research: these are facts, not opinions.

You had me . . . until that very last sentence!

Here's an interesting quote:
"An open letter to the Society – signed by Tim Ball, a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, and others – argues that ‘scientific inquiry is unique because it requires falsifiability’: ‘The beauty of science is that no issue is ever “settled”, that no question is beyond being more fully understood, that no conclusion is immune to further experimentation."

So I agree with you . . . but I'll keep my options open and my mind amenable to alternative views.

Interestingly, I have a ritual of watching the Eurovision Song Contest . . . it satisfies my morbid curiosity. I was struck this year in particular by the sameness of the songs. Each had its mandatory key change, and each had the same musical production values . . . which meant that the whole program was a morass of undistinguished porridge. The UK, embarrassed with its performance in recent years, gained the services of Andrew LLoyd Webber to pen a song for its entrant, and he played piano for the performance. I was interested in hearing it . . . but it was little different to the mediocrity of the rest.

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

You had me . . . until that very last sentence!

Here's an interesting quote:
"An open letter to the Society – signed by Tim Ball, a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, and others – argues that ‘scientific inquiry is unique because it requires falsifiability’: ‘The beauty of science is that no issue is ever “settled”, that no question is beyond being more fully understood, that no conclusion is immune to further experimentation."

So I agree with you . . . but I'll keep my options open and my mind amenable to alternative views.

Interestingly, I have a ritual of watching the Eurovision Song Contest . . . it satisfies my morbid curiosity. I was struck this year in particular by the sameness of the songs. Each had its mandatory key change, and each had the same musical production values . . . which meant that the whole program was a morass of undistinguished porridge. The UK, embarrassed with its performance in recent years, gained the services of Andrew LLoyd Webber to pen a song for its entrant, and he played piano for the performance. I was interested in hearing it . . . but it was little different to the mediocrity of the rest.

Fair enough! I will stand by my assertion that, obvious opinions aside, the statements I made about the purpose of radio is 100% fact. As for the implied quality (or lack thereof) of certain genres of music, and of my stereotypical view of the casual listener; those are somewhat more difficult to quantify

 

[thebigcheese]

How do the compressors make it all sound the same? The ones I've used mostly just squash the signal. I know they imprint the music with their unique characteristics, but do they really change it THAT much?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Interestingly enough, the reason for the similar sound, both sonically AND genre-wise, is that humans prefer sounds they're familiar with. They associate it with safety. And, as the majority of listeners are passive and couldn't give a shit less about lyrical or emotional content, it makes more sense for the radio to play things people feel instantly comfortable or familiar with. The radio is in the business of selling commercial time: the purpose of the music is to fall into the background just enough to prevent you from changing the channel. Whenever you hear something genuinely new, or at least unfamiliar, you have to make a conscious decision whether or not you like it. Generally, you've got a 50/50 chance you'll like it enough to keep listening. However, if the newest "Fall Out Boy" or whatever song comes on, and it has the same sound sonically, as well as generally the same lyrics, song structure, chord progressions, etc., 99% of people that liked the LAST Fall Out Boy song will like the "new" one. Thus, they stay tuned in for the commercials, which the real reason for radio to exist in the first place.

Before any of you argue, do some research: these are facts, not opinions.

Steve, can I voice a dissenting POV without it being called an "argument"?

What you very eloquently stated is the justification given for the actions of those in the music and radio industry. To put it shortly and bluntly, all it says is "Hey, don't blame us, it's the listener's fault." That's hogwash.

If it were true, we'd all still be listening to Frank Sinatra.

It's not the listener's fault. it's the fault of those making the records, on both sides of the glass. The reason things tend to sound the same is out of caution/trying to play it safe, an attempt to make science out of something that is NOT a science, and a lack of creativity on the part of those who's job it is to be creative.

Caution and playing it safe in that everyone is trying to catch a single bolt of lightning twice. Or rather, that they see that a bolt of lightning hit over ther, so everybody runs over there to try and catch it, even though the odds are that the next 100 bolts of lightning will hit elsewhere. This ignores the fact that - unless you're talking about the Sears Tower or something like that - lightning tends NOT to strike in the same place twice.

Take all your biggest acts of the past half century, people like Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Springsteen, U2, etc. etc. etc. They didn't become the world's favorites because they sounded like someone else. And at the same time, those that tried to copy them while they may have had some modicum of success, for the most part the only REAL success they had was when they imprinted their own unique style or sound on their work that separated them from their predecessors or mentors.

Faking science by trying to treat the art form of music - which is all about emotion and expression - as if it were a formulaic science. No matter how much the sales departments at the radio networks would like to believe otherwise, it's not a formulaic science, and never will be. It is a creative art.

But you'd never know it was a creative art by listening to the multitudes of mySpacers and home rec'ers who constantly come on here and ask the questions, "How can I get my recording to sound like _________". Whether "_______" is referring to a specific artist or band, a "commercial sound" in general (whatever that means ), or simply trying to be as loud as the Joneses, is just different wallpaper in the same room; that room is in each case simply "trying to sound just like the last guy or the next guy".

So let's stop our pretense of self-righteousness on both ends of the recording contract and stop blaming the listener, OK?

G.

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

So let's stop our pretense of self-righteousness on both ends of the recording contract and stop blaming the listener, OK?

I guess we can agree to disagree, but if it weren't the listeners' fault, wouldn't we all be listening to the same thing? I made the conscious choice to find better, more unique/original/honest music, and my life is significantly better for it; most people don't make that choice. If the listener weren't totally OK with listening to the audio equivalent of warm milk and white bread every day over and over with little to no variance, radio would have to adapt and start to play some more interesting music. However, the majority of Americans happily listen to the same shit over and over and over day after day as background music, and it's those people that buy the Nickelback/Fall Out Boy/Britney Spears/etc. CD's every time they come out without fail, and have absolutely no desire to expand their listening experience in any way.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If the listener weren't totally OK with listening to the audio equivalent of warm milk and white bread every day over and over with little to no variance, radio would have to adapt and start to play some more interesting music. However, the majority of Americans happily listen to the same shit over and over and over day after day as background music, and it's those people that buy the Nickelback/Fall Out Boy/Britney Spears/etc. CD's every time they come out without fail, and have absolutely no desire to expand their listening experience in any way.

I think we can blame the listener for being lazy. Which indeed adds a symmetry to the equation; that makes every side in the equation - the artists, the distributors and the listeners - all guilty of the same common affliction.

But one cannot blame the listener for *liking* the vanilla playlists. Here's verifiable facts; The more the broadcast community has gone homogeneous and the more the music industry has emphasized the physicality over the musicality of the performers they put their weight behind, the worse they have done in customer satisfaction polling, the more their listener base has declined and the more that music sales have suffered.

You're right in that the listener is complicit in this crime in that they regularly demonstrate that they have an (almost) insatiable desire for spoon-fed entertainment. Apparantly people have either forgotten how to enteratin themselves or have become too lazy to do so.

But just because they will eat dog shit if you put it on that spoon doesn't mean that they will like it, let alone *prefer* it over a nice spoonful of baked Alaska. It just means that they have to eat. But that's no justification for dishing out the dog shit.

But when you put a bunch of ninnies in charge who A) know about as much about music as Drew Peterson knows about tact, and 2) believe that the industry can be quantized and scientificized the same way that selling breakfast cereal can be - mostly because that's all they know how to do - you wind up serving big heaping piles of poop to the public because it's cheap, it's easy, it's plentiful and they can get away with it with a lazy public. But it AIN'T because it's what the public wants or likes, and it's bullshine for the ninnies to claim otherwise.

Make it easy enough for the consumer, bring it down below their threshold of laziness, and one might be surprised to find out that the average consumer actually likes more diversity than even they themselves sometimes realize. All the radio industry needs to do is to look at cable TV. People do not just turn on the Hitler Channel of the Shark Channel or the Bad Movies Channel and watch nothing but that station's content all day because the program content is so similar. No, they either sit there and channel surf until the "Up" button on their remote control starts smoking - because it's easy enough to just sit there and move nothing but their thumbs - or they buy their Tivos or multi-channel DVRs and thet them automatically cherry pick a wide diversity of content for them so they don't even have to callas their thumbs.

Ever since I graduated high school and started college, I have had eclectic tastes in music; everything from Robert Johnson to Tangerine Dream, Yo Yo Ma to Ronnie Montrose, and almost everything in-between. Needless to say, over the years my mix tapes and playlists have had a similar very eclectic mix to them. Yet my friends - who are for all intents and purposes your average listeners who listen to just your average Jack Radio or Clear Channel dreck and have a knowledge of music that no one would claim to be anywhere near encyclopedic - absolutely LOVED almost everything I ever played for them, and always sought me out to soundtrack their parties for them or supply the music for the vacations/road trips, etc. The regular comment I would get from them would be something along the lines of, "Why don't we hear more of this stuff on the radio?"

Build it and they will come. Or: Play it and they will listen to it. The problem is that the jamokes in charge don't know any more about music then their listeners do, and don't know the difference between Yo Yo Ma and the Ya Ya Yas. That's not the listener's fault, that's theirs.

It's also not the listener's fault that everybody and their brother thinks they can be famous recording artists just by buying an mBox and clogging up mySpace with MP3s that all sound the same either.

G.

 

[Rokket]

How do the compressors make it all sound the same? The ones I've used mostly just squash the signal. I know they imprint the music with their unique characteristics, but do they really change it THAT much?

If I use the same compressor with the same settings on 20 different songs, yes, I can get them to sound pretty much the same. It's how (Glen help me out here) each frequency is "colored" by said compressor that gives it that distinct sound.

The only difference I can hear from station to station (hearing the same songs played on station A and B) is the percieved volume, which is dependent (I believe) on how many watts that station is pushing and how far away from my radio that station is located.

I may just be talking out the side of my neck, but I don't think I am that far off. Click on Glen's signature. There is a great set of articles there that explain it much better than I can.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Ever since I graduated high school and started college, I have had eclectic tastes in music; everything from Robert Johnson to Tangerine Dream, Yo Yo Ma to Ronnie Montrose, and almost everything in-between. Needless to say, over the years my mix tapes and playlists have had a similar very eclectic mix to them. Yet my friends - who are for all intents and purposes your average listeners who listen to just your average Jack Radio or Clear Channel dreck and have a knowledge of music that no one would claim to be anywhere near encyclopedic - absolutely LOVED almost everything I ever played for them, and always sought me out to soundtrack their parties for them or supply the music for the vacations/road trips, etc. The regular comment I would get from them would be something along the lines of, "Why don't we hear more of this stuff on the radio?"


G.

that may be so ...... I've certainly had lots of friends (mostly musicians so maybe not average listeners) comment on how nice my audiophile system sounds and "oh ..... who is that?" and why doesn't the radio play this stuff also.
But the real point is do any of them go out and pursue a better system or any of the music that they now know exists?
Nah ...... out of hundreds ..... MAYBE a couple have.
People just don't care that much anymore.
Music is a commodity now rather than an artform to most people. Something they put on in the background as they're doing other stuff .... driving, eating .... reading.

I've told this story before about how little the masses can hear but I'm not sure if I've told it here.
I had a couple of friends doing a jazz duo (guitar/piano) and one night during their break we talked about whether people could hear very much, so they got up and played Misty in two different keys 1/2 step apart!
That's the absolute worst it would be possible to make music sound.
Not a single martini slurping yuppie so much as looked up.
No one even noticed.
So while I would like for music to be better ...... the masses just don't seem to care or be able to recognize the difference in general.

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

I think we can blame the listener for being lazy. Which indeed adds a symmetry to the equation; that makes every side in the equation - the artists, the distributors and the listeners - all guilty of the same common affliction.

But one cannot blame the listener for *liking* the vanilla playlists. Here's verifiable facts; The more the broadcast community has gone homogeneous and the more the music industry has emphasized the physicality over the musicality of the performers they put their weight behind, the worse they have done in customer satisfaction polling, the more their listener base has declined and the more that music sales have suffered.

You're right in that the listener is complicit in this crime in that they regularly demonstrate that they have an (almost) insatiable desire for spoon-fed entertainment. Apparantly people have either forgotten how to enteratin themselves or have become too lazy to do so.

But just because they will eat dog shit if you put it on that spoon doesn't mean that they will like it, let alone *prefer* it over a nice spoonful of baked Alaska. It just means that they have to eat. But that's no justification for dishing out the dog shit.

But when you put a bunch of ninnies in charge who A) know about as much about music as Drew Peterson knows about tact, and 2) believe that the industry can be quantized and scientificized the same way that selling breakfast cereal can be - mostly because that's all they know how to do - you wind up serving big heaping piles of poop to the public because it's cheap, it's easy, it's plentiful and they can get away with it with a lazy public. But it AIN'T because it's what the public wants or likes, and it's bullshine for the ninnies to claim otherwise.

Make it easy enough for the consumer, bring it down below their threshold of laziness, and one might be surprised to find out that the average consumer actually likes more diversity than even they themselves sometimes realize. All the radio industry needs to do is to look at cable TV. People do not just turn on the Hitler Channel of the Shark Channel or the Bad Movies Channel and watch nothing but that station's content all day because the program content is so similar. No, they either sit there and channel surf until the "Up" button on their remote control starts smoking - because it's easy enough to just sit there and move nothing but their thumbs - or they buy their Tivos or multi-channel DVRs and thet them automatically cherry pick a wide diversity of content for them so they don't even have to callas their thumbs.

Ever since I graduated high school and started college, I have had eclectic tastes in music; everything from Robert Johnson to Tangerine Dream, Yo Yo Ma to Ronnie Montrose, and almost everything in-between. Needless to say, over the years my mix tapes and playlists have had a similar very eclectic mix to them. Yet my friends - who are for all intents and purposes your average listeners who listen to just your average Jack Radio or Clear Channel dreck and have a knowledge of music that no one would claim to be anywhere near encyclopedic - absolutely LOVED almost everything I ever played for them, and always sought me out to soundtrack their parties for them or supply the music for the vacations/road trips, etc. The regular comment I would get from them would be something along the lines of, "Why don't we hear more of this stuff on the radio?"

Build it and they will come. Or: Play it and they will listen to it. The problem is that the jamokes in charge don't know any more about music then their listeners do, and don't know the difference between Yo Yo Ma and the Ya Ya Yas. That's not the listener's fault, that's theirs.

It's also not the listener's fault that everybody and their brother thinks they can be famous recording artists just by buying an mBox and clogging up mySpace with MP3s that all sound the same either.

G.

Put that way, I agree! The issue is, it would take some sort of "uprising from the masses" to put a stop to Clear Channel's dumbing down of the radio, but I just can't see that happening. I suppose it helps that phones are starting to incorporate support for great services like Pandora and last.fm: hopefully, they will start coming with it standard. Similar to the radio, it'll take someone shoving an alternative option right up someone's nose for them to "see the light", as it were. Here's to hoping that'll happen. Personally, I don't think it will. There's just too much money in figuring out how to keep people on the proverbial feeding tube of commercial radio.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

that may be so ...... I've certainly had lots of friends (mostly musicians so maybe not average listeners) comment on how nice my audiophile system sounds and "oh ..... who is that?" and why doesn't the radio play this stuff also.
But the real point is do any of them go out and pursue a better system or any of the music that they now know exists?

Why is the onus on the listener? Whsy is it solely their fault? Do not the artist and the distributor have some responsibility here?

And I'm not just talking responsibility to the listener, I mean to themselves. The more they expose the public to variety and quality, the *wider* the market becomes and the greater the potential for sales.

Nah ...... out of hundreds ..... MAYBE a couple have.
People just don't care that much anymore.

the masses just don't seem to care or be able to recognize the difference in general.

Sure they are lazy. And sure, not everyone is a musicologist, nor would I expect them to be. But again, it's not their job to be industrious musicologists. That is the job of those supplying the music.

Music has become a commodity because that is how the industry treats it, not because that is how the listener wants it. Sure, some people just listen to Lite FM at the office or in their cars, but that is a combination of two things, they are people who will just never care that much about music, or are in situations where Muzak is all that's needed or desired, or who have been let to believe by the suppliers that that is about all there is.

But for those who want to listen to music as a form of entertainment and not just as background filler, polls and sales data agree that they are dissatisfied.

I suppose it helps that phones are starting to incorporate support for great services like Pandora and last.fm: hopefully, they will start coming with it standard. Similar to the radio, it'll take someone shoving an alternative option right up someone's nose for them to "see the light", as it were. Here's to hoping that'll happen. Personally, I don't think it will. There's just too much money in figuring out how to keep people on the proverbial feeding tube of commercial radio.

I see it like the current "green revolution". People have been trying to convince business to go green ever since the 1960s and have gotten nowhere unt8l now. Why? Reason #1 is because almost no one until now has talked to the business in the language of business - i.e. that there's MONEY to be made by doing it.

I'm not going to argue for more diverse playlists on moralistic grounds - even though that is personally ver important to me - because I know that'll get nowhere, that I'll just come of as the musical equivalent of a tree-hugger. But I'm convinced *by the evidence* that there is a vast reservoir of untapped musical marketplace out there and a TON of money to be made by NOT following Clear Channel/Jack Radio guidelines.

I'll elaborate on that in a while, but I have to run to an appointment right now...I'm outta time .

G.

 

[mykie_a]

It's not (only) the same compression settings for every song, it's the same multiband squashing that makes em all sound the same.

 

[BushmasterM4]

Man this post has surely gone off subject. Sorry, "Thebigcheese". Hopefully some of the answeres pointed at your question were correct and not the ramblings of others. No offense meant to the others.

 

[Rokket]

It's not (only) the same compression settings for every song, it's the same multiband squashing that makes em all sound the same.

Yeah, that was done in the studio... the old louder is better argument.

 

[Rokket]

Man this post has surely gone off subject. Sorry, "Thebigcheese". Hopefully some of the answeres pointed at your question were correct and not the ramblings of others. No offense meant to the others.

I think we did our best to answer it:

It's not (only) the same compression settings for every song, it's the same multiband squashing that makes em all sound the same.

If I use the same compressor with the same settings on 20 different songs, yes, I can get them to sound pretty much the same. It's how (Glen help me out here) each frequency is "colored" by said compressor that gives it that distinct sound.

The only difference I can hear from station to station (hearing the same songs played on station A and B) is the percieved volume, which is dependent (I believe) on how many watts that station is pushing and how far away from my radio that station is located.

I may just be talking out the side of my neck, but I don't think I am that far off. Click on Glen's signature. There is a great set of articles there that explain it much better than I can.

2nd that. Compression gear. Makes everyone sound the same (so to speak). Now, I have not experienced HD Radio. Is it like putting on a record or cd of the artist, or is it compressed and processed too ? Anyone ?

That is the reason behind it, and the hardware is the compression that radio uses.