Why do all songs on the radio sound the same?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thebigcheese
  • Start date Start date
While we are at it, I think the louder is better attitude and the cookie cutter mentality has a lot to do with it. I made the argument a couple years ago that you could mix and match the different band members of all the new bands out there, they could play their own band's song simultaneously with each of the other members, and there would be no noticeable change in the music. It's sad really, that we are lazy enough to let it happen, and then pour out our hard earned money to buy this crap by the truckload...
 
BushmasterM4 said:
Man this post has surely gone off subject. :)
Click to expand...
Where?

The question was why all the crap on the radio sounds the same, and the answer is because that's the way the pinheads that put stuff on the radio want it.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Where?

The question was why all the crap on the radio sounds the same, and the answer is because that's the way the pinheads that put stuff on the radio want it.

G.
Click to expand...
Yep. On a related note, I'll give you $100,000,000 if you can make Meshuggah sound like Lady GaGa through the use of a compressor. If it were really that easy to change a snare sound with a compressor, we'd all have a WAY easier time making our mediocre recordings sound pro :p
 
steve.h said:
Yep. On a related note, I'll give you $100,000,000 if you can make Meshuggah sound like Lady GaGa through the use of a compressor.
Click to expand...
How about if I run them both through a compressor and set the output gain to -inf? They'll both have the exact same sound of silence :D. I'll take my reward in all twenties, please. ;) :D.

Seriously, though, you're right; they won't sound the same.

But to address Rokket's point, they will have similar sonic attributes to them if you flatten them both to pancakes. This doesn't mean they will sound the same, but they will sound far more similar than they would otherwise. This can be true on a couple of counts; first the fact that dynamics are a property of music, one of the "dimensions" of the recording. Much like height, weight or hair color are properties of the human appearance. I don't know just what Rokket looks like, but if you Photoshop our pictures so that we have the same height and weight, we'll look a lot more alike than we would otherwise, even if our physical attributes otherwise are quite different.

Second is that it's difficult to squeeze the shit out of a recording without throwing the general frequency balance off in favor of the midrange. It can be done, and the best MEs can disguise that problem very well, but the very laws of physics and design of our human hearing conspire to force the issue somewhat. The majority of the RMS energy in virtually any recording lies in the midranges; you take too much out and you'll find it rather difficult to obtain the obscene -9dBRMS. Leave too much of it in and the Fletcher-Munson-style response curve of our ears will accentuate the mids that a spectrograph might otherwise tell us are not bumped.

There is a third factor that assists the mids; the preferences of producers and broadcasters for mixes that don't require an audiophiliac response from the playback system to sound good. If a mix depends too much on the very high end or very low end to sound good, it won't sound so good on an office Musak system or a cheap car radio. This is related to the whole "get it to sound good on an NS-10 or Auratone" theory of mix balancing. While it may get a mix to make sense in all playback environments - which is fine - it also can tend to homogenize the sound somewhat by limiting your canvas.

G.
 
steve.h said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have to agree.It seems like most people only like what other people like.It's popular so it must be good mentality.This is the same reason why these same people will go to see a cover band that plays all the same popular hits or the same tired classic rock songs that have been played relentlessly over the air waves for twenty years or more.These same people will put their money in a jukebox and play the same hit songs they hear overplayed on the radio time after time.I like classic rock but why is it that people will see a greatest hits collection of jethro tull and they'll always play aqualong.How about the song broadsword for a change.It's like most people are more interested in being hip and trendy and fitting in with the crowd then having any kind of real individuality.
 
Yeah, why not Thick as a Brick (yes, the "whole" song :) ) or My God or Budapest or Son?
 
mcmetal said:
I have to agree.It seems like most people only like what other people like.It's popular so it must be good mentality.This is the same reason why these same people will go to see a cover band that plays all the same popular hits or the same tired classic rock songs that have been played relentlessly over the air waves for twenty years or more.These same people will put their money in a jukebox and play the same hit songs they hear overplayed on the radio time after time.I like classic rock but why is it that people will see a greatest hits collection of jethro tull and they'll always play aqualong.How about the song broadsword for a change.It's like most people are more interested in being hip and trendy and fitting in with the crowd then having any kind of real individuality.
Click to expand...
It's why I find myself more and more drawn to the mp3 clinic and listening to my own stuff more and more. The new stuff on the radio is tripe, and classic rocks stations all play the same songs over and over again.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
How about if I run them both through a compressor and set the output gain to -inf? They'll both have the exact same sound of silence :D. I'll take my reward in all twenties, please. ;) :D.

Seriously, though, you're right; they won't sound the same.

But to address Rokket's point, they will have similar sonic attributes to them if you flatten them both to pancakes. This doesn't mean they will sound the same, but they will sound far more similar than they would otherwise. This can be true on a couple of counts; first the fact that dynamics are a property of music, one of the "dimensions" of the recording. Much like height, weight or hair color are properties of the human appearance. I don't know just what Rokket looks like, but if you Photoshop our pictures so that we have the same height and weight, we'll look a lot more alike than we would otherwise, even if our physical attributes otherwise are quite different.

Second is that it's difficult to squeeze the shit out of a recording without throwing the general frequency balance off in favor of the midrange. It can be done, and the best MEs can disguise that problem very well, but the very laws of physics and design of our human hearing conspire to force the issue somewhat. The majority of the RMS energy in virtually any recording lies in the midranges; you take too much out and you'll find it rather difficult to obtain the obscene -9dBRMS. Leave too much of it in and the Fletcher-Munson-style response curve of our ears will accentuate the mids that a spectrograph might otherwise tell us are not bumped.

There is a third factor that assists the mids; the preferences of producers and broadcasters for mixes that don't require an audiophiliac response from the playback system to sound good. If a mix depends too much on the very high end or very low end to sound good, it won't sound so good on an office Musak system or a cheap car radio. This is related to the whole "get it to sound good on an NS-10 or Auratone" theory of mix balancing. While it may get a mix to make sense in all playback environments - which is fine - it also can tend to homogenize the sound somewhat by limiting your canvas.

G.
Click to expand...
And that was what I was trying to say, but I don't have the musical vocabulary to express it. Thanks again, my friend! i tried to hit your rep box, but apparantly, I did it already somewhere else... :(
 
I agree that we got a little off the topic for a little while there, but we seem to have found our way back :) I was interested mainly in the technical (equipment) reasons why they sound the same, and it sounds like it has mostly to do with the compressors, which I guess makes sense since they would likely be running everything through the same unit, it just hadn't occurred to me that they could make such a huge difference on the frequency balance (although I do remember reading that they could do that)...

Anyway, I think my question is mostly answered, though, unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that radio still sucks... Why do they squash it so much in the first place? I understand why they'd do it for live television, but radio is pretty scripted and most tracks are pretty squashed to begin with, so I can't imagine they have to worry about the signal getting too hot...
 
Is HD Radio better or do the songs get squashed and processed too ?
 
BushmasterM4 said:
Is HD Radio better or do the songs get squashed and processed too ?
Click to expand...
HD just means Hybrid Digital , NOT Hi-def, so while I believe there is a possibility that it can sound better; the stations could just end up sending the exact same signal only over a digital broadcast.
It's not inherently better unless the station chooses to make it so which they could choose to do over regular FM.
 
I agree with Lt. Bob (who, if there were any justice in this world, should be a full bird audio Colonel by now...)

The compression comes in two major stages; most of it is in the mastering of the source, but there's usually also some level of it at the radio station transmitter as well.

In that regard, the station does have some control of the squashing, which they are reticent to modulate these days. But even if they did loosen up a bit, that still won't help get rid of the lion's share of the squashing, which happens at the mastering stage - usually at the bequest of the artist or their production manager themselves - and is something the station has no control over whatever their casting format.

I know there's a whole lot of people here, including the op, who feel that discussing anything other than gear is off-topic. I happen to strongly disagree; IMHO the gear has almost nothing to do with why everything sounds the same these days. That's like blaming the auto makers for traffic accidents. I won't harp on it here since the OP isn't interested in that part of the equation, but I do want to just leave this link off in the ether, as I just read it now and I find it to be more than incidentally germane to the question posed in this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/20/van.zandt.save.rock/index.html

G.
 
steve.h said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are correct, a programming director I talked to years ago told me this. Talking about an eye opener, and that is something that not a lot of ppl know either. (well the general public)
 
Most radio stations won't even play someones cd if it's sent to them unless it fits their criteria of being radio ready.In other words the style,format and volume levels need to pretty well match what's in their regular rotation for them to even consider playing it.Sometimes they'll devote an hour or two on an off night like sunday to play some local bands but it still has to fit within their format.
 
On another side note it usually costs about 300 bucks or more for three 30 second spots to advertise on the radio.They like to take your money when you want to promote your gig but you'll have a hard time getting them to give your cd a chance at airplay.
 
I'm real good and sick of this overly slick trash they're pumping out these says..I mean make it sound nice but geez...we need some grit...some feeling maybe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top