What happened to pop music circa 1985?

[Dawn]

Most of us on the Click and on other music-related forums I've been on seem to be in agreement that, a few occasional duds notwithstanding, the majority of pop/rock music released from the beginning of the rock era up through the early '80s was of generally high quality. But there seemed to be a fairly sharp downturn somewhere along the line, and music has never seemed to quite rebound to the heights it once had. There are varying opinions as to when this downturn occurred, but from reading the posts here and elsewhere, the general consensus seems to be that it happened around 1985, give or take a year or two. That isn't to say that there hasn't been quality music released since then, just that it doesn't seem to be as consistently good overall after that as it was earlier.

This raises an interesting point: what was it about that time that caused music to drop in overall quality? Was it tied to fads of the era? Production styles? The earlier pop/rock greats either no longer recording, or not recording music of the caliber they once did? Too much redundancy? It would be interesting to compare our opinions on this - please share your thoughts.

[Pete70s]

Well, Dawn, like I always tell people, I switched over from the Top 40 station to the Rock station after hearing Whitney Houston for the first time ("You Give Good Love" was the song). This was late spring/early summer, 1985. It just seemed like the Rock music that was coming out around that time was better than the pop.

[Dawn]

pete70s said:

Well, Dawn, like I always tell people, I switched over from the Top 40 station to the Rock station after hearing Whitney Houston for the first time ("You Give Good Love" was the song). This was late spring/early summer, 1985. It just seemed like the Rock music that was coming out around that time was better than the pop.

I agree with you about the rock genre holding up better than the pop at that point, and if I were to pinpoint the time that the big crack appeared in the pop genre, it would probably be right around the time you mentioned, or maybe a bit later in the summer of that year. But, it is definitely interesting that quite a few of us began to lose interest in top 40 radio right around that time.

I have a few theories about all this which I'll share a bit later, but one factor that I think may have contributed was, ironically, the increasing popularity of MTV at that time.

[Pete70s]

admin said:

I agree with you about the rock genre holding up better than the pop at that point, and if I were to pinpoint the time that the big crack appeared in the pop genre, it would probably be right around the time you mentioned, or maybe a bit later in the summer of that year. But, it is definitely interesting that quite a few of us began to lose interest in top 40 radio right around that time.

I have a few theories about all this which I'll share a bit later, but one factor that I think may have contributed was, ironically, the increasing popularity of MTV at that time.

I always considered Ashford & Simpson's "Solid" to be the "swan song" of the old-school soul era. After that, it seemed that R&B was geared toward more youthful acts like DeBarge and New Edition. Whitney Houston was always geared towards an older R&B crowd, but I kind of saw her as the "next generation of Natalie Cole"

New Wave was on the decline, at least on the pop charts. It would get a shot in the arm with the Pet Shop Boys in '86, but it had clearly peaked in '83, and slowly died out during '84-85.

The rock artists who were having chart hits by this point were 70's holdovers like Don Henley, Glenn Frey, and Micheal McDonald. Sting and Phil Collins embarked on solo careers that would (for the most part) even put my grandmother to sleep (no offense to fans of this stuff, it just never did much for me).

So I gravitated towards bands like Motley Crue and Ratt. It was the best place for a 15 year old who'd grown up on Steppenwolf and Alice Cooper to go. But, by '88, even THAT would run it's course.

And, yes, I agree that MTV had a lot to do with it, but I can't offer much opinion there, because I didn't have it until Jan '89!

[Dawn]

pete70s said:

admin said:

I agree with you about the rock genre holding up better than the pop at that point, and if I were to pinpoint the time that the big crack appeared in the pop genre, it would probably be right around the time you mentioned, or maybe a bit later in the summer of that year. But, it is definitely interesting that quite a few of us began to lose interest in top 40 radio right around that time.

I have a few theories about all this which I'll share a bit later, but one factor that I think may have contributed was, ironically, the increasing popularity of MTV at that time.

I always considered Ashford & Simpson's "Solid" to be the "swan song" of the old-school soul era. After that, it seemed that R&B was geared toward more youthful acts like DeBarge and New Edition. Whitney Houston was always geared towards an older R&B crowd, but I kind of saw her as the "next generation of Natalie Cole"

New Wave was on the decline, at least on the pop charts. It would get a shot in the arm with the Pet Shop Boys in '86, but it had clearly peaked in '83, and slowly died out during '84-85.

The rock artists who were having chart hits by this point were 70's holdovers like Don Henley, Glenn Frey, and Micheal McDonald. Sting and Phil Collins embarked on solo careers that would (for the most part) even put my grandmother to sleep (no offense to fans of this stuff, it just never did much for me).

So I gravitated towards bands like Motley Crue and Ratt. It was the best place for a 15 year old who'd grown up on Steppenwolf and Alice Cooper to go. But, by '88, even THAT would run it's course.

And, yes, I agree that MTV had a lot to do with it, but I can't offer much opinion there, because I didn't have it until Jan '89!

I was late getting MTV also; I'm thinking it was sometime in '88 that it first became available on the cable system in the area I lived in at the time. Prior to that, if you wanted MTV you had to spend $2000 on one of those 10-foot satellite dishes to pick up the signal.

I think you make a good point about New Wave losing popularity, and also the old-school soul beginning to be pushed aside in favor of the younger, more pop-oriented artists, at least as far as the top 40 format was concerned. It seems like the music industry was trying to appeal to everyone, and much of the music that was coming out beginning in the mid '80s had either a bland, middle-of-the-road sound to it, especially with artists like Phil Collins and Sting, as you mentioned, or else it had more of a trendy, youth-oriented sound, like Pebbles and Debbie Gibson and artists of that nature. Rock was a little bit more distanced from all that, but eventually it too began to be affected, as you pointed out.

What's strange is that the generation who were in their teens and early 20s during the '60s were still fairly young around this time, in their 30s and early-to-mid 40s. You'd think there would have been more of an attempt to appeal to that audience at the time, but it doesn't seem like that was the case.

[Railyn]

As a huge fan of the New Wave/New Romantic movement (and quality music in general), I place the blame squarely on MTV.

We got MTV in it's early glory days: 1984. I lived my live by MTV's teachings. I also saw that MTV could make or break someone easily, and that it would ultimately kill the trends that it started.

In the really early days, the videos were cheesy, and no one really cared as much about asthetics, or looks for that matter. I don't know how many people have seen the "Video Killed The Radio Star" documentary that VH1 (I think) put out. They gave a fantastic example of Christopher Cross. He had a number of big hits before MTV came along. Christopher was talented, but not extremely good looking. He made a video or two which were a little lackluster, and pretty much dropped off the face of the earth in terms of radio presence and hit songs. He was not bankable as a video artist.

Artists began to care more about what MTV could do for them. They competed for bigger, better, fancier videos. My favorite singing group of all time is Duran Duran, and they were at the forefront. I love their videos, but their videos started a trend that ultimately ruined what early MTV was, which was a place for even more underground artists to showcase their talent. Duran Duran were good looking guys, stylishly dressed, and backed by mega money with their label - they were bankable. Their song "Too Much Information" (one of my favorite ones they do) touches on this, as does George Michael's "Freedom '90".

www.lyricsdomain.com/4/duran_duran/too_much_information.html

www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Freedom-90-lyrics-George-Michael/A33A20BE74E2CF01482568620014D7EE

Someone comes up with a cool idea. Bands (or record labels), hungry to achieve the same success, just do a quick cut-and-paste. Soon, MTV is innundated with people who look and sound the same. At some point, either fans or program directors proclaim the trend "over" , and move on to the next big thing. When I was in high school, the kids changed favorite groups and styles so often that it made your head spin. They'd go from INXS to Metallica in the span of a few months. I used to get made fun of for listening to stuff like The Doors, then one day they'd be asking to borrow my records (yeah right).

The end of the New Wave/New Romantic movement marked the end of anything original for me, and by the time I was in college (starting in 1991), I had made a turn toward listening to older stuff, and growing more and more disinterested in new music trends. No Doubt and Sugar Ray were the last "new groups" that held my interest.

As for MTV? I stopped watching with any regularity in the early 90's, when the "over-the-top" video trend hit overdrive. I love VH1 Classic. MTV ran a "Top 100 Videos Of All Time" special, which I taped (they literally ran all the videos). I flipped through it after taping all night, and was sadly disappointed by all the newer stuff on there. One of the top 5 was Mariah Carey in a video that was more like a James Bond movie. I'll pass, thanks. Maybe some day, the powers that be will realize that it's the music that counts.

[Ken]

Great topic Dawn

I started to notice the downward slide in late '85.Production values were a big reason, IMO there was (and still is) too much reliability on drum machines and synthesizers.A lot of the music started to sound alike(which carries on to this day)


Was MTV to blame? sure - it got to the point where what you wore and what you looked like was more important than the song itself.


There seemed to be a real resurgence of the teen idol market as well in the late 80's.

[Dawn]

railyn said:

As a huge fan of the New Wave/New Romantic movement (and quality music in general), I place the blame squarely on MTV.

We got MTV in it's early glory days: 1984. I lived my live by MTV's teachings. I also saw that MTV could make or break someone easily, and that it would ultimately kill the trends that it started.

In the really early days, the videos were cheesy, and no one really cared as much about asthetics, or looks for that matter. I don't know how many people have seen the "Video Killed The Radio Star" documentary that VH1 (I think) put out. They gave a fantastic example of Christopher Cross. He had a number of big hits before MTV came along. Christopher was talented, but not extremely good looking. He made a video or two which were a little lackluster, and pretty much dropped off the face of the earth in terms of radio presence and hit songs. He was not bankable as a video artist.

Artists began to care more about what MTV could do for them. They competed for bigger, better, fancier videos. My favorite singing group of all time is Duran Duran, and they were at the forefront. I love their videos, but their videos started a trend that ultimately ruined what early MTV was, which was a place for even more underground artists to showcase their talent. Duran Duran were good looking guys, stylishly dressed, and backed by mega money with their label - they were bankable. Their song "Too Much Information" (one of my favorite ones they do) touches on this, as does George Michael's "Freedom '90".

www.lyricsdomain.com/4/duran_duran/too_much_information.html

www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Freedom-90-lyrics-George-Michael/A33A20BE74E2CF01482568620014D7EE

Someone comes up with a cool idea. Bands (or record labels), hungry to achieve the same success, just do a quick cut-and-paste. Soon, MTV is innundated with people who look and sound the same. At some point, either fans or program directors proclaim the trend "over" , and move on to the next big thing. When I was in high school, the kids changed favorite groups and styles so often that it made your head spin. They'd go from INXS to Metallica in the span of a few months. I used to get made fun of for listening to stuff like The Doors, then one day they'd be asking to borrow my records (yeah right).

The end of the New Wave/New Romantic movement marked the end of anything original for me, and by the time I was in college (starting in 1991), I had made a turn toward listening to older stuff, and growing more and more disinterested in new music trends. No Doubt and Sugar Ray were the last "new groups" that held my interest.

As for MTV? I stopped watching with any regularity in the early 90's, when the "over-the-top" video trend hit overdrive. I love VH1 Classic. MTV ran a "Top 100 Videos Of All Time" special, which I taped (they literally ran all the videos). I flipped through it after taping all night, and was sadly disappointed by all the newer stuff on there. One of the top 5 was Mariah Carey in a video that was more like a James Bond movie. I'll pass, thanks. Maybe some day, the powers that be will realize that it's the music that counts.

Very well put, Railyn, and I agree with you. It's ironic, because as you mentioned, MTV's original intentions were to broaden exposure to different, and sometimes less mainstream forms of music, and the ultimate result was almost the exact opposite.

That's a good example about Christopher Cross. In 1980, pre-MTV, he was huge - won multiple Grammys and accolades. That success carried over into '81, but after that he managed only a few modest hits. His music didn't change that dramatically in style or quality over that span to account for that - there was something else at work. Unfortunately a lot of similar artists, people who made quality music but who weren't "visually appealing" enough or whose songs didn't translate well to catchy videos, suffered as well.

You are so right about the "cut and paste" thing. It was hard for anything or anyone to be fresh and original for very long, because the music industry was too eager to have others jump on the bandwagon and saturate the markets. There were a ton of Madonna wanna-bes in the mid and late '80s, for example, but unfortunately none of them had much real talent or staying power.

I remember I too got made fun of in high school for listening to older music like the Beatles and ELO. I wonder if those same people would still be making fun today?!

[Dawn]

kenfrank said:

Great topic Dawn

I started to notice the downward slide in late '85.Production values were a big reason, IMO there was (and still is) too much reliability on drum machines and synthesizers.A lot of the music started to sound alike(which carries on to this day)


Was MTV to blame? sure - it got to the point where what you wore and what you looked like was more important than the song itself.


There seemed to be a real resurgence of the teen idol market as well in the late 80's.

Thanks, Ken!

I think you're right that '80s production played a role in the downfall. The trend seemed to be to make everything sound "bigger", but unfortunately that treatment didn't always work well for certain artists and music styles that needed a less overproduced, "warmer" sound. I also agree with you about the over-reliance on drum machines and synthesizers. A little is fine, but unfortunately there for a time it seemed like very few artists were playing actual instruments on the songs.

[boogieman68]

I blame technology and the video era.

With the success of MTV, VH1 and other (then) video music channels the emphasis began to shift from talent to presentation. You had to have a look that would sell to the younger demographic.

As more time passed, true music was further bastardized by software such as ProTools which could make virtually anybody sound good with the proper application. As a result, artists began to all have the same over-produced generic sound within their pre-determined genres.

As a karaoke singer I can tell you that any "pop" song recorded after this time period is virtually impossible to sing because the key progressions are not natural.

Or maybe I'm just getting older....nah, most 90's and 00's music isn't worthy of the bargain bin at K-Mart.