Photo: hiabbaThey both peaked in the late 1960′s.
You can infer that, anyway, from this handy chart at the blog OverthinkingIt.
They found a correlation between the decline in U.S. oil production and the decline in the quality of pop music, as measured by Rolling Stone‘s list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.
It should go without saying that correlation does not prove causation, and there are many caveats to OverthinkingIt’s analysis. But this slightly whimsical correlation raises at least two interesting questions.
First: Is the declining quality of pop music primarily a problem of limited reserves, or of inefficient extraction? In other words, is pop music — particularly rock — simply exhausted as a form, leaving today’s musicians with little room for innovation; or have the systems used by popular culture to discover and extract good songs from good musicians just broken down?
Second: What other spurious claims of causation through correlation come to mind?
We don’t mean to pick on Mick Jagger, whose contributions to American music will resonate for some time to come.
And after all, as Dubner pointed out, Mick is a would-be fellow economist.
(Hat tip: Mark Lee)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
The peak year of quality of pop music as measured by Rolling Stone is probably primarily explained by the age of the editors of Rolling Stone.
The example that comes to my mind is the correlation of sunspot activity to the stock market:
Sunspots, GDP and the stock market
Theodore Modis
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2007.07.001
I would argue that, rather than declining, the quality of rock (or, perhaps more accurately, the quantity of rock that the average rock fan has the opportunity to consume) has risen pretty steadily in the Napster era. Obscure bands don’t remain obscure for long anymore, and great (but non-mass-marketable) bands can reach the appropriate ears more easily, all making for something of a nascent rock revival…
A better explanation is that Rolling Stone (with good reason) chose songs that have proven to have exceptional staying power; it’s easier to argue that a song from the 60′s is great (by virtue of having maintained its place of reverence and influence for some 40 years) than it is to argue that some song that came out yesterday cand stand beside Gimme Shelter.
I heard there’s lots of progress being made on the production of so called Synthetic Music, but it might have serious global warming implications by increasing the amount of hot air.
Any list of ‘greatest’ songs that doesn’t include at least two Pink Floyd songs in the top 100 isn’t worth reading any more. Other notable omission – Blue Oyster Cult. Besides, with ‘Stairway to Heaven’ at #31, I seriously doubt this list’s authenticity as well as sanity.
Insanity alert: Just found ‘Comfortably Numb’ sitting uncomfortably at #314.
This blog entry asks, “Is the declining quality of pop music primarily a problem of limited reserves, or of inefficient extraction?”
I submit that it’s the latter. While the pool of musical and creative talent is finite at any given moment, that pool is considerably bigger than most people suspect and holds large, untapped reserves. (Back in July, for instance, this very blog showed that the ability to sing decently is actually common.)
As a matter of fact, it’s because of the commonality of talent that extraction has become inefficient. Finding competent musicians and singers is now a trivial task; finding musicians and singers who can be successfully marketed, however, is much tougher. Success depends on factors other than creativity or musical talent, such as “the right look,” gimmicks such as costuming (anyone remember Elton John in the 70s?), mannerisms, and more.
Because success now depends on things OTHER than one’s musical ability or songwriting talent, it stands to reason that these are less of a factor than they had been in the past … meaning that overall quality is declining. This downward trend in musical quality cannot help but continue, so long as musical quality remains irrelevant to success.
My Intro to Psych prof used a good example of correlation vs. causation.
He said that a study indeed found a strong positive correlation between a person’s alcohol consumption and their donations to their local church/place of worship.
“How do you explain this?”, he asked. “Does it mean that religious people drink more? Does it mean that alcoholics try to alleviate their guilt through giving?” No. This would be assuming that one thing causes the other.
In fact, he said, both actions could be caused by a third thing. Perhaps people with higher household incomes have more money to buy alcohol and to donate as well.
My feeling is that you have to think about what music means the most to you. It’s nearly always the music you listened to during your formative years. The top Bands from each era keep getting played, so each new generation has them as part of the soundtrack of their life during their formative years, along with contemporary music. This means that more people will have fond memories of, using myself as an example, David Bowie even though I grew up well after his musical peak in the 70s and hence will vote for him in polls.
Lastly, the quantity of music released has increased decade by decade, which means that people can and will find a greater selection of music to match themselves. This means that the music of now will never have the same audience domination that the like of The Beatles enjoyed and hence they will share the exposure with other music of their era, so they will not pick up as many new fans in future as those that were more dominant of their time.
On the talent side of things, this could hold true too. It is widely seen in the antiques world that as new techniques and ideas come through, they peak within 25 years and rarely ever do the levels of expertise ever get close to those of the early days again, e.g. Dresden/Miessen ceramics.
My take on this is that the talented and creative are always looking to be involved in the freshest and most original things technology brings, whatever they may be.
I mean let’s face it, unless you are dull enough to want to be one of the bands that ape those old enough to be your grandparents, you are not going to pick up a guitar or sit there eulogising about how good Pink Floyd, Stones, Led Zep etc were. You will be out there creating the ‘now’ not the past, doing whatever grabs your attention as being cool now.
This of course may not be music, or at least not the music mainstream. Hard to believe now, but The Rolling Stones were once well outside the mainstream and seen as the downfall of civilization (see also Sex Pistols, Public Enemy etc) but as it turns out they were just the downfall of US oil production!!