I'm from the US, I need some voice in my music, dammit!

August 15, 2011 1:16 PM

Why hasn't contemporary pop music without vocals become mainstream top 40 in the US? Or, more specifically why do only the "Techno/electronic" songs with singers get on mainstream radio in the US?

I put "techno" in quotes because, I know I'm putting lots of different artists in the same genre (these could be considered trance, eurodance, house, etc--but I think most people in this country will just call them 'techno').

Popular songs that have been on top 40 include Chemical Brothers- Hey Boy, Hey Girl, Cascada - Everytime We Touch.

I don't remember hearing/seeing any Oakenfold, Paul van Dyk, Tiesto. These artists seem to mainstream everywhere else I've been (Asia, South America, Canada even moreso). I could be mistaken on the last statement, though

posted by sandmanwv to Media & Arts (15 answers total)

Because people like to sing along.
posted by phunniemee at 1:31 PM on August 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Also, rave/club/house culture is not as big here (though whether this is a cause or effect, who knows).
posted by Admiral Haddock at 1:34 PM on August 15, 2011

People use a lot of manipulation and promotion to get records into the charts so they can make money of the gigs or whatever. Promoters of dance music aren't as interested in doing that as they have an alternative route to get popularity - get the tunes to some big dj's, played in clubs etc.
posted by Not Supplied at 1:36 PM on August 15, 2011

Best answer: This isn't a recent phenomenon, it's been that way since the 1940s and the Musician's Strike. Listeners got used to hearing vocalists instead of instrumentalists and vocals have dominated (with notable exceptions) ever since.
posted by tommasz at 1:36 PM on August 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Best answer: Instrumental pop getting to the top of the charts in any genre in the US is both extremely rare and becoming more rare:

"Frankenstein" hit no. 1 on the Billboard singles chart, which is extremely rare for an instrumental track. Since 1963, there have been only 11 instrumental no. 1s — most were disco songs (like Van McCoy's "The Hustle") or theme songs from superpopular TV shows and movies (Jan Hammer's " Miami Vice Theme" climbed to no. 1 in 1985, the last instrumental to reach the apex). There's always been a strange bias against instrumentals in pop music, and nobody really knows why; there continues to be this industry idea that audiences need lyrics to understand what a song is "about" even though (a) people are continually attracted to pop songs for nonlyrical reasons, and (b) what a singer literally describes in any song is often not what the song is "about," anyway.

That's from a Klosterman essay about Edgar Winter in Grantland and though I disagree with his thesis about why people respond to vox, I include the quote for the stats. Anyway, "disco" is the old version of what you are calling "techno", so if anything, that type of music is more likely to make it to the top of the US charts without vox, it's just that instrumental music in general is extremely unlikely to top the charts in the US at all, and as Klosterman points out, no one really knows why. (I think its more about hummable melodies and people liking to sing along, though, than people needing "what the song is about" explained to them)
posted by jeb at 1:38 PM on August 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Best answer: Here's an essay for you: Why Americans Don't Like Jazz (by Dyske Suematsu). Sample:

One day, I was talking to my wife about the TV commercial for eBay where a chubby lady sings and dances to an appropriated version of “My Way” by Frank Sinatra. The lyrics were entirely re-written, and “my way” was transformed into “eBay”. I told her that they did a good job in adapting the original song. Then she said: “Ah, that’s why I like it so much!” She actually did not realize that it was adapted from Sinatra’s song.

My wife and I have always known how differently we listen to music. I tend to entirely ignore lyrics, while she tends to entirely ignore music. We are the two opposite ends of the spectrum in this sense, and it appears that my wife’s side is more common. Many of my friends think that I have a peculiar, or plain bad, taste for music. Whenever I say I like this song or that song, they look at me like I am crazy. Then they go on to explain why it is bad, and I realize that they are referring to the lyrics, not to the music. I then pay attention to the lyrics for the first time, and realize that they are right. The opposite happens often too where many of my friends love a particular song, and I can’t understand what’s good about it until I pay attention to the lyrics.

The eBay example is an extreme case where my wife could not recognize the original once the lyrics were swapped. To her, if you change the lyrics, it is an entirely different song. It is the other way around for me; in most cases, I would not notice any change in the lyrics. The eBay song was an exception; I only noticed it because it is a famous song used for a TV commercial.

I believe my wife’s way of listening to music is typically American, and my way of listening to music, typically Japanese. If you don’t speak English, any songs written in English are instrumental music. Singers turn into just another musical instrument. These days, no matter where you live, you cannot get away from the dominance of the American music. This means that most non-English speakers grow up listening to a lot of instrumental music. In Japan, I would say, it constitutes about half of what people listen to. When they are listening to Madonna, Michael Jackson, or Britney Spears, they have very little understanding of what their songs are about. In this sense, their ears are trained to listen to and enjoy instrumental music, which explains why Jazz is still so popular in Japan. . . .

posted by John Cohen at 1:42 PM on August 15, 2011 [13 favorites]

If you don’t speak English, any songs written in English are instrumental music

I would say that this is not entirely true. Vocals, whether you can understand the lyrics or not, add a human element, a focus to the song. We, as humans, are attracted to other humans. We identify with them. A human voice adds something tangible, something familiar - not just because of the sound of this other human, but because, as a result of our social experiences, we can even imagine what the person singing might be like, what they might look like, whether they're fun or very serious and intellectual, or champion lovemakers. Everyone thought Elvis was black before they actually saw him, for instance. They didn't just take the voice as a disembodied voice, free of context - they attached properties to it.

We love singers because they are people. They are the focus of a band. We can all name the lead singer in a band, but we can't so easily name the bassist or the drummer. Saxophones are just bits of metal. Guitars are bits of wood with bits of metal stuck on them. Vocalists have character, they are like us, or they are thrillingly not like us, or we want to be like them, or we want them to like us. When I was growing up, for instance, I lost count of how many radio DJs incorrectly gave the name of bands. Karma Chameleon wasn't by Culture Club - it was by Boy George and Culture Club. Even duos! George Michael and Wham.

So I'd say that the mainstream rejects music without vocals because it's not human enough, and there is no human focus, no one star to gaze into the eyes of, or imagine gazing into the eyes of, or imagine that when they say 'ooh baby you're the one for me', they are communicating directly with.
posted by The Discredited Ape at 3:03 PM on August 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's very hard to make a good memorable pop hook without words. With words non-musicians have something to grasp the more abstract melody by and a way to remember it. Words may also provide a social or psychological aspect that the listener identifies with. If you think about most instrumentals that have become popular, they generally have something very distinctive in their instrumentation and/or a very solid hook. Frankenstein is a great example, an easy to hum guitar/synth line (BA-DA BUM BUM BA-DUM DUM DA) and it follows a predictable pop song structure. Songs like Green Onions, the Peter Gunn theme, Elephant Walk, Walk Don't Run, Wipeout all have insanely infectious hooks.
posted by doctor_negative at 3:38 PM on August 15, 2011

For the record, I tend to ignore lyrics completely and listen to the music (it amused a friend of mine when I described "trance" as a particular subgenre of techno that frequently uses female voices singing nonsensical "lyrics" more as an instrument rather than as a proper "singer").

And I do not like jazz. Believe me, I've tried. Everything about me screams "jazz lover", and yet, I find I can't even stand it as background noise.
posted by pla at 4:40 PM on August 15, 2011

It doesn't matter if vocals are incorporated or not. "I Remember" by Deadmau5 and Kaskade should have been a #1 hit. There have been exceptions; Moby, for example, and The Prodigy, that have been thrown up the pop charts.

But not many make the Billboard charts, and I don't think it's about vocals. Electronic music is just as mainstream as any other genre, judging by the amount of artists headlining music festivals that are DJs or electronic acts.

My theory is that electronic music is good music, and whether you have vocals or you don't (see examples above), there's very rarely room on top 40 charts for good music.
posted by JLovebomb at 4:40 PM on August 15, 2011

Without vocals, we have nothing to emotionally connect to. We need a singer to project our love/lust/fear/hate onto, and that singer reflects our emotions back at us.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 5:05 PM on August 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also, people like to sing along and quote lyrics.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 5:06 PM on August 15, 2011

Without vocals, we have nothing to emotionally connect to.

Hey now, speak for yourself. :P
posted by JLovebomb at 5:09 PM on August 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Moby, for example, and The Prodigy, that have been thrown up on the pop charts.

ftfy

-but seriously, even though they both do a lot of instrumental electronic tracks, most of their actual hits had vocals.
posted by mannequito at 5:31 PM on August 15, 2011

I think there are 2 things to consider.

1) the disco backlash. Instrumentals are huge in dance but after disco dance music went largely underground.

2) The cult of celebrity & personality. Pop became huge in the 80s but lots of it hinged on the personality of the star—it's harder to hang a personality on an instrumental.
posted by wemayfreeze at 6:26 PM on August 15, 2011