Pop music is not created all equal. For someone who's attempting to rail down on musical snobs and claim he's a pop fan, you sure sound like a snob (are you, are you not?)
Wuthering Heights is a freakin' pop song. Imagine is a pop song. Yesterday by the Beatles is a pop song. Basically some of the most celebrated music is "pop" music. To claim that it's all the same with, say, Firework is lunacy. The only thing pop music has in common is immediacy to the listener, usually in the form of melody. That does not mean that there aren't good/bad pop artistis, or those with more musical credit and complex arrangements (i.e ABBA). Some of the most potent music involves simple lyrics accompanied by music to drive the point home - (i.e Imagine), and that does not mean it's shallow.
I haven't listened to much of pre90s pop, but I would not be surprised at all if the trend has been getting worse and worse. There was much more going on musically with those who were at the top of the charts in the 90s than in the 00s. Somebody posted that 1995 #1 list and I think the difference is quite apparent. So if you have any point to make, please support it by actual data rather than, I dunno, argument from authority or whatever; cause I'm not what this rant really means, unless you do mean to say all pop is the same, which is frankly retarded.
This is music structure and music theory, what data do you want?
They don't do numbers for this kind of stuff.
You misread my argument. I admitted I'm going to play the music snob.
But there's a difference between a pop snob and a general music snob. Pop snobs are ridiculous just by definition. And if you don't believe my claim that I'm a pop fan far more than a classical music fan, would you like the link to my last.fm?
Wuthering Heights and Beatles songs have much more in common with Katy Perry songs than just immediacy. The basic form they use is the same, the song. And because they both use the same form the structure is going to be nearly identical in every pop song. Some artists may play with the structure more than others, but it's going to be mostly superficial, it's the same form all around. Other forms of music like classical European music and jazz play with form and push it much more and end up with vastly
different structures. (For "stats" here, compare Ornette Coleman or idk, Debussy to the Beatles at their most experimental. The boundary pushing structurally isn't on the same plane) .
They also share also general chord progressions. Have you never watched the videos where a guy with a guitar starts off with a Beatles song, then switches to a Bon Jovi song, then to an Aerosmith song, etc. and they all sound eerily similar? It's because the chord progressions. This holds true for the large majority of pop songs, even the largely respected ones. Conformity in chord progressions is something that makes pop music what it is. It's much more than just "immediacy" that makes pop songs related to other pop songs. To pretend otherwise, well to put it nicely you have no musical ground to stand on.
The Beatles and Kate Bush obviously are light years ahead of Katy Perry, I would never argue otherwise. But they do the same bread and butter things in more exciting ways and in far better ways. There is not the serious difference in the basic makings of their songs from the average trashy pop on the radio, like you're trying to pretend. I enjoy pop music for what it is, I don't go the Pitchfork route and try to put it on a pedestal as a srz bzns art form. Pop music is fun and touching and catchy and can be great, but once you start down the pop music snobbery path of "Music sucks now, I miss when pop music was smart and pushed boundaries, etc" then you're opening yourself up for being shown how ridiculous that path is.