… you do get all music is math right? Like all of it. Jazz has more in common with calculus than most people realize. What you’re having a problem with is there’s a handful of very common musical formulas that are all that any of the big producers want to use right now, and they just like, ignore 98% of music because those few big formulas tend to be the ones that hit a nerve with the most people. Math is natural. It’s emotional. It’s creative. It’s the tortured formulas in modern studio pop that make it seem unnatural.

Think of it like this. Think about your favourite movie. Now imagine someone took the script, made a word cloud out of it, and took the 10 most common words in the script, then had the same actors just read those 10 words over and over again in different combinations. I don’t know about you but that sounds about as interesting as watching paint peel. “But everyone loves those words” yeah, as part of a bigger more coherent story. That’s the state of the music industry.

Bruh I wish more music followed a math cadence

You know a lot of classical music was written mathematically too, right? Like Bach and Beethoven?

Music is patterns.

Either with rhythm, or with melodic context, or with textures & sound design.

Genres change but the math stays the same, and ideas get rediscovered.

Everything that’s new was once already old. Truly, there’s awesome music in every Subgenre or any pattern-subtype. For example I specifically like drum breaks. Not only do I like nu metal or other 2000s stuff, but also I probably would have enjoyed James Brown back then just as much as I am in love with dnb and drum step today. And I’ll enjoy the newer kinds of hyper pop that experiment with it.

What I’m saying is, it’s easy to be negative about something just because you’re bored by it, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. Maybe you need to find new aspects of it to enjoy, like a new genre or different patterns, or it’s time for a different hobby. But talking down on a whole art field is not fair.

I think what you’ll find is that a) you’re selecting a very limited sample of music from the 40s - 80s (hint: most music of each generation is rubbish and formulaic), and b) you’re selecting a very limited sample of modern music, likely from a single source.

Aside from what others are saying, you’re also suffering from selection bias.

Of course, on top of that, each generation has a new musical technology that revolutionizes the sound, with the downside that everyone using that technology sounds pretty similar.

These days we’ve got digital studios that can not only auto tune the instruments and vocals, but also ensure the audio sticks precisely to tempo and time signature.

You’ll see a similar thing shortly after the advent of the organ and harpsichord, where musicians suddenly had precise control over when a tone started and stopped, and a musical notation to represent that timing; suddenly a lot of music featured formulaic 16th staccato runs, because it was now possible for an entire group of musicians to do so relatively easily.

So… look for recent music that starts with a poem and then sets it to music; there’s lots out there; you’re just unlikely to have it recommended to you on Spotify unless you’re already listening to similar music.

…I can’t.

For more context, are you asking why pop music sounds so formulaic?

Music is math, even though most musicians don’t understand it.

What had math got to do with rhyming?

Did Mozart and Beethoven even write music with lyrics?

Because the music industry is not about the artistic process of making music anymore. It’s all about what kind of music sells best to the largest audience. It’s been reduced to a formula that can be calculated, synthesized and reproduced using algorithms.

Talent no longer requires any inherent creativity…only the right “look” and “sound”. The rest is just math.