How Music Lost its Soul in the Age of Corporatist Pop

Once a radical force, rock music challenged authority and fueled social movements, driven by a soul-baring force of emotional survival. Today’s pop stars, however, seem more focused on corporate branding than political expression. It must be asked: when did our music and social politics become so shallow?

The intense, consuming, crisp sound of the electric guitar does not spark up the flame that it used to in today’s youth. More importantly, the intensive, consuming, crisp desire to change the world does not spark up the flame it used to — a spark stifled by corporatist greed, anti-radical ethos, and the pigs of capitalism muting our “soft radicalism.” 

If you think my wording is poignant, that is exactly what I’m referring to. Roger Waters, the co-founder of the progressive rock band Pink Floyd, yelling “fuck off!” to his audience at a live show in London last year and getting censored by Facebook for carrying a Palestinian flag on stage, should not be as shock-inducing as it was. 

Back in the 70s and 80s, during the peak of Pink Floyd’s fame, such “radical” expressions of political opinions by artists were not uncommon — whether it was Jim Morrison being arrested on stage, David Bowie claiming that “Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars”, or former Smiths frontman Morrissey asking Margaret Thatcher repeatedly “When will you die?”. The meaning of controversy in the rock star context was a lot more radical than what is associated with the term today. 

I am not saying that all opinions expressed by popular rock artists were politically loaded and expertly informed. What I am saying, though, is that the expression of opinion, on a general basis, has come to a total halt in the modern music industry. 

This means that controversial statements aside, the music stage has been dulled down to prioritizing corporate interests and absolute political neutrality — Taylor Swift finally declaring her position on the upcoming U.S. presidential election should not be something to praise her for. 

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not claiming that twentieth century rock music is objectively better than today’s pop music (personal opinions aside). Pop is short for popular music; rock used to be pop. However, they cannot possibly be classified under the same phenomenon. Where rock was the catalyst of social change, pop is sparkling soda — fizzy, sweet, and gone before you have even had time to think about it. 

The rise of rock music was deeply intertwined with social movements — civil rights, anti-war protests, and challenges to authority. It was music that, in many ways, sought to provoke, to resist, and to disrupt the status quo.

It wasn’t just entertainment; it was a cultural and political statement. Today’s pop, on the other hand, serves a different function. While it dominates global charts and is accessible to millions, it is, simply put, just a polished product of the entertainment industry. Pop today is designed for mass consumption and broad appeal — It’s devoid of the raw edge or confrontational spirit that rock once had. 

To show how truly consumerized today’s pop stars have become, let’s take the example of Taylor Swift. No matter how Western media hails her as a “feminist icon” or a #girlboss, ultimately, her persona is the final product of a billion-dollar branding machine marketing her as relatable to the everyday woman. 

Simply, no one does capitalism like Taylor Swift. A billionaire — with private jets that set records for their carbon emissions and property that helps her benefit from tax cuts — would be expected to be outspoken about her gratitude to the corporatist, capitalist music industry in the United States.

Sure, you could say it’s scary to speak out politically due to the hostility it entails for artists. 

Would you, however, say this to the protester advocating, at direct risk for her life, against genocide in the West Bank? 

When it comes to matters beyond someone making fun of her on Twitter, Swift makes sure to be as silent as a grave. Is she a feminist icon? No. And, harshly put, Swift is a billionaire who keeps her political opinions to herself for a reason, prioritizing everything and anything that will feed her money machine. 

Dixi et salvavi animam meam. A phrase once referred to by Roger Waters, directly translated as “I spoke and I saved my soul.” Music has always been a medium for artists to bare their souls, to use music to communicate something — to try, at the limit posed by words, to encapsulate emotions and their intensity. Waters, like so many rock musicians of his time, understood this deeply. Speaking out, through music, was not just an artistic act; it was an existential one. 

By vocalizing their discontent with society, politics, or personal struggles, artists like Waters believed they were not only expressing themselves but also preserving their integrity — saving their souls from the compromises imposed by the world around them. 

But this form of soul-baring music, where speaking truth was an act of emotional survival, has largely been lost in today’s music landscape. The commercial machine behind today’s pop music, with its sleek production and consumer-friendly branding, rarely allows for such radical honesty. 

Where artists like Waters once sought to provoke, resist, and dismantle systems of power, much of modern music, especially in the realm of pop, is focused on personal branding, sanitized messages, and maintaining a wide, non-controversial appeal. There is little room for soul-saving when the industry prioritizes catchy, digestible content over true emotional and expressive depth. 

The phrase Dixi et salvavi animam meam speaks to a time when music could be a form of political and emotional resistance, something that allowed the artist to speak without words. It reminds us that to speak through music was, in a sense, to save one’s soul from the compromises and co-opting of the establishment. 

But when artists today remain silent on politics and societal issues or offer only surface-level engagement, we must ask: where is this soul-saving now? Has the soul of music been lost to commercialization? Or has the music industry, in embracing capitalism, succeeded in silencing the political power that rock once wielded so freely?

Other posts that may interest you: