Because music isn't scarce anymore (for a long time). Before the internet, almost any good music was a treasure and if it was difficult to listen to at first, I got it on repeat. And since it was scarce, I'd listen to the same stuff again and again, because there was nothing else to listen to. So the music stuck and the names did too.
Now you can listen to an endless stream and never hear the same songs more than once.
Check out my other comment. It's also that older music was a lot more information-rich, i.e., your brain was processing a lot more stuff, so it was more simulated by it. Music right now is the equivalent of junk food for your brain.
I read that. Depends on what music. The complexity in the music is a complex thing :). In terms of the melodies, harmonies and how they evolve, a lot of the pop got super lobotomized as the laptops became the main instruments. But at the same time, a lot of it is heavy on sound design and creating a "vibe".
Also complexity doesn't equal good music. A lot of great music is (deceptivly) simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzIZPZN5K60
Yes, one can argue this Arvo Part piece is not exactly information-poor, but in music, simple is often a good thing that a few can pull off well.
You said it yourself: simple doesn't mean information-poor.
"Good" or "bad" are not the matter here, that's just taste. I can dislike very information-rich music, and it would still be a fact that it is information-rich and that listening to it doesn't have the same effect on people's brains than listening to an information-poor piece of music that's widely liked.
