As one who is also over 50, but who, strangely enough likes much of the hip-hop and R&B around today–on the radio at least–I would say be of good cheer. Everything either goes out of style eventually or it “trasmogrifies” so greatly it’s no longer recognizable as what it once was, i.e., 70’s R&B vs. today’s R&B…or 50’s rock and roll vs. today’s rock and roll. And with regard to whether quality music is permanently dead, I wondered that myself through the years as the music industry went through a fallow period. What I’ve learned through the passage of time is that nothing is forever and that there is a pendulum out there that swings back and forth so that nothing is permanent.
As an aside, Wal-Mart, as much as I often detest the experience of shopping there, currently seems to be unstopable. But I’m comfortable that somehow it will be either a thing of the past or a shadow of its current self. Once upon a time Sears and Pan-American Airlines were huge.
Firstly, I think I should apologise to Loopydude for being a little nasty in my post. Combine the sort of question I find somewhat irritating and me in a bad mood and I start getting all snotty. Sorry, Loopydude, it would perhaps be best to look at the content of my previous post rather than my tone.
I’m 20, and I understand that some people, particularly older people find it difficult to immerse themselves in music to the extent that I do. I’m sure others my age may lose the impulse to find something new, but I doubt it will happen to me. Music is too big a part of my life for me to just lose interest.
That said, it really isn’t hard to find decent contemporary music. Admittedly, it is easier for me - Australia has a national radio station that plays a reasonable amount of underground stuff. But you get college radio in America, don’t you?
But the dearth of good, big-selling music is over-exaggerated. Radiohead, Outkast, Basement Jaxx are all examples of high quality, big selling acts. And take Radiohead - a great band who you’d have to have been hiding under a rock to miss. But once you’ve been exposed to Radiohead, it isn’t too hard to find out, by reading articles etc., that they are fond of and have toured with bands such as Sigur Ròs and (I think) Godspeed You! Black Emperor. One can easily give these bands a trial run, either legally or illegally, and from there you can easily discover all manner of other related bands, such as Mùm, Silver Mt Zion, Broken Social Scene and KC Accidental.
Nearly any good mainstream band can lead to a wealth of underground ones. With hip hop, it’s even easier - big rappers often feature smaller ones on some of their tracks, and if you listen to top 40 artist Jay-Z’s latest album, you’ll notice that he namechecks two of the most respected underground names, Talib Kweli and Common. You don’t need a radio or an attentive social circle to stay familiar with what’s happening out there.
I’m not hugely versed in indie film, but I have some idea. I couldn’t discuss the most obscure works, but I don’t go in for mainstream Hollywood fare, either. The Matrix and Star Trek threads bore me, but if you started one about Sweet Sixteen or something, I could tell you what I thought.
(And, just so you know, the Southern Alaskan Polar Bear scene was great about a year ago, but the main artists have lost all creativity, and are just releasing the same thing over and over again. Northern Alaska is where it’s at these days.)
I do read Pitchfork, but if it’s any defence, I’d embraced pop music before they started doing reviews of it. I was pleased when they did - I thought I was the only one who liked it.
I do think that pop is better these days. I’m trying to be objective about it, but if I think back to mass-produced pop from previous eras, I can’t think of anything that matches the quality of today’s disposable pop. I mean, I’d take Beyonce over Spice Girls, 50 Cent over MC Hammer and Kelis over New Kids On The Block. Or am I missing something? Were there mainstream pop artists from prior eras that weren’t terrible? The only one I can think of from the '90s that might qualify is Snoop Dogg, but I’m not sure if he ever achieved the sales to qualify as truly pop rather than popular hip hop. You don’t really get any quality until you get back to the mid '80s, with The Go Gos, Prince, Madonna, Cyndi Lauper etc. (OK, I’ll revise my previous statement - contemporary pop is the best it’s been since the mid '80s.
Perhaps true, but I was responding to the contention that “pop music [is] really in trouble now,” pointing out that it isn’t. I fail to see how today’s pop music could be considered worse than the majority of what was charting in the '80s.
That KC Accidental album is a hell of a lot better than it got credited with. ‘Nancy And The Girdle Boy’ was one of my favorite songs of 2003. The new Mùm is horrible.
Fair enough, I hope I didn’t come off as a prick, because I think you’re a cool poster. I’m just kind of annoyed with Pitchfork (and consequently everyone that reads it) complete 180 on their stand towards mainstream pop music. Like there is some kind of pop music revolution going on. Which is utter bullshit.
I’m not sure if I understand your question. Are you actually saying, that besides from Snoop Dogg you can’t think of any mainstream acts from the 90’s that weren’t terrible? Are you kidding me? Mainstream hip-hop has essentially been the equivalent of mainstream pop music for the last ten years. What you’re hearing now, didn’t start in the second half of 2003. If you think Snoop Dogg qualifies, then how about 2pac? Bigge? How about the Beastie Boys? ‘Aquemini,’ arguably the best Outkast album is from 1998 and peaked at second place on the Billboard list. Timbaland has been producing hits since 1997. How about Wu-Tang Clan back in 93-95 when they were fucking unstoppable? I could go on, but I won’t since this isn’t the kind of music I’m most knowledgeable about, or care about for that matter, but I hope you get the drift.
Snopp Dogg is worthless nowadays. He’s whoring out guest spots to every shitty rapper there is. He’s a joke.
I’ll probably make a thread about it in the near future, but I need to revise the list first. I’m kind of obsessive. Hopefully it might spark some interesting discussion, and maybe other could add theirs. I’m also curious to see your list, if you have one.
Son, every single one of us on this thread - and every single person in the entire world who was ever 20 - said that at the time.
It all goes back to what I said in my first post. Not only does the music scene change radically, it do so cyclically - every five years on the average. Each music break loses a large percentage of the previous generation who can’t adapt. Three breaks - 15 to 20 years - will wipe out a good 90% of the older audience. The ones who stay in the game - those who have posted here, for example - are the rare exceptions, absolutely not the norm. That’s why nostalgia stations outnumber every other type of music. Most of the population still prefers the music it grew up with.
After watching this since the 60s - if you include the disgust my parents had for the Beatles I can trace it back even further: heck, look at the way bebop managed to lose 90% of the swing jazz audience back in the 40s - I have to conclude that this is an immutable law of culture.
Everybody thinks “I’m going to be different: it won’t happen to me; I won’t become like my parents.” And then we all do, almost every one.
Come back 15 years from now, and then 15 years after that, and we’ll talk.
Hi, I’m Gex Gex from 15 years later… Although I did turn out much more like my parents than I thought I would (boy, do I look like my Dad these days), my love of music is undiminished… once you become comfortable with the knowledge that 99% of everything (even the music styles you like) is shit, you realize that persuing good music will always take some amount of effort. That’s half the fun.
I’ll check back again in another 15 years… maybe I’ll have completely changed my mind by then.
The type of rock music that’s popular today isn’t to my taste. I love what can be called “guitar rock” or “melodic rock”, which was big back in the 70’s and 80’s. The majority of bands being played on rock radio today are what I call “strummers and hummers”: they strum a few chords and sing in a monotone, with very little or no harmonies and no big guitar sound. Many of the vocalists are okay, but don’t have those amazing rock voices like we used to have in Freddy Mercury or Steve Perry.
One current band I do like is Jet - fun stuff. Evanescence is ok, a little gloomy for me but definitely listenable. Don’t get me started on The Darkness :rolleyes:
Its hard to find new music I like, but it’s out there being made and put out by indie labels (mostly in Europe for this type of music, I find). I have many friends who still like music but don’t have the time to search it out like we used to. I make the time, and its not always easy. We pass along info to eachother and keep it going that way.
As has been mentioned before, corporate ownership of radio stations has made the choices more narrow. I listen to NYC stations and can’t believe how much sameness there is out there. How many lite music and hispanic stations does one market need? I’m not into country but how is it that the #1 market doesn’t have a country station? There’s enough people in the area who’d listen to it to make it worthwhile for them, money wise.
I have a few really good websites I read reviews on and listen to soundclips, and a reliable internet retailer I can buy the cd’s from at a reasonable price, so I’m okay. I miss the diversity radio used to have, though.
I agree. There’s tons of good music being made right now. I’m 40, and in the past year I’ve purchased at least 15 CDs of new music. Fountains of Wayne, The Jayhawks, Beck, Coldplay, The White Stripes, Ryan Adams, Wilco, Alison Krauss and Union Station, Jack Johnson, The Brian Setzer Orchestra, Radiohead, Warren Zevon, Nora Jones… Lots of good stuff. In fact, I’d say we’re in the middle of a revival of good music. I haven’t seen this much good stuff in a year in a long time.
I credit the internet. Certainly in the case of Wilco, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot would probably not even have been released if it weren’t for file sharing on the internet. Fountains of Wayne also benefitted greatly from internet buzz, as did Warren Zevon and The Jayhawks.
In fact, of the bands above, the only ones I would have even heard of were it not for the internet would have been Coldplay, Warren Zevon (only because I’m a big fan - most people probably heard about him over the net), The White Stripes, Nora Jones, and Radiohead.
Not to speak for others, but I think the reason I’m still in the game is that I am attracted to talent. In virtually every musical genre, the cream tends to rise to the top. The adults of the sixties didn’t like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and The Who, but the genuine musical genius that drove these groups is undeniable. Same with Sting and the Police, for example, in the eighties (to give but one example). These days, like it or not, much talent is to be found in the hip-hop and R&B worlds, in particular. I find even Justin Timberlake to be extremely talented, and in a variety of ways. (Anyone see his astounding performance as host on SNL recently? He was in almost every skit and outshone virtually all the SNL performers as well as most of the guest hosts in my memory.)
But I digress.
I just think there are some of us who are more talent-driven in our enjoyment of music while some others are driven by the sound they relate to a particular time in their lives. I refer you to Quincy Jones for example, who has an infinite ability to recognize talent, possessing much more of it himself than nearly anyone. He is always one of the first to champion new music and to recognize the top talent in that genre. (Not that this talent is always rewarded. Some of those he champions fall by the wayside as they lack the drive, attractiveness, or maybe the charisma they need to become stars, while other, lesser talents become big names and get rich.) However, it’s almost always the case, whether you like them or not, that those who rise to the top have much greater musical ability than they are given credit for. In my own case, I’m not particularly fond of the music of Brittany Spears, but I would wager she knows much more about music than almost anyone would give her credit for.
The musical offerings are more varied now than ever, and accessibility high. That means it is easy for talentless and pretty people to distribute songs, and very easy for you to listen to a lot of bad music.
iTunes is absolutely not helping this. I downloaded it, and found it easy to get Britney-type drek and lacking in many songs and artists I love.
I have found that every metro area I have lived in has one station that plays truly good music, and a few that sometimes play decent music. That one station was WXRT in Chicago, KFOG in SF, and KMTT here - also, KUOW (public radio) plays a show called the World Cafe that features an eclectic range of music.
Aside from that, you really do have to go to the web and to local concerts to find good music.
I first found out about John Hiatt from an interview on Morning Edition. Just keep your ears open, and keep searching. Fresh, good music is out there.
It just occurred to me that this statement might be misconstrued due my unfortunate choice of phrasing. What I mean is: some of us are more driven by an appreciation of talent, and can therefore enjoy the music of talented people pretty much without regard to the style of music; not that some of us who appreciate today’s music are more talented than those who appreciate previous genres of music.
I think that music in the last ten years really has objecively turned into shit. I can appreciate popular music from the 40’s to the 90’s but there isn’t a single truly exciting artist or band out there right now.
I blame technology and rap. Rap allowed untalented people to steal other people’s music, scream a bunch of profanities along to it, package it and sell it.
Electronic music is even worse. It has eliminated musicianship and legitimate composition from song writing. It’s all about thievery and mixing. “tehchno” music is just shit with a drum track. There is no creativity or imagination involved. It requires no talent or artistic sensibility. No one can play a freaking instrument anymore.
The teen stuff, the boy bands and the slut singers, is just prepackaged, artificial “product.” The singers have their vocal tracks sweetened or dubbed in the studio and they lip sync their live performances. None of them can write a song or play an E chord on the guitar.
We’ve arrived at the end of the line. Popular music has run its course. We live in an age where a guy screaming about how he wants to rape and murder his mother is considered the height of creativity. Even the stuff that’s considered cool like the Strokes or Jet is only cool because it sounds like older stuff.
The only thing to do is to explore the past. I’ve found there is a ton of unexplored music out there that’s just waiting to be rediscovered. I started getting into classic jazz musicians like John Coltrane and Charlie Parker. I learned to dig Ravi Shankar. I love to go through my old 80’s metal tapes and listen once more to Iron Maiden or Saxon or Motorhead or Priest.
Stay in the past. the past is safe. The past won’t suck at you. Avoid everything new.
I never understand when people say, " there’s good music out there, it just never gets played". I mean, if there is supposedly some awesome band just lurking around, then why doesn’t one station start playing them and put everyone else out of business?
[moe] It just don’t make no sense… [/moe]
Has nobody heard of The Offspring?!? Why “The Worst Hangover Ever” isn’t in heavy rotation is beyond me. It’s pure pop. Multi-genres, bouncy, fun, catchy, and really damn funny for anyone who has had a H/O. Plus it doesn’t have the -I’m a millionaire, now listen to me whine about how bad my life is- in every fucking song. (Nirvana)
I like Nirvana’s stuff, I remember in high school cruising the strip in my friends Fiero cranking Teen Spirit on the radio. The problem was, the songs were usually too dark to have a mass appeal. However, Jackyl’s “Down on Me” gets more play today then Teen Spirit.
There’s a couple Avril songs I’ll listen to, for 2 reasons. 1. Catchy hooks, the pre-req of any pop song. 2. (the reason I don’t turn it off) she actually has some talent and attitude. i.e., no pre-packaging.
Justin Thimbledick can just go away.
Add to Offspring, Everclear, Monster Magnet, Rob Zombie, Bon Jovi, Linkin Park, Eminem, Godsmack, Evinescence, anything by Gwen Stefani (can you see I like all kinds of different music?) Naturally I have to exclude John Denver, Grateful Dead, Stevie Ray Vaughn, et al since pop means current. And we’ve been robbed of any more music.
Alas, Clear Channel (owned by Red “I’m taking the Vikings to Texas” McCombs) is pretty much in charge of almost every commercial playist in the country. So get used to this pablum.
BTW, last year Norah Jones won how many Grammy’s? Her follow up album is being offered through mail order now on Nick at Nite. I noticed her name wasn’t mentioned in any of these posts.
(Off to nurse carpal tunnel) Sorry for the long post
Well, Diogenes the Cynic you certainly earned your username on that post.
I am not going to try to convert you - kinda pointless. I am disappointed that you seem to be in agreement with a lot of people posting and don’t seem to realize it. While some have argued for one or two of the bands or styles you mention, many say that they don’t pay attention to what is on popular radio playlists (e.g., nu-metal, hip hop/rap, boy bands, Britney, etc.) and look to other sources.
There have been dozens of bands that don’t fit any of those descriptions listed in this thread. Invest some time and check them out before you make sweeping statements like the one opening your thread.
Don’t get me wrong, I love music from years ago and have an extensive CD collection from the Baroque, Classical, Jazz all the way up through metal and other current styles.
I always find these sort of threads bizarre. Music is surely the only artform that people claim is ‘dead.’ There aren’t arguments (that I’m aware of) that no-one is painting anything good any more or no-one is taking good photographs anymore. No-one claims that no-one done any decent architecture since the gothic period. It would be silly to tell people that no-one writes decent books anymore (and that the only decent books were written in a select period happening to coincide with your teenage years). So why should such a silly proposition be applied to music?
I haven’t heard that much of KC Accidental, but the few things I’ve downloaded I quite like. I’ll have to check out ‘Nancy…’
I’m not sure that I understood what I was talking about, either I was basically trying to compare quality of mainstream music from today to, say, ten years ago. However, where I ran into difficulties (and hence the confusion) was that there is different sorts of mainstream music. I think there’ll always be mainstream music of the sort produced by good, credible bands - for instance, Nirvana then, Radiohead now.
I also see a middle ground - artists that are obviously targeted at a particular demographic, but are obviously not the prepackaged Britney type - these can vary in quality from, say, Creed to some of the better mainstream hip hop. Perhaps contemporary rock suffers here, with the glut of 3 Doors Downs and Matchbox 20s. However, I don’t think rock ever was strong in this regard. I mean, Grand Funk Railroad weren’t that great either. Hip hop certainly has some listenable tracks of this type - the 50 Cent and Missy Elliot, for instance. You claim that hip hop has effectively been the mainstream pop for the past ten years. I’m willing to believe that is true for the U.S, though the Billboard singles chart from this week ten years ago has nowhere near the amount of hip hop that this week’s does. I also think this weeks charts does have better music, but that’s hard to tell - perhaps it won’t look so good in ten years time.
In your defence though, the album chart contains a lot of hip hop, and other decent stuff - Snoop, Eazy E, Cypress Hill.
Perhaps the difference is what I was exposed to at the time. I think hip hop only took off in Australia as an unstoppable force in the past few years. A look at the Australian singles chart for 1994 shows that. The album chart from that year tells a similar story.
I don’t doubt the dominance of hip hop you describe in the U.S. Perhaps I’ve only been exposed to music at the pop end of the spectrum over the last few years.
And finally, and I think this is true for all over the world, there seems to be a better quality in disposable music - written by songwriters for girl-in-tight-top du jour. I can’t find much of that sort of thing in either chart, U.S or otherwise from 1994. Perhaps this explains the indie interest in pop trend.
Sadly true.
Whenever your ready. I’ll try to get a list together, but it’s a really hard thing to do. I’ll come up with something, though.
I understand that, and I may see naive saying it, but I think it’s unlikely it will happen to me. Of course, there’s no way we can know for sure other than waiting 15 years (apart from vl_mungo’s channelling of the future - remarkably effective, I think).
For a start, I immerse myself in the underground - and despite the OP being a conspicious example of one immersed in the underground that no longer has an interest in contemporary music - historically, those in the underground seem to have coped with change better than others. For instance, in the late '70s, where mainstream rock fans were putting ‘Disco Sucks’ bumper stickers on their cars, punk bands like The Clash and Blondie were embracing elements of it. It wasn’t that they were that much younger, but they seem to have been more open-minded about things. Similarly, Blondie embraced the hip hop scene, especially with their song Rapture. Meanwhile, the members of post-punk band Joy Division went on to become New Order, developed an interest in house music and had a hand in developing the Madchester scene and (I think) Rave.
Secondly, I listen to a wide variety of music. For me to stop finding anything interesting in contemporary music, not only would rock have to fail me, in all its forms, but electronic music, from house to drum n bass to electro to idm and hip hop (and other ‘urban’ music - nu soul etc.) would have to fail me. It just doesn’t seem very likely, as far as I’m concerned. I think this is what starving artist was saying - I like talent, regardless of the genre. Other people seem to only like talent within their genre of choice.
Modern art has been proclaimed dead for 50 years. Photography limped off the field of great arts a generation ago. Modernistic and post-modernistic architecture has been decried by every critic who can find a keyboard. The novel has been declared dead and buried many times.
And today’s classical music has been rejected even by classical music buffs.
This is all overly simplistic, but it’s a fair representation of the enormous battles over Post-WWII art in every possible form. So I have to say that when it comes to any evaluation of the history of any art - you simply have no idea of what you’re talking about. Admittedly it would be very odd if you did at 20: I had no idea myself at that age. But I can’t sit here and let you say such things unchallenged. You’re wrong, and almost embarrassingly wrong. Stick to talking about contenporary music.
Just keep your ears open, and keep searching. Fresh, good music is out there.