Indeed, I’ve downloaded a lot less music since I got satellite radio. And it isn’t really that pricey… if you buy one CD a month, you can afford the subscription, and the equipment isn’t unreasonable for a birthday or Christmas present.
SIRIUS has a “classic alternative” stream, First Wave, but they play older stuff - new wave and punk. R.E.M., INXS, The Ramones, etc.
I’ll just add some more suggestions:
Electronic-
Permutations - Amon Tobin
Tango N’ Vectif - Mu-Ziq
Richard D. James Album - Aphex Twin
Hard Normal Daddy - Squarepusher
Music Has the Right to Children - Boards of Canada
Dead Cities - Future Sound of London
In-Sides - Orbital
Bytes - Black Dog
Amber - Autechre
Surfing On Sine Waves - Polygon Window
2003-
Chutes Too Narrow - The Shins
Violet Hour - Clientele
Guitar Romantic - Exploding Hearts
Apple O’ - Deerhoof
Old Kit Bag - Richard Thompson
Hail to the Thief - Radiohead
You Are Free - Cat Power
Earth is Not A Cold Dead Place - Explosions in the Sky
Wonderful Rainbow - Lightning Bolt
Earthquake Glue - Guided By Voices
Relatively Recent Years-
The 3 E.P.'s - Beta Band
Kid A - Radiohead
Is This Desire? - PJ Harvey
Red Apple Falls - Smog
Post - Bjork
Moon Pix - Cat Power
Let Love In - Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds
In the Aeroplane Over the Sea - Neutral Milk Hotel
Moon Safari - Air
Tindersticks (Debut) - Tindersticks
Music is alive and well.
In fact, I would have to go back to the 70’s:
Big Star
Richard Thompson
Tim Buckley
Can
Van Morrison
Pink Floyd
Nick Drake
Television
David Bowie
The Clash
to find better music than we have had recently.
[QUOTE=bookbuster]
I also noticed that a lot of the young people have said, yeah, the Beatles suck, they are overrated, they are only good because they had sound effects and top of the line production equipment. There is another camp that says something like, “Pop music died with the White Album, or I am young but I don’t listen to anything made after 1974” or some similiar quote.
So first of all, the Beatles were deified because they are the best songwriters in the history of pop music. It wasn’t studio tricks (of course the master studio work is amazing in itself). You could play all of these songs on an acoustic guitar and they give you goosebumps. Sometimes they even just left it that way themselves."
subjective my friend. The Beatles wrote some good songs. They influenced people. But “best songwriters in the history of pop music.”?? Thats your opinion, not a statement of fact. Do I get lumped in with the ‘young ones’ you mention?
I neglected to mention before, but I listen to most music through the day at work on my itunes. Just short of 2000 songs, and I have the Library running on random. This runs through more or less every conceivable style of music you can think of, due to the amount of albums I own, and a shitload of Kazaa downloads, basically backing up what I have on vinyl and can’t convert to CD. Far, far better than any radio station.
Unless I was DJing there.
I don’t wish to be a snob, but please, state that its your opinion that certain bands/songwriters are the best in the history ever etc, rather than trying to say its a solid immutable fact.
cheers!
bookbuster, I agree a whole lot with what you’re saying, but simply must disagree with your characterisation of the Beatles as ‘the best songwriters in the history of pop music.’ The Beatles were good songwriters. They introduced a lot of ideas and were very influential. But it seems to me that so often the Beatles are described as being ‘the best ever,’ because it has become a truism and is never challenged.
I would argue that there are better songwriters than the Beatles. You must certainly agree that quality of songwriting is subjective - some people will swear that the songs of Celine Dion are the pinnacle of modern music. But the Beatles best ever? I can find all kinds of things in songs by R.E.M., U2, Big Star and Velvet Underground, for instance that the Beatles lacked completely. ‘Beatles were best ever’ has become a mantra, and it holds about as much meaning.
And I must, most respectfully say that when you say this…
…and then list Squarepusher, Daft Punk and Aphex Twin, you are extraordinarily deluded. I really like those groups, but the majority of our generation just haven’t heard them, and would hate them if they did. I think that it’s wrong to say that any music unites our generation, indeed, if anything about music could unite our generation, it’s the huge disparity in what we like. Some of us like indie-rock, some of us will only listen to hip hop, other swear by drum n bass, while others think what’s on MTV is the defintion of cool. We almost never come across a track that we all dig, the way vast numbers of Baby Boomers were into the Beatles, Motown, Led Zeppelin or ‘American Pie.’ In fact, I think that may be partly what’s driving many of the complaints in this thread. I feel a lot of older posters are looking for the song, or the band that everyone loves, when it doesn’t exist. Pop music has become fragmented.
(Despite that, I think Outkast’s Hey Ya is one of those old-timey ‘generation-uniting’ songs - as a thread about it in the pit is showing.)
This thread is so good I could almost cry. Again, thank you all for taking the time to contribute such through and thought-provoking posts. I’ve learned a great deal.
Re: The Beatles…
I’d never call any band “The Greatest”, even with my tendancy towards hyperbole.
But when I listen to tunes like “A Day in the Life” or “Here Comes the Sun”, I can’t help thinking the Fab 4 had moments of true greatness. Overrated? Well, when you’re being worshipped like God, it’s hard not to be. Worthy of high praise? I would say yes, at least at times.
Loopydude - I urge you to go purchase yourself a copy of Who Will Cut Our Hair When We’re Gone by The Unicorns. It is as perfect as pop gets, and it will never be popular. Eric Carr’s review on Pitchfork gives a decent run-down. Last night was the second time I managed to convince someone who had a bunch of people at their house to put my copy of that CD on. Granted, the crowds have been composed largely of indie-loving college kids, but on both occasions people have just plain flipped out over it. It rocks, it rolls, it squeaks, it shrieks, it’s strange as hell and near-instantly acessible. You’re not sick of pop, you’re just sick of pabulum, there’s a difference. Accessibility in music is a great thing, but it shouldn’t take precedence over the need for music to actually EXPRESS SOMETHING. Simple, glossy beats and paper-thin lyrics delivered by carefully constructed household names are an easy sell.
In my opinion, when you know great music to listen to, you know longer concern yourself with the fact that the radio plays utter crap. Who cares? You’re listening to a steady stream of great new music, it’s not your problem if the majority aren’t. That said, I spent several hours in study groups at our campus coffee shop this week, and the radio was tuned to a local pop station. I couldn’t believe the amount of repetition! They seemed to have a playlist about 75 minutes long that they just went through over and over and over. That means that yes, most songs that they play are played once an hour. That is INSANE.
LC
I’m not sick of pop - per se. I’m sick of what is currently called pop. “Pop” music is actually my favourite stuff - catchy, upbeat, danceable tunes. Unfortunately it just seems good pop isn’t being produced anymore. In fact, good pop hasn’t been produced since the 80s. Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys, Roxy Music, Thomas Dolby et al. Creative, “artistic” MELODIC music just isn’t being made anymore (or at least I’m not aware of it). So much of today’s musical stylings take on this awful, dull, droning, tone. I like singers who actually sing. I like many layers of sounds. I like a wide range of tones. Not just a bunch of dull, droning guitars. :mad:
There are a few exceptions…The Postal Service, The New Pornographers, Figurine, etc.
(Incideintly, bonus points if you can identify my aptly-chosen sig.)
Some Good Stuff
Rasputina is amazing goth-cello-metal-folk. I don’t care who you are or where you are from, you have never heard anything like this before. Melora Creager regularly takes inspiration from real historical oddities so history buffs will love it.
Type O Negative might be a little too hard rock for some tastes. They do, however, have some beautiful melodies and very catchy pop hooks. (Refer to the song “Pyretta Blaze” from the album "World Coming Down.)
Radiohead. Who doesn’t love Radiohead?
However, I must respectfully disagree about the Strokes. Never thought they were that original or spectacular myself. But that’s just me. 
Yow. I’d take The Strokes over Radiohead any day, and twice on Sunday.
I’m coming late to this thread, since I thought it had something to do with softdrinks. It’s been very interesting to read and have spawned some scattered thoughts, but I’m a bit too lazy to go back and quote everyone.
There has always been a group of people who claim that the stuff most popular right now just plain sucks, be it movies, music, tv or the author du jour. Normally, I treat that as elitist background noise but most f what’s been written in this thread is very informed and very little seems to come from a POV that says: “I’m so smart and the people who like Brittney are so dumb.”
I like that.
However, Ms Spears herself is soooo dumb.
Being bright doesn’t mean making good music and being dumb doesn’t equal making bad music. The interviews I’ve seen with John Fogerty indicates that the elevator doesn’t go to the top stories, but I don’t think anyone can deny what an awesome talent he has/had for writing really great and catchy pop songs. The same goes for quite a few of my favourite musicians. I’d rather hear their music than hear them talk. Mostly, it’s just painful.
We can, and I do, blame record companies for the current situation. After all, they’re the ones that put out music on the market. And they don’t have a responsibility to provide us with (what we consider) good music. Their only responsibility is to their owners and they’re looking for ways to maximise profit. The same way of thinking goes on with movies:
It’s better to have one really big production/artist that can be promoted world wide with a massive campaign, using synergies of all available media to carpet the market. The best example is LotR, which opened simultaneously all over the world (or close to). It used to be that we in Europe had to wait for 3-12 months for an American movie to open here. The companies lost a lot of momentum in the process. With the 'Net, satellite tv, file sharing ASF, the media companies want to reach all the potential audience in the first weekend. Nowadays, if a movie only has performed so-so in the theatrical release in the US, it’ll go directly to video here. So Ali (w. Will Smith) never opened in theatres.
Also I recently read an article with the head of Universal Music in Denmark. They are not prepared to sign a new artist, unless the potential in sales for the first album is 500k copies sold. This in a country with 5 million people. That means a new group must have an international appeal, and that having a group which only performs in Danish, is out of the question. So any aspiring young musicians looking for a record deal quickly learns that originality and artistic integrity is out. Streamlining and selling out, is in.
The record companies have lived with very large profit margins during the past 20 years. Probably the most important reason was the introduction of the CD. Many people bought a CD of an album they already had on vinyl. And the idea of packaging compilations became a huge way of re-selling music and cash in again on stuff had had been paid for over and over (The idea might have started with the series “That’s what I call music” in the UK, or the soundtrack to ‘The Big Chill’.) The record companies and their shareholders have gotten used to increasing their turnover at about 20% annually and thereby the profits exponentially. When the boom of the CD introduction faded and happened to coincide with the file-sharing craze, the companies found a perfect scapegoat. Rather than trying to evaluate what went wrong, they are directing all their efforts into stopping file sharing. Meanwhile, for the A&R people, it’s business as usual.
It’s easy to blame radio and ClearChannel, which might be big, but doesn’t own all radio stations in the US. I think the current worldwide figure is around 1300 in some 30 odd countries. However, the radio industry doesn’t have a responsibility either, to provide ‘good music’. In fact the programming strategy is to play music for people who don’t love music, i.e. a few people are really passionate about music but the large majority likes it well enough, but won’t go out to buy the latest album of an artist they might hear on the radio - they’ll wait till it’s on a compilation album instead.
And since the majority is not passionate about music, it’s stupid business to try to cater to them.
Another factor - In the fierce competition and station hopping the listeners do, it’s a lot easier to frontsell a new song by Madonna than an unknown song by a new group. So the big get bigger and Madonna’s ‘Music’ goes platinum, although it’s quite a crappy song.
Also, bear in mind that radio is about entertainment, not music, even though the station promotes music as part of the image. Having worked in the industry for 20 years in three countries, you have to take my word for it. Most stations in cities bigger than 500k pop. has about 250-300 songs rotating in the playlist.
BTW saying that DJs had more to say about what music got played some 15, 20 or 25 years ago is simply not true. It might not have been so streamlined, but computer software for making playlists have been around almost 20 years that I know of and most stations had a policy, based on the demographics they wanted to reach. Back in 1985, WLUP - The Loop - in Chicago, had a show from 12-1, called ‘Lunch time Roots’, playing Wilson Picket, Otis Reading, Aretha, ASF. This was of course to cater to the baby boomers that the station wanted as its target group. Not a decision made by the DJ during the mid day shift.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When I turned 12 these are a few of the albums that were released:
Pink Floyd : Dark side of the moon
Iggy & The Stooges : Raw power
Elton John : Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
Paul McCartney/Wings : Band on the run
Who : Quadrophenia
Stevie Wonder : Innervisions
John Lennon : Mind games
Rolling Stones : Goats head soup
David Bowie : Aladdin sane
Genesis : Selling England by the pound
Mike Oldfield : Tubular bells
Lou Reed : Berlin
Roxy Music : Stranded
Alice Cooper : Billion dollar babies
Blue Öyster Cult : Tyranny & mutation
Led Zeppelin : Houses of the holy
Black Sabbath : Sabbath bloody Sabbath
Bob Marley : Catch a fire
Marvin Gaye : Let’s get it on
Which of these did I get back then? I bought Floyd, mainly because of the cool sound effects. Alice Cooper was cool, with that stage show and all. Elton John was ‘chick music’ and was labeled ‘mindless pop’ back then. I’d never be seen buying that. I hadn’t discovered Genesis yet and Purple was my hard rock band of choice. Some friends liked Sabbath and LZ, so I heard it at their houses, but didn’t buy it myself, then. Roxy was too artsy-fartsy for a 12 year old, as was Lou Reed. Bowie was OK but just another one of the glitter crowd. I preferred Sweet. The black music just went by me. Didn’t even know it existed then. And those old 60’s farts (I didn’t know Floyd was one of them) Like Lennon, McCartney, Stones, Who… Man, them are old dudes.
Of course all these are now classics, and we look back and think about how good music was back then. And forget Shanana, Bay City Rollers, Blackfoot Sue, Gary Glitter, Mud, The New Seekers, Ricky Wilde (I am an astronaut, anyone?), Middle of the Road, Rubettes.
This is getting way too long
I’m certainly too old, and I really can’t get the bling-bling, the hard bodied girls in gold thong bikinis or hot pants, doing lapdancing moves while the male rapper drones on and on about how unfair life is. I can see the talent behind Outkast, but it’s a bit to cleaver and contrived for my taste. The same goes for Fugees and all their solo projects. Among black artists that I’ve bought recently are Erikah Badu, India Arie, Alicia Keys and I suspect great things will be coming from Beyoncé. So all females and all (more or less) looking towards the roots of soul music. I guess that makes me an old fart.
The new rock seems to be just recycled, and it was a long time since got excited about a new act. For me, I’ve heard it before. I guess innovation is within the hip-hop field (in the widest sense) but very little of that music appeals to me.
And pop music is what it’s always been, and remembering what was on the labels of Stiff Records 45’s: Today’s music today. It’s music with a definite “consume before” date and will always be. Sometimes, there is great musical talent brewing there (as with The Beatles) but most of the time, it’s just something catchy today. Let it be that way.
You are totally right, I should I have added an IMHO as that was the way I meant it to be taken. I’ll watch that next time, thanks.
Yeah, that’s sweet is it not? For the first time ever an average consumer can have a portable device, load thousands and thousands of perfect sounding files onto it, and be happier with its output than the local radio choices. We are our own DJ’s, there are lots of examples of it.
For me this brings up a strange question. It seams to be so weird to see the horrible decline of taste shown by the radio stations as just coiencidentally coinciding with the advent of the technology that alllows not to care. Is passion for music some sore of immuteable law of physics? — Is it possible, in a socioeconomic stucture such as ours, to keep people away from the music they want to hear?
You are right; there are elements to songwriting that you can find in Radiohead that the Beatles never explored. But to me, the order they come in is so important. You suggest as an example, the Velvet Underground, to be a band with that can give you things that you didn’t find in the Beatles. But if no-one had already did the three-chord innocent boy pop songs about girls and holding hands, there wouldn’t have been the need for a backlash of doing heroin and rocking the depressed vibe (The Velvet Underground couldn’t have happened in 1964, and I know that is not what you were saying).
I am saying that the industry had no need for any sort of bad boy image, and in fact, needed to have ultimate good boy band. There would have been a “Beatles” hype for some good boy talented band - whether it was John, Ringo, Paul, and George, or some people say it could have happened to the Kinks. So since it was going to happen anyway the Beatle delivered, IMHO. Let me put it this way, if the Kinks would won the ultimate popularity contest at the very beginning -were it mattered the most- and edged out the Beatles as the crazy rock’n’roll phenomenon of the 1960’s, could THEY have taken it to the next level?
Remember the Beatles could have gotten famous beyond belief with those early albums, and then tapered off. Just keep playing the hits and slowly, slowly fade away. We would have looked back on them as a pop phenomenon that never took to the next level (aka your standard pop phenomenon). But they got to the top with the good boy three chord I love you songs, and stayed at the top by pointing EVERYONE away from them. That is the next level; that is why they are the most influential band ever, and the greatest, IMHO.
Having said that, yes, I agree that the quality of songwriting must be a subjective opinion.
100% right on; I was being naïve to put my idea in that way. Thanks for clearing that idea up, I think I was being lazy when I wrote that. Could the division be caused our generation being their own DJs, and thus, coming to different conclusions? (not getting fed from one central source)
You are totally right on about our youth culture being completely fragmented when it comes to finding universals that they all would like. You can think of Hip-Hop, rock, and techno as different universes, and spend all your time just in one. Or you can even bury yourself into a deeper sub genre.
But history will not look back on our time period so obsessively. I wanted to show some people Squarepusher, Aphex Twin, Daft Punk, and house music, because while these are household names to you and I, they might be slightly under the radar of some. The people who were expressing ideas of interest in current music, but claim they don’t have the time/willpower to sift out the massive amounts of crap that is out there (which is totally understandable). My suggestions were limited because I wanted to use audio, I am glad many others posted their lists of modern bands and musicians.
A challenge:
show me the music that you like here.
I’m 28, and I definitely think that pop music is in an “off” period. I grew up in the 80’s, and I like music that rocks. Aerosmith, Metallica, Guns N Roses. Today’s music doesn’t sound like that; much of the music (tho’ not all of it) is just kind of bland and generic. And the frontmen don’t sing so much as they drone. Maybe I’m just turning into a old codger.
Funnily enough, I was having a discussion about the staleness of music at the moment on sat afternoon, with people who have worked in music retail for years. It seems to me the last real musical revolution was when Nirvana broke big back in 91. This was the last time, IMO that the charts/people actually changed: ie, the style of music played in the mainstream altered to a massive extent. And for a while, it was good.
And then the sharks smell the money. Execs move in, demographics are formed, eventually what was refreshing in the first place is watered down and homogenized. So whereas once, you had Nirvana, you now have Nickelback/Creed/Linkin Park et al.
But that was 12/13 years ago. whats there now? The British charts are full of TV made stars, little kids and dogshit tailored to the majority of the record buying public that aims for the short term. You think anything in the current british chart will be around in 2 years time?
No. Unless they have the musical and tactical marketing knowledge to change with the tastes. since 91, things seem to be slowly mutating rather than outright changing. Who were the last band you heard who were quite simply, outrageously original? You listen and think, ‘whoa! thats some new shit right there!’
I havent heard anything like that for years.
And while I concur the Beatles influence bands that sound similar, you ask people like Tom Waits, Tortoise, Dr Dre, Tool, Autechre & DJ Shadow (to name but a few) how much their musics influenced by fucking McCartney/Lennon.
I’m waiting for the next musical revolution, I hope it comes soon.
In a world where some talentless hack named Justin Timberlake can have a craptacular album up for top honors, makes me turn off pop radio and listen to NPR all the more.
And what in the hell was the deal with Beyonce’s vocal masterbatory the-song-that-will-never-end song at the Grammy’s last night? It was worse than rap as it had to beat, and it was music that could not be screwed to even if drunk. It was so uninspiring we switched over to hockey and came back when we thought it was over. Christ. the Attack on Pearl Harbor inflicted less damage…
[/whine]
That should be no
Great post, The Gaspode. I do agree disagree with the end - I think there’s plenty to love and plenty that will last about today’s music.
I don’t care about the order. I care about what I’m listening to. And if I get more out of, say, an Elliot Smith song than a Beatles song, even though Mr Smith was a big fan who was very influenced by the Beatles, and recognisably so, I’m going to listen to the song I like better. I’ve said that the Beatles had some pioneering songwriting and production ideas. It doesn’t mean I want to listen to it. And it doesn’t mean that when someone builds upon their foundation that the later artist is automatically inferior because they didn’t come first.
I think it’s wrong to reduce the Velvet Underground to a backlash. If they’d happened in '64, they might have sounded different, but they would still have made great music. And I elevate their songwriting above the Beatles not for the gritty New York image, but because I think they were better.
Velvet Underground wrote better pop songs. Pale Blue Eyes, Sunday Morning and Stephanie Says are far better songs than even the Beatles best pop moments. And Venus Underground were more creative in terms of experimentation. Compare Venus In Furs or White Light/White Heat to anything the Beatles made on their most celebrated works, Revolver and Sgt Pepper’s. Nothing comes close. They may not display the technical wizardry of Tomorrow Never Knows or A Day In The Life, but aurally the New York Kids tower over the Liverpudlians.
I reckon they could have, or if not them, the Who or someone else. Ray Davies’ later work is very well spoken of, and The Who did go on to the next level. There was competition between those at the top of the pile in the '60s. Dylan and the Beach Boys would have spurred whoever else was around to take things to the next level - and they might have done it without all the silly novelty songs.
I really don’t want to go extensively into why I hate the Beatles. There are so many threads around where I’ve done that. I’ll simply say - their reputation far outweighs their accomplishments, they had way too many silly novelty songs, they let Ringo sing way too much, they let Paul write way too much, their post-White Album days are extraordinarily patchy, and they have so many average songs that would never have got released if by any other band (eg. Dr Robert). Oh, and their contemporaries were much more creative, and expressed their creativity without all the drug-nonsense. (I’m not piously criticising their drug use, just saying that in hindsight songs like Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds or I am the Walrus aren’t clever and mind-expanding, they’re just silly.)
I don’t really think so. I think that all aspects of society are becoming increasingly fragmented, and the process has been going on for a long time. Music is just one part where it is particularly obvious. Sure, technological advancements like the Internet or file-sharing facilitate this, but, musically even as far back as the late '70s, different people would listen to vastly different sorts of music. Hip hop culture was just taking off, punk was catching the eye of the media far more than it was being listened to, Classic Rock was still getting big audiences, but those people hated the other form of music popular at the time - Disco.
This is such an extensive topic - you can write essays on it (and I have). Basically, society is becoming less homogenous, and as a result, more sub-cultures are arising, many based on things other than geography.
And finally, I won’t post to your linked thread, because the Mods don’t look kindly upon links to mp3s. Earlier in this list, I posted a list of recent music that I consider as good as anything from any other era. I’m sure, if you’re interested that you’re enterprising enough to obtain samples, be it through filesharing services, internet sites (legal and non-legal) or otherwise.
I blame Nirvana for the downfall of pop music.
Well, at least the downfall of my enjoyment of said music.
The point is, rock singers on the radio these days are so damn whiny. This plague of “angst rock” infests virtually every channel on the dial. With vocals more squealed than sung and guitars mashed in a tidal wave of noise, a typical band springs to life, cranks out the one screeching hit to sell their album then disappears from the radio forever, to be replaced by an identical band’s song about how nobody understands their pain.
The fundamental example of this has to be the Linkin Park song which contains the ear-grating lyrics, “Crrrrrraaawling in my skiiiiiiiiin, these wooooounds they will not heeeeeal!” Gah. Who, besides a melodramatic 13-year-old, wants to listen to this music-to-slit-your-wrists-by?
This is probably why I have such a fondness for pop from the 80’s. It may have been corny, sappy or pretentious, but it was never whiny.