Fun Stuff > BAND
Signs of the apocalypse...
Storm Rider:
Not to mention they can't, you know, PLAY.
Brian Majestic:
I think a lot of the problem in this debate (such as it is) is that people are making sweeping generalizations about genres and that when you don't really listen to a particular genre, it sounds a lot alike.
When someone (too lazy to see who it was) said the R&B Charts have similiar sounding songs, I'm guessing if you listen to a lot of R&B this would not be the case, they'd sound much different.
For instance, I don't listen to so-called 'indie' music, so when I see a bunch of myspace links, a lot of it sounds the same to me. In honesty, it probably isn't, but my ear isn't (for want of better word) 'trained' to pick up on the differences. I am starting to listen to some out of curiousity, but that's beside the point...
I'm sure many people couldn't pick up the differences between the Marvelettes and the Shirelles or the Vandellas: "Oh, they're all girl-group crap" but if you actually listen to their records they're rather different. I use this example largely because I'm listening to the One Kiss Can Lead To Another boxset, which everyone into girl groups should own.
Garcin:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor ---The fact that my musical taste is so diverse, including the above, and a wide variety of other stuff from a wide range of genres and styles, is why I particularly represent the vocalised or unvocalised conceit that my love of metal and gothic music is either some sort of teenage infatuation, or something I deliberately impose on myself in order to fit into a certain cultural stereotype.
--- End quote ---
Did you mean resent? I think you think you might have.
I'm not sure why you are concerned with people judging you or your musical tastes. Certainly no one who matters in this forum community takes the position that your appreciation of either metal or goth/industrial is either a teenage infatuation or a role that you are playing self-consciously. Perhaps this is something that occurs when you make people aware of your musical preferences in the real world?
Also, as I have pointed out at great length in past threads, the terms "indie rock" and "indie pop" are useful only as commercial signifiers, but useless is specifying the actual sound of music. The only thing that Liars, Architecture in Helsinki, Mogwai, Spoon, Animal Collective, and Sleater-Kinney (all generally considered to fall within the "indie" rubric) have in common, is that none of them sound much like anything on the Top 20 (at least in the States). If the signifier is useless, as I think you've acknowledged, then cease using the signifier.
--- Quote from: KharBevNor ---And what would you say was the dominant cultural norm? Rap is one of the most insanely post-modern genres ever (Many songs are extremely self-referential, they sample from other works, they reference other songs and artists, and so forth) and I would say its influence has pervaded mainstream pop almost utterly. Rock, meanwhile, especially 'indie' rock, is entirely self-knowing and often amounts to the musical equivalent of a smirk. I can count the number of rock bands doing something individual or original in anything approaching the mainstream on a legless persons toes. Certainly, I wouldn't call much in the mainstream modernist or absurdist, which are two of my personal faves.
--- End quote ---
I can't agree with most of this. Rap is self-referential, yes, but never have I heard self-reference to be the basis for calling music "post-modern". Music has been self-referential (e.g. people having been singing about themselves and their songs) for thousands of years. Bach's music, to take one wordless example, is strongly self-referential since many of his compositions reference, within the same piece, his colleague's music, his past pieces, and the piece itself. Is Bach a postmodern composer? If so, the term loses all meaning.
More confusing, though, is your statement that rock, especially "indie" rock is entirely self-knowing. Perhaps you can explain what you mean about this. Ignoring for the moment that you are using the useless "indie" signifier again, I wonder: Do Sleater-Kinney, Sufjan Stevens, and Explosions in the Sky all sound like they are smirking to you? They all sounded pretty sincere to me. Am I missing something?
I think you are asking the wrong questions when you query what the dominant cultural norm is. These bands really have little to do with each other on an ideological level other than (at least for the good ones) wanting to have fun, and rock out. Some of them are feminist, Christian, atheist, liberal, communist, anarchist, ironic, hippy. . .the list is endless. I'd be hesistant to paint them with the same brush.
jcknbl:
--- Quote from: Moiche ---
I can't agree with most of this. Rap is self-referential, yes, but never have I heard self-reference to be the basis for calling music "post-modern". Music has been self-referential (e.g. people having been singing about themselves and their songs) for thousands of years. Bach's music, to take one wordless example, is strongly self-referential since many of his compositions reference, within the same piece, his colleague's music, his past pieces, and the piece itself. Is Bach a postmodern composer? If so, the term loses all meaning.
--- End quote ---
In all fairness Khar listed other qualities of rap other than self-reference. Particularly the heavy sampling from older music, I think, is a quality that is especially post-modern. Self-reference too is certainly a post-modern quality even if it isn't enough to call something post-modern independent of other features.
Two things to keep in mind here.
One, something isn't either post-modern or not post-modern. Presumably differing degrees are possible so Khar's claim isn't neccesarily wrong even if music doesn't seem all that post-modern to the rest of us. Its perfectly possible for him to still object to contemporary music on the grounds that its TOO post-modern.
Two, a genre can be post-modern while the music within that genre is not or vise versa. In other words I think the genre "hip hop" probably is post-modern in a lot of ways including the feature Khar mentioned. But none of that means that, say, "Kill 'em All" by Twista is particularly post-modern. Similarly, if Weezer did a song replete with samples, self-reference and viewpoint-free irony that wouldn't suddenly turn Power-Pop into a post-modern genre. All it would do is maybe make Weezer suck to a differing degree.
--- Quote from: Moiche ---
More confusing, though, is your statement that rock, especially "indie" rock is entirely self-knowing. Perhaps you can explain what you mean about this. Ignoring for the moment that you are using the useless "indie" signifier again, I wonder: Do Sleater-Kinney, Sufjan Stevens, and Explosions in the Sky all sound like they are smirking to you? They all sounded pretty sincere to me. Am I missing something?
--- End quote ---
I think there is a stereotype of people who listen to these sorts of bands (and indeed despite them being very different bands the same sort of people tend to listen to them, or at certain people are stereotyped as fans of these bands). This stereotype/group which we might as well call "hipsters" do have a penchant for a certain type of viewpoint free/post-modernist irony. That probably gets associated with the music and might be somewhat responsible for the perception of widespread post-modernism among the bands that have been mentioned.
Also, theres Pavement. Pretty much the archetypical "indie rock" band. Understandably seen as post-modern.
ps, the reason for using the term "indie rock" is only ever out of expedience or out of trying to look cool but since people DO use it I'm not sure its inherrantly bad to use it in a discussion of contemporary popular music.
KharBevNor:
--- Quote ---ps, the reason for using the term "indie rock" is only ever out of expedience or out of trying to look cool but since people DO use it I'm not sure its inherrantly bad to use it in a discussion of contemporary popular music.
--- End quote ---
Precisely. Though people may argue, when I say 'indie rock' everyone pretty much understands what I mean.
As jcknbl pointed out self-reference was one of a range of criteria I mentioned.
The question is, if you say these bands are not post-modern, then what else are they? A lot of post-rock, admittedly, is romantic, but I don't really include that when I slam 'indie rock', because post-rock is merely one of the latest random genre for hipsters to take an extraordinary interest in, same as I don't think of Pelican or Isis as indie rock, but lots of hipsters still lap them up.
I'd say I mainly listen to romantic, gothic and, arguably, modernist music.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version