Fun Stuff > BAND
Signs of the apocalypse...
Bastardous Bassist:
I'm talking about exploring new ways to approach what music is. There were actually only two pieces that I felt were really doing interesting things, and there was one other that was working on it. The first was making use of many extended techniques, as well as interesting ways to create phrases. Also, the instrumentation (solo flute) was an odd choice. If I could explain it more fully, then I could be writing it myself! The other one was with embracing the lack of music as well as the music is something that can be explored more (though, that's dangerous, because many people have already done the same). The one that I thought showed great potential was involving spoken words and sounds beyond what the specific instruments produced (i.e. clapping and stuff). Now, all of that has been done before, but the way it was done was pretty interesting, and I think it prooves that there is more to be done in that direction of music.
Also, I don't think college kids have it and no one else does. As I said earlier, even college kids are doing stuff that I've never heard before. Surely other people have to be doing the same as well. I'm just annoyed that none of it is getting from the composers and performers to me. The record shops all have just more recordings of the same damn pieces that have been around for 50 or more years. Maybe Adams was right and concert music is really a dying genre. Not because it's not advancing, but because the people who are supporing it with the most money are the people who don't want it to advance! They want to hear those same damn pieces. Hell, for most of them 50 years ago is too soon! They just want to listen to Mozart and Bach and all of the big names because it sounds so pretty. They're just so fucking conservative!
Edit: About listening to retro for innovation. The idea is one that has worked throughout history, actually. I think Monteverdi looked backwards a ways for his ideas which ended up founding the Baroque era. Wagner's revolutionary ideas for operas and music in general was from a look back at Greek dramas and music. So, it's not so surprising that they could sound reasonably new after not actually listening to new stuff.
Also, it should be noted that I don't agree with the futurists in that the traditions should be completely abandoned. I think that somebody just needs to look at them in a different way. Hell, people probably are. Actually, I'm sure people are. There are a lot of people out there writing music. Most of them are probably several times smarter than I. All I want is to be able to hear their music.
jcknbl:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor ---
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.
--- End quote ---
See, now you've lost me. I'm not sure how you can just decide that post-rock isn't part of "indie rock". Since we're using the term only out of expedience and because its commonly used we at least need to have a stable definition. We can't arbitrarily remove entire sub-genres. You keep that up and we'll end up just talking about post-punk revival or something.
In any case I think there are certainly elements of "indie rock" that could be considered post-modern: the Fiery Furnaces writing, Deerhoof's structure, and the noise influences of the Black Dice, Animal Collective and others (think expansive definitions of what music means) But there are certainly tons of romantic and modernist aspects. Sufjan Stevens is all romantic. the Colin Meloy is basically a 19th century modernist author. Modest Mouse does existential angst as well as anyone.
And this brings us back to the term "indie rock" while we can certainly use it I don't know that we can make aesthetic or paradigmatic generalizations about the music it signifies. I think there probably is *more* post-modernism in what we call "indie rock" than in most genres but we're in the midst of transitioning to a post-modern age so chances are an increased presence of post-modern characteristic in "indie music" is just a function of contemporary music in general. In other words living in this era we're going to see more post-modern features in our culture. Whether or not something is "indie" has nothing to do with that.
Garcin:
--- Quote from: jcknbl ---And this brings us back to the term "indie rock" while we can certainly use it I don't know that we can make aesthetic or paradigmatic generalizations about the music it signifies.
--- End quote ---
Exactly! But if we agree that we can't generalize on the basis of this term in a meaningful way, why are we using it in the first place? Is it really an expedient, or does it just muddy the waters? We can use it to describe what a given album or band is not (if it's indie, then it's not classic rock, it's not Americana, it's not industrial, it's not metal, etc. -- but note the wavering line between Death from Above 1979 and a melodic metal act, or between Animal Collective and certain industrial acts . . . ) but in terms of describing what a given band or album is, I think the umbrella of "indie" becomes more trouble than it's worth.
Did you know that the genre "trip hop" was popularized primarily by the labels trying to move Bristol bands in the late '90s, and was largely despised by the bands themselves? I think that's what these rubrics (dream pop, power pop, baroque pop, experimental pop, art rock, math rock . . . .) end up being -- marketing tools to convince people that a new band is actuallly something quite familiar. Not to mention tribal affiliations for the insecure. But for an intelligent music aficianado with a broad musical vocabulary, these genres cause more problems than they solve. I think that it is often preferable to characterize by reference to other bands and albums than it is to characterize by genre.
But this postmodern trip you're on -- seriously I've been down that road and at the end of the day it's a pretty barren place. The phrase "postmodern" means a different thing to each person in each artistic context. In music, I am convinced that it is meaningless and discursive. After electronic music in the '60s, and experimental music really starting in the '70s, we have pushed the envelope about as far is it will go genre-wise. So which "modern" are we now "post". Why don't you take a moment and try to explain what you mean by "postmodern"?
Rubby:
I was gonna say something smart to add to this but now it’s 3:00 in the morning and I’m too tired. I just wanted to add that I love it when people get into music arguments with BB because:
1) They get totally killed.
2) I learn stuff.
beat mouse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxYNNYoZp9w
I think a lot of people here should enjoy this, if theyve not already seen it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version