Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Buzzgit]

I was having this conversation with a group of friends last night and I thought it would make a good forum discussion.
Why music being produced today isn’t given the credit it deserves? I mean people talk about the historic significance of music all the time or the development of a sound through different bands. But everyone always acts like the stuff that is coming out now is somehow “less” then anything that has been produced before…like it’s destined for the historic waste basket. Personally I don’t think this way, but so many people do.
Your thoughts?

[TrueNeutral]

Yeah, "music used to be much better" people annoy me.

No it didn't, you just remember it more fondly and it felt newer back then.

[Storm Rider]

Well, I like to think of it this way.

My father's generation had Led Zeppelin.

My generation has Green Day.

So... I do think that at the very least, mass-audience music has declined sharply in quality. Sure, good stuff still exists, but it will never get the attention or sales numbers it deserves in order to be recognized as historically important.

[eternie]

My father's generation had Led Zeppelin.

My generation has Green Day.

That's a very broad generalisation. Green Day are hardly on par with Led Zeppelin. We have Oasis, Muse, hell even Robbie Williams who will be recognised years from now as brilliant and quite rightly too. They're quite mainstream, too.

We look back on music as if it's better than today because people say it is, but that's not at all true. Okay, there's lots of hip hop-esque crap in the charts but lots of 'indie' bands are getting through too and they're making a big impact. It's not that bad.

Of course I'm speaking for England here.

[E. Spaceman]

My father's genertation had The Velvet Underground, but they also had motherfucking Sonny and Cher, Herman's Hermits, Journey and many others. We may have to live with Oasis and Coldplay, but there is enough good music for it to even out.

[Storm Rider]

Maybe, but saying Oasis makes up for Green Day or the Black Eyed Peas is pretty ridiculous in my mind.

[pinkpiche]

Problem is, without all those old bands we wouldn't have what we have today. All bands have started from something, not just zero-sound. But i agree that there is a tendency to pick old music from the new as if it had more quality, and that's not true at all. All music goes through a maturity process with it's listeners, and old popular music often has a lot more fans than the new because they have been around for so long. But there's also the people that strive for new standards in creativity and ambition, and they are obviously looking for it in new music.

I hate how i said music so many times.

[TrueNeutral]

Our generation* has The Flaming Lips, Deerhoof, Eels, The Shins, Neutral Milk Hotel and The Fiery Furnaces.

*May or may not be your generation

I mean shit, we got some pretty good stuff.

[Misereatur]

I think today's Avant-Grade music is bigger then ever. I want to get into this really bad but I'm too tiered to write anything good. I'll try and sort everything out and have a good post about it tommorow. I hope.

[Buzzgit]

I’m a fairly young guy (21 years) but I find that a lot of my generation listens to the music that their parents listen. I have trouble thinking of a generation of kids who 50/50 listen to their parents stuff and music being produced today. Its not just musically maturity…something is different and I don’t know why.

[Not An Addict]

I'm sorry, but every generation has its crap. The '70s were chock-full of it, the '80s were utterly saturated with it, and the '90s had most of it cleverly disguised as "ironic". Years from now, I guarantee we will all be sitting around reminiscing about how great music in the 2000's was, just like boomers reminisce about the '70s.

[MilkmanDan]

Everyone knows the best years of music were '90-'95.

Also, music is getting better all the time. Musically, growing up in my parents generation would have been boring as all hell.

[E. Spaceman]

Everyone knows the best years of music were '90-'95.

Also, music is getting better all the time. Musically, growing up in my parents generation would have been boring as all hell.

Pffft, Grunge? Vanilla Ice? MC Hammer? no period has been better than other.

[TrueNeutral]

I’m a fairly young guy (21 years) but I find that a lot of my generation listens to the music that their parents listen. I have trouble thinking of a generation of kids who 50/50 listen to their parents stuff and music being produced today. Its not just musically maturity…something is different and I don’t know why.

Well, the thing about our generation is that the view of parents has changed. We no longer view our parents as 'old and stuffy' who think all music of today is 'noise' as the cliches had previously has us believe. Whenever you find out that your parents might actually be on to something you get interested.

[salada]

I was having a conversation similar to this witha friend of mine a while ago, except it was about architecture (along the lines of "most modern buildings (prefab & kit homes / horrible "exclusive" estates / etc)  look like rubbish, how come old buildings all look better, etc"), and we decided the simplest reason for it was that it takes a few years of hindsight to see what stands the test of time and what just falls apart or was a terrible passing fad.

Essentially, I think it's the same with music — The Velvet Underground's first album still sounds as fresh today as it did in 1966, for example. It may be harder to pick out the gold when it's surrounded by crap, but in retrospect, classic stuff stands out for a reason.

And I don't really agree with that comment about avante-garde music being in it's best form ever today: a lot of modern "avante garde" stuff sounds similar, derivative, expected, whereas I think some of the older composers / artists were really pioneers.

[Night Rocker]

we all have good bands in the 2000 era, but these bands dont have any staying power. look at The Who for example. They started out in the 60's and now they are going on another World Tour. Picking a random band, Fall Out Boy (which i dont like but for randomness) had their "hit" album, and i havent heard about them since. is it about the music or the money?

oh, i like Coldplay

[Pierre the Poet]

I find the whole "decline of western civilization" theory of pop music unconvincing, as well as contrary to the whole ideal of rock music.  If you want transcendent geniuses from the past, listen to classical (seriously, listening to classical is a good idea).

Rock's not like that, though.  Things have always been simultaneously crappy and amazing.  The Velvet Underground, for instance, weren't remotely popular when they came out.  Their cult is almost entirely a result of modern hipsters and indie bands.

As to kids listening to their parents music, that is a natural progression:  when rock first started in the '50s and '60s, there weren't any old rock bands to listen to.  Now that several generations have been raised on rock, it makes sense that kids would be more receptive to earlier bands.

And finally, as to the overall quality of music, I wonder how many people who think modern music is so bad actually listen to mainstream oldies stations.  Sure, you hear the occassional Beatles or Zombies track, but overall, there are just as many sugary, sentimental pieces of pop drivel as on any top 40 station.

[TheSilverWolf]

Every day I hear the same guy berate anything that was made after he was born. The sad thing is, is he's only fourteen. What I think it is, is people think they'll look cooler and more sophistcated if they only listen to older music. What I think is that it actually makes them a pompous ass. Thats my two cents on the subject, anyway.

[Der Golem]

we all have good bands in the 2000 era, but these bands dont have any staying power.

That is a pretty weak arguement as we have yet to see if the newish bands have staying power. Comparing The Who to Fall out Boy or any other pop band is unfair, the Who automatically wins, both because we can clearly see how they affected the history of rock and because Fall out Boy suck. But are you really denying the fact that some of the bands we have today will stick around and be appriciated by generations to come?

[E. Spaceman]

besides, do we really want our beloved bands to become a circus show like the Who or The Rolling Stones?

[est]

I wonder how many people who think modern music is so bad actually listen to mainstream oldies stations.  Sure, you hear the occassional Beatles or Zombies track, but overall, there are just as many sugary, sentimental pieces of pop drivel as on any top 40 station.

My parents used to listen to an oldies station when I was younger.  It was absolutely fucking awful.

[Night Rocker]

we all have good bands in the 2000 era, but these bands dont have any staying power.

That is a pretty weak arguement as we have yet to see if the newish bands have staying power. Comparing The Who to Fall out Boy or any other pop band is unfair, the Who automatically wins, both because we can clearly see how they affected the history of rock and because Fall out Boy suck. But are you really denying the fact that some of the bands we have today will stick around and be appriciated by generations to come?

all im saying is that bands that have a one hit wonder have ceased to make something new, bands that are not main stream may continue while maintstream bands get their attention and milk it. I wait to see a 2000 era mainstream band last for 20 years, and then good sir, and only then can you spit in my face

[gideon]

we all have good bands in the 2000 era, but these bands dont have any staying power.

That is a pretty weak arguement as we have yet to see if the newish bands have staying power. Comparing The Who to Fall out Boy or any other pop band is unfair, the Who automatically wins, both because we can clearly see how they affected the history of rock and because Fall out Boy suck.

I totally agree with this.  

Also, I'm surprised that Red Hot Chili Peppers havn't come up yet.  They've released multiple albums in the past 20 years that have seen alot of commercial sucess and have had alot of time in the public eye.  Although I don't particularly like them, I think they have a possibility to go down in history as a defining band of the 80's, 90's and 2000's.  At least more so than Fall out Boy *shudder*.

[The Hammered]

There's nothing wrong with a band breaking up after a very brief career. I care more about what they accomplish than how long they stick around.

One thing to be considered is that, even if mainstream music sucks nowadays, it has become easy to learn about all but the most obscure movements and bands. Underground music has become far less underground.

[OllieA]

What about the notion that it has become easier to start a band?

[Rather Confused]

One thing to consider is that good music rearly "disappears" Even if the stuff these days isn't as good (I personaly disagree with with this idea) Anyone is free to enjoy older stuff and only add the teeny little bits of modern stuff that they enjoy or whatever to the mystic list that exsists in their head of "good music".

What I'm trying to say is that no matter what; there's nothing to complain about. Enjoy the old stuff? Horay! Newish stuff? Horay also!

The only point that I consider a matter worth being interested in is what "influenced" what? Is our generation listening to things influenced by things that where themselves influenced by basic genres? Is this the natural evollution of music? or is there still the flashes of genius that created the original rocking bands?

[Spinless]

POPULAR mainstream music HAS had a sharp decline.

HOWEVER.

'indie' is now pretty much the new mainstream. And a lot of the 'indie' music is so much better than old popular music.

The only people who listen the mainstream now are the adults who complain about music getting worse and kids who don't know any better.


By the way, when I say 'indie' I don't mean 'jangly pop rock'.

[Spinless]

Wait, I take all that back.

There are only like 5 bands from yesteryear people think were any good.

That just means people for the shit that they used to listen to.

[Hat]

besides, do we really want our beloved bands to become a circus show like the Who or The Rolling Stones?

I agree.

And besides, if we're going to count a lot of stuff currently in the charts as the music of our generation for the purposes of arguing "The music of our generation sucks as a whole" then we may as well include the Wiggles, since we are implying that our generation are a bunch of infantile morons.

[Der Golem]

we all have good bands in the 2000 era, but these bands dont have any staying power.

That is a pretty weak arguement as we have yet to see if the newish bands have staying power. Comparing The Who to Fall out Boy or any other pop band is unfair, the Who automatically wins, both because we can clearly see how they affected the history of rock and because Fall out Boy suck. But are you really denying the fact that some of the bands we have today will stick around and be appriciated by generations to come?

all im saying is that bands that have a one hit wonder have ceased to make something new, bands that are not main stream may continue while maintstream bands get their attention and milk it. I wait to see a 2000 era mainstream band last for 20 years, and then good sir, and only then can you spit in my face

Point taken, there are few big bands today that I can see still going after 20 years. But, when The Who started out, do you think people instantly saw them as a band that would play on for decades? All I'm saying is time will tell, you might be right but we won't know until, what, 20 years from now?

[TrueNeutral]

Hasn't Pearl Jam been going for almost 20 years?

[E. Spaceman]

What about the notion that it has become easier to start a band?

You mean the Garage movement from the 60s? Or Punk from the 70s? or the post punk/new wave/indie from the 80s?

[OllieA]

That doesn't mean it was easier though.

I just think that today it is more socially acceptable, economically viable and takes less effort to form a band.

With the rise of the internet/24-hour music television, bands are inevitably going to find that their 'break' is easier to reach. And I think the ease of recognition is inversely proportional to the need for talent.

[Tartar Martyr]

I think this whole argument is simply a derivative of "the music I like is better than the music you like" ie different people will like different things and defend their preference no matter how absurd their argument becomes.  Someone who loves Led Zeppelin, the Doors, Hendrix etc. will never agree that the current generation is equal or greater to the 60's/70's simply because there is no one out there currently who appeals to them in the same way those classic acts did.

Personally, I think the 1985-1995 period was the best.  But that is because my favorite bands are Pavement, Pixies, My Bloody Valentine, Slint, Jesus and Mary Chain, Dinosaur Jr. etc. etc. I love that era of music, and by comparison think that the majority of current music (save the occassional SM solo release, Radiohead, Mogwai and a few others) released today sucks.

So in conclusion, the "best time for rock music" is linked directly to a person's taste, and arguing against their preferred time period is dangerously close to telling them that what they like is worse than what you like simply because you say so.  (and yes, people find favorite bands no matter the time or place which makes all time periods equal to the unopinionated outsider).

[Houdinimachine]

I wish people would get the fuck off of Green Day's balls. I enjoy Green Day's music. As far as pop punk goes, they're actually freaking clever and fun to listen to. Not to mention they were one of the first bands to call bullshit on Bush and perform protest music. I dare you to listen to American Idiot the album and think it's dumb. Yeah, some of the singles were overplayed and Green Day tends to sound the same a lot. Boo fuckin hoo. This whole bandwagon  let's make fun of Green Day shit is fucking stupid. If you don't like them, fine. But don't dare compare them to the "Let's Get Retarded" Black Eyed Peas.

[Storm Rider]

By the way, when I say 'indie' I don't mean 'jangly pop rock'.

I know this is off topic, but I really hate the word 'jangly' when applied to music. It's almost as stupid as 'angular' guitar riffs. How the hell is a guitar riff angular?

[Storm Rider]

I never said 'jangly' doesn't apply to music, I said I don't like the term. I think that there are better ways to describe music  than 'jangly'. The term absolutely oozes pretentiousness.

But no, I've never heard Drive like Jehu. But what is angular supposed to mean? I mean, how can sound be angular?

[Spike]

I've stopped to think about this occasionally and I've come to a conclusion that there are a lot of different things that have given rise to the attitude that music used to be better and things like that.

For one, it's the timeframe.  Artists like Led Zeppelin have existed longer than I have and they've put out quite a few albums and done a lot of shows because they've had the time to do it.  New bands aren't quite as prolific because it takes time to put out an album.  Sometimes a band seems like they've dissapeared but that's only because they are working on an album but some people are too short sighted to actually consider that.  With an older band it's all there, a person has all they want the second they want it.  

A lot of people argue that a lot of bands now sound alike or are "ripping off" a band that existed before them.  While it's true that there have been some instances of bands actually ripping off other bands,  I don't think that's what's going on for the most part.  Bands now are going to have influences, there's no way around it.  People automatically think "Oh they are just trying to be x band because they sound like x band."  

I'd go on longer but I don't really feel like it, it's always seemed stupid to me to write off every new band as a failure and to sit there and think that only bands from thirty odd years ago are awesome.

[Scytale]

I think its true of any era, there are always going to be a few records that you hear and instantly know you're listening too a classic release. It doesn't happen often but you put on a record for the first time and just go "wow".

The problem is shifting through all the crap to find the "wow" records. In years to pass everyone forgets the crap and only remembers the "wow".

When you're surrounded by crap its hard to to pick out the good records

[elcapitan]

I have an observation that may not be particularly popular in this audience, but I'm going to make it anyway.

As I see it, a LOT of the most groundbreaking music is being made in the electronic and hip-hop genres. Production-wise, this is where the boundaries are being pushed - and this has been the case for many years. I'm not talking about your cheesy house or top-40 RnB either, but rather in the more "niche" areas, such as minimalist techno and some of the more unusual flavours of hip-hop.

Why is this? I suspect it's due to the very nature of electronic production - I'm talking mainly about electronic stuff here, but the same applies to hip-hop (and, to a degree, anything which is produced on a computer, including a lot of indie stuff). Ten years ago, making music from a computer was an arcane art, and as such there was a certain level of skill and creativity required to even get anything out. Following the subsequent massive uptake of home mixing studios and user-friendly "trance in your bedroom" programs like FL Studio, there has been a certain evolutionary response in the genre - you need to be brilliant to rise about the dross.

A good example is the late J. Dilla. The man was a genius hip-hop producer, who had a massive effect on the genre despite being almost unknown by name. If you're interested, get hold of his solo release Donuts - it's a good place to begin. Some of the tricks this guy has come up with are almost standard now, but were ground-breaking at the time. It might even be the case that they will hang around influencing popular music (I use the term in the loosest possible sense) for years, much like the riffs and progressions of Led Zeppelin, or the vocal approach of The Pixies.

Certainly, there will always be room for the two-guitars-vocals-and-a-drum-kit approach, and I think there are some groups roaming the frontiers here as well - you guys are more qualified to judge exactly who, since although I know what I like, I'm certainly not all that au-fair with the indie scene. But there is a LOT of stagnation, and originality is getting harder and harder to come by.

I could keep going for hours, but I have to go to a trivia night. What do you think? Think I've made a valid point? Think I'm totally wrong?

[trolley]

YOUR TOTALY RONG!

Hardy ha. I'm not anywhere near familiar with the hip hop or electronica scene (does daft punk count?), but i could see how what you say makes sense. if only for the reason that the typical band setup as you described it has been around so much longer. If you leave all the "possibilities are endless!" crap at the door, there's only so much that can be done with a guitar before you start doing something someone else did before you.

The only bands who are really making any real musical progress are the ones who are drifting quite significantly from the typical song structure and using rather unconventional sound. But whilst this is progression, you've be hard pressed to call Broken Social Scene easily accessible. This type of music has been forced into the strange wilderness extremes of the genre to find new sounds.

Conversely, the relative newness of Hip Hop and Electronica means that they're are still uncharted musical territories that artists can still "do", and be remembered as the first to do them.

[TrueNeutral]

I never said 'jangly' doesn't apply to music, I said I don't like the term. I think that there are better ways to describe music  than 'jangly'. The term absolutely oozes pretentiousness.

But no, I've never heard Drive like Jehu. But what is angular supposed to mean? I mean, how can sound be angular?

You know, I honestly didn't know the term jangly was ever used in a non-ironic manner.

[MilkmanDan]

As I see it, a LOT of the most groundbreaking music is being made in the electronic and hip-hop genres. Production-wise, this is where the boundaries are being pushed - and this has been the case for many years. I'm not talking about your cheesy house or top-40 RnB either, but rather in the more "niche" areas, such as minimalist techno and some of the more unusual flavours of hip-hop.

Yes. Electronic music is still doing all sorts of new and exciting things that are not just better than 30 years ago, but would have been completely inconceivable back then.
This is also the reason why the early 90's were the best thing ever.

Though I don't believe the guitar stuff being made now is worse than the all that parents style stuff either. I don't really know, but it seems unlikely. I'd rather listen to Battles than Led Zeppelin, that's for sure.

[KharBevNor]

There are no good bands at all nowadays anywhere near the mainstream. I know this because I have listened to Radio 1 for long periods of (forced) time back in my art classes, and I didn't hear a single good thing.

Spout all your hipster pants crap as long as you all want, but it will always be my opinion that the 1980's were a watershed as far as music is concerned, an unprecedented burst of creativity and awesomeness that spawned fuck knows how many genres and styles and ideas and bands that basically left everyone in the 90's and 00's with shit all to do but copy their asses off or write fucking pop. Also, I seriously think the end of the cold war has a LOT to do with it.

[Bunnyman]

I think of it this way...

99% of released music is crap (+/- a few points).  What this leaves us with is massive backrooms and clearance sections chock-full of unlistened 12", CDs, and casettes.  This is the raw material that Hip-Hop and Electronic producers meticulously deconstruct to create new, fresh music.

And this pattern will continue.  There will always be awful passing-fad one-album bands to fill the coffers, and cerebral hop/electronic will never reach the critical mass to exhaust this resource, as they lack more than a fleeting mass appeal by definition.

One could argue, likewise, that interest in classical and jazz is waning.  While this is so, neither genre will die.  Jazz is another wasteland of broken dreams for producers to harvest; Mozart and Bach are so timeless that it'd take a nuclear war, global pandemic, and asteroid collision combined to eliminate them from human civilization.

Summary: Less Fall Out, more Funkstorung.

[The Eyeball Kid]

My father's genertation had The Velvet Underground, but they also had motherfucking Sonny and Cher, Herman's Hermits, Journey and many others. We may have to live with Oasis and Coldplay, but there is enough good music for it to even out.

I like Herman's Hermits
and my friend swears by Journey

the 70s had Led Zepplin. We have Wolfmother, which is a watered down Led Zepplin.

I think this attitude comes from the sort of music people like. Me? I grew up on classic rock, so I like classic rock, classic pop structures, folk rock, etc. Back when that was the dominant commercial music, alot more of it was being made with better production... so of course you're going to have 'classics'. Nowadays the kind of people who make music like that are doing it for the love of it- so you get really beautiful stuff, but its really niche. The Magnetic Fields write perfect pop songs, but most won't be hits.

If i was into noise or hip-hop or electronica or techno i'd probably have a different view. The stuff going on there is still evoloving and its still commercially viable... so there's going to be more of that

There's great stuff in every generation. I'd love to go back to the 60s to see all my fave bands live... but then there'd be no Tom Waits, Nick Cave, Flaming Lips, or Fiery Furnaces

This sort of attitude isn't new. Guys like the Rolling Stones and the Beatles idolized the old bluesmen....

[Praeserpium Machinarum]

Exactly and all the classical composers ripped off each other constantly.
So basically rip off-ing is in part what evolved music to its current state.
When someone rips off your favourite band you should be grateful.
It's evolution.

[The Eyeball Kid]

besides, do we really want our beloved bands to become a circus show like the Who or The Rolling Stones?

The Dresden Dolls are already a circus show!

As for longevity: i can see people listening to The Fiery Furnaces and the Hold Steady and the Decemberists in 30 years. They've got a cult now and they'll have a cult then
A few songs will become 'known' oldies-- when a local indie night played 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' everyone remembered middle school dances and danced, so its happening already. Green Day have alot of songs like this.
In 30 years people will remember the good stuff from when they were kids. Their kids will dig into the history of whatever their fave genre is- from [punk band of the future] to Green Day to the Ramones to garage rock. Same way the Rolling Stones went from Elvis to old bluesmen.
They'll be bands that just keep innovating and touring. I dunno much about rap or electronica. but I can't see guys like Daft Punk or Aphex Twin getting irrelevant and not making music.

I think there's a group of bands that people like me see and like because we can't see the original bands. I'm never going to see The Rolling Stones or The Who or The Jam or The Ramones in their prime, but I can see The Strokes or the Arctic Monkeys or Green Day or whatever and get the same kind of music, live. Heck, if i knew any good local rockabilly bands i'd see them

[The Eyeball Kid]

we all have good bands in the 2000 era, but these bands dont have any staying power.

That is a pretty weak arguement as we have yet to see if the newish bands have staying power. Comparing The Who to Fall out Boy or any other pop band is unfair, the Who automatically wins, both because we can clearly see how they affected the history of rock and because Fall out Boy suck. But are you really denying the fact that some of the bands we have today will stick around and be appriciated by generations to come?

all im saying is that bands that have a one hit wonder have ceased to make something new, bands that are not main stream may continue while maintstream bands get their attention and milk it. I wait to see a 2000 era mainstream band last for 20 years, and then good sir, and only then can you spit in my face

Point taken, there are few big bands today that I can see still going after 20 years. But, when The Who started out, do you think people instantly saw them as a band that would play on for decades? All I'm saying is time will tell, you might be right but we won't know until, what, 20 years from now?

I saw an article from the British press that talked about local kids complaining that The Who and the Rolling Stones no longer played their favorite hangout every week.
Think about that.
Or 'Little Rooms', the White Stripes song about getting too big in their Detroit scene
or, heck, Architecture in Helsinki going from free gigs at a local university to mentions in QC and spending all their time in the States. Not on the same scale, though
or a guy i know on another board who walked by a local pub, saw 'Arctic Monkeys', though 'wow, what a shit name for a band' and then forgot about them

you don't know whats going to explode

[The Eyeball Kid]

Yeah, "music used to be much better" people annoy me.

No it didn't, you just remember it more fondly and it felt newer back then.

The whole generation non-gap freaks my mom out, i think. She's like 'you like the BEACH BOYS?' and i'm trying to explain that Brian Wilson is a genius and the template for half the bands i like and all she can remember is 'Surfin Safari' and stuff

same with David Bowie. he's so HUGE in my collection and the guys i like and even hangs out with TV on the Radio and the Arcade Fire... but mom wonders why i like the dude who did 'Space Oddity'

and i use 'jangle' non-ironically. it describes a certain sound i like hearing