THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: KharBevNor on 25 Apr 2006, 17:12
-
The latest indie-click ad to go into rotation makes me uber-sad.
Bauhaus supporting NIN!? Trent Reznor should be cleaning Peter Murphys shoes with his goddamn tongue!
Rant about stuff you hate about the state of modern music I guess. I could go on, but it would last all fucking night.
-
The only place you'll ever hear good songs in the mainstream media is in ads. For an entire generation, Iggy Pop is that guy who does that cruise-line ad.
-
I'm actually really happy with the state of modern music. I've enjoyed at least 20 new albums, about half by new bands, since the beginning of the year. I'm looking to go to between 10 and 15 concerts within the next three months. I don't have cable, so I don't care what is available on TV. I don't really listen to the radio, so I don't care what people are playing. Between recommendations from my friends, the recommendations I get here, the stuff I read about on Pitchfork, BrooklynVegan, and TMT I never lack for new bands and albums to explore. I have a 10 dollar per month Rhapsody subscription, a 50GB "constant rotation" collection, and hundreds of additional CDs that I've never bothered ripping to depend on -- not to mention my friends' collections.
I'm not gloating here; instead I'm saying that -- in my situation where I can basically have any album I want either instantaneously streamed or delivered to my doorstep within three days -- and where on the basis of ohmyrockness.com alone I could go to kickass shows 5 days of the week every week if I wanted to -- how could the situation be any better?
This is my upcoming.org profile:
Date Event Name Status Comments People
May 02 Yeah Yeah Yeahs Attend 0 11
May 18 Architecture in Helsinki Attend 1 6
May 26 Soul Position (feat. RJD2 & Blueprint); One Be Lo Attend 0 2
May 27+ Sasquatch Music Festival Watch 8 55
Jun 04 Tapes 'n Tapes, Figurines Attend 0 1
Jun 10 Cat Power Attend 0 8
Jun 18 Band of Horses with Mt. Egypt and The Can'... Attend 0 1
Jun 25 Feist, Jason Collett Watch 0 18
Jun 26 Liars w. Apes NEW! Attend 0 1
Jun 27 The Streets/ Lady Sovereign Attend 0 7
Jul 06 Broken Social Scene Attend 0 8
Jul 19 Diplo + CSS + Bonde de Role Attend 0 6
Jul 27 The Hold Steady [FREE!] Watch 0 13
Aug 04+ Lollapalooza Watch 5 28
Aug 25 Ted Leo/Pharmacists Attend 0 11
Oct 06 Built To Spill w/ Camper Van Beethoven; Helveti... Attend 0 3
-
On the contrary, the state of modern music is absolutely shit. Innovation is at an all time low, post-modernism pervades the mainstream and sub-mainstream, and all the popular alternative 'heavy' music is complete, total, absolute shit, the only redeeming quality of which is they occasionally steal a riff from In Flames or Dark Tranquility. I have very few people I can talk to music about off the web, and even with them I can only discuss a certain range of bands. I cannot recruit anyone to be in a band with me because I do not want to start a shite metalcore or pop-punk band. No-one else likes my favourite artists, or my favourite songs. Everyone is either living in the mainstream (at this point in time, pure, undiluted shit), in the artless, funless, irredeemable shithole of emo, or in the putrid, pastel-shaded, oh-so-hip, oh-so-ironic, oh-aren't-we-so-devoid-of-any-will-to-challenge-or-experiment world of fucking indie. There's barely any real metalheads extant anymore out here, and goths are practically nonexistant. Because I like bands who have the temerity to do what they like, rather than conform to the safe, vomit-inducing pop-sensibilities formula or follow the current, gods-awful 'zeitgeist' I scarcely ever get to see bands, and then only bands I kinda like. No-one else comes south because everyone down here has absolutely shit musical taste. I have to cross the most expensive body of water in the world to even GET to something approaching a real goth night. After I've added in door money and bus fare, that's £17 just to HEAR an EBM song, not to mention an hour or more bus and train journey and having to leave by ten past eleven to get the last bus.
I fucking hate it. I just want to have some fucking fun, but everything is too shit. Awful little NME reading shitbags are having fun. Stomach-churning emo cuntbags are rocking out with their fucking scene. I've got fucking nothing.
-
Some of the most publicity that Sigur Ros has gotten was when it was announced Gwyneth Paltrow listened to their music while birthing her child Apple. This makes me sad.
-
I gotta agree with Khar on this one. The state of music today is utter shit.
R&B songs are multiplying like weeping sores on a leper, and every month another Britney Spears clone pops up with a song that sounds exactly like every other song these freaking teeny-boppers have come up with. Rap is getting downright common, which is just scary. And there's a frighteningly high number of boy-bands, the members of whom are no older than 16, singing about sex.
What's more, nobody's being inventive or innovative any more. Nearly every song played on the radio is actually a cover, or new lyrics imposed over old music (Jessica Simpson must DIE for what she did to The Story of Jack & Dianne). They're not even subtle about the fact that their music is a direct rip-off of other's works. Covers used to be about re-tweaking an old classic while paying homage to the original tune. Nowadays covers rape the old song. With a broomstick. That is on FIRE.
If I turn on the radio, I now have difficulty distinguishing one song from the next. Because they ALL FUCKING SOUND THE SAME. It's horrifying. What happened to bands that actually had a sound that you could recognise? If I can't tell your band from twenty others, why the hell would I want to buy your CD specifically?
However, for a real sign of the Apocalypse, I give you the moment when the music of the last 5 years jumped the shark.
It was in 2002, courtesy of the vile hellspawned freak that is Brandy. The song in question was What About Us.
The lyrics do not rhyme. The voices are so synthesised you can hardly tell who's singing it. There is no actual music played, just a vague beatbox of noises that sound like a trumpet having an epileptic fit. In no way whatsoever does this song display even the tiniest bit of musical talent.
Yet this song was considered a "hit" on the charts and influenced a large number of future R&B and Pop songs.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Brandy: the moment when God turned his face from the musical world. Ever since that day, the music scene has been getting (somehow) worse, and the result is the utter lack of talent we see today.
...wow, that's probably my first real musical rant. Today I begin my journey as an indie nerd.
...crap.
-
I fucking hate it. I just want to have some fucking fun, but everything is too shit. Awful little NME reading shitbags are having fun. Stomach-churning emo cuntbags are rocking out with their fucking scene. I've got fucking nothing.
<3 Stomach-churning emo cuntbags
So then, as I read your post with a sympathetic eye, I realize that it's not the state of modern music that's fucked, but instead the state of modern music that you enjoy.
Sucks to be you I guess. I've heard similar complaints from aficianados of jazz and classical music (it's a running joke in classical circles that the age of a classical music is at an end because this has been said by classical music lovers and periodicals basically every year for the last 150 years), but happily, although I enjoy those genres, I don't enjoy them enough to lament their (probably imaginary) decline.
I guess your only solace is that, should your tastes ever change, you have a healthy and vibrant world of post-rock/indie/adult contemporary to look forward to. But I expect that you will impale yourself on one of your ample collection of rusty broadswords before you allow this to happen. Shame.
In response to Tergon's post above me, I note that the "decline of modern music" has been a constant theme pretty much as long as there has been "modern music". It is a cliche that every generation laments the music decline betrayed by the subsequent generation's tastes.
Tergon refers to television, radio, and top 20 music as if this were representative of this amorphous concept of "music" in a meaningful way. They are not. Logically, these media merely present the music most pleasing to the lowest common denominator. To look at the music available through these media and qualify "modern music" on that basis is a splendid absurdity. It's like judging world-wide soil purity based on soil in the Chernobyl situs, or judging American living standards based on Detroit. As Jeph so cleverly pointed out by implication in one of his recent indietits comics, there is absolutely no reason for a music fan to be engaged in these media to the extent that they even penetrate his or her consciousness.
The age of the internet is the age of the microculture, and what happens inside of your microculture -- that sub-sub-sub-genre that happens to be incredibly pleasing to you -- is for all intents and purposes your ultimate and final index of the health of modern music. Your judgments about the quality of what other people happen to enjoy are irrelevant both to them (given that they won't agree with you or else they wouldn't listen to it) and for you (given that, with an iPod in your pocket, you never really have to listen to that shit). In sum, if you don't like the shit they play on tv, stop watching the fucking television.
-
In response to Tergon's post above me, I note that the "decline of modern music" has been a constant theme pretty much as long as there has been "modern music". It is a cliche that every generation laments the music decline betrayed by the subsequent generation's tastes.
Tergon refers to television, radio, and top 20 music as if this were representative of this amorphous concept of "music" in a meaningful way. They are not. Logically, these media merely present the music most pleasing to the lowest common denominator. To look at the music available through these media and qualify "modern music" on that basis is a splendid absurdity. It's like judging world-wide soil purity based on soil in the Chernobyl situs, or judging American living standards based on Detroit. As Jeph so cleverly pointed out by implication in one of his recent indietits comics, there is absolutely no reason for a music fan to be engaged in these media to the extent that they even penetrate his or her consciousness.
The age of the internet is the age of the microculture, and what happens inside of your microculture -- that sub-sub-sub-genre that happens to be incredibly pleasing to you -- is for all intents and purposes your ultimate and final index of the health of modern music. Your judgments about the quality of what other people happen to enjoy are irrelevant both to them (given that they won't agree with you or else they wouldn't listen to it) and for you (given that, with an iPod in your pocket, you never really have to listen to that shit). In sum, if you don't like the shit they play on tv, stop watching the fucking television.
Fair points. All I can really say in my defence is that a) I don't own an ipod, and b) it's not so easy to get music information where I live. Prior to finding a few forums like this one, which actually gives information on music I like, the only real mediums I had for finding new music were the radio and music charts. As we both pointed out, both those mediums are filled with music that... uh, that I don't like very much. And my post count for the forums here indicates how long I've had these kinds of areas to garner new musical pleasures from.
That said, it still confuses me how these songs get so popular in the first place. Last I checked, the top 20 charts were done on opinion polls of what people thought was good music. How, then, can 17 of these songs be identical R&B tunes? I *know* I'm not that exceptional. I can *not* be the only person who thinks this. I don't know a single person who thinks Fifty Cent is good. Yet this is the kind of music that you can't avoid hearing on the radio? The mind boggles.
-
(http://www.democrit.com/img/human/friendship_casablanca.jpg)
Tergon, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
-
Aaw, I am feelin' the lurve.
(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e280/Selexor/love.jpg)
-
If you haven't already realized that the state of mainstream music is embitteringly pathetic shit, I think you are pretty much behind.
But it feels like time to move on. I'm tired of ranting about the unmemorable and heartless manufactured, corporate bullshit music that's occupying the airwaves. Will it change and can intelligent, activist-minded musical fans make a mark? I don't know how likely it is to happen in this economy; there will always be some group around to capitalize off of music. So instead of sitting around and bitching about the utter travesty that is the popular music industry, maybe it's just time to focus on sharing the stuff that's actually good and focusing on a love of truly excellent music.
Another thing I'm tired of: unreasonably self-righteous musical elitists. I think it's about time that they drop off of the face of the earth. Honestly, I don't give a shit about your opinion when it's that obnoxious. If you want to talk about and share your musical interests, I'm all in favor. If you want to jerk off about the indignity of everyone else's music and the awesomeness of your own, you can feel free to find someone who won't think you're just a snob (namely, someone who happens to have the exact same tastes.)
-
hey hey hey hey
owl graphics is my business.
and it's serious business. you got it?
-
I agree with Ghostwriter about the more extreme music nerds. Don't be laughin' at me because I don't religiously follow some obscure band from Cleveland. I'm from Rural Australia. How the hell am I supposed to know about your stupid indie band, you pretentious twat?
And yes, I'm aware of the hypocracy of that statement following my rant above. But I promise, my irrational hatred of R&B is my only real musical bugbear. That disclaimer being made, I stand by my statement - What About Us was the arrival of Pestilence. Bauhaus supporting NIN is the arrival of War. We only need Famine and Death, and life as we know it will come to an end.
owl graphics is my business.
and it's serious business. you got it?
So unbelievably tempted to post an ORLY image now just to be a smartarse. Soooo tempted...
-
Hell, we've had famine for years. Just turn on the television and you'll see desiccated corpses parading themselves as the epitome of beauty
-
I have been waiting for the revival of swing music for the last ten years now, and I am starting to think it is never coming, and it is hard to find people who want to start a swing band with me
-
If you like swing, you should definitely listen to the LCJO (Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra), if you don't already. "Live in Swing City" is a recording they made actualy playing for dancers. And it's all stuff by the Duke.
The only place you'll ever hear good songs in the mainstream media is in ads. For an entire generation, Iggy Pop is that guy who does that cruise-line ad.
Um... Or Kubrick movies. Seriously. Bartok, Lygeti and more! I'm not counting Strauss, because that's late Romantic.
Also, another sign is when the most famous composer of contemporary concert music claims that classical music will die, but he still writes at least one major compsition every year. They're neither adventurous nor innovative, but he's making a killing, and it's basically bubble gum concert music. If you have no idea to whom I'm refering, it's John Adams (not the second president of the USA).
-
We all know that modern pop is pure and utter shit. So why are we wasting our time talking about it, when we should just ignore it?
-
Because the modern avant garde isn't faring much better!
-
Because the modern avant garde isn't faring much better!
And this is the essence of the truth.
I personally love NIN but I know for certain that Bauhaus should never be the support band. EVER. Bauhaus are headliners.
How about Hawthorne Heights? MTV's self proclaimed saviours of modern music.
To be completely honest, there hasn't been a mainstream CD released in the last year that I've truly enjoyed with the exception of With Teeth by NIN. Sad isn't it?
-
The only place you'll ever hear good songs in the mainstream media is in ads. For an entire generation, Iggy Pop is that guy who does that cruise-line ad.
Um... Or Kubrick movies.
Last time I checked, Stan's been dead for 7 years, and we're talking about modern music. But I definitely agree that some movies have pretty killer soundtracks.
anyone who claims to like 'indie rock' or whatever the hell we are calling the non-mainstream music of today and doesn't have everything on dischord records, touch and go records, sst, k records and kill rock stars and yet still complains that they don't have good music to listen to is a fool. check out these labels and come back in ten years when you've realised how great music can be.
done here.
Every one of those labels were at their peak 10 (or even 20) years ago. Out of all of them, I would argue that only kill rock stars has any of the old piss & vinegar. Fuck, when was the last time sst released an album?
I'm not saying there is no good music. I'm not even saying there's no good new music. I'm saying that the good new music is completely swamped by the bad new music, and that you really have to work hard to be exposed to the good old music.
-
Being of the current generation, I can't really argue with that, so, in my best Tony Montana impression: If joo say so mang.
-
I love the current state of music.
Why? Because I'm of this generation. It was my reference point. When I started listening to good music it was all the more awesome, and it still is!
And an added bonus? I am actually capable of enjoying music I know to be bad because I grew up with worse. And I mean actually, non-ironically enjoying it.
-
All I know is that there's more good music out there than I have time to listen to and appreciate, and that's more than good enough for me.
Right now, there are probably at least 10 *current* bands who I really want to listen to heavily, and who I'm fairly certain I'll like if I listen to them heavily, but who I just don't have time for because the other stuff I'm listening to right now is just so good. And there's so much amazing older stuff that I haven't listened to yet that I'll never have the right to complain about not having enough good music.
I can see how a musician could be disappointed with the scene surrounding their preferred genre, but on a personal level, there is SO MUCH music that I really, really like, both old and current, and so much more music that I haven't fully explored yet (again, both old and current), that I'm having trouble keeping up. "The current state of music," in my personal universe, is far richer than I can possibly appreciate.
-
All I know is that there's more good music out there than I have time to listen to and appreciate, and that's more than good enough for me.
Right now, there are probably at least 10 *current* bands who I really want to listen to heavily, and who I'm fairly certain I'll like if I listen to them heavily, but who I just don't have time for because the other stuff I'm listening to right now is just so good. And there's so much amazing older stuff that I haven't listened to yet that that I'll never have the right to complain about not having enough good music.
I can see how a musician could be disappointed with the scene surrounding their preferred genre, but on a personal level, there is SO MUCH music that I really, really like, both old and current, and so much more music that I haven't fully explored yet (again, both old and current), that I'm having trouble keeping up. "The current state of music," in my personal universe, is far richer than I can possibly appreciate.
agreed.
-
seriously guys, there's great music everywhere. you just aren't looking hard enough for it. that's me saying that and i have a pretty thick screen for bullshit. i'm thinking bands like deerhoof and liars are creating some of the best music i have ever heard. i have recently seen the gossip and electrelane and they both knocked me on my ass.
See, I hate that kind of music. It bores me stupid and I want to die when I hear it.
Being a mopey industrial punk, I find that there have been maybe 20 releases in the past 5 years that I've actually seen fit to put on high rotation and everything else is late 80's/early 90's.
EVERYONE THAT LISTENS TO COHEED AND CAMBRIA IS A SEX OFFENDER.
That on the other hand I agree with completely.
-
EVERYONE THAT LISTENS TO COHEED AND CAMBRIA IS A SEX OFFENDER.
See, the trick to sparking off a big debate is to make a vague sweeping statement that isn't obviously and inarguably true
-
EVERYONE THAT LISTENS TO COHEED AND CAMBRIA IS A SEX OFFENDER.
See, the trick to sparking off a big debate is to make a vague sweeping statement that isn't obviously and inarguably true
I thought they proved this on 60 Minutes?
-
anyone who claims to like 'indie rock' or whatever the hell we are calling the non-mainstream music of today and doesn't have everything on dischord records, touch and go records, sst, k records and kill rock stars and yet still complains that they don't have good music to listen to is a fool
I don't claim to like Indie Rock, I just hate what I'm force-fed via the radio. Besides, how am I supposed to find 'em that easily? Just 'cause you can get that stuff at the corner store where you live doesn't mean I can find 'em AT ALL.
See, there's "indie" and then there's "opposite-side-of-the-world indie". Which is a hell of a lot more difficult to get your hands on.
But let me put a hypothetical scenario to you.
Supposing that an individual... let's call him "Trenog"... wanted to get his hands on some good music. However, our good friend Trenog lives in rural Australia and has about $500 Australian as his total worldly wealth. Besides this, he's living at University at the moment. His intense and irrational hatred of most of the music trash on the radio has left him to search in deeper pools for the music he likes.
The problem is that Trenog's University has strict rules on the downloading of music from the internet, so Trenog can't get the music he wants that way. Ordering online is not only too expensive but too inconvenient for what Trenog wants, since he's only living at a campus residence. And, of course, CD stores nearby only stock the very music that Trenog is trying to get away from in the first place.
The question: WHAT DOES TRENOG DO NOW?
P.S. The guy in that hypothetical scenario? That was totally me.
-
EVERYONE THAT LISTENS TO COHEED AND CAMBRIA IS A SEX OFFENDER.
I saw Bob Costas talking about this on his HBO Sports show it's so well known.
-
P.S. The guy in that hypothetical scenario? That was totally me.
As if. You're name is clearly Tergon, while that guy was named Ternog. Nice try though, liar.
-
Tergon, I can definitely sympathise with you. Growing up in rural Kansas (which wasn't nearly as isolated as rural Australia) I had a really hard time finding good music, not having much money and all. Also dial-up internet made it almost impossible to download music. But then about 3 years ago we got wireless internet. Problem solved.
The thing about allmusic.com for someone in our situations(my former situation) is it doesn't do you any good to find out about a band if you have no way of getting that band's music...
-
Last time I checked, Stan's been dead for 7 years, and we're talking about modern music. But I definitely agree that some movies have pretty killer soundtracks.
Yeah, but I was just responding to what you said about the only place to hear good music in mainstream media is TV ads, which I think is wrong. Really good music can barely be referenced in the space of a TV ad. It requires development of themes, as well as the silence that is involved as a contrast. Hell, I just saw my college's composers forum (where student composers have their pieces played), and some college-aged kids are able to create some truly good and innovative music. Why haven't I heard anything truly innovative on a CD in years?
-
this is hilarious. i wish i was capable of this level of genius.
try to remember that musicians aren't responsible for your narrow cultural perception. maybe if you expanded your horizons beyond 'mopey industrial punk' (i'll bet you aren't really anyway...i mean do you really get up and listen to whitehouse every morning? or did i miss a meeting and afi are the new einsturzende neubauten?) you wouldn't 'want to die'.
your statement above is akin to a blind man criticising the paintings of the impressionist era. even if it was good...how would you know?
Or it could be that you don't know me so you missed the part where I listen to both AFI and EN (Not to mention the rest of my music collection, which I dare say is quite varied).
I didn't throw any personal attacks at you so don't get personal with me.
Tommy, I'd appreciate it if you backed up your attacks on me with some reasoned arguments rather than just slandering me and telling me I have no taste. I didn't say indie sucked, I just said I found it boring. We don't need to agree on that. A simple 'I disagree' would be sufficient.
Anyway, like I said, I find that there's too much stagnation within modern music. Not just within the scenes I'm involved in but within almost all the popular music I hear.
When I hear Deerhoof I hear the same parroted indie sensibilities being repeated over and over. To me it seems, just as Khar is saying, that bands aren't really interested in doing anything new, anything ground breaking. I see this most when my friends play me Deerhoof or Modest Mouse or whatever they seem to think is the current best example of indie.
I hear the same in modern EBM and Industrial. Assemblage 23? Parroting every previous EBM artist.
The most interesting record I've heard recently would be Venetian Snares-Rossz Csillag Alatt Született. That was creative.
-
It seems to me that the reason nobody's doing anything innovative anymore is that the scope of what ISN'T innovative has increased so much in the past 4-5 decades.
Think about it. Nobody would've thought of "psychedelic" music in 1962, but by 1970 it was basically most of the way to passé. Nobody would've thought of "metal" in 1965, and look at where that went. Nobody would've connected the term "indie" to music before, say, the mid-90's, if not later, but now it's used to define a third of the music being released in America. For every genre, there's a time before which it didn't exist.
Now there's so many different musical styles out there that it's virtually impossible to pick up a guitar, play a song, and not have it sound exactly like some song that someone else came up with in the past. Give current musicians a break. There's no way you can ask them all to be John Cage.
Me, I'm perfectly happy listening to retreads. Plenty of bands are awesome despite the fact that they sound like a band from [insert number] years ago. Music doesn't need to be innovative to be good.
-
So in summary:
1)A lot of today's music is good
2)A lot of today's music is bad
3)The words 'good' and 'bad' are completely meaningless when talking about music.
-
It seems to me that the reason nobody's doing anything innovative anymore is that the scope of what ISN'T innovative has increased so much in the past 4-5 decades.
Think about it. Nobody would've thought of "psychedelic" music in 1962, but by 1970 it was basically most of the way to passé. Nobody would've thought of "metal" in 1965, and look at where that went. Nobody would've connected the term "indie" to music before, say, the mid-90's, if not later, but now it's used to define a third of the music being released in America. For every genre, there's a time before which it didn't exist.
Now there's so many different musical styles out there that it's virtually impossible to pick up a guitar, play a song, and not have it sound exactly like some song that someone else came up with in the past. Give current musicians a break. There's no way you can ask them all to be John Cage.
Me, I'm perfectly happy listening to retreads. Plenty of bands are awesome despite the fact that they sound like a band from [insert number] years ago. Music doesn't need to be innovative to be good.
Well said.
-
So in summary:
1)A lot of today's music is good
2)A lot of today's music is bad
3)The words 'good' and 'bad' are completely meaningless when talking about music.
I agree with this to some extent.
I'm simply happier listening to something original and genre busting.
-
I mean ok, so I basically can't listen to the radio anymore. But I really think thats more a reflection of radio in my area just being absolutely clueless. Clueless as in "still playing Limp Bizkit" clueless. Kids start listening to Classic Rock because MTV doesn't play anything good (you should have seen how many 14-year-olds were at the Clapton show). The world is moving forward and Clear Channel has no idea whats goin on. So I find more and more people are either getting into good music or are desperate to find better music. Ok so there are still some bad emo bands and a lot of pretty mediocre singer-songwriter types but those acts have pretty much replaced the boy bands as usual shitty music for teen girls. Britney Spears keeps getting pregnant so we probably don't have to worry about an album from her for a while.
So I think Dave Matthews Band is a solid step up from the Backstreet Boys.
Meanwhile theres this thing called indie. Which is a fucking stupid name but happens to include a quite a few interesting acts. As far as I can tell the world of music is pretty much as its always been- Shitty, sometimes ok stuff on the surface and brilliant stuff if you dig deep enough.
Innovation is at an all time low, post-modernism pervades the mainstream and sub-mainstream, and all the popular alternative 'heavy' music is complete, total, absolute shit, the only redeeming quality of which is they occasionally steal a riff from In Flames or Dark Tranquility. I have very few people I can talk to music about off the web, and even with them I can only discuss a certain range of bands. I cannot recruit anyone to be in a band with me because I do not want to start a shite metalcore or pop-punk band. No-one else likes my favourite artists, or my favourite songs. Everyone is either living in the mainstream (at this point in time, pure, undiluted shit), in the artless, funless, irredeemable shithole of emo, or in the putrid, pastel-shaded, oh-so-hip, oh-so-ironic, oh-aren't-we-so-devoid-of-any-will-to-challenge-or-experiment world of fucking indie.
I'm sort of confused by this post. Post-modernism? Unless you just mean derivative, post-modernism is something that I find completely absent from most mainstream music. The rock/pop I hear on the radio is nauseatingly earnest, simple, and unaware of itself. One of my major criticisms of mainstream music right now is that its completely clueless- I suppose post-modernism doesn't ask music to reflect anything our lives but the problem is right not mainstream music doesn't even try. I think thats why we're seeing a whole lot of people (at least here) starting to buy stuff off non-big 4 labels.
And maybe the British scene is just really lame but I definitely wouldn't describe indie music as unwilling to experiment. You don't have to like them but bands like the aformentioned Deerhoof, Animal Collective, Black Dice, the Fiery Furnaces etc. are all putting out really interesting stuff. I actually am really curious about whether or not this is a British thing. What bands are you refering to with the term indie? Certainly there ARE indie bands that are terribly derivative and boring- but doesn't that hold true for any genre (or in this case pseudo-genre)?
-
Give current musicians a break. There's no way you can ask them all to be John Cage.
AH! But my point is that people are clearly innovating (which is why I brought up the fact that even a few of the composition students at my college are innovating), but I'm just not hearing it, because people would rather hear another recording of Beethoven's symphonies. It's all about money. If you can't support it, financially, then it doesn't happen. I mean, nothing against Beethoven, he's one of my favorite composers, but are these new recordings really saying something different, or just rehashing the same way the other recordings are performed? I want to hear some of the truly new stuff out today, but the record companies don't care, because I reflect such a small percentage of the record buying public.
-
Pretty much everything that would be accepted by the average hipster. Of course 'indie' can refer to a very wide variety of things, but I don't mean Coil when I say indie, and most people would not argue with that. There are a few bands or releases in the indie canon that I appreciate, but normally only appreciate. I doubt I'd place any of them in my top 100 bands. These include Neutral Milk Hotel, some Red House Painters, Patrick Wolf, Tan-Hauser Gate, Cocteau Twins and British Sea Powers 'The Decline of British Sea Power'. 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.
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.
Also, having pointless lyrics and spacky guitars and being insanely saccharine and annoying is not really what I call experimental or innovative.
-
Not to mention they can't, you know, PLAY.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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 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.
-
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.
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.
-
Like someone pointed out with Bach, referencing other musical compositions can hardly be post-modern, since this has been going on for a thousand years. Up until the renaissance, building on previous works was almost the only way to compose. And even later people definitely included themes from earlier works. In Bach's case, a lot of his choral music was built around old Lutheran chorale melodies.
As annoying as much of the modern music scene is, I'm not sure its any better or worse than any previous music scene. Hindsight is dangerous, we usually only remember the best of what came before, not the 90% other stuff that was bad. People complain about not having enough good composers today, but how many composers from the entire 18th century actually get significant play...like 5 or 6?
-
I agree that there's a difference between using older material to create new material, and the post-modern referencing. Post-modern referencing is taking music and using it to demonstrate a knowledge of the tradition, rather than to use someone else's ideas (or re-use your own) to write music.
Also, my worry is that nobody from today's modern music scene is getting any play, not that none of them are any good. I mean, the most recent music of every era usually got some recognition, good or bad. It recieved publicity. The same cannot be said about music today. I haven't heard about anybody doing anything interesting. I mean, you've got your John Adams and you Thomas Ades and all that, but they only thing that makes them contemporary is that they're making music today. They're perpetuating the older ways of writing music. Who's actually coming up with new ways? I want to know, because I'd listen to them.
-
the whole uk grime - rap scene made its wy onto mtvU [their university channel i get at college] ...that is pretty progressive to actually be getting some play. not that its hit radios nationwide or anything yet, but it is making its way.
-
I meant more along the lines of avant garde concert music, but it's always nice when music that is different from the mainstream starts to get airplay. Of course, that's usually because it's becoming part of the mainstream.
I don't expect any of what I'm looking for to get played on air, but I'd like to be able to find it in a record shop. My friend who likes that sort of thing has to get his CDs from this store in New York. Maybe I should bug him for some music suggestions.
-
Hell, I just saw my college's composers forum (where student composers have their pieces played), and some college-aged kids are able to create some truly good and innovative music. Why haven't I heard anything truly innovative on a CD in years?
What exactly do you mean? What sort of innovation was going on, and what sort of music would you call "innovative" at this point anyway?
Basically, what are the criteria for innovation? If all we're talking about is just stuff that doesn't really sound like anything that's been done before, well, I'm amazed that people aren't jumping all over stuff like Animal Collective and Acid Mothers Temple, because I sure as hell hadn't heard anything that sounds like either of them before listening to them, and I haven't since. And hell, AMT consider themselves retro and don't listen to anything produced after 1975 as far as I know (I'm taking this from interviews with a single member of the band).
What makes the college kids innovative, and why doesn't anyone current have it?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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"?
-
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.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxYNNYoZp9w
I think a lot of people here should enjoy this, if theyve not already seen it.
-
In response to Tommydsky:
n00b! i h8 u cos u dis4gre! j00 r teh lame.
I think you missunderstand me, I said I dislike indie and that I primarilly listen to industrial and punk. It doesn't mean I only listen to industrial and punk. I never implied that EVERYTHING else sucks, just (a lot of, not all) indie.
And just for you I'm going to download Deerhoof and try and listen to it again. I shall post a review. Then I shall decapitate myself in a kindergarten and spew blood all over the children, just for shits and giggles.
EDIT:
Also, you don't think it's somewhat ironic telling someone their taste in music is limited then saying that you have no taste in music if you can't like 5 'classic' bands?
-
I'm not trying very hard, I still hate Deerhoof, here's my review, http://forums.questionablecontent.net/viewtopic.php?p=320060#320060
That shadow percussion thing that Beatmouse posted is fucking cool. I really like it.
-
oh fuck, wrong thread
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxYNNYoZp9w
I think a lot of people here should enjoy this, if theyve not already seen it.
PLAY ORGAN DONAR!!!
Umm, in retrospect it's a good thing I wasn't at that concert. Awesome linkage.
-
your statement was akin to someone saying "i only enjoy one incredibly narrow corridor of something so everything else must suck".
change the reference to anything else and it is still funny.
"dylan isn't 'two tone ska' so he is boring".
"coltrane isn't 'straight-edge harDCore' so he is boring".
"minor threat aren't 'free jazz' so they are boring".
"deerhoof aren't 'industrial punk' so they are boring".
and yes, not liking deerhoof does suggest you have terrible taste in music.
if you don't like deerhoof, you probably wouldn't like blonde redhead.
if you don't like blonde redhead, you probably wouldn't like sonic youth.
if you don't like sonic youth, you probably wouldn't like the fall.
if you don't like the fall, you probably wouldn't like can.
if you don't like can you probably shouldn't listen to music.
i'm sick of the lame 'music is subjective' argument being used to defend the shallow end of the cultural gene-pool. music is subjective but the appreciation of it isn't necessarily.
rizzo, this isn't directed at you in particular. i'm just sick of having this argument every day of my life.
I think Deerhoof are boring, but I like Blonde Redhead and Sonic Youth is one of my favourite bands. That doesn't show that your descision to think they have terrible taste is more reasoned than it might immediately seem, that just shows that your descision to think they have terrible taste is more prejudiced.
-
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.
I don't know if I'm really "winning" an argument here. I think he just misunderstood my position, and I'm explaining it here. Learning stuff is always good. I was thinking about this last night. I love music an incredible amount. Seriously. And learning about somehting I love is incredible. I highly recommen that, in honour of this thread, everyone go out and buy a book about some aspect of music that they've kind of wanted to know about for a while, but never got around to it. I would do the same, but I already own about five or six that I have yet to read.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxYNNYoZp9w
I think a lot of people here should enjoy this, if theyve not already seen it.
A percussion ensemble from my youth orchestra in high school played Zappa's "G-String Tornado." It was pretty hot.
-
I have never seen a book published within the last five years, on the pop/rock scene, that I thought was worth a damn. I'm not saying it's not out there -- but if it is, I'm definitely not aware of it. The commentary that you tend to get from professional media varies from obvious to painful. (For example, check out the NPR radio performance of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs in DC. You learn two things: Karen O wears tattered clothes, and they sound a lot better live.)
You want to recommend one, I'll order it, and then we can do some kind of music nerd book club (yay!).
-
Oh, that would be sweet, but I don't know shit about the pop/rock scene, and the books I need to read are older anyways, before I can move up to anything current. Hell, I still haven't read Miles's autobiography.
-
It's an excellent book. I particularly love the chapter on the Butthole Surfers. Simon Reynold's Rip It Up and Start Again is also awesome, if you are into the British Post-Punk scene.
-
Bauhaus supporting NIN!? Trent Reznor should be cleaning Peter Murphys shoes with his goddamn tongue!
I heard about that. Such a shame.
Nine Inch Nails has become so removed from gothic music (were they ever even really apart of it?)
-
Cybergoths and gravers worth their salt HATE Nine Inch Nails. These are people who aren't ashamed to admit they love Apoptygma Berzerk. That is giving you some clue.