[CMacDaddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC Twenty years out I'm sure that 60s classic rock will still get play, but will it get the same play it does today? When the Gen-Xers grandchildren are in their 20s will the Stones still be as popular?

word.

Even the best music dies with age (in terms of its radio life).



Great thread btw.

 

[s m @]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau No mainstream appeal is extremely important. That people think it's "us against the music industry" I think it's kinda like rolling over and playing dead

Disagree.

Quote:

I will put down a band like .......Fugazi, which has had much commercial and critical success.

'Never mind what's been selling, it's what you're buying'--Ian MacKaye(Fugazi)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn Ask Lenny Kravitz, the Wynton Marsalis of Rock.

I'm not sure what this means, but I hope it's an insult.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC Admittedly it has been a really, really long time since Mozart was pop, but if Mozart or JS Bach are cannon, shouldn't they be on more than NPR or a couple of hours a week on a university station.

That's a good point. Though their works are sampled in one's privacy, in concertos, taught in schools, etc. But as far as being at the social forefront, I guess everything must eventually come to an end, and maybe for the rock greats that time is not too far off.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ Disagree. 'Never mind what's been selling, it's what you're buying'--Ian MacKaye(Fugazi)

I argue Fugazi is mainstream. When I say mainstream I'm not talking in a brainwashed sense. I mean that they are a social leviathan. Maybe your mom and dad don't know who are, but for people of my generation Fugazi is not an uncommon word. And they have had great influence in an industry by their admission they choose not to be part of. That's what I mean by not rolling over and playing dead.

 

[Cyclone]

A few biggies : (bolded my "for sure" bands)

Nine Inch Nails
Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Radiohead
Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Smashing Pumpkins
Tool

Some smaller ones that could go huge:

Gorillaz
Rage Against the Machine
The White Stripes

 

[s m @]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau I argue Fugazi is mainstream.....I mean that they are a social leviathan....they have had great influence in an industry by their admission they choose not to be part of. That's what I mean by not rolling over and playing dead.

I don't really understand this, or more specifically what the difference is between them and other artists/labels that choose to fly a bit below the mainstream radar for various reasons, other than that you seem to like Fugazi, as do I.

But I do know that they don't have much to do with the original question since there's no way they'll be a part of mainstream radio as younger people age. It is an interesting question, but you seem to equate being listened to on the radio a decade or two down the road with some sort of final artistic validation. Whereas I don't at all.

I'll give you that lasting a while on the radio does take something a bit different than being a flash in the pan does. My answer to your original question (besides 'who cares, listen to what you like') is that radio (and music overall) will continue to be what it is now. Classic rock will be some Zep etc that younger people still listen to, and some other newer bands that enough people like enough to break though and last. Like from the 90's stuff like RHCP, grunge, stuff like that. As for right now, I'm not really in touch enough to say. And there will be continue to be bands that never get mainstream acceptance that will still be listened to by serious fans that recognize them (ie. the Velvets, Can, Gang of Four, Fugazi, YLT, Pavement, etc etc etc). I'm sure it will be more of the same type of thing that's been going on since radio got completely commercialized decades ago, for better or worse. I don't mind.

Oh, and my favourite Modest Mouse discs are 'Building Nothing Out Of Something', and 'Lonesome Crowded West'. M&A is pretty good, the new one I don't find much to like unfortunately.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ I don't really understand this, or more specifically what the difference is between them and other artists/labels that choose to fly a bit below the mainstream radar for various reasons

I guess my current belief is they hold far more social significance than the multitude of bands who've earned high marks at places like Pitchfork ever will. Through their ethics and through their catalog. But obviously I need to do more digging as not many are in agreement with me here. If I can find something on the level of quality of say Repeater, I'll be ecstatic. Though so far I'm fairly depressed with what I've found, hence this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ But I do know that they don't have much to do with the original question since there's no way they'll be a part of mainstream radio as younger people age. It is an interesting question, but you seem to equate being listened to on the radio a decade or two down the road with some sort of final artistic validation. Whereas I don't at all.

Just to be clear, in the OP "Classic Rock" was meant a bit tongue in cheek to get people to tune into the thread, not as a radio format but as music that lives on in the social conscience. But people played it up and subseqeuntly I tagged along for fun.

From the original post, my basis premise was "It seems the few respected bands that have mainstream appeal (like White Stripes, Modest Mouse) are good, but not producing canonical, timeless material. While the plethora of indie bands, while also many good, are more doing a lo-fi Pavement kinda thing or trying to just be too experimental/random without applying a strong focus to basic songwriting."

And I did try several times to steer back to what I was getting at, ex. "I think people are taking my question too literally. I mean what will make movements, what will greatly influence bands that follow, what will your children listen to, what will hold a footnote in history, etc?"

Quote:

Oh, and my favourite Modest Mouse discs are 'Building Nothing Out Of Something', and 'Lonesome Crowded West'. M&A is pretty good, the new one I don't find much to like unfortunately.

Cool. Since you and I are in agreement I'll give those others a shot. Thanks. As I mentioned above Wilco's Foxtrot was a letdown even though that's the one where the critics took notice, whereas I really loved their prior album, maybe I'll get a gem.

ps. AFA Fugazi goes I can't tell you how many times I've heard Waiting Room on the radio around here, considering that was late 80s, one might argue they're already classic rock

And some others from time to time, you know, golden oldies like Reprovisional and Public Witness. On regular rock stations.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau I guess my current belief is they hold far more social significance than the multitude of bands who've earned high marks at places like Pitchfork ever will.

this is precisely why i can't relate with this thread.. and why i think it's rather irrelevant. i look at music as music, not as a social statement. i judge music based on the quality of the music, not on how long it will be listened to by the mainstream society that tends to care about little more than the social scene associated with the music, as opposed to the music itself (which brings me back to the beginning, i guess).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau "I think people are taking my question too literally. I mean what will make movements, what will greatly influence bands that follow, what will your children listen to, what will hold a footnote in history, etc?"

all of that is based completely on point of view.

movements don't have to be made in the mainstream. Watchtower started a technical/jazz metal movement in the 80's that greatly influenced 90's outfits like Cynic, Atheist, Death.. which continues to have a great influence on modern day bands like Canvas Solaris, Zero Hour, Andromeda, Behold.. The Arctopus, Alarum, Coprofago, and many others from around the globe that are still going strong. Slint was instrumental in the evolution of a post-rockish movement almost two decades ago that continues to be expanded on today. Aphex Twin is often accredited with some major movements in the world of electronica. what about Depeche Mode?

these artists WILL hold a footnote in history. not in mainstream history, but in music history.

what will my children listen to? it depends entirely on exposure and the child's desire for discovery. if i'm constantly playing my music in the house around my kids, chances are that they will end up taking a liking to it. there are many kids out there today that reject the mainstream - not because it sucks, not because they are in their 'rebel' stage, but because there is so much more out there in terms of musical integrity, and they realize this. when i was 16 or so, i heard prog for the first time ever in the way of Dream Theater. at that point, i was stuck in the radio world. past that point, i hardly ever turned the radio on again. today, my musical preferences have stretched so far beyond any kind of mainstream appeal that i've completely lost any and all respect for that term.

it should also be noted that there are many social scenes, and many social consciences to go with them.. each will have bands and artists that will remain rooted in history for a long time to come.

like one of the posters above said, i just don't agree with the idea of equating lasting mainstream appeal with artistic validation.

 

[markl]

Quote:

like one of the posters above said, i just don't agree with the idea of equating lasting mainstream appeal with artistic validation.

And other people don't automatically equate obscurity with either integrity or quality. Sometimes a band doesn't sell and people don't go to their shows because they just plain suck. Not all music that makes it into the charts is dreck. The "alternative" scene has just as bad a hit-to-miss ratio of good to bad material and artists (you could even argue it's even worse) as "mainstream" pop music.

Everyone who devotes their life to a certain endeavor wants to succeed at it. No one wants to die penny-less and hungry in a cardboard box on a street-corner. Every artist wants his paintings seen, his poetry read, and his music heard. He would love it if masses of people would go to his shows and buy his records. No one wants to die in obscurity. I've been to hundreds of shows and I've never seen an artist kick people out because too many showed up and they want to play to a smaller, more exclusive audience of hipsters only. I worked in a record store for 5 years in college and I never had an artist demand his CDs back because they were selling too many, and he didn't want the money and didn't want his music to spread so much it reached the un-cool mainstream audience.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl And other people don't automatically equate obscurity with either integrity or quality. Sometimes a band doesn't sell and people don't go to their shows because they just plain suck. Not all music that makes it into the charts is dreck. The "alternative" scene has just as bad a hit-to-miss ratio of good to bad material and artists (you could even argue it's even worse) as "mainstream" pop music. Everyone who devotes their life to a certain endeavor wants to succeed at it. No one wants to die penny-less and hungry in a cardboard box on a street-corner. Every artist wants his paintings seen, his poetry read, and his music heard. He would love it if masses of people would go to his shows and buy his records. No one wants to die in obscurity. I've been to hundreds of shows and I've never seen an artist kick people out because too many showed up and they want to play to a smaller, more exclusive audience of hipsters only. I worked in a record store for 5 years in college and I never had an artist demand his CDs back because they were selling too many, and he didn't want the money and didn't want his music to spread so much it reached the un-cool mainstream audience.

you've misinterpreted what i said, i think.

i don't automatically equate obscurity with quality. in fact, i've experienced a fair number of artists in my prefered genres that were plain terrible.

nor am i saying that any given artist actually wishes to remain unknown. what i'm trying to say is that obscurity in relation to the mainstream audience should not, and does not, prevent that artist from making waves in the world of music, or influencing future artists, or taking a place in the history of music, or becoming a classic.

this thread makes it seem like artists that don't have any immediate social significance on the mainstream world are consigned to short-lived musical stints that end up nowhere. come on.. that's completely ridiculous.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox this thread makes it seem like artists that don't have any immediate social significance on the mainstream world are consigned to short-lived musical stints that end up nowhere. come on.. that's completely ridiculous.

Of course. For instance, when's the last time you heard The Stooges on a Classic Rock station? But they'll be around forever in people's music collections - they just won't be played on mainstream radio in any popular format hehe. And dare I say it? The same goes for the Grateful Dead. Only "A Touch of Grey" ever gets played on the radio, even on Classic Rock stations, but of course that music will be around for ages.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox this thread makes it seem like artists that don't have any immediate social significance on the mainstream world are consigned to short-lived musical stints that end up nowhere. come on.. that's completely ridiculous.

Where did I say anything about 'immediate'?

How many times did I bring up words like canonical, timeless?

The basic purpose of this thread is to examine if the musical world is truly progressing, or is it flailing.

I argue as time progresses, the more difficult the search becomes to suss out the quality stuff, it is flailing.

 

[BillyC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau Where did I say anything about 'immediate'? How many times did I bring up words like canonical, timeless? The basic purpose of this thread is to examine if the musical world is truly progressing, or is it flailing.

Isn't that a matter of personal opinion/taste? You might say that their hasn't been a good rock album since OK Computer, but someone else will have a different opinion. You might be in mourning over the current state of classical compositions, and someone else might think its the best thing since Debussy.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC Isn't that a matter of personal opinion/taste?

Right, that's why I'm trying to examine this. It's my feeling, I would like to feel differently.

 

[BillyC]

My personal opinion is that while pop music may be flailing, there has never been a more exciting time to be a music lover.

There are so many different types of music to sample. I find all of the sub groups in music interesting even if I don't listen to/ like them.

I may be off base but I find a comparison between music today and the dark ages travelling bard. You may never hear all the bards because they never came through your town. You may never be exposed to a type of music, because of your region, or your tastes or the tastes of people around you.

What is great about today, is that in most cases if you find out about a type of music you will most likely be able to hear it, where if you missed the bard, you may never have heard him again.