[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plonter /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't liked even one song that came out in the last 8-9 years or so.. but I did like the song "fireflies",it's got an "oasis" kind of melody to it. so I guess it is good to have a peep once in a while and not shut out completely, but it's not like we have a choice it is everywhere it is true that garbage was always existed but if you compare the "garbage" of the 80 90 to 2000+ garbage there is a huge gap in quality imo. today's music is much much worse and unlistenable...at least for me. it is only getting worse and worse.

As a gigantic Oasis fan, and someone who thinks that fireflies is probably the single worst song to come out in the last 20 years, this makes me cry on the inside.

 

[tru blu]

Well, I don't mind the idea of music as unifier, because what I often miss amid all the talk about how much variety and choice there is out there is the names of great bands or artists I should be trying out. It's like everybody understands that music taste is subjective, so we don't really bother with advocacy or contextualization, we don't step into the breach and possibly even have our taste challenged…the mantra becomes, "find it for yourself, evaluate it for yourself, etc."

So I'll ask: Is any new band out there making music that seems to have the nascent vision and scope of the Velvet Underground? Who is it? This might be a good place to add that one reason the growing rock public got to take second look at the Velvet Underground is because, Lou Reed, its lead songwriter and voice, had a long career after the band broke up.

Weird hypothetical: If the Velvets were starting out now, would they have had to break up? It's quite possible that through the Web they could've built a niche audience to sustain themselves. Would we have heard from Lou Reed as a solo artist?

If I have a lament at all, it's that the digital revolution seems to foster niche-ification, which means you and your coterie don't have to check out what other groups are doing or digging, and that that kind of insularity is OK. It's a byproduct of crowdsourcing, sort of the never-the-twains-shall-meet way of looking at music consumption. In music as well as everyday life, I guess I just like to know that people are listening to each other, rather than talking amongst themselves.

I don't know that any of this makes sense…

 

[RedSky0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I don't mind the idea of music as unifier, because what I often miss amid all the talk about how much variety and choice there is out there is the names of great bands or artists I should be trying out. It's like everybody understands that music taste is subjective, so we don't really bother with advocacy or contextualization, we don't step into the breach and possibly even have our taste challenged…the mantra becomes, "find it for yourself, evaluate it for yourself, etc." So I'll ask: Is any new band out there making music that seems to have the nascent vision and scope of the Velvet Underground? Who is it? This might be a good place to add that one reason the growing rock public got to take second look at the Velvet Underground is because, Lou Reed, its lead songwriter and voice, had a long career after the band broke up. Weird hypothetical: If the Velvets were starting out now, would they have had to break up? It's quite possible that through the Web they could've built a niche audience to sustain themselves. Would we have heard from Lou Reed as a solo artist? If I have a lament at all, it's that the digital revolution seems to foster niche-ification, which means you and your coterie don't have to check out what other groups are doing or digging, and that that kind of insularity is OK. It's a byproduct of crowdsourcing, sort of the never-the-twains-shall-meet way of looking at music consumption. In music as well as everyday life, I guess I just like to know that people are listening to each other, rather than talking amongst themselves. I don't know that any of this makes sense…

Kind of. Reminds of a similar argument with regards to advances in telecommunication and social groups. The internet and it's various social networking avenues have allowed us to be more selective in the people we associate with and therefore less tolerant of those with different interests and views. So ironically advances in communication have narrowed the scope of our social groups.

I think part of the reason highly influential bands are only recognised as such post-fact is simply because they can only be labelled as such once they've influenced others. This is also part of the reason I think that classics and the value of these influential albums is overstated. There have been and will be highly progressive artists that contribute to the milieu by innovating but are swiftly forgotten. Others, while certainly equally deserving will disproportionately go on to shape the direction of music to come.

Well, that and the bandwagon effect, but that's a different issue entirely.

Call me cynical if you like, but I firmly believe that modern rock music would not have been worse had it been for the absence of The Velvet Underground or The Beatles or any other highly reputed band, simply different and appreciable for other reasons. There certainly never has been or never will be a shortage of talented artists to pick up the slack.

So this is more or less why I don't pay much heed to classics. I define my own classics based on what challenges my own preconception of genres and music, and not simply what influences the public domain.

 

[gorb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cianyx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does it depress me? Not especially, considering how little I care about mainstream music or about what anyone else listens to

This

 

[robm321]

I think a lot has to do with the fact that music is the first thing to be cut out of schools when budgets get tight. It's a matter of understanding music in more depth. And let's face it, for most, music is background or mood setting. They aren't stupid. They simply don't understand it unless they learn an instrument or decide to invest time in learning what it's all about.

That being said, I'm not sure it hasn't always been like this. How many people appreciate fine wine? Most would enjoy their white Zin like a kid slurping down Kool-aid.

Miller and Bud beer are what most people drink

. I'll leave it at that.

Avatar is the most popular movie

Most people eat at chain restaurants and think the food is great.

I think the word of the day is SHALLOW.

If a movie has great CGI and is in 3D, a horrible cookie cutter story line and a pile of cliches will not degrade it in most people's eyes.

If you throw a bunch of catchy tunes and sound effects in a song, most will ignore that a 5 year old could have written something deeper.

If you throw some sugar in wine, the reaction is - Mmmm more sweeeet, moooore better.

When it comes to politics, it's all about Republicans vs Democrats rather than open mindedness. Most people hear news clips or comedy shows and think they know what's going on. They have no idea what the actual issues really are, but they are passionate about them

TV shows are... well, I think my point is made.

The finer things in life have always been noticed by the few and the lemmings will continue to follow the pack. Always has been and always will be that way till the earth gets hit by an ice rock or nuked.

So, put on some Robert Johnson or Mozart/Bach and enjoy what so many miss, DEPTH. And don't try to change the way the world works just appreciate the fact that you "get it". It'll take a lot off of your shoulders.

 

[HipHopScribe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif So I'll ask: Is any new band out there making music that seems to have the nascent vision and scope of the Velvet Underground? Who is it?

However unintentional on your part, this kind of question is a trap. You can't balance these kind of comparisons not knowing where things are going from here, and people are apt to have a strong negative reaction to any modern band thrown against a legendary band, regardless of merits.

With that said, I'll give my answer: The Roots

Quote:

If I have a lament at all, it's that the digital revolution seems to foster niche-ification, which means you and your coterie don't have to check out what other groups are doing or digging, and that that kind of insularity is OK. It's a byproduct of crowdsourcing, sort of the never-the-twains-shall-meet way of looking at music consumption. In music as well as everyday life, I guess I just like to know that people are listening to each other, rather than talking amongst themselves. I don't know that any of this makes sense…

I see that problem with fans, not so much with artists, which is why I personally don't care. I think artists are as open as ever to a movement of ideas between different scenes. Fans are more apt to be insular and closed-minded, but I don't think that's a new phenomenon, or one that is troubling in terms of artistic prospects, because those who want to pursue the art experience it in a different way than those just listening.

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe /img/forum/go_quote.gif However unintentional on your part, this kind of question is a trap. You can't balance these kind of comparisons not knowing where things are going from here, and people are apt to have a strong negative reaction to any modern band thrown against a legendary band, regardless of merits. With that said, I'll give my answer: The Roots

Geez, the Roots have been together nearly 20 years already, and in my opinion it took them almost 10 years to be any good.

The question isn't a trap, mainly because I wrote "seems to have the…of the Velvet Underground". I've been listening to music quite awhile, and I can remember hearing bands like, say, the Clash, or Run-DMC or Elvis Costello or the Beastie Boys well before other folks did, and being able to ascertain that there was something more there. Making the suggestion does not mean it has to come to pass; the history of music is filled with immensely talented artists who didn't live up to their initial potential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe /img/forum/go_quote.gif I see that problem with fans, not so much with artists, which is why I personally don't care. I think artists are as open as ever to a movement of ideas between different scenes. Fans are more apt to be insular and closed-minded, but I don't think that's a new phenomenon, or one that is troubling in terms of artistic prospects, because those who want to pursue the art experience it in a different way than those just listening.

You're quite right to a certain degree, but sometimes I think that marketing lingo (read: the language of branding) has become so prevalent that it challenges the openness you speak of. It's sort of "this is my niche…to survive I gotta work it." Whether the audience wants more becomes the creative stimuli, which is kinda the opposite of the way Neil Young, say, or Prince used to operate. Mind you, this is just a personal perception…nothing scientific about it.

 

[baka1969]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I honestly can't agree with very much of this. I feel like Gaga's talent is pretty manifest and I don't even like that kind of music. Same with Rihanna. Beyonce is hit or miss with me. And that's to say NOTHING about all the non-pop artists. I also feel like millions have said the same about every decade before you, and there will be someone 15 years from now talking about how the 00's were great and music sucks now. My grandparents said that my parents culture was dumbed down, my parents said my culture was dumbed down, I'll probably at some point say things are dumbed down. I don't mean this to be offensive, but I think you're simply getting old and losing the ability to identify with anything that's new.

I can make the argument that the generation of music between around 1967-1979 was the best of the modern era. On point, I hated my parent's era of doo-wop. My parents disliked the swing music of their parents time. Yet, many of today's generation of teens not only listen to 70's era music, but love it. I think that's not only a testament of that time, but shows how poor music has been in the 2000's. The music of the 70's has endured where very little of what's been produced over the past 13 years will (I started in '67 so, to be fair, I'll go back to '97). I've had discussions with different people of different ages and the list of artists that can be named from the 70's that still are listened to now is almost endless. In contrast, naming artists from the 2000's that will live on is drasticly shorter. There isn't even a contest. Ask yourself this, will today's kids children listen the today's music like the teens of today listen to their parent's music?

 

[HipHopScribe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by baka1969 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can make the argument that the generation of music between around 1967-1979 was the best of the modern era. On point, I hated my parent's era of doo-wop. My parents disliked the swing music of their parents time. Yet, many of today's generation of teens not only listen to 70's era music, but love it. I think that's not only a testament of that time, but shows how poor music has been in the 2000's. The music of the 70's has endured where very little of what's been produced over the past 13 years will (I started in '67 so, to be fair, I'll go back to '97). I've had discussions with different people of different ages and the list of artists that can be named from the 70's that still are listened to now is almost endless. In contrast, naming artists from the 2000's that will live on is drasticly shorter. There isn't even a contest. Ask yourself this, will today's kids children listen the today's music like the teens of today listen to their parent's music?

Another prophet. Why did I miss out on the super powers?

 

[HipHopScribe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru blu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Geez, the Roots have been together nearly 20 years already, and in my opinion it took them almost 10 years to be any good. The question isn't a trap, mainly because I wrote "seems to have the…of the Velvet Underground". I've been listening to music quite awhile, and I can remember hearing bands like, say, the Clash, or Run-DMC or Elvis Costello or the Beastie Boys well before other folks did, and being able to ascertain that there was something more there. Making the suggestion does not mean it has to come to pass; the history of music is filled with immensely talented artists who didn't live up to their initial potential.

Dirty Projectors, Megafaun, P.O.S., The Antlers, Joanna Newsom, St. Vincent, TV on the Radio, Sunset Rubdown, Vampire Weekend

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by baka1969 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can make the argument that the generation of music between around 1967-1979 was the best of the modern era. On point, I hated my parent's era of doo-wop. My parents disliked the swing music of their parents time. Yet, many of today's generation of teens not only listen to 70's era music, but love it. I think that's not only a testament of that time, but shows how poor music has been in the 2000's. The music of the 70's has endured where very little of what's been produced over the past 13 years will (I started in '67 so, to be fair, I'll go back to '97). I've had discussions with different people of different ages and the list of artists that can be named from the 70's that still are listened to now is almost endless. In contrast, naming artists from the 2000's that will live on is drasticly shorter. There isn't even a contest. Ask yourself this, will today's kids children listen the today's music like the teens of today listen to their parent's music?

I'm not saying you are totally wrong, but there is a definite comparison flaw going on here. The most popular music of the 70's WAS NOT ROCK. It was disco. Not a whole lot of people are listening to disco right now. Some, but a very few. The Saturday Night Fever soundtrack outsold every other album in the actual 70's. Also, people do and did listen to music from their parents eras, things like the non-pop Jazz, Gershwin, etc prior to the 70s. So saying that because people are "stuck in the 70s" is just a reaction to the crappiness of modern music I think is a VERY big logical leap.

That's not even considering what people will listen to in advance. I don't think anybody in 1976 would have predicted that in 2010 Chicago would be virtually unheard of but everyone would be all over The Velvet Underground.

As far as artists that I'm fairly confident people will be listening to in the future is not nearly as hard as I think you make it(off the top of my head):

Also, this is only rock, so you'd probably at least triple this list if including other genres:
The White Stripes
Radiohead
Spoon
Drive-By Truckers
Yeah Yeah Yeahs
Wilco
Umphrey's McGee
Muse
Kasabian
My Morning Jacket
Widespread Panic
Travis
MGMT
The Arcade Fire
Ryan Adams
Queens of the Stone Age
moe.
Death Cab For Cutie
Blitzen Trapper
Of Montreal
The Strokes
The Shins
Bright Eyes
Vampire Weekend
Kings Of Leon
The Raconteurs
Coldplay
Bon Iver
Franz Ferdinand
Arctic Monkeys
Beck
The Flaming Lips
Fleet Foxes

That was also cutting out any artists that did most of their best work in the 90s, and cutting out a lot of artists that came out really late (like 2009 onward) as being too new to really tell, so it's really only like 8 years.

 

[tru blu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedSky0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Call me cynical if you like, but I firmly believe that modern rock music would not have been worse had it been for the absence of The Velvet Underground or The Beatles or any other highly reputed band, simply different and appreciable for other reasons. There certainly never has been or never will be a shortage of talented artists to pick up the slack.

Have you heard the single "Thou Shalt Always Kill" by the U.K. mc/dj team Dan Le Sac and Scroobius Pip? The middle section always makes me laugh:

"Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals, no matter how great they are, or were.

The Beatles...were just a band.

Led Zeppelin?...just a band.

The Beach Boys?...just a band.

The Sex Pistols?...just a band.

The Clash?...just a band.

Crass?...just a band.

Minor Threat?...just a band.

The Cure?...just a band.

The Smiths?...just a band.

Nirvana?...just a band.

The Pixies?...just a band.

Oasis?...just a band.

Radiohead?...just a band.

Bloc Party?...just a band.

The Arctic Monkeys?...just a band.

The Next Big Thing…JUST A BAND."

 

[GlendaleViper]

People put CRASS on a pedestal? Yipes.

 

[fjrabon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlendaleViper /img/forum/go_quote.gif People put CRASS on a pedestal? Yipes.

ha, yeah that was a major "one of these is not like the others" moment.

 

[baka1969]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjrabon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not saying you are totally wrong, but there is a definite comparison flaw going on here. The most popular music of the 70's WAS NOT ROCK. It was disco. Not a whole lot of people are listening to disco right now. Some, but a very few. The Saturday Night Fever soundtrack outsold every other album in the actual 70's. Also, people do and did listen to music from their parents eras, things like the non-pop Jazz, Gershwin, etc prior to the 70s. So saying that because people are "stuck in the 70s" is just a reaction to the crappiness of modern music I think is a VERY big logical leap. That's not even considering what people will listen to in advance. I don't think anybody in 1976 would have predicted that in 2010 Chicago would be virtually unheard of but everyone would be all over The Velvet Underground. As far as artists that I'm fairly confident people will be listening to in the future is not nearly as hard as I think you make it(off the top of my head): Also, this is only rock, so you'd probably at least triple this list if including other genres: The White Stripes Radiohead Spoon Drive-By Truckers Yeah Yeah Yeahs Wilco Umphrey's McGee Muse Kasabian My Morning Jacket Widespread Panic Travis MGMT The Arcade Fire Ryan Adams Queens of the Stone Age moe. Death Cab For Cutie Blitzen Trapper Of Montreal The Strokes The Shins Bright Eyes Vampire Weekend Kings Of Leon The Raconteurs Coldplay Bon Iver Franz Ferdinand Arctic Monkeys Beck The Flaming Lips Fleet Foxes That was also cutting out any artists that did most of their best work in the 90s, and cutting out a lot of artists that came out really late (like 2009 onward) as being too new to really tell, so it's really only like 8 years.

I must diagree with you. Disco didn't really explode until the late 70's. Rock most certainly outsold disco during that entire decade. Only a few of the groups you've listed have any real impact in today's music. Groups such as Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Clapton, Dylan, Hendrix, Boston, The Eagles, Lennon, Allan Brothers, Neil Young and a list at least twice or three times as long as you've mentioned have had a greater influence on music. Album sales for the individual groups of the 70's are also greater. Not that sales are an absolute indicator but it's part.