6 ms·

You are completely wrong. Music isn't in a rut. You are. Find someone who is into new music, ask some questions, borrow some albums, and really give it a chance

by tricky 18y ago

You are completely wrong. Music isn't in a rut. You are. Find someone who is into new music, ask some questions, borrow some albums, and really give it a chance. You'll be shocked at what you are missing just because you believe there's nothing good out there.

wheels 18y ago
This seems to usually happen when people keep staring at the same place and expecting something interesting to happen there. Historically, if you want to get a good idea of where music is going, see what black americans are producing. Virtually every new genre of western pop music in the last century has come from black americans. (Blues, jazz, soul, rock, funk, disco, house, techno, hip-hop) After new genres emerge then there's usually a couple decades that follow of infusing that with other genres and that's where some really creative stuff starts coming out of the woodwork.
- unalone 18y ago
  That's not a fair method. Rock began with Elvis. Before then, it was blues. Yeah, Elvis was inspired by black Americans, but his music was all his own. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones, who both moved music forward, were both white. The indie music scene nowadays comes from Jeff Magnum of Neutral Milk Hotel. He's white. Techno was inspired by minimalist classical music. Steve Reich? Philip Glass? White. I agree with your first point: music changes. I disagree with your last point: genres are interesting from the start. They become interesting for fans of other genres after a few decades, but for people who comprehend the musical theory behind a genre it tends to become interesting from the beginning.
  - aston 18y ago
    I was this close to downmodding you for saying Elvis invented rock. Chuck Berry, dude.
    - unalone 18y ago
      ...They're both 1955. Neither knew the other when they began. They're completely, utterly different in style. Elvis's Sun sessions invented the basis of what I'd consider rock. Berry is riff-based. He's all about the guitar. He did incredible stuff, but for me rock was about the advent of the larger-than-life music personality, and about the attitude. Elvis had attitude. Berry didn't, not in the same way. Elvis was the first rock heartthrob. My point was that it's not a race game. White people do music too. To add to my above list: punk was Sex Pistols and the Ramones.
      - aston 18y ago
        I'll concede those points. If you really want to see where music is going, you should just pay attention to what white people are buying.
  - wheels 18y ago
    I didn't say white people haven't innovated in music. I said that virtually all new pop genres have come from black americans. Techno was influenced by 20th century minimalism, but it wasn't inspired by it. Minimalism started becoming a significant influence in the second wave of techno. From your later comment, punk and some other rock sub-genres are good examples of genres that have not stemmed directly from black american culture. Note -- I don't think this is something fundamentally having to do with race, but that there's something within black american culture that has driven a disproportionate amount of innovation in popular music. With the genre-mixing thing, I didn't mean that genres aren't interesting from the start, just that often the phase where they begin to cross-pollinate often produces results that are as if not more interesting than the advent of the genres themselves.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > I said that virtually all new pop genres have come from black americans. What counts as a "new pop genre" and what definition of "virtually all" are we using? Country/Western, Broadway, pre-rock pop vs Jazz, R&B/Soul, Gospel, Rap, Hip-hop
      - wheels 18y ago
        "Pop genre" is mostly things that would get their own section at the record store. Country / western and pre-pop jazz aren't new, but they're definitely pop. Pop became jazz and country came around about 90 years ago. Broadway's even older. The rest on your list I think non-controversially have African American roots. Probably a reasonable definition of "new" is everything post-widespread-phonograph since genres started working different culturally once the primary way of listening to music shifted from live to recorded.
        anamax 18y ago
        > Country / western and pre-pop jazz aren't new And neither are R&B, Soul, or Gospel. > The rest on your list I think non-controversially have African American roots. There are two lists, separated by "vs". I'm responding to a claim that almost all American pop genres came from AA roots. I disputed that claim by providing two lists, the first for "not AA" vs the second for "AA". The number of elements in the first is comparable to the number of elements in the second.
jfornear 18y ago
The new Animal Collective album, Merriweather Post Pavilion, would be a good place to start.
mattmaroon 18y ago
No, music is in a rut. I listen to plenty of new (or new to me) stuff via services like Pandora and Rhapsody. Most genres have gone completely stale. Hip hop is pretty much retreading the exact same territory once again. Rock's become largely cliche, with most of the good material being put out by bands that have been popular since I was in middle school. It's just a down cycle. It happens. Recorded sales and concert attendance, as well as just turning on your radio, seem to indicate this. 2008's concert attendance was slightly down, and the top 10 acts were all ancient. In order Bon Jovi, Springsteen, Madonna, The Police, Celine Dion, Kenny Chesney, Neil Diamond, Spice Girls, Eagles, and Rascall Flats. With one exception they're either country (which has been in a rut for 30 years) or older than me. That's a genuine rut my friend. The wheels are spinning but nobody's going anywhere.
- GavinB 18y ago
  It might be more accurate to describe it as a rut for you. I don't mean that as an insult, it's okay if you just don't like what you hear. If you're looking for "the cool new things" that are happening, I definitely wouldn't look at the Top 10 in concert attendance. Given, we're not going to invent distorted electric guitar or precision audio editing again. But really, do we define great music as having a "sound" that's obviously jarring? Great music has been produced for centuries with the same old orchestral instruments--to the uninitiated, it all sounds pretty much the same.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Given record sales and concert attendance, it would be more accurate to say that music isn't in a rut for you.
    - GavinB 18y ago
      Since we're talking about a subjective judgment, sure. We're in the midst of a major revolution in music distribution. While revenues are down, people are listening to more music than ever before, and getting more choice in what they can listen to. Thanks to a new generation raised on guitar hero and rock band, I predict that things are going to get even crazier very soon. If you define a rut as "not undergoing mainstream stylistic revolution" then sure, we're in a rut.

by tricky 18y ago

wheels 18y ago

This seems to usually happen when people keep staring at the same place and expecting something interesting to happen there. Historically, if you want to get a good idea of where music is going, see what black americans are producing. Virtually every new genre of western pop music in the last century has come from black americans. (Blues, jazz, soul, rock, funk, disco, house, techno, hip-hop) After new genres emerge then there's usually a couple decades that follow of infusing that with other genres and that's where some really creative stuff starts coming out of the woodwork.

unalone 18y ago
That's not a fair method. Rock began with Elvis. Before then, it was blues. Yeah, Elvis was inspired by black Americans, but his music was all his own. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones, who both moved music forward, were both white. The indie music scene nowadays comes from Jeff Magnum of Neutral Milk Hotel. He's white. Techno was inspired by minimalist classical music. Steve Reich? Philip Glass? White. I agree with your first point: music changes. I disagree with your last point: genres are interesting from the start. They become interesting for fans of other genres after a few decades, but for people who comprehend the musical theory behind a genre it tends to become interesting from the beginning.
- aston 18y ago
  I was this close to downmodding you for saying Elvis invented rock. Chuck Berry, dude.
  - unalone 18y ago
    ...They're both 1955. Neither knew the other when they began. They're completely, utterly different in style. Elvis's Sun sessions invented the basis of what I'd consider rock. Berry is riff-based. He's all about the guitar. He did incredible stuff, but for me rock was about the advent of the larger-than-life music personality, and about the attitude. Elvis had attitude. Berry didn't, not in the same way. Elvis was the first rock heartthrob. My point was that it's not a race game. White people do music too. To add to my above list: punk was Sex Pistols and the Ramones.
    - aston 18y ago
      I'll concede those points. If you really want to see where music is going, you should just pay attention to what white people are buying.
- wheels 18y ago
  I didn't say white people haven't innovated in music. I said that virtually all new pop genres have come from black americans. Techno was influenced by 20th century minimalism, but it wasn't inspired by it. Minimalism started becoming a significant influence in the second wave of techno. From your later comment, punk and some other rock sub-genres are good examples of genres that have not stemmed directly from black american culture. Note -- I don't think this is something fundamentally having to do with race, but that there's something within black american culture that has driven a disproportionate amount of innovation in popular music. With the genre-mixing thing, I didn't mean that genres aren't interesting from the start, just that often the phase where they begin to cross-pollinate often produces results that are as if not more interesting than the advent of the genres themselves.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > I said that virtually all new pop genres have come from black americans. What counts as a "new pop genre" and what definition of "virtually all" are we using? Country/Western, Broadway, pre-rock pop vs Jazz, R&B/Soul, Gospel, Rap, Hip-hop
    - wheels 18y ago
      "Pop genre" is mostly things that would get their own section at the record store. Country / western and pre-pop jazz aren't new, but they're definitely pop. Pop became jazz and country came around about 90 years ago. Broadway's even older. The rest on your list I think non-controversially have African American roots. Probably a reasonable definition of "new" is everything post-widespread-phonograph since genres started working different culturally once the primary way of listening to music shifted from live to recorded.
      - anamax 18y ago
        > Country / western and pre-pop jazz aren't new And neither are R&B, Soul, or Gospel. > The rest on your list I think non-controversially have African American roots. There are two lists, separated by "vs". I'm responding to a claim that almost all American pop genres came from AA roots. I disputed that claim by providing two lists, the first for "not AA" vs the second for "AA". The number of elements in the first is comparable to the number of elements in the second.

jfornear 18y ago

The new Animal Collective album, Merriweather Post Pavilion, would be a good place to start.

mattmaroon 18y ago

No, music is in a rut. I listen to plenty of new (or new to me) stuff via services like Pandora and Rhapsody. Most genres have gone completely stale. Hip hop is pretty much retreading the exact same territory once again. Rock's become largely cliche, with most of the good material being put out by bands that have been popular since I was in middle school. It's just a down cycle. It happens. Recorded sales and concert attendance, as well as just turning on your radio, seem to indicate this. 2008's concert attendance was slightly down, and the top 10 acts were all ancient. In order Bon Jovi, Springsteen, Madonna, The Police, Celine Dion, Kenny Chesney, Neil Diamond, Spice Girls, Eagles, and Rascall Flats. With one exception they're either country (which has been in a rut for 30 years) or older than me. That's a genuine rut my friend. The wheels are spinning but nobody's going anywhere.

GavinB 18y ago
It might be more accurate to describe it as a rut for you. I don't mean that as an insult, it's okay if you just don't like what you hear. If you're looking for "the cool new things" that are happening, I definitely wouldn't look at the Top 10 in concert attendance. Given, we're not going to invent distorted electric guitar or precision audio editing again. But really, do we define great music as having a "sound" that's obviously jarring? Great music has been produced for centuries with the same old orchestral instruments--to the uninitiated, it all sounds pretty much the same.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Given record sales and concert attendance, it would be more accurate to say that music isn't in a rut for you.
  - GavinB 18y ago
    Since we're talking about a subjective judgment, sure. We're in the midst of a major revolution in music distribution. While revenues are down, people are listening to more music than ever before, and getting more choice in what they can listen to. Thanks to a new generation raised on guitar hero and rock band, I predict that things are going to get even crazier very soon. If you define a rut as "not undergoing mainstream stylistic revolution" then sure, we're in a rut.