U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Music
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2012, 12:14 PM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,621,434 times
Reputation: 9193

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Back to NE View Post
While I am amused by Belmont's theory (and it does have merit), I think the biggest reason is something far simpler: digestable, appealing music is like types of pies... most types of pies were "invented" long ago, and we can really only tweak them slightly. Chuck Berry inherited applie pie, the Rolling Stones made applie pie with extra cinnamin, and maybe the Black Keys added raisons.

So I'm saying music (esp. popular music) is more of a commodity than a work of art. And most every form was done by about 1989. A musician in 1965 had a somewhat empty slate to work with, a musician in 2012 can only spice and dice. Few are doing this better than Diplo right now.

And I doubt new music in the year 2050 will be much different from today's.
Good post. I think people like to look at the period from say--1955 through the early 1980s--and look at how all these popular music styles became codified during that period--rock 'n roll, doo-wop, R&B, soul music, surf music, rockabilly, folk rock, psychedelic rock, heavy metal, ska, reggae, funk, disco, punk rock, new wave, and hip-hop--that basically set the template for what's around today. Even much of the electronic and pop music of today has its roots in the house/techno of the late 80s which was just a mutation of Detroit techno which itself had it's roots in electro funk and Kraftwerk in the 1970s. And people look at that extremely fruitful period of American music and wonder why we don't have that level of musical change and innovation today. And the truth is that by the mid-90s, some of these genres had already been through one or two rounds of retro revivalism(or even more if you're talking about ripping off the blues)--others like heavy metal or punk had been taken to such extremes that to go any louder and heavier would just be silly. As much as rock music changed in the 1990s--a lot of it was just combining styles a little differently--taking the energy and simplicity and darkness of punk rock and using some of the styles of heavy 1960s and 1970s rock.

Music of the last twenty-five years has changed, but it's often forced to look back to look forward again. Look at how the funk breakbeats of the 1970s that changed hiphop music in the late 80s became standard as backing for mainstream pop in the 1990s. Or how the sort of 80s revival that started out with people aping the New Wave/Post-punk styles of the late 70s/early 80s switched into popularization of the same synth pop stuff that became so prevalent in the mid to late 80s. Now days, you have kids listening to pop music aping stuff from acid house/dance music in the early 90s and they don't even realize it...

A lot of the changes are just in how technology influences both the creation and listening of music. The internet/Ipod/Iphone has made it so it's easier for people to listen to anything they want, whenever they want without having to copy a friends tape/cd or go to a record store. We've got more music than ever before at out fingertips. Consequently even the mass-marketed pop music that gets noticed is even for a more specific segment of the market. I can't imagine a big album like Thriller or Born in the USA being a big hit with a cultural impact and recognition across the entire US. Someone could create the Sgt. Pepper of today and it might get called the record of the year by every magazine and only sell about 400,000 copies--and that'd be considered a success these days. Music keeps slowly changing, but the cultural impact has changed as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2012, 04:22 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,163,956 times
Reputation: 629
It's evolving alright......not in a good way either. I'll speak for guitars because that is what I know.

Ed took it as far as it could/would go.

Now we have three or four power chord songs Ed, Jimi and everyone else played when they were 4.


Van Halen - Eruption Guitar Solo (Live Performance 1982) HQ - YouTube





Foo Fighters. Walk. - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 04:29 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,163,956 times
Reputation: 629
Shame comes in TWO ways..................




Kenny Wayne Shepherd-What's Goin' Down (Studio Version) - YouTube

Joe Bonamassa Live on Dutch National Television Talpa. - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 04:33 PM
 
Location: SW OK (AZ Native)
16,767 posts, read 7,476,297 times
Reputation: 7259
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22 View Post
3) The Internet

In theory, the Internet could have been the ultimate boon to musical creativity. In reality, it's been the exact opposite. While anyone can now share and publish their music online, they're competing with millions of other aspiring artists. And even if you do score a hit - so what? The pie is so much more divided now, that you can get a #1 song and it won't even make you famous. Who would be able to recognize the faces of the Shop Boyz, who had a hit in 2007? Probably almost nobody.

The other thing is people can get any music they want for free now, so the sales potential is now very limited. Thus, record labels can't afford to take risks with 'weird' music, they have to play it safe. This is why Rihanna and Katy Perry have maintained successful careers for so long despite having very little talent or charisma. They know that pop genericum sang by attractive women will make them money. This is also why post-grunge Pearl Jam knockoffs were still being pushed as late as 2010. That's like if disco was still popular in 1990, or kids were still listening to surf music in 1970.
While I may or may not find merit to the OP's first two reasons, the third makes an outstanding case. When I first started listening to music in earnest in the early 70's, there were only a few genres of music. Rock, for instance, had only a handful of sub-genres, such as acid rock, southern rock, pop rock, arena rock, folk rock, maybe a couple of others. Look at classifications now, there are all sorts of sub-genres. The internet and to a certain extent satellite radio allow listeners to focus on one and only one type of music; there's no crossover experience. I have a niece who will only listen to one internet radio station and her iPhone is loaded up with one sub-genre, nothing else. I consider myself fortunate to have been able to listen to a radio station that played Hendrix followed by the Eagles, then the Stones, Alan Parsons, Marshall Tucker, and finally Steely Dan, all in an hour or so. Additionally, the dilution of talent the internet causes, as well as the lack of quality control (witness the mess that was mp3.com a few years ago) is something like the dilemma one faces when confronted by the cereal aisle in the local megamart... so many choices, so many like the others... aw, hell, guess I'll settle for oatmeal.

One other aspect about homogeneous modern music and the lack of "the next big thing" is the fact that it's not as important to have a great voice as it is to choreograph well and look good doing it, i.e. B. Spears.

I also have to agree about how we've lost our guitar heroes, and I don't mean the game. In the 80s there was Mustaine, Satriani, Slash, Downing and Tipton, Hetfield, Perry, Schon, Angus Young, and the sinsei, Eddie Van Halen. Other than David Grohl I can't name a current guitarist not playing with an 80s band. It's not to say they're not out there... Muse, for example.

Last edited by SluggoF16; 10-29-2012 at 04:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 04:36 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,801 posts, read 7,369,232 times
Reputation: 2960
But those are examples that are in the same genre, I think the OP is talking more radical change like Jazz to Rock, to Hip Hop to Electronica.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 04:39 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,163,956 times
Reputation: 629
People can say what they want to about Mark, Scott and the other guys.

Mark isn't in Kenny's or Joe's league but he sure knows how to play that sucker RIGHT.



Creed- Weathered - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 05:25 PM
 
2,096 posts, read 3,852,435 times
Reputation: 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
But those are examples that are in the same genre, I think the OP is talking more radical change like Jazz to Rock, to Hip Hop to Electronica.
Exactly. Aside from dubstep - which is not all that different from a lot of 1990's era electronic music - we are more or less stuck with all the same genres we already had in 1988.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 05:28 PM
 
9,442 posts, read 10,194,349 times
Reputation: 7184
I don't think we as music consumers have the proper perspective to make any real assessment of what is happening.

in 2008: More than 115,000 albums were released, but only 110 sold more than 250,000 copies, a mere 1,500 topped 10,000 sales, and fewer than 6,000 cracked the 1,000 barrier
Turn It Up: Future of Music Summit: 115,000 albums and only 110 'hits'

The system is slanted toward artist who are the least ground breaking. Out of those 115,000 new albums how many do we as consumers get to decide yea or nay?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 05:33 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,801 posts, read 7,369,232 times
Reputation: 2960
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22 View Post
Exactly. Aside from dubstep - which is not all that different from a lot of 1990's era electronic music - we are more or less stuck with all the same genres we already had in 1988.
Which points to the generational aspect. By 1988 the last of the Artisan Boomer generation would have been 28. Gen-X was good at improving sub-genres but not creating new genres.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 05:35 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 2,163,956 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
I don't think we as music consumers have the proper perspective to make any real assessment of what is happening.

in 2008: More than 115,000 albums were released, but only 110 sold more than 250,000 copies, a mere 1,500 topped 10,000 sales, and fewer than 6,000 cracked the 1,000 barrier
Turn It Up: Future of Music Summit: 115,000 albums and only 110 'hits'

The system is slanted toward artist who are the least ground breaking. Out of those 115,000 new albums how many do we as consumers get to decide yea or nay?
I vote YEA!!!!!




Airbourne - No Way But The Hard Way - YouTube

Airbourne - Runnin' Wild - YouTube

AIRBOURNE - Too Much, Too Young, Too Fast - YouTube



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Music
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top