La Musique
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
La Musique
I have meant to write an article about this for a while. The kick up the arse to actually make me do it came from reading the debate on 'What are you listening to tonight' regarding the Arctic Monkeys and the Manics. I dont really want to get into a subjective debate about which band is better. People could argue for days over who was more influential, the Beatles or the Ramones (for the record it IS the Ramones) , but that is not what this article is about. What i want to discuss is the music scene of the last ten years, from just after the peak of britpop, starting with the Spice Girls, until today. If at any point this becomes a rant against indie kids, i apologise in advance.
So girl power, and all that that entailed. Mindless trashy pop that gave birth to more of the same. You could argue that it wasnt the Spice Girls fault, that it started earlier with boybands like backstreet boys and boyzone, but in my head thats the moment i remember it all going wrong. what felt like years after years ensued of mindless pop, where the bands didnt write the songs, or play the instruments, where there was no creativity, no artistic merit. Then came the self appointed saviour. indie music was here. guitars were back and everyone was going to create and write and it was going to be brilliant. and then...it happened the libertines almost broke through, the arctic monkeys did, maximo park did, bloc party did. it was great, after years of middle of the road pop, here was this accessible interesting riff driven music with thought provoking lyrics. You can say what you like about Pete Doherty (my personal opinion, talented guy, not as talented as he thinks) but the real talent behind that band was Carl Barat, and his own band after the break up, Dirty Pretty Things are one of the most underrated bands around at the moment. Arctic Monkeys arent everyone's cup of tea but to me they are A Clockwork Orange in musical form. Whilst not everyone liked all these bands, they all came out and had something different to say, they were all outspoken and it seemed like rock and roll was back with a swagger. This scene of generic pop had been removed and there was this blank canvass to be filled. A new generation of kids were about to grow up with a new music scene, what would it be?
Erm...generic pop it turns out. Wave after wave of skinny jean-clad converse-wearing foppy hairstyle-sporting clones. Then wave after wave of bands that all sound the same. The Pidgeon Detective's, The Wombats, Scouting for Girl's the list could run and run.
Now the crux of this article is not to say skinny jeans should be banned, or the Wombats should go die. People have taste, and some people like some of the bands i have critisised. I even like some of the bands i have critisised. But artistically they are doing nothing, they are creating nothing, and now it seems to me that whilst anyone who learns four chords, has a whinny voice and a pair converse can have a top ten single, yet anyone out there with a genuinly new and interesting idea cannot get any recognition without whoring themselves to the latest trends. Magazines like the NME make up peoples minds for them, and we have just replaced one uninteresting yet popular music scene with another.
My major problem is that diversity is not only stiffled but discouraged. Magazines and the music press make self fulfilling prophecy's. They claim band X will become huge, and they do because they have said that.
I realise i set out to be objective but that is often difficult, i suppose the most objective way i could some up my feelings on contempory music is through a couple of questions.
It is widely accepted that the popular music scene had become, by about 2003, dominated by generic pop, does anyone actualy think this has changed, with a chart that is now effectively split 50/50 with Indie and RnB (will never understand how people started calling it that, RnB =the Who, not foooking Javine!!!!)?
Has it ever really been any different, was diversity ever actively encouraged and allowed to gain recognition, or does the fact that if something is successful, someone is going to copy it and try to gain the same success for themselves mean all interesting ideas end up stagnating like this?
So girl power, and all that that entailed. Mindless trashy pop that gave birth to more of the same. You could argue that it wasnt the Spice Girls fault, that it started earlier with boybands like backstreet boys and boyzone, but in my head thats the moment i remember it all going wrong. what felt like years after years ensued of mindless pop, where the bands didnt write the songs, or play the instruments, where there was no creativity, no artistic merit. Then came the self appointed saviour. indie music was here. guitars were back and everyone was going to create and write and it was going to be brilliant. and then...it happened the libertines almost broke through, the arctic monkeys did, maximo park did, bloc party did. it was great, after years of middle of the road pop, here was this accessible interesting riff driven music with thought provoking lyrics. You can say what you like about Pete Doherty (my personal opinion, talented guy, not as talented as he thinks) but the real talent behind that band was Carl Barat, and his own band after the break up, Dirty Pretty Things are one of the most underrated bands around at the moment. Arctic Monkeys arent everyone's cup of tea but to me they are A Clockwork Orange in musical form. Whilst not everyone liked all these bands, they all came out and had something different to say, they were all outspoken and it seemed like rock and roll was back with a swagger. This scene of generic pop had been removed and there was this blank canvass to be filled. A new generation of kids were about to grow up with a new music scene, what would it be?
Erm...generic pop it turns out. Wave after wave of skinny jean-clad converse-wearing foppy hairstyle-sporting clones. Then wave after wave of bands that all sound the same. The Pidgeon Detective's, The Wombats, Scouting for Girl's the list could run and run.
Now the crux of this article is not to say skinny jeans should be banned, or the Wombats should go die. People have taste, and some people like some of the bands i have critisised. I even like some of the bands i have critisised. But artistically they are doing nothing, they are creating nothing, and now it seems to me that whilst anyone who learns four chords, has a whinny voice and a pair converse can have a top ten single, yet anyone out there with a genuinly new and interesting idea cannot get any recognition without whoring themselves to the latest trends. Magazines like the NME make up peoples minds for them, and we have just replaced one uninteresting yet popular music scene with another.
My major problem is that diversity is not only stiffled but discouraged. Magazines and the music press make self fulfilling prophecy's. They claim band X will become huge, and they do because they have said that.
I realise i set out to be objective but that is often difficult, i suppose the most objective way i could some up my feelings on contempory music is through a couple of questions.
It is widely accepted that the popular music scene had become, by about 2003, dominated by generic pop, does anyone actualy think this has changed, with a chart that is now effectively split 50/50 with Indie and RnB (will never understand how people started calling it that, RnB =the Who, not foooking Javine!!!!)?
Has it ever really been any different, was diversity ever actively encouraged and allowed to gain recognition, or does the fact that if something is successful, someone is going to copy it and try to gain the same success for themselves mean all interesting ideas end up stagnating like this?
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
mummywhycantieatcrayons
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
-
Lord Kangana
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
This argument has been made repeatedly over the last 40 years of pop culture. Every generation assumes they are rebelling against the norm, every generation thinks they've rediscovered music (Flower power, prog rock, glam, punk rock, mod/new wave,goth, two-tone, Indie, rap, dance...endless list).
Music comes and goes, but its mostly manipulated by the marketing arms of major record labels, who respond to the demands/fashions of consumers. Good music always exists, its just a case of if you're in the right demographic (dictataed by the magazine you read, the radio you listen to) as to whether you'll hear it.
Music comes and goes, but its mostly manipulated by the marketing arms of major record labels, who respond to the demands/fashions of consumers. Good music always exists, its just a case of if you're in the right demographic (dictataed by the magazine you read, the radio you listen to) as to whether you'll hear it.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
If you want to track the explosion of indie as we see it today, for me, you have to look (or would that be listen?) to The Strokes's debut 'Is This It', which pretty much paved the way for The Libs of this world.
Personally, I think it is wrong of you to say diversity is discouraged, it is just not successful (except in odd cases). The Internet e.g. myspace, has made the art of getting your band an audience a hell of a lot easier - people have been signed off the strength of their myspaces!! The amount of genres, sub genres (math-rock anyone?), alternative music festivals I'd imagine is more than what their were a few year ago. You could probably argue that as it becomes easier to find an audience with tinternet, bands are more inclined to play what THEY want, rather than what the market wants.
Anyway, to answer your last question, the music industry is market orientated, so what sells is what is nurtured, promoted and ultimately successful. If you want success therefore you must be willing to be driven by the market, and not by your individual creative wants or whatever. If your creativity and success cross paths, then good for you (Have to say I'm quite a fan of The Wombats meself).
As you say, " A new generation of kids were about to grow up with a new music scene". That's the point. KIDS. Malleable, generic, trend-following kids, who jump on bandwagons like no mans business. I remember being at college and flicking through NME like it was my holy book. Feck, I used to go and see bands live off what they said (For instance seeing The Bravery in Academy 2, supporting by some nobody's by the name of Hard-Fi...). Now? I don't even look at the NME any more, I make my own judgements. Subsequently I think my music taste has become better for me as its more of a decision on my part rather than being governed by mags.
Oh, and for the record, it WAS The Beatles
Personally, I think it is wrong of you to say diversity is discouraged, it is just not successful (except in odd cases). The Internet e.g. myspace, has made the art of getting your band an audience a hell of a lot easier - people have been signed off the strength of their myspaces!! The amount of genres, sub genres (math-rock anyone?), alternative music festivals I'd imagine is more than what their were a few year ago. You could probably argue that as it becomes easier to find an audience with tinternet, bands are more inclined to play what THEY want, rather than what the market wants.
Anyway, to answer your last question, the music industry is market orientated, so what sells is what is nurtured, promoted and ultimately successful. If you want success therefore you must be willing to be driven by the market, and not by your individual creative wants or whatever. If your creativity and success cross paths, then good for you (Have to say I'm quite a fan of The Wombats meself).
As you say, " A new generation of kids were about to grow up with a new music scene". That's the point. KIDS. Malleable, generic, trend-following kids, who jump on bandwagons like no mans business. I remember being at college and flicking through NME like it was my holy book. Feck, I used to go and see bands live off what they said (For instance seeing The Bravery in Academy 2, supporting by some nobody's by the name of Hard-Fi...). Now? I don't even look at the NME any more, I make my own judgements. Subsequently I think my music taste has become better for me as its more of a decision on my part rather than being governed by mags.
Oh, and for the record, it WAS The Beatles
"Young people, nowadays, imagine money is everything."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
this is the sort of question i was asking behind the rantLord Kangana wrote:This argument has been made repeatedly over the last 40 years of pop culture. Every generation assumes they are rebelling against the norm, every generation thinks they've rediscovered music (Flower power, prog rock, glam, punk rock, mod/new wave,goth, two-tone, Indie, rap, dance...endless list).
Music comes and goes, but its mostly manipulated by the marketing arms of major record labels, who respond to the demands/fashions of consumers. Good music always exists, its just a case of if you're in the right demographic (dictataed by the magazine you read, the radio you listen to) as to whether you'll hear it.
. ive always wondered if this has always been the case. at my tender age, this is the first real 'scene' ive grown up with and felt affected by. but, as the world we live in becomes even more commercialised, media obsessed, and sheep-like, is this only going to get worse, and reduce even more the exposure of genuinly new and exciting ideas, not to mention anything of truly artistic merit. all societies and ages can be judged by their art, im not sure we are moving in the right directionIn a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
mummywhycantieatcrayons
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Fair enough! As you were....Prufrock wrote:FINISHED!!!mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Do some bloody revision! Dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas!
please dont make me read any more Latin.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
i was thinking of including the strokes, but decided against it. partly because everything else i refer to is in terms of the British music scene, and the Strokes came from outside this. Rather than say the Strokes were/are part of the indie scene, i would say they triggered it, much like, although to a lesser degree of INFLUENCE (Verbal wrote:If you want to track the explosion of indie as we see it today, for me, you have to look (or would that be listen?) to The Strokes's debut 'Is This It', which pretty much paved the way for The Libs of this world.
Personally, I think it is wrong of you to say diversity is discouraged, it is just not successful (except in odd cases). The Internet e.g. myspace, has made the art of getting your band an audience a hell of a lot easier - people have been signed off the strength of their myspaces!! The amount of genres, sub genres (math-rock anyone?), alternative music festivals I'd imagine is more than what their were a few year ago. You could probably argue that as it becomes easier to find an audience with tinternet, bands are more inclined to play what THEY want, rather than what the market wants.
Anyway, to answer your last question, the music industry is market orientated, so what sells is what is nurtured, promoted and ultimately successful. If you want success therefore you must be willing to be driven by the market, and not by your individual creative wants or whatever. If your creativity and success cross paths, then good for you (Have to say I'm quite a fan of The Wombats meself).
As you say, " A new generation of kids were about to grow up with a new music scene". That's the point. KIDS. Malleable, generic, trend-following kids, who jump on bandwagons like no mans business. I remember being at college and flicking through NME like it was my holy book. Feck, I used to go and see bands live off what they said (For instance seeing The Bravery in Academy 2, supporting by some nobody's by the name of Hard-Fi...). Now? I don't even look at the NME any more, I make my own judgements. Subsequently I think my music taste has become better for me as its more of a decision on my part rather than being governed by mags.
Oh, and for the record, it WAS The Beatles
), the Ramones and the London Punk scene in '79. Both were New York bands with little or no recognition in America who came over here and gave English kids a template to do their own thing.Re: the Wombats. i also quite like them, but thats because they can write a catchy song, not necessarily because they have anything particularly interesting to say. i wouldn't want to discourage bands like that, but i'm not sure they hold any particular artistic merit.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
one of the reasons i really don't like Emo. When i talked about kids, and i'm assuming you meant the same, i was referring to 16-7 almost growing up kids, who are starting to form their own opinions. i really dont like the way the Emo scene is aimed at kids a little younger, and a little more impressionable. for me as an outsider, this is a scene that seems to glorify self harm, which is so far wrong i cant begin to start to commence. it also seems to create a sort of passive rebellion. now everybody goes through a revolutionary stage, some last longer than others, but come on kids, find a purpose, do something! go and kill all the chavs if it makes you feel better, do society a favour!*That's the point. KIDS. Malleable, generic, trend-following kids, who jump on bandwagons like no mans business.
*i would like to point out i will not be held responsible for the deaths of any chavs that arise due to this post
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
qwertywarrior
- Hopeful
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:37 pm
They don't, it's tother way around. The industry supports, markets and plays what it believes will be the most successful, and the 'kids' or audience respond to it. The structure affecting the agent and all that.qwertywarrior wrote:how do kids influnce what is on the radio?
scouting for girls has been played to death and it is barely average, if you take ou tthe singing it sounds just like so much other stuff
at least emo has its own sound
Everything has its own sound.
"Young people, nowadays, imagine money is everything."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
beacause kids in general spend a massive part of their disposable income on music. what is popular is played. mass media is used to create a scene, impressionable kids follow said scene, more cash for record companies. but as the world becomes more and more media driven, is this going to stifle diverstity even more? as for scouting for girls, i wouldnt mind if you took out the singER (good bit of zeugma never goes amiss!)qwertywarrior wrote:how do kids influnce what is on the radio?
scouting for girls has been played to death and it is barely average, if you take ou tthe singing it sounds just like so much other stuff
at least emo has its own sound
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
To be honest, I was a little late in the development stage of music tastes - heck, didnt own an album until about four years ago.Prufrock wrote:one of the reasons i really don't like Emo. When i talked about kids, and i'm assuming you meant the same, i was referring to 16-7 almost growing up kids, who are starting to form their own opinions. i really dont like the way the Emo scene is aimed at kids a little younger, and a little more impressionable. for me as an outsider, this is a scene that seems to glorify self harm, which is so far wrong i cant begin to start to commence. it also seems to create a sort of passive rebellion. now everybody goes through a revolutionary stage, some last longer than others, but come on kids, find a purpose, do something! go and kill all the chavs if it makes you feel better, do society a favour!*That's the point. KIDS. Malleable, generic, trend-following kids, who jump on bandwagons like no mans business.
*i would like to point out i will not be held responsible for the deaths of any chavs that arise due to this post
But yeah, impressionable is what i meant by kids. Don't buy the argument about promoting self harm though, you could say that about any band with slightly insinuating lyrics (Radiohead, The Verve, probably a shit load of others...)
As for the rebellious, I thought that was all what being a kid was about, find your own way when your all growned up.
"Young people, nowadays, imagine money is everything."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
To be honest, I was a little late in the development stage of music tastes - heck, didnt own an album until about four years ago.Verbal wrote:Prufrock wrote:one of the reasons i really don't like Emo. When i talked about kids, and i'm assuming you meant the same, i was referring to 16-7 almost growing up kids, who are starting to form their own opinions. i really dont like the way the Emo scene is aimed at kids a little younger, and a little more impressionable. for me as an outsider, this is a scene that seems to glorify self harm, which is so far wrong i cant begin to start to commence. it also seems to create a sort of passive rebellion. now everybody goes through a revolutionary stage, some last longer than others, but come on kids, find a purpose, do something! go and kill all the chavs if it makes you feel better, do society a favour!*That's the point. KIDS. Malleable, generic, trend-following kids, who jump on bandwagons like no mans business.
*i would like to point out i will not be held responsible for the deaths of any chavs that arise due to this post
But yeah, impressionable is what i meant by kids. Don't buy the argument about promoting self harm though, you could say that about any band with slightly insinuating lyrics (Radiohead, The Verve, probably a shit load of others...)
As for the rebellious, I thought that was all what being a kid was about, find your own way when your all growned up.
[/quotei dont remember radiohead fans walking around with dotted lines on their wrists saying 'please cut here'. its not so much the talking about it, its the fact they trivialise it, make it seem like a cool joke.
as for rebellion, you have to have a point, its all so passive. they just stand around talking about how 'different' they are, i just want to shout at them!! they do realise they all look the same dont they? how is that diversity?! i have to say emo kids wind me up, but on a purely musical level, i dont like how everything is written in terms of how it can be marketed, music like football is just a big business, but one that excludes and free thinking ideas from success
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
mummywhycantieatcrayons
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
I think this gets to point - all of the above discussion of 'artistic merit' and the like goes way over my musically illiterate head. Not even heard of most of the bands being discussed..CAPSLOCK wrote:Who fcuking cares
You like it or you don't
If you like it, its good
If you don't, its shite
Simple
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
hmm have to say i think thats a bit of a narrow minded thing to say. this is a forum for opinion and debate. not exactly like anyone is saying balls to talking about megson, or campo, or andranik, he is staying, or they have gone.CAPSLOCK wrote:Who fcuking cares
You like it or you don't
If you like it, its good
If you don't, its shite
Simple
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
qwertywarrior
- Hopeful
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:37 pm
do they fuk, they rip it or download it from torrentsPrufrock wrote:beacause kids in general spend a massive part of their disposable income on music. what is popular is played. mass media is used to create a scene, impressionable kids follow said scene, more cash for record companies. but as the world becomes more and more media driven, is this going to stifle diverstity even more? as for scouting for girls, i wouldnt mind if you took out the singER (good bit of zeugma never goes amiss!)qwertywarrior wrote:how do kids influnce what is on the radio?
scouting for girls has been played to death and it is barely average, if you take ou tthe singing it sounds just like so much other stuff
at least emo has its own sound
why pay for it when you can get it free more for footie and booze
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 145 guests