Hello and happy Festivus fellow Axiomites!

It's been a while since I've been posting here. I've been very busy with audio work and various other nefarious activities.

But I have been checking in to read all of your posts and to keep track of all you crazy peeps!

And while I'm still working on my (yet another) review of the wonderful M22s, I thought I would share with you some of my recent ramblings concerning the current sorry state of popular music.

I'm leaving out jazz, classical and world music since most of those fans support those rich and wonderful genres passion and dedication.

And I'm leaving out country too since I only ever listen to old country music anyway.

I really feel like this last decade has been horrible for the arts. And even though I'm doing well and getting plenty of work (mostly television and radio commercials), I worry about the future of music and audio.

So, sit back, pour a cup of eggnog (or some other fun beverage ), light a fire and put on that comfy coat made with the fur taken from the soft underbelly of a cunning and elusive badger... (hello Alan!!! ), and let me attempt to try to give my opinion (and fuzzy insights) on the rise and fall of rock and pop music...

I really think the moment the "music died" (popular/rock based music) was the day that Kurt (or whoever killed him!) blew his brains out.

Now allow me a moment (hopefully not being too long winded and redundant) to give you an abbreviated, yet somewhat concise opinion of how we got to where we are now...

If you look at rock and roll as a genre, I think it's safe to say that 1955 was year zero.

There was Elvis (the big bang) who took hillbilly and black r&b/blues and sex appeal and changed the world. It was great and it was popular.

Then the Beatles did a few things that some people kinda liked and KA-BOOM! an evolutionary shift of such seismic proportions in popular (remember that word as it is crucial to this whole discussion) music splintered into a million different vibrant, psychedelic and wonderful directions. So many bands and artists were inspired and an industry (music bizness) that up until that time had treated popular/rock music as a fad (only to be exploited for teenage $ and quickly discarded) woke up to the fact that:

A: This sh#t is blowing up on a world wide basis and influencing all the other arts!

B: It looks like it just might be around longer than an early 60's "dance craze"!

C: Serious people (critics, writers, social observers etc.) were treating this popular music as a legitimate art form!

So then music became big business... but the business side (while always a necessary evil for funding/distributing this terrible "noise" to the kids) was always a step behind what was happening (hey HEY hey) NOW. And it was kinda hard for record companies to prefabricate music for this culture of DFHs (dirty fu#king hippies) who were young and growing (wild in the streets).

Sure, there was disposable crap (our current morass) that was cheesy and cynically devised to "move units". The Archies (not even a real band!), The Monkees (almost a real band!), The Osmonds (ironically, the Jonas brothers of their time with Donny O. being the "Bieber" of his time) and other bubblegum stuff. Catchy and fun, but ultimately not cool. And the kids? Well most of them wanted to be cool! This was their culture. They were cynical of anyone over 30 and demanded unique and diverse sounds to boogie and get high to.

But oddly, all this cool recorded music wasn't just in the underground, buried away on late night FM stations. It was in the charts! Top 40! Mainstream! No sh#t!

The Doors, Marvin Gaye, Janis, Hendrix, Dylan and on and on. Great songs with depth and meaning (not always, but that was cool too because the music had passion) that sold and was popular. How in the hell did this happen?

But, (and this is where things start moving really fast) all kinds of music that was popular: soul, funk, psychedelic, progressive, glam-rock, hard rock... music that actually sold and was played on the radio and made big $ (a nice bonus!) was devoured and consumed in vast quantities and ushered in the era of ROCK STARDOM.

These were the Dionysian gods of their time. Rich rock stars roaming the earth like a band of aristocratic gypsies. Led Zep, The Stones, Queen, Deep Purple, Alice Cooper Band, Cheap Trick etc. Bands who rocked your ass, moved millions of "units" and flew around in their very own airliners (small private Lear jets were reserved for the coked-up managers/agents and entourage) playing world tours in huge stadiums to hundreds of thousands of screaming, rabid fans. Good times indeed...

But now, the art/commerce of big time ROCK/POP had become bloated, decadent and preposterous; out of the reach of the average rockin' teenage combo rehearsing in their garage with dreams of having their moment...

Then something interesting happened. The American fringe of the rock and roll scene (Iggy And The Stooges, Velvet Underground, New York Dolls, Ramones etc.), bands that were not even remotely mainstream (or played on the radio or got the BIG RECORD DEALS) were welcomed by British youth. Then in an ironic reversal of the British invasion (that earlier event that took the American art form of Rock and/or Roll and re-packaged it in a more modern, desirable and fashionable version that the USA just ate up), those wacky Brits gave us two very important bands: The Damned (first official "Punk" single released) and more importantly (in an historical context) The Sex Pistols.

But, there was a villain lurking... gaining strength and becoming very popular at the same time. This musical "movement" was a precursor to our horrible current situation. DISCO.

And guess what? DISCO SUCKED! It was contrived, repetitious "dance music" made for white people without any natural rhythm to do cocaine and have unprotected sex to (see Frank Zappa's 'Dancin' Fool' for further details). It was not funky (we had Parliament/Funkadelic for that!) in the least. Vanilla and bland, it was made using tape loops with anonymous studio hacks "performing" it. Not all of it was too horrible (and looking back now, it all seems kinda charming and cool in an ironic kinda way, but I digress...).

So now you had three disparate camps. All hating each other. Mainstream rock, punk rock and disco.

In the foul year of our lord 1979 (which I think was one of the most interesting times in popular musical culture and probably when all of the last truly original innovations in popular rock music occurred), things were weird indeed!

Let me see if I can coherently explain this:

A. Disco sucked (a given). It was losing steam and popularity. And while elements of it were co-opted into mainstream pop, it was now considered a fad. Disco Duck anyone?

B. Punk did start making head-way into the mainstream. Post-punk (now re-branded as New Wave by the "suits") became more popular and certain bands were able to actually sell and get on the radio. The Cars, Blondie, Talking Heads, Devo, The Clash, The Knack etc. It was a strange time for radio. Between the tired and unfashionable corporate rock of REO Speedwagon and Journey you had freaky punks (I was a teenager and this was my time!) sneaking in their short, weird New Wave songs. And guess what? They were popular! But not with everybody...

C. Metal (formerly hard rock) heads hated us punks. (Don't worry, we'll all make up later!) Depending how hip you were (and I was one hip cat!), you either dressed like a Status Quo fan from the early 70's with long hair and a jean jacket with Iron Maiden/Judas Priest/AC/DC/Van Halen (you pick) patches with optional studded leather/spiked accessories; or if you were an avant-garde rocker and wanted to have sex with girls that looked like Lene Lovich and Siouxsie Sioux like I did, you dressed like a cross between Ziggy Stardust and Johnny Thunders. Now we were ready for the new decade, the 80's. What would it bring? Surely music, fashion and art were going to keep evolving and changing. Breaking rules and pissing on the past in a mad, vibrant rush to find the newest ROCK AND ROLL THRILL.

Welcome to the 1980's music lovers and producers!

Although now a new, even more insidious enemy is lurking... What makes this enemy even more dangerous and destructive to the art of pop and rock (and all music in general) is that it has good intentions! And we all know where that road leads (and it's not backstage at a Mötley Crüe concert!)...

This brand new entertainment is called MTV. And guess what? They play music videos! Now hicks in the fly-over states can learn how to dress like Duran Duran! It's music with visuals! Wow!

I thought it was the coolest sh#t ever. Now all my uncool friends that listen to the crap on mainstream radio could see all these new, innovative bands I had been telling them about. I had been trying to turn them on to all the cool new music I was discovering, but I would invariably show up at a party and bring my records (like everyone did back before the iPod isolation generation) only to be told to "Take that punk sh#t off, Terry!"

And what was that awful "punk sh#t" I was playing them? The debut album by a band called The Police.

Two years later these same clueless jocks and preps were running around singing "Roxanne". Ugh. I generally would hate a band after they got popular with the "straights". It happened after Queen became huge with 'News Of The World' and Pink Floyd with 'The Wall'.

Anyway, MTV was new, hip and 24 hours of music videos. They had late night shows like 120 Minutes that featured bands that I even personally knew (Athens ya'll!), they also showed concerts and had rock related news. Most of the VJs were planks, but I still loved it because it was all music all the time.

But once again, it became co-opted (and even faster than the preceding decade) by the "industry" and now only bands that had cool haircuts and were pretty were getting played. If you were fat and ugly, even if you were more talented than The Beatles, you were screwed. No air play for you!

But after being accused of being a little too white, MTV opened up their playlist to include crossover "black" artists like Prince, Lionel Richie etc. MTV helped to break Michael Jackson (already a huge and talented veteran star) to a new, younger audience with his expensive and innovative (at the time) videos. They were also helpful in exposing underground black music. A newer form (to those not in the know) of urban music. Rap.

Now, during most of the 80's, all the music that I dug (now called "alternative") didn't get any airplay on the radio. So while driving around looking for trouble, I would mainly listen to black radio stations. The 80's were a boom time for black music. Especially R&B. The production was great and I was getting more and more into electronic music and dance type stuff (the irony of hating disco was not lost on me btw! heh ) I had been into rap since the late 70's as drums were one of my main instruments and I loved funky breaks and beats. Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC, Slick Rick, Public Enemy, Boogie Down Productions etc. This sh#t was fresh and new and, again, a rebellion against the establishment. That's punk!

So, the late 80's... Music is crossing over and sampling (literally) all of these different genres. A very cool and interesting time.

The Beastie Boys were a bridge. They helped bring black and white youth together more so than any time since the late 60's/early 70's. It was a very hopeful and positive development. I was psyched. Hardcore punk, hair metal, real metal, underground weirdness, acid house, dub and electronic; even retro stuff that echoed the past but also brought a new twist to the rock and roll game. Diversity! Yes there was still cheesy pop (as always) but many choices and options were there. Music was very popular and important to young and old alike.

Which brings us to the 90's. I remember where I was when I first heard Nirvana's 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'. I was driving around (once again looking for trouble) when I turned on the "classic" rock station. What wafted out was rough and demo sounding to me. In fact, I thought "Damn, they must be playing some local music!" I actually thought they were playing one of my friend's sh#tty punk bands, lol! But it was Nirvana's brand new "single".

At this point I was in a mid level band signed with an indie label. I was also working on a solo album by myself, talking with A&R people and other assorted industry weasels. I had gotten lucky enough to find an entertainment attorney and I was getting ready to move to Atlanta ready for fame and fortune.

Then Nirvana blew up HUGE! Effectively throwing the industry on it's ear. Hair metal was out (thank Christ!) and this underground noise that I was involved in was suddenly "marketable". Great timing!

Now, I personally didn't think that Nirvana was that great of a band (I preferred the Melvins heh) but they did connect with a lot of people in a real and organic, non-hyped way. You cannot deny their impact. And because of them, bands that had previously been relegated to the independent labels (bands that I loved and knew), were now being signed faster than you could say "Smashing Pumpkins"!

Of course the music industry (always ready to exploit and harness youth culture) called this new movement Grunge. A stupid and meaningless label that mainly applied to bands from Seattle. But it was a hopeful time for us punk rockers. Now, after all those years of trying to change the mainstream, we had our foot in the door. It was our time.

1991... the year that punk broke.

Unfortunately, it was really going to be the decade that music became broken.

Okay, if any of you Axiomites are still reading this War And Peace length epic post, hang on, cause I'm wrapping this sh#t up!

Kurt blows his brains out. Mass mourning ensues. All the bands that were signed to the majors (with a few notable exceptions) were dropped or left to flounder in contracts that binded them. Record companies decided that difficult artists were a pain in the ass. Media corporations were consolidated and boy bands were foisted upon a newer, younger (and much more gullible) audience.

Rap was thriving, as was a lot of pop. But something had died. Teen spirit perhaps?

Gangsta rap, while some of it was great (NWA, Dre, Tupac, Biggie), became the dominate flavor. Then the violence that had only been implied in the lyrics became all too real. People died. It also ushered in a very monochromatic and conservative sound into the hip hop culture that is still prevalent today.

The only innovative music that was happening (in my world at that time) was electronic music and all the sub genres that were a part of it. This was the last progressive "movement" in modern music. But this kind of music was too strange and abstract for mass consumption. It served well for soundtracks and car commercials but did not catch on with the general public. But the "rave culture" from which this new "electronica" came was invaded by posers and, like rap, became the boring, conservative 4/4 monotony that is, ironically, the sound of pop today.

Add lip-syncing underage trollops, the Disney-fication of pop, illegal downloads, mp3s, stubborn record companies, auto-tune, easy loop making music software, American Idol, etc. and you find yourself...

Here.

In the 21st century.

So what now? I don't know. But this is the conundrum in which us music and audio lovers, the ones that actually care about quality, find ourselves in.

Now this concludes the grand Festivus tradition of the "Airing of the Grievances", now let's bring out the aluminium pole since my girlfriend has already pinned me earlier, during the "Feats of Strength"...

(I would like to thank Alan Lofft, Gail Worley and the late, great Hunter S. Thompson for inspiring me to write all these "words")

Terry Douglas
December 22, 2010







Rock/Power Pop/Psychedelic

Modern Composition

Cult Of Divine Chaos

Kill Toy

Awesome, Terry!

I'm going to bookmark this and re-read it again later, when I've had more coffee/nog/beer!

I'm guessing you and I are about the same age.....

I enjoyed reading that as well. Thanks!

I am proud to say that I read the entire post.....I had a thread several months back about music in the 90's when I was rasing my kids. I knew something had happened and this lays it out - AND, I am a Hunter / Uncle Duke fan.

hello, I enjoyed your post. Maybe I'll re-visit it later.

Sometimes I feel like the music died too. But then I figured out: it actually just went more underground. One has to dig around a bit more than in the 60's and 70's. Back then mainstream radio "fed" us great stuff. Now mainstream radio isn't even programmed by human DJ's.

So it's back to "alternative" and having to root around for good stuff like a pig sniffs out truffles from the ground.

but I don't feel too bad about it. When the early era rock and roll guys were in their childhoods, some of these guys would have to try really hard to find far away blues stations in the middle of the night to listen to (that played the sort of music that fascinated them). I don't think it's always been a given that great music will come out of the radio.

We're post-modern now, so music is re-doing itself over and over. The incredible innovation that occurred out of the USA in the last century - I can't see that ever happening again, to be honest. Not just for purely musical reasons, but just all the social and technological forces coming together in a sort of "perfect storm" that gave us jazz, blues and country music. Those 3 mated, swirled and gave us all the varieties of rock and soul.

I can't see that ever happening again - at least not in my lifetime. No way.
The elements that were thrown together in the USA that gave birth to that music - that'll never happen again - but the wave isn't completely dead - we still get to ride it - it's just way different now.

A great topic and as an old "ex" musician myself many of the thoughts here are ones that I have subscribed to for years. One of the biggest changes that has occurred in the music business in the last thirty years is this ludicrous idea of "pigeon holing" music so if it doesn't fit a certain defined category then the industry is not interested. I am sure there are many great bands and entertainers that many of us have heard over the years that just didn't hit the so-called "mainstream" because they didn't "fit the mold". On top of that the business itself has consolidated making it that much harder for these groups to make a breakthrough because the industry wants to play it safe.

I can recall back in the sixties and seventies when many types of music were played regularly on the radio. Not today. When was the last time you heard an instrumental? Too bad. Despite all the controversy about downloading, in many respects the computer has been the saviour of many since it allows those entertainers to gain an audience without them having a big money contract with the majors.

Mark, if I recall your age correctly, I think you and Terry are within a year or two of each other in age.

I, too, can't believe I ate read the whole thing (where's the Pepto Bismol/Alka Seltzer?!). It rings true to me. You've put to words what I've wondered aloud. I essentially stopped listening to new music in the late 1990s, and I've wondered if I've missed much as I settle in to the familiar acts of my youth.

I also agree with Aunty Em that there are pockets of good new music (Thanks, pmbuko for turning me on to Rilo Kiley), but nowhere near the "scenes" that we had in the heyday.

I've always wondered if I stopped listening to music on the radio because it got bad or I just got old.

Or, to beat JP to the punch, both.

I really DO think that popular music has turned sucky (industry term) with the compression, auto-tuning and flash over substance. But then I remember, hasn't EVERY generation insisted that music has gone downhill since their generation?

So who am I to say that I'm not just old?

Naaaah.

The music DOES suck!

(And JP, I'm 47)

A couple of turning points in the industry for me would have been the way certain bands(to me) sold out...."Some Girls"? are you serious Mick? "Another One Bites the Dust"? how about just calling it "Another One Bites"?

I've more less resolved myself to the fact that celebrity has become more important than art in this industry.

Oh!...and Rap Sucks.

One of the heights of musicdom, I think is around the era when the Beach Boys came out with "Good Vibrations". I can remember actually wanting to listen to the radio back in those days. Today, I just scan the channels, about once every 3 weeks to see if there's anything that I want to listen to. Normally nada.

Just the fact that Justin Bieber won several American Music Awards is enough to know that music (at least pop music) is LOT about marketing than talent nowadays. I cannot comprehend how this kid got so popular...and to think some girls out there want to have his child. Shit, he looks 12 years old! That is SO wrong! Can you tell I'm a huge fan?!

That's why I call you the Fox That Rocks the Cradle.

Hey, at least it's better than SonicFoxNews!

Great post!

I think we've got a weird current trend in music - homogeny.

But just underneath all that homogeny lies an interesting contradiction. There is more music out there than ever before, in more flavors, variations and styles than ever before. But all that volume creates its own problems. There is simply too much noise for new styles to emerge. Instead, what rises to the surface is the stuff that sounds like all the other stuff, and homogeny - sameness - prevails.

We are also in an interesting time of cross-over hits. Carrie Underwood comes to mind - although she wasn't the country pioneer who transformed country music into modern pop music - that honor, I think, goes to Shania Twain. Now, I'm no country fan, so this pop music is largely lost on me.

If you listen to modern R&B music, it sounds an awful lot like the electronica that prevailed in the '80s - lots of synthesized sounds and computer created beats.

On the whole, I don't think that music died. I think it spawned too many children, none of whom have much identity. But it's there if you search it out.

Inbreeding?

[South Park] You Bastards! [/South Park}

Aesthetic conservatism and conformity are "in" it seems now. Lots of apathy and short attention spans. Everyone is being deluged by technology and a corporate-media created "celebrity culture"... Reality show losers are our new "stars".

Why else would the "Situation" and "Snooki" be famous?

So.. it's more like a weird trend in all popular "culture"!






I know! You would think that we would be in a golden musical era right now. I'm hoping for some kind of musical renaissance in this upcoming decade (can you even believe the last 10 years?). Hell, I'm hoping for a renaissance in all the arts! The things I wrote above about rock/pop music can be applied (with various changes/alterations) to almost all the things I love. Movies mostly suck now. CGI is the auto-tune of movies. Television is beyond shallow. Nothing that's being "produced" by "artists" (even the good stuff) is recognized or lauded because of the dumbing down of the masses (I'm mainly talking about America, since that's where my parents had sex and where I was born). There is no longer a valid outlet for the dissemination of these great works of "art" or even a community/culture to support the growth and development of said "art". Attention spans are just too short nowadays. People have become post-literate and are way too "busy" with electronic diversions that are the equivalent of solipsistic onanism for the mind. Where's the soul? Nothing seems to "connect" on an emotional or visceral level. Why is that? Why are the majority of young people content with this situation? Are they so brainwashed by corporate propaganda that they think that this is the golden age? Reality just does not support that view at all. Just look around you!






Exactly. Now the signal is the noise!







A consolidated media that promotes this stuff is a huge part of the problem. For all of the supposed freedom, diversity and choices we have, it's really hard for the average person to sift through all the mediocre garbage and find the gems that are probably being lost in all this "noise".






Yes my good Captain, music will never die. It's part of the human expression of the soul.

And as Frank said, jazz is not dead, it just smells funny...

I just realized something... that with medic8r's skill and training to analyze all of us through our rants/ramblings/posts, he can just consult his handy DSM and peg all of our psychological issues!!!

I'm probably some kind of narcissist borderline personality disorder with anti-social and obsessive/compulsive tendencies that include sexual disorders not otherwise specified...

And yet, medic8r still refuses to write me a prescription for some good meds! He just suggest that I be given large amounts of Thorazine and be put in restraints!

So be careful posting on here my dear Axiomites, because to the good doctor; all of our musings are probably as revealing as a Rorschach test...

That's why I lie in all of my posts. I'm actually a 14 year old girl.

Regarding music genres and conformity. I've always got a good laugh out of people that consider themselves a punk. They tend to live in a delusion that they are different, when really they are at the highest level of conformity because they're being hypocritical. It's the same thing with hippies.

Everyone should just be themselves.

Terry, I very much enjoyed every word of your essay . I do believe that it goes deeper, thanks to Edward Bernays, but that's a whole other topic in itself.

Something that you may find interesting, is this video, which is some guys interpretation of the meaning of the song "Hook" by Blues Traveler. He makes a very strong case for the true meaning of the song. Anyway, here it is.

Lmao!

Are you really? Or are you just a cop trying to lure unsuspecting perverts into a trap so they end up on Dateline?

Either way, what are you wearing little girl?

But yeah, seriously, I'm actually an undercover narcotics agent posing as a degenerate...

Okay Axiomites, I've finally come around and now I love modern pop music!

Mainly because I've fallen in love with a promotional picture of Justin Bieber...



"His hair's so shiny, I love his lips! I love his teeth and his gums and such!"

That's not a promo pic, Terry. It was taken just for you! With l-o-v-e. Peace, out.

I see the mag says, "The making of a music legend." Legends ain't what they used to be, eh?!

JP...it's time to start a file on Terry, unfortunately. Hopefully you still have time to save him!

Man, I just moved out of his service area, too.

Guess I can do telepsychiatry.

Due to the freedom of information act, you too can now view all of my "files"!

Of course, most of it's blacked-out...

But remember, you're still under patient/doctor confidentiality! You swore to that on an open PDR...





And you laughed at me when I said that I saw you eventually getting into parapsychology!!!

So in other words, all the "good stuff" happened "back then" and everything from today is "crap".

This sums up how every "older" generation views the trappings of the "younger" generation. It's a generational thing. That's just sort of how it goes as you get old.

The 1960's may have catalyzed it, but it's been going on forever. Talking to my then 96-year-old grandmother a few years ago, she still vividly remembered how much her parents disapproved of the speakeasies, bobbed haircuts, revealing clothes, and heaven-forbid; jazz-music of the 1920's that she and her friends enjoyed so very much.

No, really, Peter, Twinkies WERE better in the 50's. And Coca Cola was way better when taking it with aspirin could get you high. Cough syrup was better then, too. And sex was way more fun when it wasn't discussed on Oprah, 'cause it was too nasty.

I also had more "free" time when I didn't have a PC.

But you're right. It's not better or worse, just always changing.

If you say so... I didn't!

I'm hoping for a new musical/artistic renaissance for fudge sake! But, yeah.. just look at the facts. Reality supports my argument, not yours...

Let's see if in 20 years, all this "classic" "culture" that happened from 2000 to 2010 is being discussed with reverence and praise like the late 60's and early 70's popular culture.

Hell, half the stuff that's "happening" now is crappy remakes of older stuff. Tron Legacy? Kanye West samples King Crimson? Wow... Innovative.

I would argue that that the arts, and all other aspects of popular culture, have peaks and valleys. If you look at Paris in the 20's you can see that there was something magical and innovative happening then that has yet to be repeated (or bested) and very few decades in the 20th century have brought any radical progress to art forms like that time period did. That's why the 60's/70's are so unique. A high water mark. I didn't claim to see into the future. There's still time to have an upturn in creative progress, but the past 20 years have shown a steady decline in all of the major art forms.

Sorry, but if younger peeps really want popular culture that has depth, meaning and impact, then they better come up with some art that matters. That takes skill, practice and the ability to focus. Try harder!

Too many wannabe "rock stars" looking to be famous (with their very own reality show!) who can't even fu#king play 'Louie Louie' competently!

Yes, there is still some great music being created, but innovative and enduring most of it is not!

You can mock the "dinosaurs" all you want, but they will endure long after Kanye/Lady Ga Ga/Nickleback et al are forgotten.

Don't blame older people cause you suck!

It seems the majority of modern music is just a pathetic echo of the past or a horrible auto-tuned vision of the future.

I'm not exactly happy about this situation myself. I still have hope though, but young people just "starting out" need to become more focused and disciplined about their craft.

Learn from and respect the past! Pay some dues and practice, practice, practice!

And write some good songs...

It would also be wise to reject the corporate packaged "fake" rebellion/celebrity culture that is being sold to you. Reject it like the hippies and the punks and the early rappers did! You have so many amazing, modern tools available to you. Get it together outside the current system!






Bullsh#t! My significant other is at the ripe "old" age of 23 and she (as well as most of her peers that have any taste) can tell the difference in quality between Nickleback and Hendrix. Most of the cool kids listen to classic rock that's way older than them. Why is that?

Why are the Beatles still outselling most new bands? Is it because us oldsters keep buying the recordings over and over? Or is it because there really is a rise and fall in cultural progress? You really think your current "trappings" are better than what preceded it? Just look at the charts of every decade. It's so obvious that some quality control issues are at hand.






I'm not disapproving anything that's current, I'm openly mocking and deriding it as (mostly) puerile, uninspired and pathetic.

Big difference there Pete.

That's what I'm saying!!!

I am absolutely fascinated by the discussion, and want to sincerely thank you all for making me think. Maybe later, I'll have something to add.

But right now, he's involved in his Ke$ha CD....

That made me laugh

Another aspect of this that has been hinted at but not discussed in detail is the technological aspect of this phenomenon. With all the I.T. and other tech-savvy people that frequent this forum, I figured I'd open that can of worms.

In the old day, to be in a band, you had to pick up an instrument and learn to play it. Or you had to be able to sing without the benefits of Autotune or other studio trickery. Charlatans like Britney Spears would have been realized immediately as having no true vocal talent. Granted, there were the occasional music industry creations like the Monkees, but even they could play instruments and sing.

Back in the day, if a band covered a tune, it generally did so by playing in it's own style and adding something to the tune. I'm thinking of Van Halen's covers (Dancing in the Street, Pretty Woman, etc) as a prime example.

Skip ahead to the present, or, say, 1995 - present, and anyone with a computer can sample a song, twist a couple of knobs, and say they've made a new single. Now, I have enjoyed some modern covers, but to me the vast majority of them seem artificial and trashy. I know that's a matter of taste, but I personally don't like that kind of "progress". The ease of sampling and the entitled attitude that many samplers take really chaps my a$$. There's too many people not giving credit, acting like they have the right to sample anything, regardless of copyright, and acting like they've really created something significant when 98% of the work was done by the original artist. At least when Van Halen played a cover, they called it a cover.

On the positive side, technology has made it easier than ever to create music, so there is at least the chance that more good music will be made. It's just hard for me to filter out the crap and find the good stuff.

Doc you make some very excellent and interesting points but actually we can lay blame to Adolph Rickenbacker way back in the 1920s and 30s for inventing the electric guitar, he started it all and we've only progressed from there.

Wow. Quite a response you've typed up there, 'savant.

My point was that neither you nor I can judge what is "art" and what is "noise". And no one knows what will, or will not, be remembered in 10, 20, 50 years' time.

Vivaldi was a rock-star in his day. He was pretty popular. Then he died. Unlike Mozart, Vivaldi's works were mostly forgotten until they were rediscovered two-hundred years later. From the standpoint of the 1800's, Vivaldi would have been as much of a flash-in-the-pan as Nickleback will (hopefully) be in 50 years. Yet today, Vivaldi is "one of the greats". And that's my point.



Really? Because I know a few Art History PhD's that would disagree with you. The rise of digital media has produced an explosion of Art that's unlike anything the world has ever seen. Of course it's not all wonderful. But that's the way it works. There were a lot of Parisian artists in the 20's and American & British musicians in the 60's who were pretty awful. And History has forgotten them.

I'm not saying that Nickleback or Kanye West is the next Vivaldi. God help us. But what I am saying is that only the jaded cynic has the view that, "Art is dead".


So says you. Look beyond the FM dial. Look beyond American Idol. There are tens-of-thousands of artists out there - real artists - who are creating new, innovative, or just plain good music. And that's part of the problem. There's so much to choose from. Sure, there's a lot of mass-market crap. Tons. But it's just like there's a McDonalds or an Applebees on every corner. People eat there because it's easy and it's what they like. Music is the same. There's a lot of mass-market noise out there because that's what many consumers want, and the record companies keep shoveling it in. But it doesn't mean that you must have a BigMac for dinner. Look deeper. There's great stuff (even well-mastered stuff) out there.

Peace. Really.

And for the record, I'm 33. I listen primarily to Jazz & Classical, though occasionally I do enjoy a little Daft Punk.

I had mine already.

Thank you good sir... Sorry if I came off a bit too... too !

You actually make some valid points. I just think we are misunderstanding each other.

Perhaps I should clear my "point" up a bit!

I'm not actually arguing at you, but with you Peter...






Very true... art is (to some) very subjective.

I do believe that there is great "art" (music, cinema, literature, etc) still being made, it's just that there really isn't a culture that is (currently) popular that is supporting it at this time. I think (and hope!) that this will change. The things I wrote about rock/pop music can be applied (with various changes/alterations) to almost all the things I love. Movies mostly suck now. CGI is the auto-tune of movies. Television is beyond shallow. Nothing of merit that's being "produced" by "artists" (even the good stuff) is recognized or lauded because of the dumbing down of the masses (I'm mainly talking about America, since that's where my parents had sex and where I was born). There is no longer a valid outlet for the dissemination of these great works of "art" or even a community/culture to support the growth and development of said "art". Attention spans are just too short nowadays. People have become post-literate and are way too deluged with electronic diversions that are the equivalent of solipsistic onanism for the mind. Where's the soul? Nothing seems to "connect" on an emotional or visceral level. Why is that? Why are the majority of young people content with this situation? Are they so brainwashed by corporate propaganda that they think that this is the golden age? Reality just does not support that view at all. Just look around you! Do the youth (whose time it is to seize) have no fresh ideas to bestow upon the world? Are they so fu#king lame and disconnected that they themselves have nothing to offer that's new and innovative and, most importantly, their own?

I mean, if conformity and aesthetic conservatism are the "in" thing now and Kanye/Ke$ha/Bieber are the high water mark then, they (the young), are doomed and pathetic and I truly feel sorry for their lot. Maybe their future offspring will realize how expendable and vapid this culture has become and will rebel (like the kids did in the 60's) and come up with exciting new music (and art) that will be considered classic someday!

We are just deluged now by mediocre stuff. The next Hendrix or Beatles are probably out there right now but unless we sniff it out like a truffle, we miss out. There are too many fragmented "communities" for a real "culture" to thrive and great new music seems to makes no real impact in the here and now. That's sad, because the economy of scale is shrinking for these potentially great artist to really become truly great and make a decent living in this hostile environment.

Do you realize how many hours the Beatles played live before they even recorded in the studio? I work with a lot of young bands and artists and the majority have no understanding of paying dues. They are more interested in the fame part, not the creating something worthwhile to become famous part.

Celebrity culture has overtaken substance, and a lot of younger peeps seem to blindly accept this. That's my biggest beef!

But I'm mainly lamenting about how the structure to support and promote the arts has died and how that affects the mainstream.







I'm still leaning about classical and the history of symphonic music (I know much more about late 20th century art forms!), but isn't Vivaldi still considered a bit like Yngwie Malmsteen? All flash and no substance?

And classical music has become codified too. Most symphonies are being meagerly paid to saw through the "classics" that are as done to death as Stairway To Heaven! There is a lot of very great modern (i.e. 20th century symphonic) that is ignored because of lack of education and, again, no $ for it to thrive. So classical music is kinda in the same situation, only the old masters are played and heard and no new music that is created is being appreciated or performed.






I agree with every word of that Peter, but that is my entire argument!!! For a short while we had a popular culture that thrived, not hidden away for just those of us in the know, and we were surrounded by music that inspired others to create original and great sounds themselves. Now it's become lopsided to favor the shallow and expendable. It's hard to blame the consumers when they are force fed plastic crap 24/7.

I truly hope that a renewed interest in diversity and quality will happen to all the arts!






Peace and love! I think we are much closer in agreement than you thought. Sorry if I come off a little hyperbolic and aggressive, that's just my obnoxious style.

The one thing I do know is that, here on the Axiom forum, we all have diverse "tastes" and are passionate about music and sound.

I'm just saddened by the general population's seemingly lack of passion (and I do mostly blame the "media") and concern for quality.

So, I guess "quality" just isn't as popular as it used to be, then?

Totally just messing with you.

The Monkees.

The Beegees.

Whitesnake.

'nuff said.

I can't believe I misse this thread the first time 'round. Some comments, starting with the most important first:
1.

Do you mix that in a blender with crushed ice or layer it like one of those fancy shooters?

2. Bethoven was called a long haired deliquent when he hit the scene. I think Peter has it right.

3. There are two things that happened in the early 50s that did lead to a special era in music though. First, black music, a vibrant, sexy, creative scene was introduced to white America at a time when the (white) music industry was as 'managed' and bland as it is today. Second, a whole generation of boomers started getting their teen allowance at a time when there was not much to spend it on (no i-Stuff © or designer clothes) other than a coke. Call it the dot-music age, but there was a LOT of money going into the industry and that led to a lot of artistic freedom. All the controlling execs were too busy shoveling money into their coffers to have time to manage their artists.

In-a-god-a-da-vida baby.

Great artists are great artists whether or not they're embraced by the general public. Success ruins more artists than anything, so I'm not sure we should bemoan them not being put on a pedestal. Which brings up another point. May I suggest that it's just music, that there's nothing sacred about any of it? If you're finding beautiful depth that sets your soul on fire, that's great. I suppose I'm looking for entertainment more than art. There's always overlap of the two, but when it comes down to it, I'll choose the stuff that entertains me. So maybe I'm part of the problem.

Yes.


Yes you are.

That’s the truth. Especially groups as egos get involved.

That’s one reason I have always, and always will enjoy AC/DC. Whether or not anyone likes their music, they have not let the “market” influence their sound.

There was a time I liked country (Hank JR, Johnny Cash, David Allen Coe, Don Williams era). If there is any genre that has been capitalized and destroyed by the market, it’s got to be country.

Are most definitely is open to individual interpretation. I fancy myself as someone who is open to new ideas and opinions and I enjoy art in general. I was recently wandering around San Francisco in the rain and decided to visit the museum of modern art to get out of the rain for a spell. I had a very difficult time appreciating the majority of “art” on display. I had to draw the line on what constitutes art at a display that was nothing more than three pieces of canvas hanging on the wall, painted white. But, some folks appeared to think it was “art” as they were just sitting there, intently staring at it as if they were trying to find the meaning of the work as if it was something profound.

Great discussion.

But, now I'm confused.

Which of these are the problem?

- great art isn't being made
- great entertainment isn't being made
- great art/entertainment isn't making it to the market
- great art/entertainment isn't popular

And - besides those of us who still prefer "our music" from earlier times, can you demonstrate that the human condition is any worse off as a result of the perceived creative valley?

I'm struck that there is a VERY large "market" now, thanks to teh interwebz. It is easier than ever to become conversant with more music of more styles. 30-40 years ago, I never would have encountered some of the artists that bring me joy now.

So, perhaps what we're talking about is lack of a critical mass (or public judgement) as to the excellence of particular artists or movements?

Dunno. Gonna go count ones and zeroes now.

I used to pick out which albums/artists I wanted to buy by judging what the album cover looked like.

No internet, no good music stores, artists not on the radio, etc.

Tom, the answer is 47.


Seriously, I think the bar has simply been lowered as to what is good. Compare any music chart from, say 1975 or pick any other month, week or year from "back then", and see what the top hits were or albums and compare it to the same today. Dark Side of the Moon? Yellow Brick Road? Born to Run? Night at the Opera? Wish You Were Here? Physical Graffita.....

Kanye West? Bieber? GaGa? that all you got!!!

Now. Where did I put my reading glasses?

I'm sorry, no:
Top 10 songs from 1975:

1. Love Will Keep Us Together, The Captain and Tennille
2. Rhinestone Cowboy, Glen Campbell
3. Philadelphia Freedom, Elton John
4. Before the Next Teardrop Falls, Freddy Fender
5. My Eyes Adored You, Frankie Valli
6. Shining Star, Wind and Fire
7. Fame, David Bowie
8. Laughter In the Rain, Neil Sedaka
9. One of These Nights, Eagles
10. Thank God I'm a Country Boy, John Denver

Dude. Seriously, dude.

Ouch.

Gimme 'nother. Bring it.

Well done, Ken. Even that music around which there is consensus (here) as being "of quality" wasn't "popular" then.

You found that on "Flakey Tunes 1040" on your AM dial? look up the top ten albums for a given year.

Albums don't count any more.

Dat's only because "artists" today can't create enough good songs to make one.....

But since you asked, top 5 albums for 1975 (couldn't find the 10):

1 Elton John - Greatest Hits

2 John Denver's Greatest Hits

3 Earth/Wind/Fire - That's The Way Of The World

4 John Denver - Back Home Again

5 Phoebe Snow - Shelter

1975:

1. Born to Run(Springsteen)

2. Toys in the Attic(Aerosmith)

3. Wish You Were Here(Pk Flyd)

4. Physical Graffiti(Led Zep)

5. Gratitude(Earth, W +Fire)

6. Night at the Opera(Queen)

7. Red Headed Woman(Willie Nelson)

8. Blood on the Tracks(Bob Dylan)

9. Fleetwood Mac/Fleetwood Mac

10. That's the way of the World(Earth W+ Fire)

I was more into Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention.

Now, where did you get those from, Adrian? Mine were from the Billboard Top 200. I'm talking about albums sold, not best albums.

Ahhh... and now the argument of "good" v. "popular"....

We've actually been on that for a while, Mark. Try to keep up.

Charts of any year you want. . Don't know what the ratings are based on.

When Apocalyptica appears as number 9 on their top albums of 2010 list, I think it's not by albums sold.

I thought Anthony Bourdain's 'No Reservations' trip to Sweden was great, his disdain for Abba was amusing.

I was still distracted by your arrogant methods of parking...

That's actually his neighbour's car. Tom's really driving around in a rusty '78 Caprice.

Yeah, but everyone knows that cars were better back then.

Well, if I were homeless I'd be lookin' to live in a '69 Chrysler Newport over a Ford Focus, that fer shurr.

From Billboard.com's searchable archive, here are the top ten albums for this week in 1975:

Billboard 200 | Week of January 04, 1975 Positions 1-10 of 10 The week's top-selling albums across all genres, ranked by sales data as compiled by Nielsen SoundScan.

1-Elton John - Greatest Hits
2-War Child - Jethro Tull
3-Serenade - Neil Diamond
4-Fire - Ohio Players
5-Miles Of Aisles - Joni Mitchell
6-Back Home Again - John Denver
7-Verities & Balderdash - Harry Chapin
8-Free And Easy - Helen Reddy
9-Goodnight Vienna - Ringo Starr
10-Not Fragile - Bachman-Turner Overdrive

I rest my case.

Even more interesting is this week in 1980

..Billboard 200 | Week of January 05, 1980

1-On The Radio-Greatest Hits-Volumes I & II - Donna Summer
2-Bee Gees Greatest - Bee Gees
3-Cornerstone - Styx
4-Journey Through The Secret Life of Plants - Stevie Wonder
5-The Long Run - Eagles
6-In Through The Out Door - Led Zeppelin
7-The Wall - Pink Floyd
8-Damn The Torpedoes - Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
9-Tusk - Fleetwood Mac
10-Off The Wall - Michael Jackson

Those are some heavyweights, raht thar.

Billboard goes by sales I take it. Other charts go by most requested(from radio stations). Anyway, the truth is, there's a lot more music out there today than there was 20-30 yrs ago, but I'd say that there's a much greater percentage of chaffe that goes with it.

Ding! Correct for $1000. You have the board, and your remaining categories are "CV's Musical Crushes" and "Ken's Most Annoying Habits" ...

What, no category for "Axiomite Phlegm Colors"?

They make phlegm jellybeans.

Oh yeah, the Jelly Belly Bertie Bott's Every Flavored Beans, from Harry Potter, had a Bogie (booger) flavor. That's a fun party game right there, Russian Roulette out of a Bertie Bott pack. Everybody gets one. Discuss.

I believe another cause of the fall of rock and roll is the lack of solid rock and roll journalism. In the early 70's you had your pick of magazines (Cream, Circus, Rolling Stone) that were all about the music and the artists. Now it takes 30 pages of advertising in the Rolling Stone just to get to the 1st article. This Minnesota farm boy would have had a tough time in the 70's without guys like Lester Bangs and Dave Marsh writing about and turning me on to everything from the Stones, Zep, Iggy Pop, Cheap Trick, Springsteen to Pure Prairie League and Willie Nelson. The old style gonzo journalists wrote about every genre in a way that made you want to run out and get the album.

I grew up in the 60's and 70's and probably opened one of those magazines maybe once.

I own no. 2 5 7 9 and 10.
Showing my age.

I don't own any of these. I'm a big Pink Floyd fan but I can't stand the Wall.

I strongly believe that there IS LOTS of great rock. I've bought a couple hundred albums in the last few years...almost all new music. If you are looking for it on the top rock station in your area chances are you wont find much of it. I find all my music on amazon. Most of my music are on independent labels. From Arcade Fire, to The Decemberists, Mumford and Sons, Arctic Monkeys, The xx, We Were Promised Jet Packs, Frightened Rabbit.... there is so much good music out there. I think if you aren't finding it you aren't looking in the right places.