I see it as kids' music (when I say "kids", I don't mean toddler music, I mean ages 10 through 16 or so). Music like... i dunno... Lady Gaga, Chris Brown, Nickleback, and I just recently heard of this band called Black Veil Brides... all seems to be marketed towards young people. Their parents hardly know any of these names, yet they themselves most likely went through their own generation of kids music that I'd bet is mostly forgotten today.
Personally, I went through certain phases that I'm unashamed to admit. I liked 50 cent and Eminem, among other rappers, for about a year. Then rap music got old, so I listened to Blink 182 and Sum 41. Then "punk" rock got old, so I started broadening to different kinds of rock - some popular some less so, but still mediocre for the most part - like Linkin Park, Good Charlotte (although I only liked one album - The Young and the Hopeless), Green Day (only liked Dookie and American Idiot), Dropkick Murphy's, Marylin Manson, Rise Against, The Killers, and... I swear there were others but it's difficult to remember.
I still listen to some of this now and then but... if these bands were introduced to me for the first time TODAY? I probably wouldn't think much of them. The value that's left is more of a reminiscing thing.
Maybe it's age, or maybe it has to do with standards. I was never introduced to bands like Pink Floyd or Radiohead until more recently. Maybe if I were exposed at a younger age things would be different. Or maybe I was in a different mindset then and would not have understood it. I do listen to music differently now as opposed to then. I used to listen to music for ear candy, you know something tasty, something catchy. Now I listen much more to the overall experience of a complete album.
It almost feels like music aimed for a younger audience is... derogatory. A derogatory label to give artists that don't fit the bill. To have a younger audience that doesn't understand subtlety in music and whom are only wanting a great song to sing and dance to. That's bad. And the "kids" that listen to the mainstream may one day have a better taste in music as they gain knowledge of what else is out there.
To have knowledge of better music...
To understand music...
NO NO NO NO NO This is not the way things should be. Music isn't a line of treasure chests to unlock in an order. This isn't about searching for the most original sound. This is about constant exploration. To find what makes us each day by listening to what we want even if we have listened to it 160 times before.
What was called "punk" was for the most part derivative. Lots of borrowing there and ingrained song patterns. That didn't stop it being very good. Hmm... groups that were part of that scene... well The Clash come to mind with "punk". They borrowed a lot and moved onto a different toy box on later albums. Stiff Little Fingers... pretty standard stuff there. Crass? 999? Mostly the same. Sex Pistols... I hear Chuck Berry would like a word. Well Green Day.... they would have fit right in with those lot. Put 'American Idiot' the song against 'Alternative Ulster' and it holds it's ground. Well "punk" is usually about what is part of the establishment so Green Day might not be the best example, no one raises an eyebrow when... oh nevermind, I am above what is "punk" and what is not. Blink 182 and Sum 41 are less politically inclined (I think) and they can/have wrote good songs which are enjoyed. I am sure as much young ones enjoyed 'Fat Lip' as 'Please Please Me' or 'Wild Thing'
Radiohead and Pink Floyd? Some good artists there. Pink Floyd are a very easy band to listen to and there is nothing to "understand" there. I'm sure playing 'Comfortably Numb' to a 6 year old who hasn't been told what is "okay" to like will only get awe and praise. 'Wish You Were Here' is just as easy. While Radiohead share a similar vein alongside Pink Floyd... they do go off in a different direction. Something becomes garbled down the line. While fanatical Radiohead fans and fanatical "classic rock" fans are usually at odds with each other, they are really... well virtually the same. They are both groups of people who argue that their group of guys singing and playing music have something that has to be "understood" and those that don't like them don't "understand". But it is music!? What is there to understand? Is not understanding simply not liking the music? No, it can't be because not liking the music gets treated as the 'effect' while the 'cause' is not being able to "understand"... not being able to "grasp the true form' of the music's notes.
So yes... Radiohead. The later music, how deep is the puddle? Is it all scribbles in a notebook that people don't want to call out as such because they don't want to appear unintelligent? To say so would mean they don't "understand"? Well... 'Jigsaw Falling Into Place', 'Nude', 'Bloom' etc are all well crafted good songs so they are definitely still using song writing rather than noise generators or whatever. They are not scribbles, they are innovative ideas those electric noises and such such. What about Linkin Park? Didn't they move in that direction? My mind has late Linkin Park and late Radiohead as Neon Linkin Park and Neon Radiohead. If the Linkin park singer guy (I don't know his name) done his thing over the music of 'Kid A' and 'In Rainbows' in a world where both albums had never been realized, would of the people in this timeline who would have loved Radiohead in our time deride what 'Linkin Park' as garbage? The backing music for 'The National Anthem' gets 0/100 for simply being noise with 'Linkin Park's' name on? While Linkin Park and Radiohead are not similar in most areas, one thing they do have in common is that with age they have broadened the scope of what they want to put in their music drastically. Hey, two groups of people exploring new sounds and moods to make new music. That is just what I want to see more of in music People trying.
I had much more to say but I forget it as I type. I was planning on starting a topic to this effect but I saw my chance to develop on something someone else has said in this thread. It isn't said in spite and it wasn't an attack on a person. Just wanted to make a contribution. Maybe I will post some music from the speech, that would be a great way to close it off. Hmm... maybe I'll find some tomorrow, getting late. Feel tired. _________________ And when this stuff gets in, you cannot get it out.
^ I like your post, it provoked a few thoughts... although a bit difficult for me to understand some of the writing. BUT... I disagree with most of it (two or three main things in particular). I'm tired too, I'll explain myself tomorrow.
BTW, I think your post was partly directed at mine and... no, it didn't sound like an attack at all.
My music history is as such:
1. my parents only played the beach boys for me growing up (specifically, "sounds of summer")
2. the first music i found on my own was black sabbath and deep purple (not embarrassed by that, obviously)
3. then i found the all american rejects. i listened to the album "move along" exclusively for a whole fucking year. idk how i did that.
4. then i heard the song "paparazzi" by lady gaga. i listened to pop like katy perry and kesha for a whole year.
5. then i heard "yesterday" by the beatles. enter good music. (this was summer 2010).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum