Best Ever Albums

Re: Everything is Retro

tatlawson — Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:39:00 GMT

Author: tatlawson

Posted: 12/06/2013 16:39

stop listening to the radio if you want to do something good for the earth

Re: Everything is Retro

Romanelli — Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:34:36 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 12/06/2013 16:34

noWaxJim wrote:

I vividly remember my Mum saying in '94 when I left Blur's Parklife in my CD player how much she 'enjoyed listening to it'. Parents are supposed to loathe pop from beyond their generation - and it's this distinction between music of the past and the present that makes pop music so essential to the lives of most Western teenagers. When was the last time that happened? Now the pop stars of today and tomorrow are being chosen by Mums and Dads via telephone voting on talent shows. Christ alone knows how Boy George would have gone down on Pop Idol.

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

I could not agree with this paragraph any less. There are a LOT of "parents" who loathe the music that their children listen to. However, just because a lot of them do, doesn't mean that's how it's "supposed" to be, it's not a fact that ALL of them do, and it's statements like this that end up categorizing anyone who is older as closed minded, uninformed, and inferior....which is what you are by saying it. Placing the blame for the bad things in today's music on the parents is pathetic and stupid. YOU are the one who is acting like an "old person" by disregarding the opinion of those who have experienced a hell of a lot more than you have both in life and musically, and there are just as many people who are stupid about music in your age group as there are in your parents age group. And I'd be willing to bet that there are at least as many young kids voting for their favorite "idols" as there are older people. You could maybe ask...who's voting for the cute one, and who is voting for the best singer?

If your reasoning for liking certain music is because your parents are supposed to hate it...well, that's just kind of ridiculous.

Re: Everything is Retro

bigeyedfish — Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:22:24 GMT

Author: bigeyedfish

Posted: 12/06/2013 16:22

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I think that's an important point.

Everything is blending together. There is a wealth of ideas and movements to choose from now, it's not just rock and hip-hop or something. There are so many genres and so many small movements and access to all of these is so easy that anyone can easily be apart of any movement. Sure, there isn't one defining movement that everyone remembers the decade by, but I don't think there needs to be.

The movement people will remember this and the past decade by is the exponential expansion of music. There's so much now. Not at any point in history has there been so much music so easily and readily available. That is what these decades will be remembered for, the expansion of the art of music, not for one genre, but hundreds.

Well said. Maybe in retrospect, we'll be able to categorize this decade and the last somehow, but it seems to me that popular music has transcended the 'scene.' Artists make music however they want, in their own personal way. Also significant is the way lyrics are no longer tied to genres so much. I mean, you can generalize, but the lyrical stylings aren't a defining trait of a genre.

The great advantage of today's musical environment is that everything is out there, being made. Punk is 'over,' but there are punk bands today, for example. Every genre is alive and available. The biggest disadvantage is that, since there is really no need to categorize musical tastes and identify with any real opinion, many people (especially of my teen age) simply don't. iPods are filled with a single top 10 hit per artist. This isn't everybody or even the majority, but it happens often. Many people don't have a specific taste in music.

Re: Everything is Retro

Listmeister — Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:01:12 GMT

Author: Listmeister

Posted: 12/06/2013 16:01

The sound of the late 90's was softer, more Celtic and Britpop influenced while current music is harsher, more varied, more Country influenced.

Comparing similar artists.

2000: Christina Aguilera, Sarah MacLachlan, Destiny's Child, Janet Jackson
2010: Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Lily Allen, Beyonce, Florence and the Machine. Ke$ha

2000: Smash Mouth, Barenaked Ladies, Goo Goo Dolls, Smashing Pumpkins
2010: Fall Out Boy. Nickelback. the Black Keys. Train. Linkin Park

2000: N Sync, Backstreet Boys
2010: One Direction, fun.

Comparing artists without equivalents.
2010: Daft Punk. Arcade Fire. My Chemical Romance. T-Pain. Kanye West. The Black Eyed Peas.
2000: Kylie Minogue. Sonique. 2Pac. Shaggy. Kula Shaker. Enya. Loreena McKennitt. Aqua.

Also, artists' careers are lasting much longer than they used to. When the Beatles broke up in 1969 after 7 years of recording, that was considered a good run for a band. There were exceptions, but even as late as 1990 a decade was about as long as an artist could hope to stay current.

2000-2010: Britney Spears. P!nk. Eminem. Radiohead. Coldplay. Enrique Iglesias. Green Day. All of these are showing no signs of slowing down.

I think there was a dramatic shift between 2007 and 2009, although I can't pinpoint a moment when it shifted.

Re: Everything is Retro

Anonymous — Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:26:51 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/06/2013 14:26

In the 2000s, it seemed like most of the mainstream rock was being categorized as either emo or indie rock. The former, in particular, had a distinct subculture and sound that went with it. Both were used by kids to distinguish themselves from older fads, like britpop and grunge. There may be more blending going on now because of the internet, but I don't understand why people are saying there were no mainstream musical movements to identify with.

The whole retro thing isn't new either. There was a rockabilly revival in the '70s and a punk revival in the early '90s, for example. Oasis certainly wasn't the first to repackage old sounds in the mainstream. Not even close.

Re: Everything is Retro

davidhuret — Fri, 6 Dec 2013 08:56:03 GMT

Author: davidhuret

Posted: 12/06/2013 13:56

It seems the original quote specifically referred to a lack of obvious evolution between, for example, 1998 and 2008.
I'd have some difficulty, given a piece of pop (in the broadest sense) music I don't know, to pinpoint its year of release as far as the last dozen years are concerned. No such problem with the 1960s for instance. 1967 had a sound far removed from 1966, itself light years from 1965, let alone 64.
So I tend to agree with that quote. Lots of recycling recently. Sometimes the results are great, or at least entertaining (Foxygen is a prime example), depending on the source material.

Re: Everything is Retro

RockyRaccoon — Fri, 6 Dec 2013 08:22:08 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 12/06/2013 13:22

BrandonMeow wrote:

I really didn't contradict myself...I do agree there isn't one defining movement of this era, (I'm just not sure I agree the mainstream is simply harkening back) and that is because of you being able to be both a "mod" and a "rocker" to use your example, instead of them being exclusive. Everything is mixing together. Plus, movements are mingling more...there is a maelstrom of ideas to chose from, instead of slipping into just one scene or another. Even though having something to identify with is lost in this, I think it just means there is more individuality and uniqueness in the music. I think almost everything these days is unidentifiable and ambiguous and impossible-to-identify. There are positives and negatives to that.
And regarding parents being able to enjoy the music...well, with your one retro example, sure, but things like dubstep (well, usually the more popular "brostep" variety) are intensely popular and I highly doubt many parents would enjoy it. And regardless, I think artistic integrity stands high above creating scenes, and styles.

Re: Everything is Retro

meruizh — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:36:01 GMT

Author: meruizh

Posted: 12/06/2013 00:36

But from let say from 2008 to 2010 there is a major difference at least in pop music, all that swedish house mafia invasion that took over the world

Re: Everything is Retro

meruizh — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:30:53 GMT

Author: meruizh

Posted: 12/06/2013 00:30

Like there's no difference.....hell there is

Pop

1998

Link

2008

Link

"Alternative"

1998

Link

2008

Link

Electronic

1998

Link

2008

Link

Re: Everything is Retro

Anonymous — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:55:40 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/05/2013 22:55

noWaxJim wrote:

I think that's entirely the point, and in fact you've actually contradicted yourself by being unable to catagorise or even put a name to the 'recognizable and unique' sound(s) of the last decade-and-a-half.

There's been no 'game changing movement' in popular music for some time as there were in the 50s (rock and roll), 60s (British Invasion, folk-rock, soul, mod, 'hard rock'/heavy metal), 70s (glam, funk, prog, punk, disco), 80s (new wave, hip-hop, indie, 'alternative rock', (acid) house, techno et al) and early 90s (grunge). Britpop was where it all broke down - revisionism repackaged as revolution. Blame Oasis. And now blame Cowell.

I vividly remember my Mum saying in '94 when I left Blur's Parklife in my CD player how much she 'enjoyed listening to it'. Parents are supposed to loathe pop from beyond their generation - and it's this distinction between music of the past and the present that makes pop music so essential to the lives of most Western teenagers. When was the last time that happened? Now the pop stars of today and tomorrow are being chosen by Mums and Dads via telephone voting on talent shows. Christ alone knows how Boy George would have gone down on Pop Idol.

Think about it - all the above musical forms are not only typified by a specific style of music, but their own unique style of dress code/fashion. Between the 60s-90s a teenager had a choice of any number of movements to belong to and identify with. You could be a mod or a rocker - but not both. Or a new waver or a skinhead (as conveyed by Smell/Shaun in the film This Is England). What you listened to was reflected in what you wore, and I'm not just talking about band t-shirts. It was about belonging and identification with a movement, an over-riding zeitgeist which your parents couldn't comprehend. To coin a phrase, unless you want to be Fred Durst and wear a silly red hat, it's all been done before.

There's a really good book on this subject, written by Simon Reynolds (all his books are well worth a read, especially Rip It Up & Start Again). A lot of it talks about the Internet being responsible, partly due to how readily available the past is thanks to YouTube et al. It's fascinating stuff.

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Re: Everything is Retro

Necharsian — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:54:17 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 12/05/2013 22:54

noWaxJim wrote:

There's been no 'game changing movement' in popular music for some time

Does there have to be?

Re: Everything is Retro

Jimmy Dread — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:46:30 GMT

Author: Jimmy Dread

Posted: 12/05/2013 22:46

BrandonMeow wrote:

And in my opinion that period between late 90s to late 00s does have a pretty recognizable and unique style, but I wouldn't be able to define it.

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Re: Everything is Retro

Jasonconfused — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:38:53 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 12/05/2013 22:38

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I think that's an interesting point. Just because you can't define it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Absolutely. This guy seems like he had conversations with people who haven't really thought about it and couldn't give him an answer that satisfied him and now he thinks he's right. I'm sure there are people on this site who could shut him up. He reminds me of people who ask atheists that if there is no god, then how did we get here, and then the atheist just doesn't know, and suddenly that means that the answer must be god.

Re: Everything is Retro

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:30:13 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 12/05/2013 22:30

BrandonMeow wrote:

And in my opinion that period between late 90s to late 00s does have a pretty recognizable and unique style, but I wouldn't be able to define it.

I think that's an interesting point. Just because you can't define it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re: Everything is Retro

Anonymous — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:15:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/05/2013 22:15

Well he doesn't seem to be taking into account the internet at all, which is key...That explains why there isn't one defining aspect of music from the 00s...it can all sort of mesh together into altogether more unique entities. In regards to the retro stuff, I think that has always been around, and it is probably more popular because the styles are already established and familiar, and perhaps less diluted by other ideas. The other weirder, more unique stuff, is just so diluted by all sorts of different styles that they can't really stand up with one popular musical identity.
And in my opinion that period between late 90s to late 00s does have a pretty recognizable and unique style, but I wouldn't be able to define it.

Or something like that...Regardless, the 00s had the best music. ;P

Re: Everything is Retro

Anonymous — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:39:59 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/05/2013 21:39

Music is still good I suppose. 😄

Everything is Retro

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:31:13 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 12/05/2013 21:31

So lately I've been reading the book You Are Not A Gadget by computer scientist/musician Jaron Lanier, and he has a little section about modern music that I thought might encourage some interesting discussion. I don't agree with him necessarily, however, I thought this would be interesting to post nonetheless.

Here's the excerpt from his book:

Quote:

“Popular music created in the industrialized world in the decade from the late 1990s to the late 2000s doesn’t have a distinct style – that is, one that would provide an identity for the young people who grew up with it…Where is the new music? Everything is retro, retro, retro.

…There are new styles of music, of course, but they are new only on the basis of technicalities. For instance, there’s an elaborate nomenclature for species of similar electronic beat styles (involving all the possible concatenations of terms like dub, house, trance, and so on), and if you learn the details of the nomenclature, you can more or less date and place a track.

…I have frequently gone through a conversational sequence along the following lines: Someone in his early twenties will tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, and then I’ll challenge that person to play me some music that is characteristic of the late 2000s as opposed to the late 1990s. I’ll ask him to play the tracks for his friends. So far, my theory has held: even true fans don’t seem to be able to tell if an indie rock track or a dance mix is from 1998 or 2008, for instance.

I’m obviously not claiming that there has been no new music in the world. And I’m not claiming that all retro music is disappointing. There are some wonderful musicians in the retro mold, treating old pop music styles as a new kind of classical music and doing so marvelously well.

But I am saying that this kind of work is more nostalgic than reaching. Since genuine human experiences are forever unique, pop music of a new era that lacks novelty raises my suspicions that it also lacks authenticity.
There are creative, original musicians at work today, of course. (I hope that on my best days I am one of them.) There are undoubtedly musical marvels hidden around the world. But this is the first time since electrification that mainstream youth culture in the industrialized world has cloaked itself primarily in nostalgic styles.”

Thoughts?