Personally, I think we're approaching the end of an era musically. An era that encomapsses everything since Elvis to date. Making music is fast becoming something that anyone can do, given the pervasiveness and affordability of increasingly easier-to-use studio technology.
I think that eventually there will be a renaissance of sorts when someone comes up with something genuinely original and relevant. Perhaps using a completely different format the standard pop single/album. But in the mean time, there will probably be a lot of bedroom remixers, self-producing indie artists etc which will continue to plagiarise the last 60 years of music and remix old songs. A lot of automation from the technology too.
Basically, I think the line of distinction between the artists and the listener will become increasingly blurry until it doesn't exist. At that point, it's probably critical that something completely different comes along.
We have a winner
. _________________ .
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.
Post subject: Re: Will anything in the future compare to the best ever?
rilex wrote:
maxxy wrote:
I don't think any bands today can be anything like the Velvet Underground, Clash, Beatles, etc. Music is too stale these days. Especially the mainstream stuff. It's been the same shit for, like, 10 years. Rap is dead. No room for new stuff. Know what I mean?
Maybe I'm wrong. Please tell me why
I know what you are saying. I feel the same way.
What I want to know is if anyone is old enough to remember if people knew that that stuff (VU, Clash etc.) was classic at the time. I mean these bands were just people, famous people, but you know humans, not gods.
I like some 21st C. albums, but very little. Maybe it was just a bad decade (i.e. the 80s). The way I look at it is a 30 year cycle. 60s and 90s are my favorite, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Maybe we are starting a better decade. Maybe not.
People tend to idolize the past (myself included) because fantasy is better than reality and the reality of the 60s is gone.
Some 21st C. bands that I like, Built to Spill, Stephen Malkmus, Sonic Youth, Flaming Lips, are unfortunately 80s or 90s bands still playing, but still good.
I agree with your point, but I think that I am just getting old and my tastes are becoming more refined (snob).
I would say mainstream stuff has been the same for like 20 years, though. Haha...
I do remember that at the time of London Calling, The Clash were being called the greatest band in the world.
On the other hand, the word on VU was that the only people who actually listeded to them ended up being in bands.
That's what I remember hearing. _________________ May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...
Personally, I think we're approaching the end of an era musically. An era that encomapsses everything since Elvis to date. Making music is fast becoming something that anyone can do, given the pervasiveness and affordability of increasingly easier-to-use studio technology.
I think that eventually there will be a renaissance of sorts when someone comes up with something genuinely original and relevant. Perhaps using a completely different format the standard pop single/album. But in the mean time, there will probably be a lot of bedroom remixers, self-producing indie artists etc which will continue to plagiarise the last 60 years of music and remix old songs. A lot of automation from the technology too.
Basically, I think the line of distinction between the artists and the listener will become increasingly blurry until it doesn't exist. At that point, it's probably critical that something completely different comes along.
We have a winner
.
Agreed! I also think this Indie movement is both great and horrible at the same time. It is counter productive. It is what good music is today. I am a total Marxist and agree that Bands don't need corporations to make good music. But then look at the most marxist band of all time- Rage Against the Machine. They were signed to Epic. I don't think saying that my music is too cool/good for everyone to hear is the stupidest thing. How can you make a rock/punk/rap/whatever revolution, if people aren't involved?
I like Piebald's view as well. I know this might be an overstatement, but I feel like this guy is this generations Bob Dylan, but totally different of course. What I mean is he is actually a poet first, singer second, and sings about things that are really relevant:
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
