There is theoretical writing and empirical work on cognitive constraints on music perception (e.g. F. Lerdahl) but more importantly, there is a vast history of post-tonal and electronic music that simply needs more investment on the listener's part in order to be appreciated. He's talking about pop culture i.e. passive consumers reluctant to reach to new aesthetic heights. This isn't a problem with "new music" for example. In other words, its the responsibility of LISTENERS to further music.
It's sort of true, but then again, experimental and novel ideas do tend to permeate the mainstream music - they did in the past. The problem is that the listeners and trends are raised by record labels - and it's possible that before streaming came to be, these actually had less control over the trends
@huesofblues Where's this evolution. Point to a modern equivalent of punk, equivalent in the sense that it has been impossible for bands to ignore it in their approach, either for or against. Dance music? Rock music? Anything from the last fifteen years?
I like the theory, but I see many artists who are aiming for the future: Flying Lotus, Andy Stott, Burial, and maybe it is not either looking back or looking forward, it is one step forward, two steps back....a combination of something old and something new.....
Excellent article in the New York Times critiquing the Sex Pistols mini-series. I was in the NYCity scene 1976-79 and while they were liked at home (Manahattan) the Ramones attempts to perform in the US outside of Manhattan (England was a sensational success) were often dangerous and violent failures because of the people who did not like them (as documented in the excellent documentary End of the Century or the book Please Kill Me : The Uncensored Oral History of Punk McNeil, Legs; McCain, Gillian
Well, 10 years on from this interview we know who the big stars of the '10s were - Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran, Lana Del Rey and Adele (who was mentioned in the video). There wasn't really any new, forward looking movement; in fact it was a decade of stagnation for nearly all of the creative arts. Lets hope the next decade is better.
But there a lot of technological innovations happening which inevitably change the ways music is created (as does the internet itself), and the more underground music is constantly brewing with new ideas. Also, I think many new genres and aesthetics have been created, and the whole intersection of trap/mumble/cloud rap venturing into the ambient pop/rnb territory is a new thing which had not really existed before. We've also had juke, deconstructed club, vaporwave (including the post-ironic embracing of MIDI sounds), glitch electronica and AI-aided electronic music, hyperpop, future funk, epic hiphop/trap forms/concept albums with elements of jazz fusion, etc. So yeah - lots of new ideas around, some less good/potent than others, some perhaps get old quite quickly, and many do regurgitate some old ideas (but in all sorts of creative ways), so yeah, I'd say lots to look forward to, despite much mediocrity around and the fact that most mainstream music sucks balls
the massive flaw here in this criticism is surely that the music from the 60's, 70's etc was developed from 'recycling' or reworking the music of the 20's, 30's, 40's etc. and so the evolution of music continues..
what do you mean? All the decades use notes, they have instruments, but calling the 60s and 70s recycled music might be true to the deaf and blind but I can't see others going that way
@edbingey I see punk as less of a musical genre and more of an attitude of rebellion. I believe that one reason that general mainstream music is currently lacking in substance is because of the lack of evolution. Yet for music to evolve it must derive from something(s) previous to it. I guess there's a fine line between music being evolutionary and simply nostalgic.
not a flaw, what he says in his book is that the youtube era of excess of accurate sources and info has sort of slowed down the creative process of influence that is present but moves forward.
@edbingey But there are examples of music that is evolutionary that has enjoyed mainstream success. One example would be D'Angelo's Voodoo album from 2000, which combined elements of funk, soul, hip-hop and jazz. A more recent example could be Amy Winehouse's Back to Black which took heavy influence from Motown/Doo-wop but still was considered to have a contemporary feeling.
My Bloody Valentine were innovators that created a new way of playing guitar and a totally new sound.
There is theoretical writing and empirical work on cognitive constraints on music perception (e.g. F. Lerdahl) but more importantly, there is a vast history of post-tonal and electronic music that simply needs more investment on the listener's part in order to be appreciated.
He's talking about pop culture i.e. passive consumers reluctant to reach to new aesthetic heights. This isn't a problem with "new music" for example. In other words, its the responsibility of LISTENERS to further music.
I'm so with you. It's evident that he doesn't listen to really anything experimental
@@mattmyers404 It depends on what you consider experimental, but he wrote a classic book on post-punk and no wave music
It's sort of true, but then again, experimental and novel ideas do tend to permeate the mainstream music - they did in the past. The problem is that the listeners and trends are raised by record labels - and it's possible that before streaming came to be, these actually had less control over the trends
@huesofblues Where's this evolution. Point to a modern equivalent of punk, equivalent in the sense that it has been impossible for bands to ignore it in their approach, either for or against. Dance music? Rock music? Anything from the last fifteen years?
I like the theory, but I see many artists who are aiming for the future: Flying Lotus, Andy Stott, Burial, and maybe it is not either looking back or looking forward, it is one step forward, two steps back....a combination of something old and something new.....
Those are not many artists though. It's a tiny little band of the very best people working today.
Excellent article in the New York Times critiquing the Sex Pistols mini-series. I was in the NYCity scene 1976-79 and while they were liked at home (Manahattan) the Ramones attempts to perform in the US outside of Manhattan (England was a sensational success) were often dangerous and violent failures because of the people who did not like them (as documented in the excellent documentary End of the Century or the book Please Kill Me : The Uncensored Oral History of Punk
McNeil, Legs; McCain, Gillian
Well, 10 years on from this interview we know who the big stars of the '10s were - Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran, Lana Del Rey and Adele (who was mentioned in the video). There wasn't really any new, forward looking movement; in fact it was a decade of stagnation for nearly all of the creative arts. Lets hope the next decade is better.
But there a lot of technological innovations happening which inevitably change the ways music is created (as does the internet itself), and the more underground music is constantly brewing with new ideas. Also, I think many new genres and aesthetics have been created, and the whole intersection of trap/mumble/cloud rap venturing into the ambient pop/rnb territory is a new thing which had not really existed before. We've also had juke, deconstructed club, vaporwave (including the post-ironic embracing of MIDI sounds), glitch electronica and AI-aided electronic music, hyperpop, future funk, epic hiphop/trap forms/concept albums with elements of jazz fusion, etc. So yeah - lots of new ideas around, some less good/potent than others, some perhaps get old quite quickly, and many do regurgitate some old ideas (but in all sorts of creative ways), so yeah, I'd say lots to look forward to, despite much mediocrity around and the fact that most mainstream music sucks balls
you’re looking for new/innovative music in the top 40? why?
the massive flaw here in this criticism is surely that the music from the 60's, 70's etc was developed from 'recycling' or reworking the music of the 20's, 30's, 40's etc. and so the evolution of music continues..
what do you mean? All the decades use notes, they have instruments, but calling the 60s and 70s recycled music might be true to the deaf and blind but I can't see others going that way
just bought retro mania ...the matter of the book really grab me, i'll read it asap
What did you think of the book?
@edbingey I see punk as less of a musical genre and more of an attitude of rebellion. I believe that one reason that general mainstream music is currently lacking in substance is because of the lack of evolution. Yet for music to evolve it must derive from something(s) previous to it. I guess there's a fine line between music being evolutionary and simply nostalgic.
not a flaw, what he says in his book is that the youtube era of excess of accurate sources and info has sort of slowed down the creative process of influence that is present but moves forward.
thanks my friend! :)
at 9.33 he said laurie who?
could anyone repeat me the name of the two artists he named at the end?
@cambimari Laurel Halo and Maria Minerva.
@edbingey But there are examples of music that is evolutionary that has enjoyed mainstream success. One example would be D'Angelo's Voodoo album from 2000, which combined elements of funk, soul, hip-hop and jazz. A more recent example could be Amy Winehouse's Back to Black which took heavy influence from Motown/Doo-wop but still was considered to have a contemporary feeling.
Laurel Halo