I had feared that my continual disappointment with contemporary rock music was nothing more than a symptom of my entering my mid 20s. But, after reading of so many others writing rock’s eulogy (e.g. http://www.cinestatic.com/whorecull/music/2005_11_01_archive.asp#113147304508265198 ),
it’s clear to me now that there is something more to it. Frankly, I don’t know which is worse. A change in my outlook would at least of been something I could have got over, and allowed me to settle down to the task of completing my Morton Feldman collection, and be content for my own musical output to focus on achieving an accurate portrayal of my own anus. As it is, it appears that there could be more to be done.
All of which leaves me wondering how this has happened, and whether anything can be done to improve the situation. This forum seems like a perfectly good place to aid my enquiry, with the hope that you kids may be able to provide some resemblance of an answer (or at least, some more penetrating questions…).
It would seem reasonable to kick things off with a description of what exactly we’re missing in the first place. Excitement is the key, I suppose, from innovation and new-ness, and expressions of genuine creativity, probably derived from a borrowing of ideas from outside rock (of which there are plenty of recent examples that haven’t been used), and a reformatting of them into rock’s idiom. That new-ness envelopes the listener in to a sensation that they are living NOW, which is what is exciting. Agreed? Or is there something more? Is modernity enough? Does there need to be a social and cultural message? What could this be? Not much more than just - boredom, perhaps?
And does there need to be a “scene”. I’ve never put any stock in “scenes” or anything like that, I have never been a part of anything like that, and frankly, the idea repulses me, as more often that not they appear to be the enemy of creativity rather than an aid. Indeed, the rock “scene” of London today could be described as being quite healthy in terms of the size of its membership. I suppose an environment such as that described in Rip It Up… would be hugely helpful, but I wouldn’t describe it as a scene – more a description of the way things ought to be.
To keep it simple, let’s just say that what I’m after is MODERNITY, which includes new music techniques and juxtapositions, and a relevant proposition to communicate.
So, why is there such a distressing lack of anything that comes even close to fitting the rather vague description above?
It seems to me that the best way to analyse this is to consider both the supply and demand of the current situation (that’s what studying economics does to you).
To really milk the economist’s perspective, we ought to decide whether the current situation represents a market failure or whether the market is operating correctly, and bringing supply and demand together. This is as much as saying, is it the industry’s fault, or is the industry working fine, and what we’re experiencing is merely a reflection of socio-economic conditions?
As an aside, it is interesting to note Sonic Truth’s description of the current the situation as having resulted from the music industry being “a mature capitalist system”. Such a description has some merit, in that the industry is now more than ever driven by profit motives, and appears more business-like that perhaps we would like. There is an irony in that statement though, as you could describe the music industry as failing because it has become an oligopoly, with a few powerful players, whereas the situation of the early 80s could be said to be such a great success because it closely resembled a free market in perfect competition. I doubt that line of enquiry will please everyone though.
Anyhow, back to the matter at hand.
Either:
1) Its the industry’s fault.
By which I mean, the industry (both labels and the media) is failing to support creativity, as for some reason it is no longer willing to take risks on artists that may fail. Critics are the bedfellows of the industry, supporting acts with wild claims of greatness. Listeners continue to buy stuff out of some feeling that they ‘ought’ to, as part of a process of self-identification of someone who likes rock music. The industry preys of this sensation of ‘ought to’, but this will eventually die out when people suddenly realise that there’s nothing underpinning their motivation anymore. People want decent music, but perhaps for not that much longer, if things keep going the way they are.
Or,
2) Society no longer demands decent rock music / No-one’s capable of producing it
Could it be that people aren’t interested in anything challenging? This seems like a strange thing to happen, but I can’t think or a reason why it couldn’t. One idea I’ve heard put forward is that in today’s musical climate of eclecticism (rather than strict tribalism), there’s no need for people to mix up genre’s any more. If people want IDM, they go and listen to IDM. They don’t need their rock getting involved. Rock can just stay being rock, thank you very much. I don’t really care for that argument though.
The thing is, if you ask people (and I often do), what they think about the current state of rock music, they’ll all tell you that it’s shit, and that they’d like something decent, please. I’m not sure if that’s enough though. Could it be that our vastly improved wealth gives makes us short on time, high on cash, and so reduces our demands to quick, expensive stuff? Because, challenging rock music ought to take a bit of time, which people don’t really have. Maybe the reason why no-one’s putting out challenging music is that people won’t spend enough time on it? Hmmm… Maybe, we’ve so little time, that even if something good does appear, no one will even notice? They’ll just move on to the next thing, go back to work, and buy another nice pair of Chinese-manufactured shoes on Saturday?
Also, could it be that music has become entirely functional for most – and that the music they need to fulfil those functions is already out there. No need for anymore? If music is there to inspire visceral reactions to innate feelings, perhaps everything’s already been said. No need for another love song? I don’t like this argument though – it would seem to me that what we would want our new rock to do would be inspire visceral reactions which were relevant to this time more than any other, using the technology, language, and social context of the day. It could be that no new technology or language exists, or that the social context hasn’t changed much. But, that is quite clearly not true. There therefore exists the possibility of relevant and meaningful music.
But it could be that the social context is such that people don't really need anything that's about today to be particularly visceral . People just aren't that pissed off. (Yet?)
Time constraints might also limit the likelihood of people producing decent music. Occasionally, I read an article about a band who wear as a badge of honour the fact that they starting gigging 1 month after forming. What the fuck? How are you supposed to construct anything original in a month? People who form rock bands in order to become rock stars, rather that out of any artistic motivation. Anyway, I digress…
It seems unlikely that the creative capabilities of people should come and go through ages. I don’t think post-punk happened because there just happened to be loads of really “talented” people around (I don’t believe in talent, merely hard work, hence the inverted commas). Rather, the conditions were such that those who wanted to create had an environment that allowed them to flourish. Clearly those conditions are not around today. Perhaps, aside from potential issues to do with the industry, there are not enough unemployed people with nothing to do. And even unemployed people can probably keep themselves entertained enough not to do anything.
I don’t believe that there is no-one interested in making decent rock music anymore though. Even if there are fewer, I’m sure there are still some. That’s not much of an issue for me. Indeed, I'm one of them. Could do with some more time though.
In conclusion though, I do think, as well as the more obvious industry problems, there could well be demand-side socio-economic problems at work too. Which is deeply worrying. The principal problem I suppose, is if people just aren’t interested enough in the idea of it anymore. They’re perfectly content to just carry on with what they’re doing.
Imagine that I were to produce an album similar in spirit, but not in sound to, let’s say, Entertainment! or Metal Box, in that it utilised some genres previously taboo in rock and presented them in a new light, reconfiguring what rock could be. Let’s say that this record gets picked up by a label and promoted heavily. Would that do the trick? What would happen? Would anyone even notice? Would the grandiose claims of existing dreck drown it out in the press? Would people take it to heart, or just go on dancing to the same beat?
Perhaps it doesn’t matter? Perhaps some of this shit just needs to start appearing? Does it need to cut through? Perhaps it’s supposed to be outside and ignored by most.
Sure would make it hard to make a second record though…
Quite how you go about tackling some of these problems, I've no idea. Answers on a postcard please. Further questions/problems also welcome.
Oh, and hello, by the way. this is my first post, although i've been lurking for a while.
it’s clear to me now that there is something more to it. Frankly, I don’t know which is worse. A change in my outlook would at least of been something I could have got over, and allowed me to settle down to the task of completing my Morton Feldman collection, and be content for my own musical output to focus on achieving an accurate portrayal of my own anus. As it is, it appears that there could be more to be done.
All of which leaves me wondering how this has happened, and whether anything can be done to improve the situation. This forum seems like a perfectly good place to aid my enquiry, with the hope that you kids may be able to provide some resemblance of an answer (or at least, some more penetrating questions…).
It would seem reasonable to kick things off with a description of what exactly we’re missing in the first place. Excitement is the key, I suppose, from innovation and new-ness, and expressions of genuine creativity, probably derived from a borrowing of ideas from outside rock (of which there are plenty of recent examples that haven’t been used), and a reformatting of them into rock’s idiom. That new-ness envelopes the listener in to a sensation that they are living NOW, which is what is exciting. Agreed? Or is there something more? Is modernity enough? Does there need to be a social and cultural message? What could this be? Not much more than just - boredom, perhaps?
And does there need to be a “scene”. I’ve never put any stock in “scenes” or anything like that, I have never been a part of anything like that, and frankly, the idea repulses me, as more often that not they appear to be the enemy of creativity rather than an aid. Indeed, the rock “scene” of London today could be described as being quite healthy in terms of the size of its membership. I suppose an environment such as that described in Rip It Up… would be hugely helpful, but I wouldn’t describe it as a scene – more a description of the way things ought to be.
To keep it simple, let’s just say that what I’m after is MODERNITY, which includes new music techniques and juxtapositions, and a relevant proposition to communicate.
So, why is there such a distressing lack of anything that comes even close to fitting the rather vague description above?
It seems to me that the best way to analyse this is to consider both the supply and demand of the current situation (that’s what studying economics does to you).
To really milk the economist’s perspective, we ought to decide whether the current situation represents a market failure or whether the market is operating correctly, and bringing supply and demand together. This is as much as saying, is it the industry’s fault, or is the industry working fine, and what we’re experiencing is merely a reflection of socio-economic conditions?
As an aside, it is interesting to note Sonic Truth’s description of the current the situation as having resulted from the music industry being “a mature capitalist system”. Such a description has some merit, in that the industry is now more than ever driven by profit motives, and appears more business-like that perhaps we would like. There is an irony in that statement though, as you could describe the music industry as failing because it has become an oligopoly, with a few powerful players, whereas the situation of the early 80s could be said to be such a great success because it closely resembled a free market in perfect competition. I doubt that line of enquiry will please everyone though.
Anyhow, back to the matter at hand.
Either:
1) Its the industry’s fault.
By which I mean, the industry (both labels and the media) is failing to support creativity, as for some reason it is no longer willing to take risks on artists that may fail. Critics are the bedfellows of the industry, supporting acts with wild claims of greatness. Listeners continue to buy stuff out of some feeling that they ‘ought’ to, as part of a process of self-identification of someone who likes rock music. The industry preys of this sensation of ‘ought to’, but this will eventually die out when people suddenly realise that there’s nothing underpinning their motivation anymore. People want decent music, but perhaps for not that much longer, if things keep going the way they are.
Or,
2) Society no longer demands decent rock music / No-one’s capable of producing it
Could it be that people aren’t interested in anything challenging? This seems like a strange thing to happen, but I can’t think or a reason why it couldn’t. One idea I’ve heard put forward is that in today’s musical climate of eclecticism (rather than strict tribalism), there’s no need for people to mix up genre’s any more. If people want IDM, they go and listen to IDM. They don’t need their rock getting involved. Rock can just stay being rock, thank you very much. I don’t really care for that argument though.
The thing is, if you ask people (and I often do), what they think about the current state of rock music, they’ll all tell you that it’s shit, and that they’d like something decent, please. I’m not sure if that’s enough though. Could it be that our vastly improved wealth gives makes us short on time, high on cash, and so reduces our demands to quick, expensive stuff? Because, challenging rock music ought to take a bit of time, which people don’t really have. Maybe the reason why no-one’s putting out challenging music is that people won’t spend enough time on it? Hmmm… Maybe, we’ve so little time, that even if something good does appear, no one will even notice? They’ll just move on to the next thing, go back to work, and buy another nice pair of Chinese-manufactured shoes on Saturday?
Also, could it be that music has become entirely functional for most – and that the music they need to fulfil those functions is already out there. No need for anymore? If music is there to inspire visceral reactions to innate feelings, perhaps everything’s already been said. No need for another love song? I don’t like this argument though – it would seem to me that what we would want our new rock to do would be inspire visceral reactions which were relevant to this time more than any other, using the technology, language, and social context of the day. It could be that no new technology or language exists, or that the social context hasn’t changed much. But, that is quite clearly not true. There therefore exists the possibility of relevant and meaningful music.
But it could be that the social context is such that people don't really need anything that's about today to be particularly visceral . People just aren't that pissed off. (Yet?)
Time constraints might also limit the likelihood of people producing decent music. Occasionally, I read an article about a band who wear as a badge of honour the fact that they starting gigging 1 month after forming. What the fuck? How are you supposed to construct anything original in a month? People who form rock bands in order to become rock stars, rather that out of any artistic motivation. Anyway, I digress…
It seems unlikely that the creative capabilities of people should come and go through ages. I don’t think post-punk happened because there just happened to be loads of really “talented” people around (I don’t believe in talent, merely hard work, hence the inverted commas). Rather, the conditions were such that those who wanted to create had an environment that allowed them to flourish. Clearly those conditions are not around today. Perhaps, aside from potential issues to do with the industry, there are not enough unemployed people with nothing to do. And even unemployed people can probably keep themselves entertained enough not to do anything.
I don’t believe that there is no-one interested in making decent rock music anymore though. Even if there are fewer, I’m sure there are still some. That’s not much of an issue for me. Indeed, I'm one of them. Could do with some more time though.
In conclusion though, I do think, as well as the more obvious industry problems, there could well be demand-side socio-economic problems at work too. Which is deeply worrying. The principal problem I suppose, is if people just aren’t interested enough in the idea of it anymore. They’re perfectly content to just carry on with what they’re doing.
Imagine that I were to produce an album similar in spirit, but not in sound to, let’s say, Entertainment! or Metal Box, in that it utilised some genres previously taboo in rock and presented them in a new light, reconfiguring what rock could be. Let’s say that this record gets picked up by a label and promoted heavily. Would that do the trick? What would happen? Would anyone even notice? Would the grandiose claims of existing dreck drown it out in the press? Would people take it to heart, or just go on dancing to the same beat?
Perhaps it doesn’t matter? Perhaps some of this shit just needs to start appearing? Does it need to cut through? Perhaps it’s supposed to be outside and ignored by most.
Sure would make it hard to make a second record though…
Quite how you go about tackling some of these problems, I've no idea. Answers on a postcard please. Further questions/problems also welcome.
Oh, and hello, by the way. this is my first post, although i've been lurking for a while.
They were "original" and "innovative" as well - they sound like Blue Cheer* and there's only two of them! And one's a woman drummer!!!