No originality in music?

Maybe the younger generation's imaginations have atrophied from spending thousands of hours in front of video games and TV, we've never really had to use our imaginations because we've always been able to see or hear whatever we wanted.
And of course this is going to lead to derivative, uninspired music.

What bollocks, why is the younger generation considered to be so inept these days? I mean, fair enough, I've got zero respect for some of my peers but the idea that this generation is practically retarded as a whole seems silly. Are the brainless thugs of today worse than they were in the 70s or whenever? This idea that there is "no new music" seems to be as much a product of the culture of instant gratification that it blames.

I'm chipping into this thread with trepidation, partly 'cause I shy clear of generational wars but mostly 'cause I've got way too much work to be getting bogged down here, but one quick point...

I think perhaps the difference today is that, while there clearly is plenty of 'new' music, the mainstream (both the upper reahces of charts AND the more fashionable stuff) is incredibly retro. In the '80s, f'rinstance, yoou had the new pop/synth pop dominating charrts early on, then dance by the decade's end. I don't see anything similarly revolutionary having the same impact on the mainstream at the mo.

of course, this is just another thing for which we should...

Blame Brit Pop!

Quite a good article by Maddy I thought, she makes all the right points.

I don't blame the youth, I blame the gentrification of youth culture by older people

*pleads guilty*

There's no originality in A&Ring. That's the fucking problem.

Logan Sama said:

There's no originality in A&Ring. That's the fucking problem.

Click to expand...

SPOT ON!!

Even if we are not there yet, I think we all have to face that there will come a time in our lifetime when pop music as we know it will be equally as stiff-legged and superannuated as jazz and classical music is today. Because, let’s face it, despite vain attempts at regeneration, they are both inconsolably burdened by their glorious salad days; it’s simply inconceivable that they will succeed in miraculously rejuvenating themselves—it’s just not going to happen.

They serve as instructive examples as they both were tremendously dynamic in the past, and yet, somehow, staled somewhere along the way. I cannot think of any reason why the same would not happen to pop musíc. Indeed, everything suggests that it will.

Guybrush said:

They serve as instructive examples as they both were tremendously dynamic in the past, and yet, somehow, staled somewhere along the way. I cannot think of any reason why the same would not happen to pop musíc. Indeed, everything suggests that it will.

Click to expand...

But pop is a much broader term than "jazz" or "classical". Pop in itself isn't even a genre as such, it's an amalgamation of all sorts of influences, not all of them even musical. So I think it has more room for maneuver than say, jazz which had boundaries that pop never has to worry about. If it sells, it's pop.

Guybrush said:

Even if we are not there yet, I think we all have to face that there will come a time in our lifetime when pop music as we know it will be equally as stiff-legged and superannuated as jazz and classical music is today. Because, let’s face it, despite vain attempts at regeneration, they are both inconsolably burdened by their glorious salad days; it’s simply inconceivable that they will succeed in miraculously rejuvenating themselves—it’s just not going to happen.

They serve as instructive examples as they both were tremendously dynamic in the past, and yet, somehow, staled somewhere along the way. I cannot think of any reason why the same would not happen to pop musíc. Indeed, everything suggests that it will.

Click to expand...

I dunno, I think she's saying what Logan's said really - she says that grime is innovative but that the companies aren't jumping on it. She's essentially saying that the record companies used to back innovative music, and now aren't. The only reason why 'Breakaway' and "Celebrate' aren't top ten now is because of lack of backing, y'know? Roll Deep and Ruff Sqwad are huge pop bands. I suspect it's also racism but don't wanna get into that reallly.

the majority of artists he mentions in his article probably live about 5 minutes from each other. it's really no surprise that they don't represent anything particularly original. instead of complaining about the lack of original music by further mentions of the chief perpetrators, why not devote the time to some research into less-documented artists.

i think this reflects the absence of John Peel on the radio. there's noone as open minded as him around in the media anymore to champion originality.

it's not the artists who are to blame, or the public, but the media, for spending their time writing articles like this.

leamas said:

i think this reflects the absence of John Peel on the radio. there's noone as open minded as him around in the media anymore to champion originality.

Click to expand...

This is true. Musical taste-making is a cynical market driven thing now.

dunno... reflects the general stasis/plateau of western society. the wearing down of a generation born into a very cynical time with an overwhelming lack/glut of options given how thoroughly the concept of freedom has been subsumed by politics and the marketplace.

or perhaps the retro thing is an attempt to cling to the familiar or establish meaning and context in the face of an uncertain future (globalisation, environment).

we have always been at war.

I think progression in music is always a result of conflict in the culture around it, and British society right now seems to have expurged all conflict onto it's margins while the centre floats along in some kind of bubble. What we're looking at here - indie rock, major label pop, etc - is the music of the centre: the Blairite Britain grown fat on 10 years of economic growth, property wealth and jobs for all. Kids have healthy, productive relationships with thier parents, and the ones who don't are too bombed on antidepressants to do much about it. There's no pressure on the music to develop, so it doesn't.

The new stuff is happening around the margins, in the underclass and the immigrant communities that the centre doesnt see - and it's being built, as new music always is, on themes of struggle, conflict and assertion of identity. Grime is the tip of the iceberg - I hear music on people's phones on buses in south London that defies description.

As the experience of the grime artists shows, the majors can't handle this new music yet, and at present it's not strong enough to force it's way onto the mainstream agenda. But I think that will change in the years ahead.

polz said:

i remember what the media said at the beginning of the acid house revolution, that was all negative as well. I also read some of the articles in newspapers AND music mags that appeared in the beginning of punk, and they also were sensationalist, cynical, badly informed, and negative of the music. (Bruce Springsteen was it at the time, not punk). Jungle virtually had no press when it happened, because all attention was on intelligent / progressive techno (leftfield, the orb)
You cant blame the media for the lack of new music now, because it has allways been that way

Click to expand...

I'm not blaming the media.

I think I was pretty clear that I was of the opinion it was shitty, unadventurous lowest-common-denominator A&Ring

Gabba Flamenco Crossover said:

I think progression in music is always a result of conflict in the culture around it, and British society right now seems to have expurged all conflict onto it's margins while the centre floats along in some kind of bubble. What we're looking at here - indie rock, major label pop, etc - is the music of the centre: the Blairite Britain grown fat on 10 years of economic growth, property wealth and jobs for all. Kids have healthy, productive relationships with thier parents, and the ones who don't are too bombed on antidepressants to do much about it. There's no pressure on the music to develop, so it doesn't.

The new stuff is happening around the margins, in the underclass and the immigrant communities that the centre doesnt see - and it's being built, as new music always is, on themes of struggle, conflict and assertion of identity. Grime is the tip of the iceberg - I hear music on people's phones on buses in south London that defies description.

As the experience of the grime artists shows, the majors can't handle this new music yet, and at present it's not strong enough to force it's way onto the mainstream agenda. But I think that will change in the years ahead.

Click to expand...

i completely agree, and i think its a mistake for genres like grime to seek an entrance into this middle class world of financial stability by compromising the values which define them as movements. Though it must be frustrating for the people sitting on the cusp of a scene barely making ends meet watching a decadent industry stagnate. Best music is often made when theres little or no money involved

Gabba Flamenco Crossover said:

I hear music on people's phones on buses in south London that defies description.

Click to expand...

I'd tend to describe it as a 'tinny annoying beat with some twat going "uh, yeah" on top of it'.
/not a fan... http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=5336

swears said:

But pop is a much broader term than "jazz" or "classical". Pop in itself isn't even a genre as such, it's an amalgamation of all sorts of influences, not all of them even musical. So I think it has more room for maneuver than say, jazz which had boundaries that pop never has to worry about. If it sells, it's pop.

Click to expand...

Aha, definition time again! Let us shun all that wonky pop 1.0, 2.0, 3.x, ad absurdum, nonsense, and make a new definition—all for the fun of it! (Yes, the ice is very thin indeed. ) In my view, a very large percentage of all songs made after 1950 or so have so many commonalities that you can lump them together, and treat them as a whole. What these commonalities are, and which songs do not share them, is less important than the realisation that such a clump exists, and can be enclosed. I call it ‘pop music’, not because the songs are popular, but because they deal with harmony, rhythm, arrangement, etc., in a similar manner. What I mean when I write that this particular form of music is bound to become decrepit in our lifetime simply is that there will come a time when all interesting permutations of its signifiers have been worked to death. This, I argued, has happened before with classical music—I view the twelve-tone technique as classical composers’ attempt at starting a new ball game, knowing that they scarcely could add much to what their antecedents had perfected—and with jazz (its practitioners’ perennial attempts at breaking free of convention). When the signifiers are exhausted, a new entity—with a new set of signifiers—arises, and becomes the most dominant music of the time, the most popular music of the time.