In my opinion music has not evolved in any identifiable way as it did in the recent past.

That's what hit me this morning as I got in my car and scanned the radio.

I love exploring new music just as much as love exploring older music. And as I could readily identify music from the 20's 30' 40's 50' 60' 70' 80's ....and then from the early to mid 90's-present its a big blur.

I feel that music from this era does not have a distinct personality. That's across the board from rap, rock, alternative, classical, jazz even electronic music. Every genre to me seems to have hit the block wall of creativity.

As I thought about it, the only thing that linked this time frame is the introduction of the internet. Could the fact that music can now instantly spread across the world hamper regional styles or bands from developing without the outside contamination needed to create a unique sound/bands? Is the internet creating a homogenization of music or am I way off? Or is it not about the artists themselves but rather has the internet strengthened or weakened the impact of music promotion by a weakened music industry?

Well, those are my impressions. I would love to hear your opinions as to why I am completely wrong about the state of music and what music you could turn me on to dispel my ignorance.

Spill the beans. Let me know what new artists I should be checking out.

[Edited 8/16/10 11:46am]

vi0letblues said:

In my opinion music has not evolved in any identifiable way as it did in the recent past.

That's what hit me this morning as I got in my car and scanned the radio.

I love exploring new music just as much as love exploring older music. And as I could readily identify music from the 20's 30' 40's 50' 60' 70' 80's ....and then from the early to mid 90's-present its a big blur.

I feel that music from this era does not have a distinct personality. That's across the board from rap, rock, alternative, classical, jazz even electronic music. Every genre to me seems to have hit the block wall of creativity.

As I thought about it, the only thing that linked this time frame is the introduction of the internet. Could the fact that music can now instantly spread across the world hamper regional styles or bands from developing without the outside contamination needed to create a unique sound/bands? Is the internet creating a homogenization of music or am I way off? Or is it not about the artists themselves but rather has the internet strengthened or weakened the impact of music promotion by a weakened music industry?

Well, those are my impressions. I would love to hear your opinions as to why I am completely wrong about the state of music and what music you could turn me on to dispel my ignorance.

[Edited 8/16/10 8:46am]

For some reason society has gotten to the point of preffering Style and Image over Quality and Talent.

The internet even though it's an amazing, it creates this whole idea of "Oh I can be a big star too!" in so many people. It's gotten to the point of being so damn lame..

Artists have no mystique or mystery at all today either.

PurpleColossus said:

vi0letblues said:

In my opinion music has not evolved in any identifiable way as it did in the recent past.

That's what hit me this morning as I got in my car and scanned the radio.

I love exploring new music just as much as love exploring older music. And as I could readily identify music from the 20's 30' 40's 50' 60' 70' 80's ....and then from the early to mid 90's-present its a big blur.

I feel that music from this era does not have a distinct personality. That's across the board from rap, rock, alternative, classical, jazz even electronic music. Every genre to me seems to have hit the block wall of creativity.

As I thought about it, the only thing that linked this time frame is the introduction of the internet. Could the fact that music can now instantly spread across the world hamper regional styles or bands from developing without the outside contamination needed to create a unique sound/bands? Is the internet creating a homogenization of music or am I way off? Or is it not about the artists themselves but rather has the internet strengthened or weakened the impact of music promotion by a weakened music industry?

Well, those are my impressions. I would love to hear your opinions as to why I am completely wrong about the state of music and what music you could turn me on to dispel my ignorance.

[Edited 8/16/10 8:46am]

For some reason society has gotten to the point of preffering Style and Image over Quality and Talent.

The internet even though it's an amazing, it creates this whole idea of "Oh I can be a big star too!" in so many people. It's gotten to the point of being so damn lame..

Artists have no mystique or mystery at all today either.

So much this...

This is the age of instant fame (for doing absolutely NOTHING worth being famous for), instant money, instant gratification.

The music industry has gone from cultivating talent and working to get them known, to pushing one hit wonders, flash in the pan artists, and image image image. Even the ones WITH talent have to have a certain LOOK. At least if you're a woman. The men can look any damn way they want.

There HAS been an evolution I'd say, it's just been a completely crappy one. It's why I haven't listened to the radio in years.

jaybendy said:

.

So much this...

This is the age of instant fame (for doing absolutely NOTHING worth being famous for), instant money, instant gratification.

The music industry has gone from cultivating talent and working to get them known, to pushing one hit wonders, flash in the pan artists, and image image image. Even the ones WITH talent have to have a certain LOOK. At least if you're a woman. The men can look any damn way they want.

There HAS been an evolution I'd say, it's just been a completely crappy one. It's why I haven't listened to the radio in years.

Very good points!

I haven't listened to radio in years either, thank God for Mp3 players, I'd be lost without mine

jaybendy said:

PurpleColossus said:

For some reason society has gotten to the point of preffering Style and Image over Quality and Talent.

The internet even though it's an amazing, it creates this whole idea of "Oh I can be a big star too!" in so many people. It's gotten to the point of being so damn lame..

Artists have no mystique or mystery at all today either.

So much this...

This is the age of instant fame (for doing absolutely NOTHING worth being famous for), instant money, instant gratification.

The music industry has gone from cultivating talent and working to get them known, to pushing one hit wonders, flash in the pan artists, and image image image. Even the ones WITH talent have to have a certain LOOK. At least if you're a woman. The men can look any damn way they want.

There HAS been an evolution I'd say, it's just been a completely crappy one. It's why I haven't listened to the radio in years.

I think you guys have a point. In fact what really got me thinking this morning was when I hit a station playing Neil Young's "Southern Man" and juxtaposed to the contemporary stations, listening to great musicians playing a song backed with an interesting composition and interesting lyrics seemed novel and new.

[Edited 8/16/10 9:55am]

This is partly why I enjoy the classic rock stations the best. They play the great music from the 60's 70's, 80's etc. Yesterday, I heard everything from Elvis to Stevie to Sly and the Family Stone and plenty of the Beatles, Stones and Zepplin. Can't beat the classic rock IMHO.

The rest is just hit and miss with a whole lot of garbage tossed in there too.

Rock has DEVOLVED, and it started with Nirvana.

Nirvana begat grunge, which begat a whole generation of non-singers (Eddie Vedder, Scott Stapp, and all the rest of those hideous vocalists).

It also begat the "crunched power chord, dropped D tuning" style so prevalent in rock these last 15 years. You know the sound - Fallout Boy, Green Day, every vampire band. These guys can't play guitar, all they can do is turn the Metal Zone pedal all the way up and run their pointer finger up and down the neck.

This begat the elimination of the hook. Horrendous bands like those mentioned above left behind real hooks that took actual talent to play and replaced them with crunched-up power chords strummed at 240 beats a minute. That's why absolutely no song by any of these wretched bands is memorable in any way whatsoever.

This then morphed into the "I want to sound like I'm a prepubescent California teenager!" vocal style. I think - I'm not sure, but I think - that Blink 182 introduced this blight onto the world. I guess it's a step better than the bile spewed by the Eddie Vedder School of Pitiful Warbling, because at least these kids are coming close to the registers used by real rock singers. But damn! Do they all have to sound like they're 12? And of course, they still use the woefully inadequate crunched power chord method of "playing" a guitar.

This is how I see it, and if you don't see it this way, then you didn't grow up on the rock of the '60's and '70's.

Empress said:

This is partly why I enjoy the classic rock stations the best. They play the great music from the 60's 70's, 80's etc. Yesterday, I heard everything from Elvis to Stevie to Sly and the Family Stone and plenty of the Beatles, Stones and Zepplin. Can't beat the classic rock IMHO.

The rest is just hit and miss with a whole lot of garbage tossed in there too.

Exactly, i am now searching backwards in time finding gold, because searching for interesting contemporary music for the last decade and a half has been frustrating. There are a few that i like but they are so few and far apart.

And sadly as much as I love(d) R&B and urban contemporary, this is one of genres that has stagnated the most, this is especially sad to me because this was the genre known for innovation.

I am currently enthralled with the music from the 30's and forties, the big band and early jazz bands. Some really incredible stuff really.

4 sho............thank goodness we have the old stuff though.

RodeoSchro said:

Rock has DEVOLVED, and it started with Nirvana.

Nirvana begat grunge, which begat a whole generation of non-singers (Eddie Vedder, Scott Stapp, and all the rest of those hideous vocalists).

It also begat the "crunched power chord, dropped D tuning" style so prevalent in rock these last 15 years. You know the sound - Fallout Boy, Green Day, every vampire band. These guys can't play guitar, all they can do is turn the Metal Zone pedal all the way up and run their pointer finger up and down the neck.

This begat the elimination of the hook. Horrendous bands like those mentioned above left behind real hooks that took actual talent to play and replaced them with crunched-up power chords strummed at 240 beats a minute. That's why absolutely no song by any of these wretched bands is memorable in any way whatsoever.

This then morphed into the "I want to sound like I'm a prepubescent California teenager!" vocal style. I think - I'm not sure, but I think - that Blink 182 introduced this blight onto the world. I guess it's a step better than the bile spewed by the Eddie Vedder School of Pitiful Warbling, because at least these kids are coming close to the registers used by real rock singers. But damn! Do they all have to sound like they're 12? And of course, they still use the woefully inadequate crunched power chord method of "playing" a guitar.

This is how I see it, and if you don't see it this way, then you didn't grow up on the rock of the '60's and '70's.

Well I love Nirvana, they were original to what they did. They were a breath of fresh air when they came on the scene. But yes the entire industry rushed to copy them, and the music industry and artists kept beating this horse long after it had died. And yes modern rock seems like the teen pothead stunted in adolescence still living in 1995.

[Edited 8/16/10 10:34am]

Graycap23 said:

4 sho............thank goodness we have the old stuff though.

Thank goodness indeed, and there is so much of it.

I actually think our generation is spoiled becaue we have more access to music than any generation before it.

vi0letblues said:

Graycap23 said:

4 sho............thank goodness we have the old stuff though.

Thank goodness indeed, and there is so much of it.

I actually think our generation is spoiled becaue we have more access to music than any generation before it.

U are right............this new stuff is just a waste of my valuable time. (most not all)

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second here: The 90's did have a certain 'sound' to it. There were a couple, for me. The first was the new jack swing and hip-hop sounds. Now - new jack was a style, a genre of sorts. However, it also lent to a more generalized (read: generic) sound. A lot of 90's stuff had a very hollow percussive sound to it. I think about some of the unreleased remixes from Graffiti Bridge as a bad/good example of that. The new and big sound of the late 80's, as we heard with the likes of Taylor Dayne and her Rick Wake produced records, left almost as quickly as it arrived. A lot of folks associate Taylor Dayne w/ 90's, but in reality she came out around 1987, so she still has a firm place in 80's music. I said all that to say, the first part of the 90's had a sound. Another group who was part of the definition was Bell Biv Devoe. Their sound wasn't that distinctive, and songs like "Poison" with its garbage can lid fills were horribly indicative of the sound d'jour. It's nice to look back and find people like Jon Secada, TLC, Madonna, and Janet Jackson side-stepping the trend, and creating their own. Ironically it's about the time Prince started chasing trends, and not following them as evidenced by rap in his music, and the aforementioned tin can sound in his remixes.

The other sound of the 90's was grunge. Very dirty, heavy, raw guitars. Long gone were the hair bands of the 80's that were still trying to carve a leather and lace niche in the 90's music market. They came, Seattle saw, they got pulverized.

In reality, the grunge pick up wasn't so unusual. The late 80's and early 90's became very over-produced slap-happy music. While it has its place in history, and there were fun songs to be had, it's the same sort of backlash with grunge that we saw at the end of the 70's when punk hit the scene and told disco to fuck off.

Music has an ebb and flow to it. The 90's ended up being more defined twice over, rather than once. I think it's why it lost its identity, and the 80's Retro Box Sets hocked by Nina Blackwood were so quickly put into the then-new infomercials and splattered on TV like spilled milk.

As you can tell, I'm not a huge fan of either of those identities that the 90's calls its own.

On a broader note, music has devolved and started to cater to the lowest common denominator: money. I fully support any real rock star (generalized term for this example) making wads of cash. It's what they do, and we give it to them every time we buy a single, an album, or go to a concert. They provide a service, and if it's one I feel worthy of paying for, I will. I get that. What I don't appreciate is the note of doing it solely for the money. I understand the dichotomy of staying true to your art and not 'selling out' (another stupid term), yet also having a goal of wanting to do something you love and make money at it. What's that old adage about "Find something you love to do, and you'll never work another day in your life." Rock stars are the epitome of that.

These days, with the onset of America's Got Talent, American Idol, The X Factor, The Next Food Network Star, Project Runway, - ANY game show (because let's be real, that's what they are essentially - glorified Let's Make A Deal and The Price Is Right shows), the true artistry of being a chef, being a musician, a designer, a hair stylist, or a fucking drag queen - being an artist of any sort is long gone. It's all about the money.

A rock star once said, "Money and art don't mix". At that point, he was right. It was the onset of making money instead of making art, for many artists. Boy bands, pop princess wannabes took over the air, and bands ceased to exist. Think about it - WHAT BANDS ARE THERE? The number of "bands" compared to the number of solo acts is as well out of proportion as a candied apple is on a toothpick. It really is no surprise to me that people like Jay-Z and Sean Combs have diversified their interests into everything from clothes, to cologne, to fucking vitamin water (which 50 Cent made a fucking assload of cash on - don't think he didn't). Music, to most artists, is just another notch in their bank account. It's not "their passion". Their passion is the love of money. Last I heard, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. It's why there's so much garbage and nonsense coming out of the big 5 companies.

It's also why I search out new music too. I've been listening to Conya Doss, Algebra Blessett, Angela Johnson, and tons of other indie artists, simply because they have the talent and the balls to do their own thing. I mean, God forbid fucking bitch Rihanna or whatever other slag doesn't get their record played every 42 minutes. Radio would explode if REAL music was play for 24 hours on it.

Stagnant? Yes. No influx or outlet. It's like one of those little ponds you see on a highway exit, where water has just settled and it's always that weird, green cesspool of mystery that even the most parched bird wouldn't dare take a sip from.

[Edited 8/16/10 11:04am]

If you're looking for radio to play great music, you'd be better finding a needle in the haystack.

Timmy84 said:

If you're looking for radio to play great music, you'd be better finding a needle in the haystack.

I know where you're coming from and i said something to the same effect on another thread, but another orger stumped me when asked me to identify exactly "who" i thought was new and inspiring.

I was stumped. I kept going back to artists like Jack White.....and......

and everybody that came to mind was not actually new, but from the late 90's and early 2000's and not very many. Or at least that i thought were in the same league as artist from the past.

So I will turn that question back to you. We all need enlightenment by those in the know.

[Edited 8/16/10 11:22am]

ernestsewell said:

It's also why I search out new music too. I've been listening to Conya Doss, Algebra Blessett, Angela Johnson, and tons of other indie artists, simply because they have the talent and the balls to do their own thing. I mean, God forbid fucking bitch Rihanna or whatever other slag doesn't get their record played every 42 minutes. Radio would explode if REAL music was play for 24 hours on it.

Stagnant? Yes. No influx or outlet. It's like one of those little ponds you see on a highway exit, where water has just settled and it's always that weird, green cesspool of mystery that even the most parched bird wouldn't dare take a sip from.

[Edited 8/16/10 11:04am]

Cool, thank you.

I will check out those artists.

And I like the way you described the stagnant state of music , lol

Timmy84 said:

If you're looking for radio to play great music, you'd be better finding a needle in the haystack.

And the part that is even more terrible is that there are like three of the same kind of station in the same market playing the same wackness. So frustrating!

jaybendy said:

Timmy84 said:

If you're looking for radio to play great music, you'd be better finding a needle in the haystack.

And the part that is even more terrible is that there are like three of the same kind of station in the same market playing the same wackness. So frustrating!

vi0letblues said:

RodeoSchro said:

Rock has DEVOLVED, and it started with Nirvana.

Nirvana begat grunge, which begat a whole generation of non-singers (Eddie Vedder, Scott Stapp, and all the rest of those hideous vocalists).

It also begat the "crunched power chord, dropped D tuning" style so prevalent in rock these last 15 years. You know the sound - Fallout Boy, Green Day, every vampire band. These guys can't play guitar, all they can do is turn the Metal Zone pedal all the way up and run their pointer finger up and down the neck.

This begat the elimination of the hook. Horrendous bands like those mentioned above left behind real hooks that took actual talent to play and replaced them with crunched-up power chords strummed at 240 beats a minute. That's why absolutely no song by any of these wretched bands is memorable in any way whatsoever.

This then morphed into the "I want to sound like I'm a prepubescent California teenager!" vocal style. I think - I'm not sure, but I think - that Blink 182 introduced this blight onto the world. I guess it's a step better than the bile spewed by the Eddie Vedder School of Pitiful Warbling, because at least these kids are coming close to the registers used by real rock singers. But damn! Do they all have to sound like they're 12? And of course, they still use the woefully inadequate crunched power chord method of "playing" a guitar.

This is how I see it, and if you don't see it this way, then you didn't grow up on the rock of the '60's and '70's.

Well I love Nirvana, they were original to what they did. They were a breath of fresh air when they came on the scene. But yes the entire industry rushed to copy them, and the music industry and artists kept beating this horse long after it had died. And yes modern rock seems like the teen pothead stunted in adolescence still living in 1995.

[Edited 8/16/10 10:34am]

I will admit that the worse rock gets, the less worse Nirvana sounds.

But I still saddle them with the ruination of rock and roll.

While I like Nirvana a lot, I would admit their influence on commercial rock was not totally positive. It was interesting to have someone in that world that was concerned with integrity, that could actually have a conversation about why over-commercialism is a bad thing. But when you get anybody talking about these issues on that high a scale of stardom, it becomes kind of cartoonish. Vedder became cartoonish when he tried to take up the mantle of rock do-gooder. Lately he's toned that down & it seems to suit everybody fine.

But anyway, I think you would have to admit that most of the bands who rose on the tail of their accomplishment, that are not called Pearl Jam, were pretty much finished by 1996. That's fourteen years ago. You can't blame the crimes of 1980 on bands that made their last record in 1966.

I think the real reason grunge gets such a bad rap is, it's the last time you have rock as part of the mass music culture doing something that really feels new and different. Everything that has come up since has been a pale reflection of something that already happenned. It's the last development so if you don't like the music that's happenned since, blame it on grunge.

I remember my friend Jon and I talking about this - you had a revival of boop-beep-boop synthesizer bands followed by a rash of bands that had the look & sound of early punk followed by a bunch of people trying to sound like the Cure, and I realized "we are witnessing rock history repeat itself in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER." I haven't listened to the radio lately, last time I did it seemed we'd worked our way almost up to the point where hair metal was getting real big. Look for that stuff to make a serious revival in the next 12 months.

And God help us when the grunge revival hits about five years from now.

[Edited 8/16/10 12:46pm]

bobzilla77 said:

While I like Nirvana a lot, I would admit their influence on commercial rock was not totally positive. It was interesting to have someone in that world that was concerned with integrity, that could actually have a conversation about why over-commercialism is a bad thing. But when you get anybody talking about these issues on that high a scale of stardom, it becomes kind of cartoonish. Vedder became cartoonish when he tried to take up the mantle of rock do-gooder. Lately he's toned that down & it seems to suit everybody fine.

But anyway, I think you would have to admit that most of the bands who rose on the tail of their accomplishment, that are not called Pearl Jam, were pretty much finished by 1996. That's fourteen years ago. You can't blame the crimes of 1980 on bands that made their last record in 1966.

I think the real reason grunge gets such a bad rap is, it's the last time you have rock as part of the mass music culture doing something that really feels new and different. Everything that has come up since has been a pale reflection of something that already happenned. It's the last development so if you don't like the music that's happenned since, blame it on grunge.

I remember my friend Jon and I talking about this - you had a revival of boop-beep-boop synthesizer bands followed by a rash of bands that had the look & sound of early punk followed by a bunch of people trying to sound like the Cure, and I realized "we are witnessing rock history repeat itself in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER." I haven't listened to the radio lately, last time I did it seemed we'd worked our way almost up to the point where hair metal was getting real big. Look for that stuff to make a serious revival in the next 12 months.

And God help us when the grunge revival hits about five years from now.

[Edited 8/16/10 12:46pm]

lol very funny and true.

bobzilla77 said:

While I like Nirvana a lot, I would admit their influence on commercial rock was not totally positive. It was interesting to have someone in that world that was concerned with integrity, that could actually have a conversation about why over-commercialism is a bad thing. But when you get anybody talking about these issues on that high a scale of stardom, it becomes kind of cartoonish. Vedder became cartoonish when he tried to take up the mantle of rock do-gooder. Lately he's toned that down & it seems to suit everybody fine.

But anyway, I think you would have to admit that most of the bands who rose on the tail of their accomplishment, that are not called Pearl Jam, were pretty much finished by 1996. That's fourteen years ago. You can't blame the crimes of 1980 on bands that made their last record in 1966.

I think the real reason grunge gets such a bad rap is, it's the last time you have rock as part of the mass music culture doing something that really feels new and different. Everything that has come up since has been a pale reflection of something that already happenned. It's the last development so if you don't like the music that's happenned since, blame it on grunge.

I remember my friend Jon and I talking about this - you had a revival of boop-beep-boop synthesizer bands followed by a rash of bands that had the look & sound of early punk followed by a bunch of people trying to sound like the Cure, and I realized "we are witnessing rock history repeat itself in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER." I haven't listened to the radio lately, last time I did it seemed we'd worked our way almost up to the point where hair metal was getting real big. Look for that stuff to make a serious revival in the next 12 months.

And God help us when the grunge revival hits about five years from now.

[Edited 8/16/10 12:46pm]

yeah, Nirvana's impact on rock was so complete, it limited the structure of rock music for a long time afterward

What they did themselves was positive. They stripped away the unnecessary parts and left in the good stuff--energy, melody, loud guitars, dynamics, big hooks--but it was something of a formula that left a stunted form of music in its wake.

Maybe that's partly due to Kurt's death and the fact that he never got to evolve. Certainly he would not have ramained in that same place, musically. He even discussed how he wanted to evolve like the Beatles did. Shame it never happened.

PurpleColossus said:

jaybendy said:

So much this...

This is the age of instant fame (for doing absolutely NOTHING worth being famous for), instant money, instant gratification.

The music industry has gone from cultivating talent and working to get them known, to pushing one hit wonders, flash in the pan artists, and image image image. Even the ones WITH talent have to have a certain LOOK. At least if you're a woman. The men can look any damn way they want.

There HAS been an evolution I'd say, it's just been a completely crappy one. It's why I haven't listened to the radio in years.

Very good points!

I haven't listened to radio in years either, thank God for Mp3 players, I'd be lost without mine

Well its that way with all the industries including the movie and televison industry, look what pollutes your stations, so called reality TV, which is not reality, is cheap ass no talent dead beats that cant get acting jobs because they have no talent in life, getting jobs because they are cheap and the majority of the public would rather watch Snooki or the Keyshia Cole show than tune into Tom Hanks in a movie and see acting. This all applies to the music industry, the whole "i can do it too" mentality because of shows like American Idol, So you think you can dance etc....have created a world of lame talent that has no growth, its like chewing gum, good for minutes till you suck all the juice out of it than you throw it in the trash where it belongs. that sums up most of what has gone on the last 20 years

ernestsewell said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second here: The 90's did have a certain 'sound' to it. There were a couple, for me. The first was the new jack swing and hip-hop sounds. Now - new jack was a style, a genre of sorts. However, it also lent to a more generalized (read: generic) sound. A lot of 90's stuff had a very hollow percussive sound to it. I think about some of the unreleased remixes from Graffiti Bridge as a bad/good example of that. The new and big sound of the late 80's, as we heard with the likes of Taylor Dayne and her Rick Wake produced records, left almost as quickly as it arrived. A lot of folks associate Taylor Dayne w/ 90's, but in reality she came out around 1987, so she still has a firm place in 80's music. I said all that to say, the first part of the 90's had a sound. Another group who was part of the definition was Bell Biv Devoe. Their sound wasn't that distinctive, and songs like "Poison" with its garbage can lid fills were horribly indicative of the sound d'jour. It's nice to look back and find people like Jon Secada, TLC, Madonna, and Janet Jackson side-stepping the trend, and creating their own. Ironically it's about the time Prince started chasing trends, and not following them as evidenced by rap in his music, and the aforementioned tin can sound in his remixes.

The other sound of the 90's was grunge. Very dirty, heavy, raw guitars. Long gone were the hair bands of the 80's that were still trying to carve a leather and lace niche in the 90's music market. They came, Seattle saw, they got pulverized.

In reality, the grunge pick up wasn't so unusual. The late 80's and early 90's became very over-produced slap-happy music. While it has its place in history, and there were fun songs to be had, it's the same sort of backlash with grunge that we saw at the end of the 70's when punk hit the scene and told disco to fuck off.

Music has an ebb and flow to it. The 90's ended up being more defined twice over, rather than once. I think it's why it lost its identity, and the 80's Retro Box Sets hocked by Nina Blackwood were so quickly put into the then-new infomercials and splattered on TV like spilled milk.

As you can tell, I'm not a huge fan of either of those identities that the 90's calls its own.

On a broader note, music has devolved and started to cater to the lowest common denominator: money. I fully support any real rock star (generalized term for this example) making wads of cash. It's what they do, and we give it to them every time we buy a single, an album, or go to a concert. They provide a service, and if it's one I feel worthy of paying for, I will. I get that. What I don't appreciate is the note of doing it solely for the money. I understand the dichotomy of staying true to your art and not 'selling out' (another stupid term), yet also having a goal of wanting to do something you love and make money at it. What's that old adage about "Find something you love to do, and you'll never work another day in your life." Rock stars are the epitome of that.

These days, with the onset of America's Got Talent, American Idol, The X Factor, The Next Food Network Star, Project Runway, - ANY game show (because let's be real, that's what they are essentially - glorified Let's Make A Deal and The Price Is Right shows), the true artistry of being a chef, being a musician, a designer, a hair stylist, or a fucking drag queen - being an artist of any sort is long gone. It's all about the money.

A rock star once said, "Money and art don't mix". At that point, he was right. It was the onset of making money instead of making art, for many artists. Boy bands, pop princess wannabes took over the air, and bands ceased to exist. Think about it - WHAT BANDS ARE THERE? The number of "bands" compared to the number of solo acts is as well out of proportion as a candied apple is on a toothpick. It really is no surprise to me that people like Jay-Z and Sean Combs have diversified their interests into everything from clothes, to cologne, to fucking vitamin water (which 50 Cent made a fucking assload of cash on - don't think he didn't). Music, to most artists, is just another notch in their bank account. It's not "their passion". Their passion is the love of money. Last I heard, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. It's why there's so much garbage and nonsense coming out of the big 5 companies.

It's also why I search out new music too. I've been listening to Conya Doss, Algebra Blessett, Angela Johnson, and tons of other indie artists, simply because they have the talent and the balls to do their own thing. I mean, God forbid fucking bitch Rihanna or whatever other slag doesn't get their record played every 42 minutes. Radio would explode if REAL music was play for 24 hours on it.

Stagnant? Yes. No influx or outlet. It's like one of those little ponds you see on a highway exit, where water has just settled and it's always that weird, green cesspool of mystery that even the most parched bird wouldn't dare take a sip from.

[Edited 8/16/10 11:04am]

great points but i think too its where the seperation began, once music began to lose its value, became the "fries" with your order thats when it went out the window, and that i blame 100% on Soundscan, everyone and still everyone talks about "numbers" rather than what album is, good or not, i mean scan this board and all you here is numbers flops and hits, who gives a rats ass that someone sold 140,000 last week? are u getting the check? i mean its great to tout numbers when people think they know what they are talking about and you prove them wrong, but day to day life, its meaningless shit and why things went out the window the last decade, although everyone blames the interenet and downloading, its also the straight truth that MUSIC doesnt have value anymore like it did, when cds came along it was an upgrade, you got something new, but now that everyone owns all the beatles stuff and pink floyd and acdc on cd, the day is over, no new artist is gonna sell catalog albums 20 years from now, you think Rihanna's debut is gonna be that big catlaog seller in 20 years that AcDc back in black was? i mean come on, as the older artist stop recording and touring there is gonna be such a void and gap that everything will fall into a hole and crash and burn, that time is coming very soon.

bobzilla77 said:

While I like Nirvana a lot, I would admit their influence on commercial rock was not totally positive. It was interesting to have someone in that world that was concerned with integrity, that could actually have a conversation about why over-commercialism is a bad thing. But when you get anybody talking about these issues on that high a scale of stardom, it becomes kind of cartoonish. Vedder became cartoonish when he tried to take up the mantle of rock do-gooder. Lately he's toned that down & it seems to suit everybody fine.

But anyway, I think you would have to admit that most of the bands who rose on the tail of their accomplishment, that are not called Pearl Jam, were pretty much finished by 1996. That's fourteen years ago. You can't blame the crimes of 1980 on bands that made their last record in 1966.

I think the real reason grunge gets such a bad rap is, it's the last time you have rock as part of the mass music culture doing something that really feels new and different. Everything that has come up since has been a pale reflection of something that already happenned. It's the last development so if you don't like the music that's happenned since, blame it on grunge.

I remember my friend Jon and I talking about this - you had a revival of boop-beep-boop synthesizer bands followed by a rash of bands that had the look & sound of early punk followed by a bunch of people trying to sound like the Cure, and I realized "we are witnessing rock history repeat itself in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER." I haven't listened to the radio lately, last time I did it seemed we'd worked our way almost up to the point where hair metal was getting real big. Look for that stuff to make a serious revival in the next 12 months.

And God help us when the grunge revival hits about five years from now.

[Edited 8/16/10 12:46pm]

Rock history repeating itself? Brother, I missed the part where the great musicianship of the 60's and '70's repeated itself!

FWIW, rock did not begin with the punk phase.

There's a couple artists from my generation that I enjoy (i'm 23) but I can count on one hand the artists that are really decent. It's still good music out if you just look at the mainstream music then you will be disapointed.But this is not the 70's , 80's and 90's anymore

lastdecember said:

great points but i think too its where the seperation began, once music began to lose its value, became the "fries" with your order thats when it went out the window, and that i blame 100% on Soundscan, everyone and still everyone talks about "numbers" rather than what album is, good or not, i mean scan this board and all you here is numbers flops and hits, who gives a rats ass that someone sold 140,000 last week? are u getting the check? i mean its great to tout numbers when people think they know what they are talking about and you prove them wrong, but day to day life, its meaningless shit and why things went out the window the last decade, although everyone blames the interenet and downloading, its also the straight truth that MUSIC doesnt have value anymore like it did, when cds came along it was an upgrade, you got something new, but now that everyone owns all the beatles stuff and pink floyd and acdc on cd, the day is over, no new artist is gonna sell catalog albums 20 years from now, you think Rihanna's debut is gonna be that big catlaog seller in 20 years that AcDc back in black was? i mean come on, as the older artist stop recording and touring there is gonna be such a void and gap that everything will fall into a hole and crash and burn, that time is coming very soon.

Good points, I have a theory that the unreleased music of the truly great artists could possibly become the primary income of the music industry. Like the artists that have vaults of music could be the albums that people are looking forward too.

The great artists of the 60's to the 90's compared to the so called great artists of today is like comparing a 5 star restaurant to a fast food restaurant. There's such a huge gap in so many aspects around them.

[Edited 8/16/10 16:28pm]

babybugz said:

There's a couple artists from my generation that I enjoy (i'm 23) but I can count on one hand the artists that are really decent. It's still good music out if you just look at the mainstream music then you will be disapointed.But this is not the 70's , 80's and 90's anymore

That may be a great point, and a good question might be - How come what is good music today is OUT of the mainstream, while back in the '70's, it WAS the mainstream?

RodeoSchro said:

bobzilla77 said:

While I like Nirvana a lot, I would admit their influence on commercial rock was not totally positive. It was interesting to have someone in that world that was concerned with integrity, that could actually have a conversation about why over-commercialism is a bad thing. But when you get anybody talking about these issues on that high a scale of stardom, it becomes kind of cartoonish. Vedder became cartoonish when he tried to take up the mantle of rock do-gooder. Lately he's toned that down & it seems to suit everybody fine.

But anyway, I think you would have to admit that most of the bands who rose on the tail of their accomplishment, that are not called Pearl Jam, were pretty much finished by 1996. That's fourteen years ago. You can't blame the crimes of 1980 on bands that made their last record in 1966.

I think the real reason grunge gets such a bad rap is, it's the last time you have rock as part of the mass music culture doing something that really feels new and different. Everything that has come up since has been a pale reflection of something that already happenned. It's the last development so if you don't like the music that's happenned since, blame it on grunge.

I remember my friend Jon and I talking about this - you had a revival of boop-beep-boop synthesizer bands followed by a rash of bands that had the look & sound of early punk followed by a bunch of people trying to sound like the Cure, and I realized "we are witnessing rock history repeat itself in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER." I haven't listened to the radio lately, last time I did it seemed we'd worked our way almost up to the point where hair metal was getting real big. Look for that stuff to make a serious revival in the next 12 months.

And God help us when the grunge revival hits about five years from now.

[Edited 8/16/10 12:46pm]

Rock history repeating itself? Brother, I missed the part where the great musicianship of the 60's and '70's repeated itself!

FWIW, rock did not begin with the punk phase.

the styles repeated, though, with Lenny Kravitz and the Black Crowes

It never repeats exactly, but with similarities

RodeoSchro said:

babybugz said:

There's a couple artists from my generation that I enjoy (i'm 23) but I can count on one hand the artists that are really decent. It's still good music out if you just look at the mainstream music then you will be disapointed.But this is not the 70's , 80's and 90's anymore

That may be a great point, and a good question might be - How come what is good music today is OUT of the mainstream, while back in the '70's, it WAS the mainstream?

But what is keeping them out of the forefront? It surely isn't the industry and the internet will find you and your secret wife/life

In college we hooked up each other with the latest greatest. Being out of the loop i turned to college radio but while I do hear a good song here and there, there is nothing new that has remotely flipped my wig as some of the older stuff I am digging up.

I KNOW it's around, and I agree it just seems harder to find.

Cream rises to the top, where is it? Lets have a public service announcement and throw up some names.

[Edited 8/16/10 16:47pm]