made already..
discuss...

are we just scrabbling around for the missing 5% ?
are bands such as Acrtic Monkeys deemed brilliant purely because they are better than the Bravery

This argument is cynical lazy bullshit that relies on a classicalist approach to the history of art that believes in an objective criterium/some objective criteria for judging the quality of art, or indeed what even is "Art". On the other hand it asserts a knowing "it's all been done before so new art is at best a collection of ersatz copies of past qualities already mastered" attitude which is bang in tune with the post-modernist ideas about irony, repetition, consumption. It quite possibly cherry picks the worst parts of opposing schools of thought. It also smacks of a materialist conception of history which suggests there is an inherent goal to intellecutal development. This again is bullshit.

Wonderful music will continue to be made. Why are we not in such a hurry to assert that no "great" (in the sense of being "new" or inspired") paintings, films, sculptures, novels will be made or produced or written? It seems ludicrous (to me at least) to assert that nothing new and inspired will be done with images, or that we will ever be even theoretically on the threshold of "completing" an ideal cannon. Sound is analgous. There's a shit load that can be done with sound that hasn't been done already.

And besides, is a qualification of "great" art necessarily even that it is new, inspired, challenging, has not been done before? I don't think it is, to be honest.

si-maro wrote:This argument is cynical lazy bullshit that relies on a classicalist approach to the history of art that believes in an objective criterium/some objective criteria for judging the quality of art, or indeed what even is "Art". On the other hand it asserts a knowing "it's all been done before so new art is at best a collection of ersatz copies of past qualities already mastered" attitude which is bang in tune with the post-modernist ideas about irony, repetition, consumption. It quite possibly cherry picks the worst parts of opposing schools of thought. It also smacks of a materialist conception of history which suggests there is an inherent goal to intellecutal development. This again is bullshit.

Wonderful music will continue to be made. Why are we not in such a hurry to assert that no "great" (in the sense of being "new" or inspired") paintings, films, sculptures, novels will be made or produced or written? It seems ludicrous (to me at least) to assert that nothing new and inspired will be done with images, or that we will ever be even theoretically on the threshold of "completing" an ideal cannon. Sound is analgous. There's a shit load that can be done with sound that hasn't been done already.

And besides, is a qualification of "great" art necessarily even that it is new, inspired, challenging, has not been done before? I don't think it is, to be honest.

All that taken into account, you will concede that "mainstream music" in its proper context is stuck in an artistic quagmire? I can't recall anything in years that had a significant impact or influence on a larger scale. While I'm sure there are some good underground acts existing and some solid, named bands still playing, overall music seems to be stagnate.

whether it has been done before or not is irrelevant.. early was just Guthrie redone,...but done better..

Yes.


And No.

Music may not change, but the collective consciousness will evolve and morph what it deems great. Just as it has for the history of Pop music.

How are we defining great though? At first, I was all about the return of the "post punk" sound, but now... I sort of hate it all. Its the derivative nature of taste makers, not just the derivative sound of pop bands, that lead to a sort of ingrained belief that "nothing is good anymore"...

I think it has a lot to do with the rigidity of "Music Fans" too, in the sense that we may never let shit go. Do you ever think about top ten lists in your head? I bet all of us (ok, most of us) would have to shove "spiderland" in there, based more on it's impact on our lives as record enthusiasts, despite the fact that, at least I, don't really listen to it that much at all anymore. I guess I'm trying to say that the rigidity of a "collective, well balanced" list of defining records has too much of it's heart stuffed into music impossible to separate from critical moments in ones own life.

Like guys I know who grew up in the punk scene in the late seventies and through the eighties holding fast and true to "Reagan" era hardcore and what is now viewed "seminal" bands from their youth. Music that, at least for me, is boring (unless you have been set straight on these bands context by new liner notes), if significant only for the romanticism of a scene forged on the noble principles of Chuck Taylors, sweaty teens, and econolines whilst I was busy with Transformers, Star Wars and Swing sets.

My 14 year old nephew loves the Misfits (thats the spirit!), and well... Velvet Revolver (uh... yeah, well, uh I have to help your Aunt with, uh clearing the table now). And he will feel that modern music is as good as it can get, until he's old enough to see some some 'good' band, somewhere, and the greying at the temples dude (still in Chuck Taylors) lets him borrow some shit...


having said all that crap, I still seem to only be buying old records these days.

punch_the_lion wrote:

si-maro wrote:This argument is cynical lazy bullshit that relies on a classicalist approach to the history of art that believes in an objective criterium/some objective criteria for judging the quality of art, or indeed what even is "Art". On the other hand it asserts a knowing "it's all been done before so new art is at best a collection of ersatz copies of past qualities already mastered" attitude which is bang in tune with the post-modernist ideas about irony, repetition, consumption. It quite possibly cherry picks the worst parts of opposing schools of thought. It also smacks of a materialist conception of history which suggests there is an inherent goal to intellecutal development. This again is bullshit.

Wonderful music will continue to be made. Why are we not in such a hurry to assert that no "great" (in the sense of being "new" or inspired") paintings, films, sculptures, novels will be made or produced or written? It seems ludicrous (to me at least) to assert that nothing new and inspired will be done with images, or that we will ever be even theoretically on the threshold of "completing" an ideal cannon. Sound is analgous. There's a shit load that can be done with sound that hasn't been done already.

And besides, is a qualification of "great" art necessarily even that it is new, inspired, challenging, has not been done before? I don't think it is, to be honest.

All that taken into account, you will concede that "mainstream music" in its proper context is stuck in an artistic quagmire? I can't recall anything in years that had a significant impact or influence on a larger scale. While I'm sure there are some good underground acts existing and some solid, named bands still playing, overall music seems to be stagnate.

Popular music has been repeating itself continually since the advent of recorded music and before. In generalised terms, folk, blues and country music, all roots music, is based around a set of chord progressions, melodic variations, time signatures, etc. As pop music is derived from these forms its not surprising that it too repeats itself an awful lot.

I've heard the odd inspired pop single every year all my life. A lot of other good ones too, but ones that weren't so much inspired as well-crafted. I don't think pop music is stuck in a rut. I strongly suspect that there was as higher a percentage of disposable, poorly-made, uninspired music being written before I was born as there is now. Maybe just more of it gets released as the pursuit of wealth and fame continues to rage.

As for music operating outside of the mainstream, I think it is as inspired and amazing now as it has always been. I don't feel even for a second that there is a lack of inspiration, passion or pursuit of sincerity, expression, fun and entertainment. I am skeptical as to whether any of these artists will get "written in to the history books" (to use a horrible cliche), but they're out there all the same.

Just in terms of significant impact on the nature of mainstream music in itself (i.e. its musicality, not its extended cultural or whatever meaning), in the last decade you've got: Pharrell Williams, Timbaland, Missy Elliott, Aphex Twin and similar artists from the 90s, UK garage, UK grime, latin american music, asian music, a whole wealth of stuff that's had a huge impact on the way mainstream music is currently being composed and produced. I think people coming from a more guitar-based alternative music tradition tend to overlook this because of the strength of their affintiy with guitar music; of course Oasis or Interpol or Franz Ferdinand were nothing new.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, I don't know a great deal about music composition or production, and all my opinions above are informed by what music I've had access to. But I'm gonna stick by my line of argument anyway!

(edited for typos)

You obviously haven't heard of K-Fed yet.

Well, we'd all better stop making music, just to be on the safe side.

I'm gonna make that other 5% this afternoon.

I suspect that at least 0.003% of it has just been completed by Daz Sampson, the UK's eurovision song contest entry for 2006.

I think it's very challenging having the same kind of drive for music that I imagine a lot of older musicians did (and I'm speaking as someone who is still in high school, so feel free to object to this), because the farther and farther you stretch back there are less and less genres and concepts to have been explored, and at this point any kind of music is acceptable publicly as music and not total shit (which I think punk, jazz, noise, etc are responsible for). It's harder to consider music experimental because people can and do just whip shit out in a computer and do wacky glitch stuff and call it an innovation. Ultimately, though, we are not even close to reaching the limits of great music. The range of what we can sonically produce is practically infinite. I'm sure people thought it was the end back when classical shit was coming out, too.