Display posts from previous
Sort by

seriously, does music suck now?

111 by BClark_Archive
sorry to those i offended, and i guess i have to correct myself and say that my statement only applies to rock. but if you are trying to make "rock music" then you should know what "rock music" is (at the very least, you should recognize it as an extension of the blues). in this sense, it obviously helps to have some familiarity with the artists that inspired "rock music" in the first place.

seriously, does music suck now?

112 by apl4eris_Archive
kerble wrote:
apl4eris wrote:
LBx wrote:Holy Sons

I was just introduced to this music (via the new album), and with that my belief in new good music was reborn.

rejoice.

I was just introduced to this music through this post.

rejoice, indeed.

"stunned" on I want to Live a Peaceful Life is a breathtaking song.
According to iTunes, I have now listened to it 32 times. wetf.

I've added a link to their site where you may find this song.


Thanks - I hadn't checked out his site yet, only his myspace. Stunned is indeed a great song - a few others worth checking out too.

I'd be happy to throw a couple songs from the new album on the eamail if anyone's interested. Me and the hubby have been waking up with his music stuck in our heads every day for the last week or more, and singing/humming it off and on throughout the day. Mighty infectious, and it seems to be getting better w/age.

Another new band I'm enjoying is Lords (the one from the UK). Hard driving rock, southern influenced, with some interesting twists. It's hard to stop listening once I start.

seriously, does music suck now?

114 by Bradley R Weissenberger_Archive
Justin from Queens wrote:Here's my experience:

Younger people tend to know more about lots of new music, because so many of their social cues are lined up around it. It's gives them a common language, shared experience and a quick way to cluster towards others who like similar things. In that type of environment, it's easy to find out about new things because it's so much of what people are paying attention to.

As people get older, they begin to spend their time in different ways. Their (usually smaller) social network is not so intently focused on music, and many of the functions that music served in their social network are now served by something else. Finding out about new music becomes harder for people when they are the only one in their social network to do so.

So as you get older, you have to work harder to find out about new things. The best resource I've found for this is the [url=http:///www.aquariusrecords.org]Aquarius Records[/url] mailing list. Sign up for this and read it through every two weeks. Listen to sound clips of stuff that interests you. And then buy from them. The people who run it are knowledgable, friendly and very enthusiastic about a wide, wide variety of things coming out.

I probably buy 50 records a year from them. 3/4 of these I've never heard of before. 1/2 the records I get end up being really, really good. So that's 18 records every year that I get that I would not have known about otherwise that are really good.

And none of them are the Arcade Fire or the Fiery Furnaces. Really, you can do better than that.

= Justin

Justin from Queens provides insight and good advice. Thanks, J.f.Q.!

A few other people have suggested that the ease of making and sharing a record is ruining music. I'd like to nominate these folks for some kind of non-award.

seriously, does music suck now?

116 by tmidgett_Archive
BClark wrote:sorry to those i offended, and i guess i have to correct myself and say that my statement only applies to rock. but if you are trying to make "rock music" then you should know what "rock music" is (at the very least, you should recognize it as an extension of the blues). in this sense, it obviously helps to have some familiarity with the artists that inspired "rock music" in the first place.


The statement that today's rock music is particularly linked to the blues is a myth.

People say it a lot, but it's not really true.

Modern rock music is just as indebted to English and Appalachian
folk songs and decidedly white hillbilly music as it is to blues and R&B.

Isn't there a big section in the Joe Carducci book Rock and the Pop Narcotic about this?

I feel that the term "rock and roll" implies a connection to blues and R&B that the term "rock" does not. I don't think that has really seeped into the definitions, however.

seriously, does music suck now?

117 by Ford_Archive
I'm with you to a point, tmidgett, but isn't it so that blues and R&B are themselves as much indebted to European folksong and devotional forms as they are to, say, African musics? In terms of tonality and structure, I'd venture that "Greensleeves" has maybe more in common with something which might be readily identified as blues than something like Ongo Trogode.
It's a little like punk. I don't think there's rock music of any stripe being made today which escapes the stylistic upheavals of the late '70s with absolute success. Likewise, the blues. Likewise tempered tuning. These are watershed phenomena which contextualize and influence all that follows them.
utterly impossible as are all these events they are probably as like those which may have taken place as any others which may have took person at all are ever likely to be
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests