Western classical music shot its wad in the middle of the 20th Century sometime after Gershwin, it just ran out of ideas, dabbled a bit with atonal avant-garde in the 1960's, before decending into complete and well deserved irrelevance. The evidence of the implosion is still with us today. Here in the US we have a network of public radio stations (NPR), many of which maintain a classical music format. Who tunes in? Virtually nobody with the audience share remaining at less than 1% of all potential listeners. And if you ever DO tune in to one of these stations it's just a big old repetitive jukebox of classical's "greatest hits." The emperor no longer has any clothes on and it's here that we can happily accuse rock of same.
(I've lost my ISP so I need to go ahead and post this before going on...)

there is no counter culture that i can see.

there was rock, then hip hop, then house...then.....well........er......

still - i'm in my 30s so what do i know?!!

i'm sure everybody has their own reference points here

each genre seems to have its own moment after which it declines:

indie rock...blur/oasis then downhill all the way to british sea power and to such an extent that even babyshambles seem good

r&b...those american 'soul' acts too numerous to mention that make blandness seem worthwhile

hip hop...wu tang clan breaking up into numerous mediocre acts declining into gangsta/bling rap

folk music...david gray (no comment needed)

rock music: bon jovi and all points thereafter all the way to nu-metal

punk rock...pistols and clash turning it into a commodity

jazz...ecm label (single handedly killing off most black jazz)

reggae...bob marley (see punk rock above)

world music (i know, i know)...peter gabriel (the 'ecm' man of this genre)

and so on lol

On reading Marvell's post, I agree with a lot of it. However, I don't think that Rock is irrelevent. In fact, it is more relevent now than it has been for ages.

Whenever I watch Later with JH, I just want someone to let rip with their guitar. We get various 'street' bands, soul bands, singers from different continents, and British singers who are incontinent, and it just make me yearn for fast skrawky guitars.

Some years ago, I was doing a job where my fellow workers would listen to Radio 1 all day. After hours (days, weeks...) of Jo Whiley and her kind, one DJ had the sense to play Pretty Vacant by the Pistols. We turned it up. After all of the Eminem, Coldplay et al, it was beautiful. I didn't like punk in the 70s, but if it happened now, I would probably be a fan.

Most recent CDs that I have been playing while driving are The Cult, The Doors, Chili Peppers, and Faith No More. I like music with some drive to it, not some simpering nancy boys singing ballads, or a (yawn) gangsta rapper.

I think the future of rock lies in its ability to take in elements of other kinds of music. 'Pure' rock is pointless now, it needs an edge.

Must admit I've moved back to listening to more traditional 'bands' (and by 'traditional' I mean bands with guitars, bass and drums instead of people playing with machines)... but I still think there's a lot to be done in electronica that we haven't seen yet, and thus there's still a lot for rock to learn from it.

Everything loses its shine as you get older, but you have to be very careful what you say because people just think you're an old fart.

As a creative art form rock reached its apex with the advent of punk (which along with 70's glitter was criminally ignored in the States just as anything but hip-hop and commercial alternative is today). The new wave that followed was just a watering down of punk and the American grunge that followed (all of 10 years later!!!) was a disservice
to rock insomuch that it was another unnecessary and inferior punk spin-off. Worse still, grunge paved the way for today's all pervasive commercial alternative format ,
Nine Inch Nails, The Foo Fighters, Nickleback and their ilk.

Unlike classical music in the 1960's rock, unfortunately, won't have the decency to just fuck off and die because of money coupled with lazy and undemanding consumers. Obviously, rock has it's exceptions, bands such as The Fall, The Strokes, Mogwai, et al.
Personally, I think that the future of new creative music now lies with dance and electronica, mostly out of the UK but with some contributions from the continent- an exciting and still evolving music form.

So when I'm unfortunate enough to catch Wheezer at the end of (crap) SNL while channel surfing, I just look at those dilletants and wonder, what in the world are those celeb-types doing with their drums, guitar and bass? What, in the world are you doing, boys? Pack up yer kit and go home because rock's a spent force, you're no Gang Of Four, in fact, you and your old-syle music have become the enemy!

I maintain that rock music is alive and well, as is jazz and hip hop. It's the media that's in decline.

Rock music has always been based on a ) constantly referring back to the music of a few years earlier and rejigging it and b ) splitting into an ever-increasing variety of sub-genres.

These two provide an inbuilt defence against irrelevance, IMHO.

Certainly the case with rock, folk, metal, improv (not familiar enough with hiphop to comment).
If you get your music from Uncut cds, commercial radio and TV of course you'll hear little but crap, much of which is only music for children anyway, which should not concern you.
I find that there is far too much excellent and inovative new music for me to find the time to listen to.

I don't really understand the concept of music being "relevant" anyway.

Rock's not alive and well even if you're just referring to sheer sales. The recording industry here in the US has been seeing declining sales for years now. As for big media, I don't see it being in decline- consumers are more plugged into it than ever and those DVD's aren't jumping of the shelves by themselves. Anyway, thanks for posting!

I was talking about quality, not quantity. There's still great rock music being made, but the super consolidated media chooses to show stuff like Weezer (or whatever). The music industry has changed a lot since the 70s.

What is rock? White people playing in live bands? Does it need guitars? can electronic music 'rock'?

Relevant or not, I like pop music, be it Captain Beefheart or the Pet Shop Boys. I wasted too much time trying to get into stuff I was 'supposed' to like but couldn't stand. Whatever makes you happy ...

Never use the word 'rock' myself ... it always reminds me of the longhairs at school who thought they were better than the rest of us because they liked Yes and Jethro Tull while we liked ... well, pop.

the secret is not to get sidetracked by mass culture as that is mere pap for the middle mass

the beauty is in mining the undergrowth and finding jewels hidden away in the most secret of places

Put so poetically too... :applaud:

This is the truest statement so far, surely.

There's so much going on in so many genres today that I could never keep up. Probably this is true in "rock" as well, but I haven't really been folliowing it lately.


Andy

Very succinctly put, Eccles, and I think that a lot of the folks drawn to The Fall forums try to do just that.

I think we live in a more disposable culture now so music seems like another commodity, certain styles are 'this years black' etc, music does not seem to be as important to young people as it was in my day, just one of many things along with games and everything else.

When I was a teenager all I had was music, and we lived in more frightening times, and punk music was the soundtrack to that.

I recall Peel saying in an interview that pop is SUPPOSED to be disposable, which I took to be food for thought. Certainly, US domestic and UK commercial radio, plus the music consumers themselves never considered that to be true for one second. So what REALLY ISN'T disposable? Well, Sergio Mendes, Burt Bacharach and The Fall, of course!!! :)

I'm in complete agreement.

Alandeans3418 might wanna move back to England before he becomes any more jaded. Hating on America's mainstream media the way you do makes rather typical even here. Consider just how few Americans actually listen to the radio nowadays, and ask yourself again if you think we're all really just sheep.

We offered you an alternative to crappy mainstream media in the other thread you started which has a strikingly similar attitude, but you rejected it for being the opposite of everything you said you hated.

Even in England, I know it takes work to find music that's outside of the mainstream media channels. We have posted links to websites and taken some of the work out of it. But so long as you ignore them or deny giving them a real chance, you can keep crowing about how everything sucks.

I like what Neil Young said about Woodstock being a "load of shit" and the "beginning of the end" in the Shakey book... how its when they realised they could turn it into a commodity etc...

Celldwellah, I do appreciate the fact that you posted radio links for me to check out and I'm in the process of doing that (I'm always interested in new music). Dude, I was never trying to convey a message that Americans are "sheep," hell, as far as I'm concerned this is the best country in the world in which to live and I've no time for America bashing. I've lived many years here and in the UK and Germany and I've always been able to find decent music in all of these places. It's become a lot easier with the advent of the Net, cable and sat., so I'm never at a loss to find music that I love. I'm not jaded but am happy to rant about what passes for entertainment these days, from Harry Pottymouth to Puke Day. Decrying that shit should almost be a civic duty! In this thread, Eccles summed up my sentiments when he wrote that "the beauty is in mining the undergrowth and finding jewels hidden away in the most secret of places..." I couldn't have put it better.

Oddly I have found this to be the opposite

The older I get the more hidden gems and new arrivals I tend to come across that both excite and please me

I would venture for example that if you have not heard the Miles Davis Quintet of the mid 50s before and you come across it for the first time and enjoy it then you are not being an old fart or a look back bore you are merely dipping in to the rich vein of history that is available to us.

For every Razorlight there is a Melt Banana
For every Kaiser Chiefs there is a Go Betweens
For every Robbie Williams there is a Wolf Eyes

You just have to take the effort to find them

Many people on here have pointed out new avenues of listening to me....thanks

I'm still struggling with Coachwhips though.... ;)

As some have said here, there is always good music around, you've just got to go and find it. Some times more of it makes it into the mainstream than usual, but that is generally just a matter of luck and/or timing.

Try and find a good independent record dealer who's taste you trust, it can make finding good stuff a lot easier (for anyone in the Portsmouth area, I recommend Boomhound Records in Albert Road, Southsea).

And, never forget that popularity is neither a barometer of good or of bad taste.

I have been involved in a similar discussion here on a few occasions.

I've maintained for a good while that rock is, and has been for a while, irrelevant . More precisely, that it has "all been done." That doesn't necessarily equate to the "demise" of rock and roll.

As a musical form, it will likely go on as long as the human race, but that doesn't mean it's relevant or has anything new to offer us. I mean, Dixieland jazz still exists insofar as there are still lots of groups that play it, still an audience for it, there are preservation societies, etc.

I don't mean to sound cynical here...there are a handful of bands who still make music with some freshness and energy, with new mashups of styles, etc. It's not that there still isn't "art" created in the rock music medium that isn't worth a listen, but I think it's inescapable that rock is regurgitating backwards on itself.

Even music that does not strive to be completely original, etc. may still be a nice listen. There is still room for a good 3 minute pop song. There is a craft to doing that well.

But when one considers extreme hardcore punk and metal, no-wave, noise bands and music, extreme minimalism, etc., I think it's hard to debate that it has run its course as far as originality or revolutionary new theories or methods.

Even electronica, as someone mentioned, has been pretty fully explored. In fact, I'd argue that electronic music was much more experimental, interesting and revolutionary at its inception and first 2 or 3 decades of its existence than it has been since.

So yes, it seems to me that music has gotten as "extreme" (in any direction) as it will ever be. There won't be any more huge revolutionary movements in music such as have happened throughout history when people engage in the avant garde or new forms arise...everything now is built on what has come before. Usually this is very transparent (why listen to Clapton when you can listen to Robert Johnson? Why listen to a Gang of Four ripoff band when you can listen to Gang of Four, etc.)

There are, perhaps, still some combinations to be tried-- styles to be tossed in a blender and thrown against a wall, but still, it's ultimately a rehashing of previous forms.

I'd go even further and say that ALL art has run its course. Writing, music, painting, sculpting, performance art...they are all spent. They are still noble pursuits, but nothing new or shocking or terribly meaningful is going to come from them any longer.

In my opinion, the only art form that has not been utterly exhausted is film. There are still things that could be done there maybe.

PS-- yes, the media has a lot to do with the homogenization of culture and art. The media sucks and the marketing that goes on in conjunction with it is plainly vile. But the media BOTH dictates taste for the masses AND gives the masses what they want. It's a self-nourishing cycle of bullshit.

i'd agree with a lot of that.

i'd also say that a lot of the 'high art' from the clasical world that is held in awe these days was not necessarly considered to be so in it's time. in fact a lot of it (opera specifically) was mass entertainment .

i'm sure that a lot of classical composers up till the mid 19th century would be pretty surprised to find people waxing lyrical over their compositions some 200 and in some cases 500 years later. mainly because they were working under patronage, writing music at the behest of the aristocracy - A JOB not a vocation as such. that concept didnt really arise untill the romatic era in the early to mid 19th century.

When I think of the ambition behind Xenakis' musique concrete installment at the 1954 World's Fair involving 100 speakers in as many rooms playing carefully sequenced pulsetones, it makes me wanna ruin the fun for every Flaming Lips fan who are so impressed that their favorite band made that one 4CD release that begged the listener to bring together four stereos to hear them play each CD simultaneously.

I think technology still has room to improve and bring accessibility to electronic composition down to today's layman level, and that can make it possible for further pioneering by the most creative and individualistic minds. It's already come so far particularly in the past few years. New software programs have actually given rise entirely new genres of music such as breakcore. I think electronic music's present and immediate future are very promising.

I don't see what you mean. People still listen rock music! :blink:

Like Worthless Recluse, I also have trouble with the concept of being 'relevant', and can someone explain to me how electronica has a lot more 'exciting possibilities' as opposed to the 'dying-on-its-arse' rock?

Yeah! Relevant to who and to what? What are the terms of reference here? What music is relevant?

I enjoy loads of music from all eras from all over the world. I enjoy it value free. I do not care if it is "relevant". By relevant do you mean fashionable?

I'm confused :wacko: Am I irrelevant?

"It's all been done" is a pretty sweeping statement & without the aid of a time machine one you'll do pretty well to prove! I wonder if there were folks in 1955/1965/1975...etc who would have also argued that music was a wrung out format? Music has been with us for a very long time and just because the last 50 or so years have seen its profile in society's conciousness rise massively doesn't mean that it's all over....

I think that one of the issues that we face is the huge availability of music of all kinds. In 1910 if Robert Johnson was playing his blues at the crossroads in mississipi, no one in Berlin would have known a thing about it. In 2005 by the time he'd finished "Sweet Home Chicago" someone would have an MP3 up & he'd be on the cover of MOJO. The technology revolution that has powered music production and distribution also makes us feel as if theres nothing new out there anymore, because everything is available so easily.

Having a pop at mainstream music is largely pointless. Put on a few Fall records at a family party & watch how fast the room clears. There are vast quantities of people in the world who just aren't "into" music and even more for whom it's low down the priority list. Mainstream music is popular because it's generally easy to listen to and well produced. This makes it good music on its own terms or of the people who want/buy it.

Time to face facts - WE'RE the ones with the strange music tastes, not everyone else........ :devil:

This is a conceptual argument that I have been having for years.

On the one hand, we want all art to explore new ground and to push borders/limits etc.

But is not this constant search for novelty merely the reflection of consumer society's desire to keep selling us commodities by making out that each new one differs from all of the rest and is thus indispensible?

I think that there were people that believed that pop music could change the world - it no longer can and thus those that found it to have major cultural import in the past are bemoaning this loss.

I seriously doubt whether pop music ever did change the world any more than any artform/entertainment reflects the changing of the society in which they are conceived. Certainly the 1960s can be seen as a period of great cultural change in the west, but whether the pop music of the time reflected or created those changes is debatable at least.

Finally outside of relatively well-off people in the English-speaking parts of the western world, pop music has had very little direct impact and is more impactful as a totem of western values - viz the VU tribute band being arrested in Czechoslovakia and forming Charter 77 while in prison etc.

I always think when people (usually journalists) use the term "relevant" what they really mean is "fashionable".

I think this touches on something important - in music, as in most other fields, a lot of invention is driven by the availability of new technology, from the birth of the electric guitar to effects pedals to studio effects to samplers and so on. I don't see why this is going to stop... It just won't be rock music.

NB - I'm only talking about genuine originality here, I'm not arguing that someone couldn't write as good and exciting a pop song as Teenage Kicks in 30 years time... It won't be new in terms of style or method is all...

Maybe those jaded with rock should try here for a fresh musical experience-

http://www.erstwhilerecords.com/
The new Erst, 4g: Cloud, is a masterpiece!

http://www.utterpsalm.com/
Try Fractuur.

There's plenty of great 'rock' around if you know where to look.

I find this statement utterly depressing yet can think of nothing to say against it. Can anyone help me out?

Beethoven once boasted that people would still be listening to his music in ten years time!

I'm brooooadly in agreement with Gorrillabat. What I particularly liked about The Fall in the 70s/80s was their lack of aura. They took the repetition and banality of rock/pop and turned it against itself (Jarvis, 'Adorno' 1998). e.g. 'Dragnet' is extreme anti-illusionistic, anti-bullshit music.
The only way out of the impasse has been speed - pushing music so fast that it tumbles over itself - or noise, which seems pretty much exhausted now.

Music as art (in any sense of the word) has only been around for about 200 years, and there's no reason to take its continued existence for granted. Also, as Gorillabat said or implied, the marketplce has been the model or driving force for art for a long time. Most modernist art has been created out of a desire to out-compete the rest.

Just how I can fit Beefheart into this I don't know. I still haven't got a clue where his music came from. He certainly hated production techniques that made his music sound like more than it was.

John Barth, in either "The Literature of Exhaustion" or "The Literature of Replenishment," quotes an ancient Greek poet who basically says, "How sad it is to be a poet today! All of the pleasing phrases, all the powerful images have already been done..."

Barth's point is that the idea of "exhaustion" is a VERY old one.

I'll find the quote after Thanksgiving... ;)


Andy

I may have mentioned on another thread but......

Morrissey once told Melvyn Bragg on the South Bank Show in 1987 just after The Smiths had split up that, 'popular music will end. That must be patently obvious to everybody. And with the demise of The Smiths this is the beginning......'

Not his exact words but something similar.

I think that his comments were somewhat premature but music does not inspire me as much as it used to as shown by the decline in my levels of CD purchases.

I find myself reading a lot more now and listening to less music although I still maintain that music is by far the greastest art form.