Current Events > rock music is now in the same place as starcraft

(+) Yeah! (+)

fenderbender321 posted...

Yes, we have more access to things that can make different sounds, but the number of notes, scales, and everything that has to do with actual theory remains unchanged.

And no, I'm not saying there is less kids being sent away to expensive music conservatories. I'm saying that your average kid isn't growing up learning how to play piano (or another instrument), sing, and read music as was much more normal, say 60 years ago. As such, there are less people growing up who have developed musical skills like rhythm.

You do realise how much more rhythmically complicated even the most generic rap song is compared to pretty much any rock and roll tune, right?

Again, music theory is just a tool you develop in order to create the art you want to make. To hold it up as the bastion for artistic achievement is missing the point of what music is about.

You know what kids are growing up learning how to do instead of sing and play piano? They're learning how to produce entire orchestral scores from their macbook. You're telling me that music theory is dying a death but has any generation of people before now had such an all encompassing access to music that's not restricted to going to an exorbitantly expensive elite music college?

The artists who want to make music that requires learning high level musicial theory are still doing it. The only thing that's really changed here is that people just generally got kind of bored at the concept of busting out 10 minute guitar solos anymore.
---

@pres_madagascar posted...

So, recently I've begun listening to my local modern rock station to try and figure everything out, and I've learned some interesting things.

A) the new hard rock still being made sounds completely identical to the shit from 2005.
B) there has been absolutely no innovation or evolution in the genre in nearly 20 years. Speaking entirely of radio rock.
C) strangely enough, it has fans, even the modern stuff. Rabid fans. Even the dj's seem to love it. Digging further online it seems like an entire subset of people still stuck in 2005 who think that kind of stuff is badass and don't want to change.

Are you in stl? Which station are you referring to?
---

fenderbender321 posted...

TheGrindery posted...

But we've all met people who have decided to stop listening to a band they liked because it got too popular.

Often times that popularity was synomyous with a distinct change in their style. For example, The Offspring when they get popular...it was no longer hardcore punk. Or Metallica when they released the Black Album...their ferocious thrash-metal sound was sadly gone.

I like early Offspring but they were never hardcore lmao
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Just because there are still people who grow up learning to play instruments and get good at them and stuff, doesn't mean that there wasn't a higher % of people back in the day learning the basics and getting into. You have to think about how that drives the culture and competition of music, and what rises to the top.

Maybe the takeaway here is just the required tools to make music are becoming more accessible. Or maybe people are just interested in music that's more simple in structure but more complex in aesthetic. Maybe what's being pushed and developed right now is how to shape complex architectures of sound rather than how to wield complex architectures of notes.

The irony in this for all of me is that we're largely arguing over the perceived complexity of rock music - a genre of music noted for its exceptional simplicity and the fact that anyone can pick up an instrument and learn to play it with relative ease - compared to rap music, a genre of music that is largely driven by whoever can spit the best rhymes, which is very very fucking hard.

I could teach a novice how to play an AC/DC song in 2 minutes but for the life of me as someone who's been musical for 20 years I couldn't lay down 4 bars of lyrical poetry to save myself.

And incidentally, what happened to Baroque? Why isn't that popular anymore? Maybe rock ruined real music. /s
---

fenderbender321 posted...

The access doesn't matter. The potential doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. How can you possibly look at the technological revolution today - an unprecedented era where any person regardless of wealth or talent can gain access to produce large scale fully formed works of music - and say that doesn't matter?

When I was a kid, you had to buy a guitar, and your friends had to buy drums and bass, and you needed amplifiers and effects pedals, and you had to go rent out a practise studio - just to practise. But now any kid can do all of that from their macbook. That's a really big fucking deal and has totally changed the game. I wonder how many musicians could have been in previous generations if only their parents could afford to put them through music class or buy them instruments.

At the end of the day, kids learning at a young age how to understand rhythm and play an instrument are likely going to produce better music when they bust out their MacBook. It isn't necessary, as you mentioned, but it would result in a much higher and skilled level of competiveness and talent in the music industry.

At the end of the day kids have way more access to learn musical theory than ever before and the ones who truly want to learn can do so unobstructed.

Also your argument assumes that higher technical skill results in a higher level of art and I honestly don't believe that at all on a philosophical basis. I bet you love the blues, and yet music doesn't get any simpler than that.

Modern technology has made things more convenient, but you can't replace the discipline. And I've believed that if you don't understand the details of what you're doing, you can't produce art at a high level. Machines make complex rhythms a snap for even the dumbest people, but if those people don't actually understand the rhythm, and rather just hear it and think it sounds good, they are leaving a shitload of mental tools on the table that could be used to produce more meaningful, better sounding music.

The discipline hasn't been replaced. It's still there and it's just more accessible. If people don't want to learn it that's more of a cultural shift in interest, not an inability or somehow collective dumbing down of the population.

With the exception of a few people, most of your favourite rock musicians of yesteryear didn't get their chops with a formal academic basis in music theory. They learned to play by picking up a guitar as a kid, listening to their favourite artists and practising every day. That has not remotely changed in the music world. Kids are just picking up their macbooks to use as instruments instead of their guitars.

And again I absolutely don't agree with how you value art there. Some of my favourite music in the world is the most simple and least technical ever conceived. By your argument, baroque music is better than rock music, or blues music, or folk music.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

I wouldn't say either rap or rock is necessarily harder than one or the other. I know guys who can rap a bit, but have struggled to play anything well on the guitar despite years of practice. And vice versa.

And while you keep teach a novice how to play an ACDC song in 2 minutes, it will take him years of practice before he can play the entire thing through perfectly in rhythm, and be able to sing along with it as well. Hell, some people who have played guitar for years never even get to that point.

You could give an exceptionally bright and gifted violin player 2 decades worth of classical music training at the best conservatory in the world and they still probably wouldn't even do a great job of Bach's Chaconne. So what's the takeaway here? Is Baroque music more valuable than rock music? Is it better because it's harder, requires more brainpower and technical skill to pull off?

Or do we appreciate different things about rock music because it achieves things that baroque never could...

And again...there is always the factor of being able to be actually good at composing...which IMO is actually the bigger problem today. I sense a lack of passion in the concepts and final products of a lot of modern music. Almost as if people are rushing it out or something.

I think if your basis for this opinion is the corporate husk of mainstream pop chart music then yes, because it's formulaic music designed to earn money.

That has always existed, incidentally. Even Beethoven wrote music he hated just to pay the rent.
---

Take a listen to this, at least the first minute or two.

It's rap. It's mainstream, it's contemporary. And yet you can't sit down for 3 minutes and tell me there's not an exceptional level of musicianship and heart (and rhythm) going into this performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ferZnZ0_rSM
---

but seriously guys AC/DC used to be very good and in the 70s were giving first wave punk bands some serious competition in terms of harshness and aggression. Glassy guitar tones, LOUD records, noisy and sloppy solos, and throat-shredding vocals. This part of their legacy gets buried by the cock-rock they would start churning out after Highway To Hell (which itself was the pop-iffying of what they were already doing), but those early records were seriously abrasive and excellent. Don't write em off just because fat white kids champion them as LE REAL MUSIC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm4hkZ0ooYE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Gwr-VrNFM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z4ijIQYYNo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yf1KClhEE
---

I have two points I want to interject here.

First to pinky's point musicians do indeed seem talented these days. Compare Jimi Hendrix and Joe Satriani and tell me Hendrix is the better guitarist or musician. There are many solo artists like Satriani out there these days too. What we dont see is industry and culture revolutions based around music, which Hendrix was part of. There isn't as much of a modern day comparison for the Beatles not so much because there aren't comparable musicians, but rather nobody is challenging the status quo of big production companies like they did. At least not to the extent that they did. Naturally the good musicians involved in the hippue revolution became legends by virtue of being part of what was going on, and the good musicians shined brighter than the bad ones.

Now to fender's point about the decline of quality of music on average. This also ties into the points already made about technology which is a double edged sword. The internet specifically, and especially things like twitter or iTunes have created a musical democracy, where big productions win by popular vote. These productions are voted on by every brain dead and tone deaf person in the world who likes to sit around and fiddle with that sort of thing. Production companies use this metadata to produce "the perfect song" which really amounts to something that is the most catchy and therefore appealing to people who really don't understand anything about music. Ergo quality of music on average goes down.

So maybe my question is this: suppose a society existed in which everyone was very musically talented. Would the popular music still be very bland?
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

First to pinky's point musicians do indeed seem talented these days. Compare Jimi Hendrix and Joe Satriani and tell me Hendrix is the better guitarist or musician. There are many solo artists like Satriani out there these days too. What we dont see is industry and culture revolutions based around music, which Hendrix was part of. There isn't as much of a modern day comparison for the Beatles not so much because there aren't comparable musicians, but rather nobody is challenging the status quo of big production companies like they did. At least not to the extent that they did. Naturally the good musicians involved in the hippue revolution became legends by virtue of being part of what was going on, and the good musicians shined brighter than the bad ones.

The revolution that's been going on in the music world the past 10 years is that big record companies have been getting dismantled and downsized because people don't buy albums anymore. The barriers to listen to music have evaporated so now you can listen to any music released by anyone for free, regardless of where you live. That's challenged the entire industry and forced it to change more rapidly than anyone could have imagined.

We live in a pretty amazing time where a broke teenager can sound engineer an entire orchestra from his bedroom using the free software that comes with his computer and then release all that music to the entire world for free. No record deals, no soul sucking contract, no royalties or handing over creative control. There are pros and cons to that argument but I think it's amazing regardless.

I think the change in the way people can listen to and access music now is just as significant as the 60 counterculture was to music. There might not be a comparable "beatles" supergroup, but there are a lot of other things we couldn't have dreamed of 20 years ago.

On another note, I think guys like Satriani are the perfect result you get when a music genre stagnates and people don't want it to evolve or change. Just an ultra polished and a little bit bland V2.0 of the original that doesn't really feel like an improvement.

When Hendrix did all that stuff, it was shocking and new and exciting and was culturally relevant. Satriani...well, I mean it's impressive I guess, but I wouldn't say it's shocking or new or really even the kind of thing most people would even want to listen to unless they're super interested in guitar technique.

So maybe my question is this: suppose a society existed in which everyone was very musically talented. Would the popular music still be very bland?

I think the billboard charts wouldn't look as bland but I also don't think that you'd have a death of hip hop or pop music as some people are suggesting (i.e. that the smarter/more educated you are the less you will like these genres).

I have to wonder, is it really a problem if your favourite music isn't headlining the billboard charts? Like does it matter to you? Personally I like feeling part of smaller music subcultures that feel purer and less tainted by corporate greed. Let the casual listeners listen to the safe and unchallenging stuff that they enjoy, it doesn't take away from what you do.
---

Fair point about Satriani.

pinky0926 posted...

I have to wonder, is it really a problem if your favourite music isn't headlining the billboard charts? Like does it matter to you? Personally I like feeling part of smaller music subcultures that feel purer and less tainted by corporate greed. Let the casual listeners listen to the safe and unchallenging stuff that they enjoy, it doesn't take away from what you do.

I probably would agree with this. Mainly my sentiment for crappy music seeping into everywhere can be summarized with this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Gs4xGw1Eg
---

Harder to play doesn't equal better music. Dragonforce is a joke.

That's something that nobody will disagree with
---

y'all arguing with some usual suspects
---

TheGrindery posted...

Harder to play doesn't equal better music. Dragonforce is a joke.

This is exactly the point, but it's hard to take your opinion seriously when you started with (paraphrasing) "music has been a joke since the 90s" and "rap is worthless"
---

I dont get why you think blues is simple. A blues scale is more complex than a C major scale, which is the main qualifier as to whether something is blues. It has fewer notes but their arrangement is less intuitive.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

I dont get why you think blues is simple. A blues scale is more complex than a C major scale, which is the main qualifier as to whether something is blues. It has fewer notes but their arrangement is less intuitive.

But blues as a structure and form of music is incredibly simple. 8 or 12 or 16 bars, in a 4/4 time signature, with (assuming E is the tonic) a general pattern like this:

EAEBAE

3 chords, repeated in a predictable pattern, over and over again until the song finishes. What's more is that the arrangement, instrumentation and lyrics are usually all very simple and minimal too.

Now sure, something as simple as that allows for a near endless amount of variation, which is why blues is easy to play but difficult to master, but you can teach a child the blues in 5 minutes. I think it's one of the most intuitive forms of music there is. People know how it's supposed to resolve without even knowing what "resolve" means.

Compare that to say Coltrane's Giant Steps, or Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit, bebop jazz and impressionism classical respectively. You could spend years trying to learn how that works and still never really grasp it.

That's all kind of moving away from the point though. Whether blues is simple or not is kind of immaterial to the "music sucks these days" argument.
---

Yes but a major scale will generally resolve around the arpaggio, or along a basic chromatic scale. Granted Ive found myself in positions where a resolution didnt make much sense, but it was more because of the style of music I was dealing with.

Edit: I guess there is also a resolution of the 4,2,3 variety. I see your point.
---

I'd never say rapping isn't a talent. It's just one that I don't care for. ERB is funny but that's about it.

pinky0926 posted...

3 chords, repeated in a predictable pattern, over and over again until the song finishes. What's more is that the arrangement, instrumentation and lyrics are usually all very simple and minimal too.

Tbh though that's what allows other aspects of the music to really take off and where a lot of complexity can come in. Take a song like since I've been loving you - it's essentially a simple quick change blues, but there's so much chordal movement going on on top of that throughout the song that gives it it's flavour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBvxhp4JAe4t=0m50s

Classical music is similar in many cases, you might be surprised at how simple some of the chord progressions are.

More to the point of the topic, I don't think we can say music sucks these days, but I wonder if the perception is due to how in previous generations more progressive music converged with what was getting mainstream airplay? Though I don't know enough about what's on billboard these days to say one way or another how much progressive stuff pops up on it. I've always thought Kanye West was a standout in that regard though.
---

InYourWalls1 posted...

Tbh though that's what allows other aspects of the music to really take off and where a lot of complexity can come in. Take a song like since I've been loving you - it's essentially a simple quick change blues, but there's so much chordal movement going on on top of that throughout the song that gives it it's flavour.

I think a pretty good description of blues is that a fairly narrow pool with a fairly endless amount of depth.

P.s. that video clip - the beginning reminds me so strongly of This Is Spinal Tap, one of my all time favourite movies.
---

Let's not return to the argument of rap being inherently bad somehow.
---

Every decade pre 2000 had it's own uniqueness to it, you can tell listening to a song if it's from the 50s,60s,70s,80s,90s.

Music has been stagnant for the better part of a decade now. Rap got worse if you could ever say it was even good to begin with, rock went to shit after grunge died with these emo nu rock shit, country has always been shit, blues is always blues, jazz is always jazz. Etc etc.

What I have on my radio stations in my car are classic rock, 80s pop songs, 90s grunge and alternative, and even some classical music. I know when I was a kid in the 80s the old folks would always say the music was garbage blah blah blah, but as a I am now older I noticed a progression that stopped in the late 90s and has gone nowhere. Like who's the next Michael Jackson? Where's the next Nirvana to change the landscape of rock? Where's the next hit album that you feel like buying instead of downloading? There's nothing there.
---

pinky0926 posted...

I think a pretty good description of blues is that a fairly narrow pool with a fairly endless amount of depth.

P.s. that video clip - the beginning reminds me so strongly of This Is Spinal Tap, one of my all time favourite movies.

Yeah definitely, and really that applies to a great many types of music.

And yeah, that's a great movie haha

"I'm very strongly influenced by Bach and Mozart, this is like a Mach piece really...I call it Lick My Love Pump"
---

KillerKhan420 posted...

country has always been shit, blues is always blues, jazz is always jazz.

These are terribly uninformed opinions. Country was the forefather of rock. Blues has changed tremendously over the years and affected every genre.

KillerKhan420 posted...

Like who's the next Michael Jackson?

Pick a pop artist out of a hat.

KillerKhan420 posted...

Where's the next Nirvana to change the landscape of rock?

System of A Down and Red Hot Chili Peppers are changing rock still.
---

KillerKhan420 posted...

Every decade pre 2000 had it's own uniqueness to it, you can tell listening to a song if it's from the 50s,60s,70s,80s,90s.

Music has been stagnant for the better part of a decade now. Rap got worse if you could ever say it was even good to begin with, rock went to shit after grunge died with these emo nu rock shit, country has always been shit, blues is always blues, jazz is always jazz. Etc etc.

What I have on my radio stations in my car are classic rock, 80s pop songs, 90s grunge and alternative, and even some classical music. I know when I was a kid in the 80s the old folks would always say the music was garbage blah blah blah, but as a I am now older I noticed a progression that stopped in the late 90s and has gone nowhere. Like who's the next Michael Jackson? Where's the next Nirvana to change the landscape of rock? Where's the next hit album that you feel like buying instead of downloading? There's nothing there.

I haven't noticed stagnation at all, or that progression has stopped or gone nowhere.

Go plug into NPR's tiny desk concert series and have a listen to all the great stuff that fairly mainstream artists are bringing to the table right now, it should be fairly accessible to most people.

Again it's fairly hard to take the sweeping statements about the state of music today seriously coming from someone who actively writes off entire genres of music they clearly don't even bother to listen to or give a chance.
---

KillerKhan420 posted...

Rap got worse if you could ever say it was even good to begin with

Lol that's enough son
---

What's with rap fans calling everyone son?

i'm actually using it in the more UK and Ireland manner than the hip hop manner tbf
---

I aint no fortunate, son.
---