Nothing Left To Invent (or possible even recycle to good effect) In Music aka Dooooooooom!

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (47 of them)
Of course its not the be all and end all to try and do something new. In fact when these 'new things' emearged it seemed that most of the time they were not really intentional. When you listen to the stories of how records like 'Blue Monday' came about they're often total accidents, or at least the way they get blown up and become so popular are.

I'm in the position of having grown up with the technology boom that resulted in genres such as techno, hip hop and house all emerging in a short space of time and I'm quite bogged down in them all. Because I've grown up in parallel with the music was a little hard adjusting to the idea that not every generation might have that and that there wouldnt be some other kind of revolution for me to encounter (and struggle to keep abreast of) in my mid-late 20s. It did occur to me that the whole 'music and the internet/new technology' thing is the revolution of our time though. If you ask people to name an exciting musical form from the 70s they'd probably say punk, the 80s = acid house, the 90s = possibly drum n bass/garage/the mutations of acid house but for this decade perhaps the most memorable exciting thing has been Napster, AG, p2p file sharing and perhaps even the explosion of blogging. None of it a musical genre as such but equally as inspiring as the music itself in many ways.

But perhaps it is irrelevant that there's nothing new around the corner (people's suggestions such as bhangra hip hop, arabic drum n bass etc. - they've all existed for 10-20 years already at least and thats not what i'm talking about). I didnt mean whats about to become trendy or popular, I meant what could be really qualify as a new form of music. I am putting this down to technology and rhythmic structure but I dont see how else to define it because making music that moves you regardless of how its made has always been elemental. If anyone could name some records that they think delivered new ideas that were not dependent on the technology used to make them then please give some examples - I'd be interested to see what you come up with. Perhaps Radiohead's last two albums might be a good example. What sounds like 'Pyramid Song'? And that track coulve been recorded at any point over the last 10 or 20 years because it doesnt seem to rely on the latest developments in music technology...sorry i had to use Radiohead, I'm sure there are better more obscure examples...

, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

There can't be "an end" to something like "music" can there? I mean it's just so ridiculous an idea. Only evolution surely, and maybe an end in your interest.

Ronan, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

"Fuck *new sounds*, fuck *done all before*, I am interested in music that MOVES me."

I agree. I'm not waiting for a scene, an explosion, or a new type of music. I just want each album I buy to sound brilliant, fresh and exciting. Some will, some won't. Sure, I see the need for innovation, but I demand it more on an individual band/artist level. I'm not waiting for one, singular sweeping trend.

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

sure the making of music is never going to stop. i'm just getting quite fascinated about what kind of music will be popular/trendy in 10, 20 and 50 years time now. if you look at every single in the charts now, is there one of them that couldnt have been sitting in the chart five years ago? I dont actually think you could say that in 1995 or perhaps even as recently as 1998...or do you think tracks like 'Emerge' could only have come out now that the climate seems to be right (whatever that means)?

, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

"Is music like an animal of which we've identified every kind of species?"

there are LOTS of species that havent been discovered

Chupa-Cabras, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I would say that the music world is still digesting, plundering, recycling, reflecting on the three major new forms of music, new paradigms that emerged between 1985-1995: the house/techno revolution, hip-hop and extreme metal. I can't think of any other period in time, apart from maybe the '20s Jazz era, where so much innovation happened simultaneously. In comparison, the 1975-1985 era was also somewhat of a recycling decade, recovering from the preceding revolutions. Punk as a return to basic rock 'n roll, prog as a sublimation of the 60s meandering experimentation, new wave as a return to basic pop.

Siegbran Hetteson, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Oh come on! you can't say "oh all this could have been in the charts 5 years ago". I mean maybe it could maybe it couldn't but you're basically saying someone could have had this thought process 5 years ago and came up with this single, er how could they? They didn't. If you're saying the charts 5 years ago contained very similar music to the charts now I'm sure a quick chart dig out would lead to alot of people disagreeing with you.

Ronan, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

dam, my reply to ronan got wiped...if i can muster the energy i will re-attempt later

i do stand by the 5 year thing tho - whats the most innovative thing in the charts right now? is it the Neptunes productions? Timbaland had set that ball rolling with Missy's first releases back in 96/97...The Streets and Fischerspooner owe too much to what was happening ten (or even twenty) years ago - as Mike Skinner says 'same sights, same sounds, new beats tho'

i'm not saying music was better then, just that its NOT better now

, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Big upheaval due in 2005. You heard it here first.

Lord Custos III, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Next big thing: link

Next big thing: SPACE ROCK

I hope it works this time. My mistake was funnier though.

DeRayMi, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

That darn space rock, always causing problems!

I just want each album I buy to sound brilliant, fresh and exciting.

Fresh = new, though? ;-)

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Ned, I take a shower. I come out of the shower "fresh," but I am not new.

DeRayMi, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

But all your dead skin and oil is flushed away and your new baby pink skin shines brightly in the sun.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

autechre is art not music? is that what you said? i agree with most of the other thing said about technology and way music has changed and such. but do you think 10 or 20 or years ago anyone could've imagined what has happned in music now? not at all. i'll admit to being one of those whom demand my music to have an element of originality and to be evolving. and as long as there are jerks like me (there are alot of jerks like me) musicians are going to be trying there asses off to come-up with new ideas.

but come on now. music is art. music is math. autechre is music. but if you see it as one or the other, then the future of music for you is in the past.

dyson, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Just because you or I can't imagine the next 'new' thing doesn't mean it's not going to happen. I mean, if we could, we'd be doing it already, yes? Also, everything we consider massive musical innovations in the last 100 years (for example) was just building on what came before + combining new elements...while the speed of all this may indeed be increasing do to technology and globalization blah blah blah, I have pretty strong faith in humans' creativity in general.

Further, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND all this Autechre as noise stuff. It all sounds very coherent to me...they have melodies, clear rhythms and time signatures, etc. Sure they use lots of interesting (and yummy) sounds and I think they're the most musically 'advanced' of nearly any electronic group I've heard, but I get plenty of emotion out of it, um, because it's good music.

Jordan, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I almost commented on the Autechre remark myself, but then I took a second look and the original poster never actually said that it wasn't music, just that it doesn't feel like it (to the poster, anyway). I don't especially like Autechre. I gave away the three or four Autechre CDs I inherited last summer, but I certainly have no trouble considering it music.

except it doesnt feel like music anymore JUST art

DeRayMi, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

i'm not actually looking for really new ideas in music, i'm quite content with what we've already got at the moment. there's no way you can hear everything out there already but thats a good enough target to aim for if we've exhausted the range of formulae music can consist if.

As for Autechre, well their recent stuff is quite different from their early stuff but I guess I was thinking more about whan I saw them live and it really was just a complete blitz of incomprehensible sonic chaos. Couldnt help feeling that Autechre had decided retaining any sense of rhythm was boring/limiting and they'd rather experiment more in abstract . Its still music because its still organised and arranged sounds but it doesnt actually do anything for me - I still like 'Tri Repetae', 'Amber' and the stuff of that era though.

, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Autechre is the classic example of the case where the journey towards their goal was more interesting than the goal itself.

Siegbran Hetteson, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I haven't seen them live, but at least on Chiastic Slide, Peel Sessions 2 etc., their sense of rhythm is one of my favorite things about them.

Jordan, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

(c) Simon Reynolds, Unfaves 2001, Lack of Brave New Formulations.

david h(0wie), Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

"Fresh = new, though? ;-)"

I know. I wasn't saying "I don't like new music". I meant: "I'm not looking for one scenre rhat will sweep music clean.". I approach music on an artist-by-artist level. I demand innovation from some artists but not by others.

"Ned, I take a shower. I come out of the shower "fresh," but I am not new."

"But all your dead skin and oil is flushed away and your new baby pink skin shines brightly in the sun."

Whaddya mean, dudes? I'm lost.

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I found this. Seems to fit. Or at least the first two pages do, in an odd sort of way.

Nate Patrin, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

JT's crapness aside, that puts it nicely. One thing I want to point out is that outside ILM, a lot of people are willing to accept Lucinda Williams and Dylan2K as the nearest thing to genius we have. And these two are still innovators, not sonically but thematically. Isn't that as much as you could hope for from those of us who can't attain the higher plane of Autechre (*COUGH, COUGH*)?

B-Rad, Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Kilian, I was just trying to illustrate a way in which "fresh" could be used without meaning "new." If I am in fact fresh when I step out of the shower, I am nevertheless not new, as I was born many years ago. As for Ned's elaboration, I thought it best not to build on the imagery he had already added to the discussion. ;)

Chogyam Trungpa said that Dharma transmission is like fresh bread, or something like that, that each teach makes it into something like fresh bread. I'm not Buddhist, but that image has stuck with me.

I think I will definitely go to Metropolitan Bakery tomorrow.

DeRayMi, Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

i still don't really understand this question, newness is always incremental, its only big steps to people who didn't (for whatever reason) notice the little steps in between

and nothing dates faster than the future anyway

gareth, Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

you may be right gareth - no music ever really explodes into existence overnight. although where the music is more dependent on the latest technology (i.e. electronica) the discovery and develepment of new styles has come about very quickly e.g. before 1990/91 there were no real dance tracks using breakbeats of over 140bpm but by 1992 it was mainstream with rave music all over the charts. i guess thats as overnight as you can get?

, Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

As for Ned's elaboration, I thought it best not to build on the imagery he had already added to the discussion. ;)

Doubtless the wisest approach!

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.