Retromania: Pop culture's Addiction to its Own Past. (New Simon Reynolds book).

Fear of a Black Planet and Nevermind had no no dramatic or cross-cultural impact at the time.

Sorry Matt, but that's nonsense.

What I mean is, I want good music and a broader variety of music to be available to more people, not just people with $200 a month to blow on CDs.

I am not sure what tribalism is, it seems like a lot of people I have known for a long time consume along the same lines they did twenty or thirty years ago. Which is good or really, really bad, depending on how open-minded they were to begin with.

Nevermind had no no dramatic or cross-cultural impact at the time

i was about 9/10 when this came out and i remember lots of people talking about it at that point, i think nevermind prob had a pretty huge cultural impact. smells like teen spirit was huge.

not read simon's book but i largely agree with the thesis, especially as regards modern pop, the stuff in the charts currently is only "new" in the sense that the idea of being able to forcibly meld so many pre-existing genres together in one song is quite "new".

Fear of a Black Planet and Nevermind had no no dramatic or cross-cultural impact at the time. People who cared cared, otherwise these things build over time. The Adele album now is a bigger deal than either of those were at the time.

and Paula Abdul, Bryan Adams, and MC Hammer were bigger than all of them put together.

post - you are a strange fellow, but power to you, and I can imagine more and more people agreeing with you. Unless there's some alternate technological shift in the future, I can imagine generations growing up to think of cover art as a bizarre antiquated concept.

I was so excited about an album I heard the other day, I wanted to give a copy to everyone I knew. A few years ago I'd have maybe burnt or taped it and given it to friends or work colleagues, but this time I though 'no - that's a weird thing to do when they could easily go on Spotify and listen to it that way'. I don't make mix CDs for people either - once a prime bonding method for me at aleast.

It's not entirely nonsense, I'm bluntening the argument a bit but Doglatin is talking about these records as if they immediately attained the sort of canonical significance we can see at a distance of 20-odd years, and wondering why he can't see that in the albums of today.

I'm happy to change my mind about this one, but tell me - exactly what is coming out right now that is likely to have the same dramatic and cross-cultural impact as such (admittedly plucked from the air) examples above?

Fear of a Black Planet and Nevermind had no no dramatic or cross-cultural impact at the time. People who cared cared, otherwise these things build over time. The Adele album now is a bigger deal than either of those were at the time.

A bigger seller maybe - refuse to believe people Adele's record will go on to inspire as much as those two other albums, but then this is all relative as ever.

I don't know – I still burn CD's for people's birthdays! I'm also posting stuff on Dropbox.

Nevermind did immediately - at least within a year if not the day of release - attain canonical significance. It changed alternative/underground rock's sense of itself forever, swept away the 80s model of hard rock, opened doors for dozens of other bands, and sold millions and millions of albums. And when Black Planet came out Public Enemy were (along with Ice Cube) the most controversial, exciting and widely discussed band in the most controversial, exciting and widely discussed genre of the day. I suppose we could get into definitions of "cross-cultural impact" but neither of these were just normal good records well-liked by their fans.

So you're simply not going to get this kind of dramatic hivemindy fanaticism as you once might.

lol someone obviously not familiar with insane internet stan culture

swept away the 80s model of hard rock

In the light of history it seems to have encouraged a dual repurposement of it (one part decided to get tougher/grungier/more 'industrial', the other part just said 'fuck it' and moved to Nashville).

On what basis? Most listeners weren't particularly tribalistic even in the 80s and 90s.

You went to school then right? Did you never encounter dichotomies between fans of various music? Maybe it was just the schools in my area, but I remember VERY strong (and rather childish) tribal alignments that could lead to serious social repercussions if crossed. If anything this seemed even stronger in the eighties - punks would avoid metal, Smiths fans were famous for their dedication and seen as a tribe in their own right. I've definitely noticed a shift in the last 10-15 years where, say, rock kids wouldn't have any problems delving into electro or drum'n'bass or dubstep or hip hop.

refuse to believe people Adele's record will go on to inspire as much as those two other albums

fyi it's not actually for you to decide, but instead of focusing on adele why not focus on the obvious precursor to her, a canonical album with as much cross-cultural impact as any of the examples you've listed, ie amy winehouse?

isn't the nub of this the idea that technology causes bigger trends or tribal events than music does nowadays? eg for instance, was the advent of spotify a bigger musical event than any lp release?

i'm not saying it definitively was, but i think the idea that technology now drives all the big (and less big) "buzzes" where once music was people's window into the world, is probably worth exploring.

i don't think this devalues music at all though, it'd be silly to draw that conclusion. it's just a matter of what things become cultural trends...i think tech and the internet drives everything, in a way more splintered way though, naturally.

nb i was 9/10 when nevermind came out and heavily into the charts starting from 1991 but i somehow completely missed "smells like teen spirit", the first nirvana song i heard was the following year, and i had no idea when SLTS sounded like until the late 90s

it was shit

Most listeners weren't particularly tribalistic even in the 80s and 90s.

A numerical majority of record-buyers, no, but people who were passionate about music, undoubtedly.

post - you are a strange fellow, but power to you, and I can imagine more and more people agreeing with you. Unless there's some alternate technological shift in the future, I can imagine generations growing up to think of cover art as a bizarre antiquated concept.

When vinyl first appeared there were only cardboard or paper sleeves and people made a fuss about 'canned music' and how it was being 'reduced to an object'.

i went to school in the 90s. kids into brit pop HATED what i was into - r&b and hip hop - with a passion and condecension. people into hip hop didnt hate rock but didnt really like it much either. i remember one kid who was really into prince as i was but then britpop came along and he totally ditched all of that stuff for oasis lol.

I've definitely noticed a shift in the last 10-15 years where, say, rock kids wouldn't have any problems delving into electro or drum'n'bass or dubstep or hip hop.

Shouldn't you applaud this?

So its kind of (and this is problem with SR also) don't make mistake of thinking the past is 'how it always was'

"Shouldn't you applaud this?"

no

So you're simply not going to get this kind of dramatic hivemindy fanaticism as you once might.

lol someone obviously not familiar with insane internet stan culture

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 16:11 (45 seconds ago) Bookmark

Keyword here is: internet. Of course you're going to find kindred spirits on the internet.

Maybe it was just the schools in my area, but I remember VERY strong (and rather childish) tribal alignments that could lead to serious social repercussions if crossed.

thing is beneath that layer of super-dedicated types you have a whole bunch, indeed "most listeners", who like and purchase music but aren't actually that fussed about dedicating themselves to a genre or subculture or whatever

its very hard finding people in the real world into grime

"Shouldn't you applaud this?"

no

― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2),

Tribalism has its uses, but not when it turns parochial and snobbish (lol high school)

it took me a while to not hate rock music and the fans

fyi it's not actually for you to decide, but instead of focusing on adele why not focus on the obvious precursor to her, a canonical album with as much cross-cultural impact as any of the examples you've listed, ie amy winehouse?

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 16:13 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

Really? Really? I know she's just died and everything, but...

xp SR doesn't make that mistake though. He's talking about a particular period, not the entire history of music.

let's just call each other assholes

i think you are wilfully refusing to see things you don't want to see at this point, dog latin

what cross cultural impact did she have? the reason shes big news is cos shes a celeb draw and sold a lot of records, ie a big (if unlikely) pop star. and she influenced a lot of terrible artists into being (or influenced labels into bringing those artists into being). other than that i dont really see it. great records but shes just a great original, not someone with wider impact.

x-postage:

FWIW my teenage son just came back from three weeks @ camp w/kids from around the USA and said "everybody was into this music called dubstep"

I think you have to define wider impact, titchy and dog latin. I don't see why Back to Black doesn't qualify.

xp SR doesn't make that mistake though. He's talking about a particular period, not the entire history of music.

― Strictly vote-splitting (DL), Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:21 PM

This is a fair point i agree...not sure why I typed that, was meaning to say something slightly different re:SR!

Matt DC are you saying nevermind had no cultural impact in the UK or the US? cuz if you mean the UK i guess i'll have to believe you if you say so

but if you're saying the US, you are straight up crazy.

i get the impression that dog latin is way too invested in his flimsy, simplistic and blinkered argument because it'd make him feel better about the fact that it applis to HIM, individually, but i wish he'd stop speaking on behalf of "us" or "society" or "everyone"

i think you are wilfully refusing to see things you don't want to see at this point, dog latin

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 16:22 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

nb i was 9/10 when nevermind came out and heavily into the charts starting from 1991 but i somehow completely missed "smells like teen spirit", the first nirvana song i heard was the following year, and i had no idea when SLTS sounded like until the late 90s

it was shit

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 16:15 (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

thing is, yeah pop music will have always have wider impact, its a great era for pop, pop is still big numbers, and a big event, anything thats not so big and mass market however, wont have quite the same cross cultural impact like it previously would have had the chance to.

i think matt's saying that you only get to see which the canon records with cross-cultural impact that inspire millions of copycats are in retrospect, not on the day of release, otherwise the hysteria over something like gaga's album this year would qualify

I've definitely noticed a shift in the last 10-15 years where, say, rock kids wouldn't have any problems delving into electro or drum'n'bass or dubstep or hip hop.

Shouldn't you applaud this?

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 27 July 2011 16:16 (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

I'm def not saying it's a bad thing. I went through hell in secondary school because of that kind of territorial bullshit.

For me, cover art is still very important even if it's only a thumbnail in your Spotify window.

xp But we're not talking about 2011 releases alone. Nevermind was impactful almost right away - you don't need a decade to see which records have cultural weight.

Hope listening services like Spotify will eventually allow for more art from individual releases somehow.

its like dizzees first album, everyone knew instantly it was significant

The mysterious "everyone" again.

http://www.factmag.com/2011/06/20/five-minutes-with-simon-reynolds/

“There does seem to have been a long moment when music had a particular prestige and and it does feel like that moment has passed. Music was a sort of sovereign zone: it demanded the listener’s complete immersion, you were subjugated to the temporality of the Album. Now music is much more about being at our disposal, it’s become convenient, a backdrop to other activities, a space-filler. Music is ubiquitous today in a way that it actually wasn’t in the Sixties and Seventies. It’s in the soundtracks of games and movies, it’s in TV commercials, it’s piped out as Muzak in supermarkets and cafés. We take it wherever we go with our iPods and iPhones. Yet this omnipresence and superabundance has ultimately led to a depreciation in music’s value."

“The other thing is that music had a privileged status where it wasn’t just one option in a range of entertainments, or merged with them in various transmedia combinations. Music was rather the central prism through which all other fields of culture were seen, a glue connecting various disparate zones of progressive culture and politics. Just look at how important rock in the late Sixties/early Sixties sense was to Martin Scorsese – music ran through all his films, with The Last Waltz he created a memorial to an entire era as it was fading out, decades later he did the Dylan documentary. Or look at how the New York artists of the late Seventies were all in bands and saw rock as the power spot of the culture. Rolling Stone was defined by its founder Jann Wenner as being a magazine not just about the music, but all the things and attitudes that music embraced and was about. There was a long moment when there seemed to be hardly any limits to the things that music could be about."

That is completely contradictory and incoherent.

i suppose this is the point i just admit to being old

Basically everyone, from Lex to Dog Latin to SR, is writing their own versions of history, when there's actually a million different histories.

How is it incoherent? It's hardly controversial to say that pop music used to be front and centre of cultural change in a way that it isn't now because there are other equally (or more) exciting, relevant and innovative artforms and technologies competing for that role.

I think the "central prism" thing is more to do with genre fracturing than with any change in depth or impact.