I think the 2010's will be dominated musically by...

Dopesmoker (Armand Van Helden remix)

this would be so awesome

Not unless they get signed to a major.

i dunno. wouldn't be surprised to see someone ride an indie release to a big distribution deal etc. who knows anymore, really?

Also New York does what punk did to The South's prog and brings back 'the proper way' with like 5 great albums, a bunch of great singles and then it fragments into weird shit as the NY stars don't really know what to do after ripping off Mobb Deep or Tribe.

― Samuel (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:50 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark

is everyone ignoring this because they understand it cause i have no idea what any of this means

btw i figure dino jr::10s as joy div::00s

The Avalanches.

Ugh

muse

Hoos I would imagine it is either claiming that (a) New York City hip-hop will steal attention away from Southern hip-hop with a burst of "back to basics" / "golden age" simplicity and vigor, then fragment in different directions after those basics are exhausted, or (b) VH1 reality-television star Tiffany Pollard will spend $75 on iTunes, decide she doesn't care for Lynyrd Skynyrd's use of guitar solos, steal money from various aging rappers, and then get confused.

If I know New York, it'd probably be Molly Hatchet, but otherwise nabisco OTM.

Seriously, by the end of the 2010s, things are probably so fragmented that you can hardly talk of any kind of trends at all. All kinds of musical genres will exist, all of them enjoying an underground audience that uses the net to find whatever they want to listen to. And hardly anything will be able to surface and cross over to anyone but the cult already into that genre.

This means the hitlists will be owned by the underground cult which at any time contains the largest number of fans. In the 00s this was hip-hop in the US, pop electro in Europe. In the 10s it may be something else. But it will never ever be able to capture the entire masses the same way the most popular music in the 60s did.

90s grunge nostalgia begets yet another legion of hugely popular, mid-tempo bar bands fronted by mules.

MIA, who will reach global superstar status

Stop trying to make fetch MIA happen! It's not going to happen!

indian death metal, chinese noise, maybe polka funk

polka funk - Mr. Bungle could be the Gang of Four of the 10s

Dopesmoker (Armand Van Helden remix)

this would be so awesome

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, October 21, 2009 5:13 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

such a great idea - would happily pay several dollars for a dopesmoker remix album

MIA, who will reach global superstar status

Stop trying to make fetch MIA happen! It's not going to happen!

― neither good nor bad, just a kid like you (unperson), Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:00 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

i think it could. why not?

definitely NOT 90's grunge nostalgia, unless this is intended to refer to bullshit like seether or hinder or shinedown.

Hoos I would imagine it is either claiming that (a) New York City hip-hop will steal attention away from Southern hip-hop with a burst of "back to basics" / "golden age" simplicity and vigor, then fragment in different directions after those basics are exhausted,

^^^umm, yeah, this is what i meant.

Some American or Brit is hailed as a genius for using beats from a third world dance scene in their songs.

http://rapidshare.com/files/296305499/KulitAing_Soulflip.mp3

well i can hope can't i!

Nabisco OTM about teh canon. It should come as no surprise that when describing what is good and worthwhile in the world, any given cultural group will paint a collective portrait that, by and large, resembles itself. This is neither good nor bad, it is instead simply natural -- though it can, of course, have negative consequences if a single cultural voice consistently dominates the discourse.

IMO, the wrong approach to dealing with these negative consequences is to suggest that the canon-forging group should actively subvert this subconscious tendency, that they should intentionally paint a portrait that does not resemble themselves. This merely introduces guilt and self-awareness/doubt into the system, factors which distort the image generated without addressing the underlying problem: the cultural narrowness of the canon-defining body.

This is what I was getting at in the Pfork thread. If you want a canon that seems less to celebrate the middle-class white male and his culture/values, then you have to pay more attention to other voices. Simply pestering the middle-class white males into paying lip service to other cultures & groups seems like a lousy, lazy solution.

This kind of Jim Crow approach to music criticism makes me so angry I could actually spit.

Because it plays right back into that "only blacks can write about black music, only females can write about female music - in order to make white males feel smug again about only paying attention to white male music."

Again and again, it comes down to the idea that everyone else should have to change - except for white males, who should never ever have to change or be challenged in any way. Because the way they are is "natural" and everyone else should change to accomodate their idea of nature.

It's this whole idea of mirroring - that because white college-educated males have been so successful in fabricating and enforcing (in a self-reinforcing way) a cultural world that looks JUST LIKE THEM - they have somehow formed the idea that this is "natural" and just The Way Things Are.

Because it's really astonishing how, for instance - Dan and Nabisco seem perfectly able to listen to, appreciate, discuss, even rate white artists without doing so because of "GUILT" or "self awareness/doubt" (as if self awareness and doubt are BAD things when it comes to critical discussion of culture and what makes it?)

Myself, and the other female music fans that I know - we seem perfectly able to listen to, appreciate, discuss, even rate MALE artists without that sense of GUILT perverting it.

Yet somehow the idea that white males should pay the same attention to others is met with howls of contention?

Do you think Dan so rates, for example, The Cure because of GUILT? Do you think that I rate Erkin Koray or Lindstrom on account of SELF AWARENESS AND DOUBT?

Or is it because the music that these artists produce, regardless of race or gender - makes me roll over and waggle my arms and legs in the air with sheer delight?

Yes, I concentrate on the political aspects of the inclusion of women, specifically, in Canon, because I'm a woman and this shit affects me every single day in my life as an artist and as a fan.

But do I think that those poor little white males, retreating into their shells of unaccountable TASTE, should listen to, appreciate, discuss and RATE females simply for political reasons?

No, I think they should do so because THERE IS SO MUCH GOOD AND AMAZING AND BRILLIANT AND GENIUS AND FANTASTIC MUSIC OUT THERE that happens to be made by women that they are just IGNORING because they're clinging to their solipsistic mirror-worlds.

I know I become semi-incoherent when I'm angry, and this anger distorts my message (and also enables others to write me off as "just another angry feminist bitch") but god damn it.

White males, you deliberately and exclusively create the world in your own image - then with utter solipsistic arrogance insist that this process is somehow "natural". ANYTHING that injects self awareness or doubt into the dismantling of this process can only be a good thing.

This thread is already a bit tl;dr, but God you lot are a dreary bunch, banging on about canons etc. Who says the canon IS still dominated by WASPs anyway? "Proper" (i.e. non-undie) hip-hop, grime, dubstep, r'n'b etc are just as popular with the average music critic/fan these days anyway. Black artists like Dizzee and Jay-Z are appearing on the covers of indie mags and headlining festivals all the time. 2009 has seen a massive explosion in critically acclaimed (and panned) female artists smashing the top regions of the charts. Even indie rock, the last bastion of the middle class white male is being dominated by bands like TVOTR and Bloc Party who feature black lead members.

Even the NME, who I'd basically given up on as a mag, have really reigned things in and started exposing a much more varied range of artists since that new editor got in.

So I'm calling bullshit on this one.

Love how DL comes wandering into this thread, having clearly not read any of the P4k thread it's referencing and is all...

http://www.tattoosymbol.com/tarot/large/rw_00.jpg

Bless.

http://www.insidedigitalphoto.com/wp-content/images/Canon_logo.png

Kate, what has Pitchfork got to do with this thread?

Seriously, it's been said before and I respect your views, but your posts of late have been very very:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j4BAix7ZCvo/SImYeTXNrrI/AAAAAAAABT0/75LfqDGwaZk/s200/Millie+Tant.jpg

Maybe if you actually read the thread, you might have a clue of what I'm talking about instead of throwing stereotypes like that around.

Maybe you didn't need to call him a fool for not being familiar with the P2K thread and so not realizing that the conversation had jumped over here.

The symbology of the image was appropriate if you're at all familiar with tarot.

I mean, for those of you not following along at home:

the P4k poll was basically 900 out of 1000 posts of an argument going approximately thusly:

Kate, The Lex, Tim F, et al: Wow, why do all these "canonical lists of the 00s" consist almost exclusively of white males. Surely that's not even representative of indie, let alone Music In The 00s. (Also, why the hell do other non-indie genres, especially ones that often consist of persons who are not male or not white get so ignored in these lists?)

Scads of white, indie males: we don't see anything wrong with this. Our (unchangeable, unaccountable) personal tastes are sacrosanct!

Can you understand why, after about 500 posts of this, one might start to get a bit frustrated and angry?

Just might have been dealt with already, but why should anyone care so much what white, indie males' canon is? It's not like it has any more status than anyone else's. It might be a big thing if we were talking about, I dunno, control of selection procedures for parliamentary candidacies or something - but we're not, we're talking about control of a few websites. Make your own canon! Or don't, if canons are such a bad idea.

So where are these alternate canons that are not full of white men, then? Please point me to the publications where they are published, and the messageboards where they are discussed, because I'd like to go there.

xpost

Wow? really? I read that thread as essentially 3 conversations talking over each other

1. The canon as defined by white males on the internet for fuck sake is white & male. This is bad.
2. The canon as defined by white males etc is white and male, I wonder why?
3. Taste : is it nurture or nature?

I don't recall anyone saying "I'm a white indie man, my taste is sacrosanct now fuck off"

i made u all a canon, but i eated it :(

(Another point which has already been discussed to death on that thread so, erm, I don't know why I'm repeating it here. It's really not *that* boring at work today.)

x-post

The NPR "ALL music considered" website features streamed concerts that consist of 99% white male indie rockers, Pitchfork dropped their reggae column and their POV has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, here in the Washington DC area weekly music concert previews consist mainly of indie-rock (as someone who pitches African, Latin, blues, soul, caribbean and often gets turned down I know what I am talking about). This is controlling how music from the 00's will get discussed years down the road, and it is unfair to non-indie artists who are just trying to make a living. If a site is going to hold itself out as a general interest entity, then they should reach out. No one who is suggesting more inclusion here is demanding that metal magazines cover bluegrass.

xposts

Kate, to be fair, you started throwing round the insults first... This thread is about the future of music, not Pitchfork's supposed misguided views.

And come on, Pitchfork can say what they like but they only represent a small part of the musical hivemind anyway, and it's not as if they never cover (and give good reviews to) female artists on their site. There was no board meeting where the editors decided to memo everyone saying "no smelly girls allowed on our nice clean male chauvinist brow-beating race-hating site"...

I really don't agree with your points. There is more representation of women in music and the music media than ever before, and getting militant about a Top 200 list and foisting that into this thread is largely redundant in my view.

Just might have been dealt with already, but why should anyone care so much what white, indie males' canon is? It's not like it has any more status than anyone else's

You're kidding, aren't you?

DL, I really cannot be bothered to have this whole argument again. I was just recapping to explain why I said what I did to Contenderizer.

hey, anyone want to talk about what music the 2010's will be dominated by?

i think whatever it is that takes over the world, shit's gonna get way more polyrhythmic, and people are gonna start being sloppy on purpose as a reaction to all the protools-edited-and-autotuned-to-sterility that's been so de rigueur lately.

There was no board meeting where the editors decided to memo everyone saying "no smelly girls allowed on our nice clean male chauvinist brow-beating race-hating site"...

A former editor of mine does the weekly music concert/club show recommendations for a weekly publication's e-mail. This week is Howard University homecoming and there are numerous rap, r'n'b, and reggae shows occurring. The On**n weekly list this week contains none of these Howard U associated shows. Now, did their editor hold a meeting and decide, "No, we do not want to cover those things, we only want to cover indie-rock." No, of course not. But did they seek out websites that cover non-indie, did they look at flyers and posters around town, did they listen to radio stations that feature non-indie stuff. No. That's how it works. If called on this they will say that it was the job of the reggae, rap, and r'n'b concert promoters to spoon-feed them the information. But can you blame the reggae, rap, and r'n'b folks for not trying when week after week it's indie-rock all the time.

people are gonna start being sloppy on purpose as a reaction to all the protools-edited-and-autotuned-to-sterility that's been so de rigueur lately.

Wonky, lo-fi, have you heard of these things?

i like to think the '10s are going to be dominated by on the corner rip-offs

all thoughts disconnected - sorry...

while I am ultimately way more sympathetic to Kate's perspective, I can sort of see where contenderizer is coming from, though not in terms of race, gender etc...

rock critics obviously prioritize rock music when composing their canon, and indie rock critics prioritize indie rock. indie rock is still, i guess, mostly white dudes. i tend to find the tokenism of P2K, etc. worse than if pfork had just made a list of indie records and called it "best indie rock of the decade".

the reason i find tokenism so frustrating is because its "inclusivity" is actually a formal and subconsciously vehement rejection of the value of the music it is "respecting". take jazz. i remember some rolling stone list that had the typical "kind of blue" and "a love supreme" entrys on an otherwise (surprise!) rock-oriented list. i think it is absolutely true that the music of miles davis or john coltrane is just as possible of completely galvanizing the human soul to love and action as the beatles or the velvet underground. so if those rolling stone writers had really heard coltrane in the same way as the beatles, there is no reason why there should not be many, many more jazz albums on the list ("crescent" and/or "live at birdland" is/are just as good and if "a love supreme" didn't get you to that conclusion, you weren't really listening in the first place), unless a certain viewpoint is being prioritized a priori to the actual listening, in which case, the power of coltrane is being completley ignored, boxed in, not being allowed to truly be; denied. in this decade, popism didnt break down rockism, just expanded its tastes, with similar results.

i dont believe in indie rock so i have to try and reconcile the fact that it is not diverse with the fact that i dont really care if it is made at all. i am only half-kidding when i say maybe all of the non-participating women, blacks, latinos, etc., are just smart! not to pick on Dan but since his tastes have already been mentioned, I think he is objectively correct in liking the Cure and probably not Grizzly Bear or the Decemberists. objectively! to put it another way, as much as i think that it can be enjoyable sometimes to watch it on a sunday with a few beers at a fun bar, i dont really care about (american) football. when i think about the totality of "football", not just the sport, but the "industrial" and social aspects of it, i tend to question why it needs to exist at all outside of something for kids to do on the weekends. so its hard for me to think of more women playing football as something as positive for women as, say, legislation ensuring equal pay for equal work. so i guess, ultimately, what i am honestly curious about is why, on the one hand, people think, in 2k9, or even SINCE 1995, that indie deserves, in any way, to be an organizing force or major narrative of music or music criticism? My other question is - when will indie rock critics, like die-hard racists be marginalized enough to no longer a determining factor in how the rest of us think about and discuss music? what responsibility do we have in bringing this about?

nu-lo-fi

Let me be plain about one thing: I do NOT advocate that kind of tokenism that you're saying Contenderizer is affeared of.

That's a misunderstanding of my position.

sorry didnt mean to insinuate that.
i think my perspective is more like:
tokenism seems to be the end result of any critique of rockism and indie rock. so fuck rocksim and indie rock.
house music is better than animal collective trying to figure it out.

oh hi this thread.

If every genre was made by a different set of ppl who had a hard time understanding each other maybe tokenism would be an issue. There are plenty of rock fans who love loads of jazz, and, not shockingly, most of the ppl who have boring taste in jazz have boring taste in rock too. On collective lists with voting the whole thing goes lowest common denominator across the board anyway but the good thing about having diverse groups of critics is they expose each other to lots of music&ideas. Genres aren't incommensurable, anyone who's paying attention is going to be making connections between a variety of stuff, noticing ppl copping moves and sounds from sources outside their genre. This is one of the best things about popular music. On this note I think chart pop is going to get broader and better and there will be more ppl moving from wherever they started to more generalist stuff e.g. black eyed peas (this is not nec. the better part). That they can crib from boys noize and coldplay style dreary brit indie on consecutive hits seems like a portent.

Moaning that Pitchfork cover too much indie rock is a bit like moaning that Vibe don't cover enough Beethoven. Saying on one hand that they're too white male indie rock heavy, and then moaning that their attempts to widen certain horizon reek of tokenism, is just having your cake and eating it.

Anyway, let's forget about this and keep on mystic megging.

I think that was my point... instead of trying to have them broaden their scope they should just narrow it and be a lot more honest about what it is.

I'm saying nearly all good critics have broad scope. Ppl complain the most about tokenism when it crosses demographic lines, staying within them as an expression of critical honesty is some steamy bullshit indeed.

xp eh that's dumb--there are non-indie rock records i found and enjoyed thru pitchfork.