I never paid any attention to Madonna or Lady Gaga so I wouldn't know. I do know that the '90s were great.

I dunno. maybe it's just me, but I've had the feeling that we've been dead as a culture for at least 10 years now. Sure, we laugh at bollywood and europe...but they're at least doing something new (even if its occasionally stupid). the us tho? same shiat, different decade. the music all sounds the same, the stories all sound alike. anything new is feared, anything that pushes us even a little bit is ignored. don't ask, don't tell and whatever you do don't question. that seems to be our mantra.

just my .02 cents though. take it for what you will.

I can think of worse years to be like.

1985, for example.

Weaver95: anything new is feared

That's always been the case.

think about it. how many movies are reruns/remakes and/or sequals these days? pop stars are manufactured to hit key demographics, not out of any real sense of style or talent. And everything is managed - their hair, their 'look'. even their dates and relationships are designed for maximum market value. And their music is written for them, again designed to be carefully meaningless and bland.

GAT_00: Weaver95: anything new is feared

That's always been the case.

yeah, but our culture is taking it to extremes. our memes are 'home, hearth, family'. even our rebellious music has a corporate management team.

Weaver95: GAT_00: Weaver95: anything new is feared

That's always been the case.

yeah, but our culture is taking it to extremes. our memes are 'home, hearth, family'. even our rebellious music has a corporate management team.

No, it's not. This article is the same kind of article old people who are just realizing they're old write every year.

Things change. Big farking deal. Man up Nancy.

GAT_00: Things change. Big farking deal. Man up Nancy.

that's just it - things HAVEN'T changed. our culture is manufactured, processed, pre-packaged and shipped out in pretty little boxes that everyone is expected to open at the appropriate time and circumstances and then absorb in easily measured doses.

I'm inclined to agree with Weaver95, except with the caveat that things always run in 20 year cycles. Happy Days was on in the 70s, "The 60s" was the hot thing in the 80s, Disco made a comeback in the club scene in the 90s... It's always the same. It just seems more so this time around, perhaps because a higher percentage of the population was here for it than in previous decades. JMHO, though.

Yeah right, 2011 wishes.

Weaver95: GAT_00: Things change. Big farking deal. Man up Nancy.

that's just it - things HAVEN'T changed. our culture is manufactured, processed, pre-packaged and shipped out in pretty little boxes that everyone is expected to open at the appropriate time and circumstances and then absorb in easily measured doses.

No, you have a point. There's no rock anymore. Since I was 16 I recognized that pop music sucks, it always has. But there was always rock music. So that's gone. And there are no movies anymore. This summer we have to sit through Peter Parker getting bit by a spider again and the back story of Alien. Yeah, everything kind of sucks.

GAT_00: Weaver95: GAT_00: Weaver95: anything new is feared

That's always been the case.

yeah, but our culture is taking it to extremes. our memes are 'home, hearth, family'. even our rebellious music has a corporate management team.

No, it's not. This article is the same kind of article old people who are just realizing they're old write every year.

Things change. Big farking deal. Man up Nancy.

Exactly. The only thing that hasn't changed is people that suddenly clue into the pattern of it all. The guy has a few good points- that easier access to historical cultural artifacts makes revering them in a nostalgic way possible. But it also makes mashing them and reinterpreting and reengineering them easier as well. What this guy forgets is that in 1991, almost all of those the culture came top down. now, culture is just as likely to come bottom up. I suppose the similarity between '91 and '11 is that both were times of healthy respect for DIY culture (see: Seattle scene).

The important difference is that we are actually in the process of being rewired as a species on on how culture operates. Facebook and twitter and youtube are as game-changing as spoken language, the written word, the guttenberg press, powered flight, radio, and television have been in the past. Any technology that radically changes the cost, ease, speed, frequency, or accuracy with which we can communicate takes us to the next level of civilization.

Right now, we're still in the play phase, figuring out how to harness what it means through creative (but perhaps visibly useless) means. The use of FB and twitter in Iran, the Arab Spring revolutions, or OWS is starting to hint at the power of these sorts of changes.


In the narrow field of the music industry, a confluence of forces (ease of recording, distribution and sales, along with ease of piracy) means that an artist's primary emphasis is increasingly local and performance-centric. Like the microbrewing phenomenon, The small, adaptable mammals are eating the dinosaurs lunch. Hipsterism is a visible extension of this- The onus is higher on individuals to be participants in the marketing of culture. When someone shares with you what they listen to or eat or drink or where they go or whatever, they're advocating and marketing. That you perceive them as a douchebag for doing so indicates there's work to be done in some cases in connecting story with audience.

Ironically, I wrote a paper to this effect in a Poli-sci class, in 1992, as a rebuttal to Francis Fukiyama's 'The End of History'. I guess some things really don't change.

SilentStrider: I can think of worse years to be like.

1985, for example.

"Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits was pretty good.

Weaver95: think about it. how many movies are reruns/remakes and/or sequals these days? pop stars are manufactured to hit key demographics, not out of any real sense of style or talent. And everything is managed - their hair, their 'look'. even their dates and relationships are designed for maximum market value. And their music is written for them, again designed to be carefully meaningless and bland.

That's nothing new though.


1960s


1970s



1980s


1990s


Were all simply commercial products, bland and marketable- corporate music- designed to be inoffensive and flavorless, like Wonder Bread.

FloydA: "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits was pretty good.

true.

FloydA: Were all simply commercial products, bland and marketable- corporate music- designed to be inoffensive and flavorless, like Wonder Bread.

Exactly. Pop music has always sucked, that's its purpose. Justin Beiber is no worse than the farking Monkees. But back in my day we always had rock music to flee to.

Weaver95: GAT_00: Things change. Big farking deal. Man up Nancy.

that's just it - things HAVEN'T changed. our culture is manufactured, processed, pre-packaged and shipped out in pretty little boxes that everyone is expected to open at the appropriate time and circumstances and then absorb in easily measured doses.

The 90s were just as manufactured and processed. Heck, watching B5 again, from the original tapes only reinforced that when you looked at the ads. That was a progression from the 80s. There are shows and movies that resonate, there are books that make connections, but that isn't the culture "advancing" it's just how the consumer culture operates. Not better, but mixing and remixing bits and pieces, and occasional stabs for brilliance. Sometimes with references to what has come before, sometimes new, but always we are weighing in with the corporate culture co-opting and copying whatever seems that the cool kids are doing. Be that in music, be that in art, be that in theater, be that in films. The rush to get a quick buck is King. And has been for a long while.

Y'all are just realizing this, because you're old enough to finally see the cycles up close.

You're welcome. ;)

SilentStrider: FloydA: "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits was pretty good.

true.

I agree that 1985 was a pretty weak year for pop/Top 40 music. There was some very good "alternative" music that year though, and some awesome punk, ska and reggae, if you knew where to look for it.

With rock radio dead and MTV not actually playing any music we wont be rescued by new music like we were in the early 90's

Mugato: FloydA: Were all simply commercial products, bland and marketable- corporate music- designed to be inoffensive and flavorless, like Wonder Bread.

Exactly. Pop music has always sucked, that's its purpose. Justin Beiber is no worse than the farking Monkees. But back in my day we always had rock music to flee to.

Ah, but the Monkees were wooden boys who wanted to be real boys. I sincerely doubt a modern Bieber creation would throw it all away just to be able to write and perform his own music, as the Monkees did.

hubiestubert: Y'all are just realizing this, because you're old enough to finally see the cycles up close.

Name a decent rock album in the last decade. Mainstream, not from the bumper sticker the girlfriend has on the back of her car. And pretty much every movie next summer is a sequel, prequel or remake.

FloydA: SilentStrider: FloydA: "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits was pretty good.

true.

I agree that 1985 was a pretty weak year for pop/Top 40 music. There was some very good "alternative" music that year though, and some awesome punk, ska and reggae, if you knew where to look for it.

86 and 87 were better, probably. Seeing as how Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax and Slayer all released fantastic albums during that time.

Mugato: Name a decent rock album in the last decade. Mainstream, not from the bumper sticker the girlfriend has on the back of her car. And pretty much every movie next summer is a sequel, prequel or remake.

Anthrax- Worship Music
Rush- Snakes and Arrows
Alice in Chains- Black Gives Way to Blue
Iron Maiden- A Matter of Life and Death

And that's just off the top of my head.

SilentStrider: 86 and 87 were better, probably. Seeing as how Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax and Slayer all released fantastic albums during that time.

Appetite for Destruction came out in '87.

Mugato: Appetite for Destruction came out in '87.

also a plus for 1987.

Mugato: hubiestubert: Y'all are just realizing this, because you're old enough to finally see the cycles up close.

Name a decent rock album in the last decade. Mainstream, not from the bumper sticker the girlfriend has on the back of her car. And pretty much every movie next summer is a sequel, prequel or remake.

Name a decent mainstream rock album from the 90s while you're at it. What is mainstream? The Chili Peppers got co-opted and turned mainstream. Ice-T and Tone Loc turned into children's show fodder. Kevin Smith and Del Toro and Raimi got major movies. The guy who did Bad Taste made the frippin' Lord of the Rings. Heck, Mike Mignola's Hellboy made it to the big screen. The guy with the crappy Beast makeup got to BE Hellboy even, and has been back and forth on the Cool-meter a few times. Yes, there are crappy pop bands, and folks reject them, and have for a long time, and new folks get found, and then they "sell out" and folks get their butts in an uproar, and the cycle moves on...

SilentStrider: Mugato: Name a decent rock album in the last decade. Mainstream, not from the bumper sticker the girlfriend has on the back of her car. And pretty much every movie next summer is a sequel, prequel or remake.

Anthrax- Worship Music
Rush- Snakes and Arrows
Alice in Chains- Black Gives Way to Blue
Iron Maiden- A Matter of Life and Death

And that's just off the top of my head.

The new Foo Fighters, Wasting Light, is pretty damn good, and that's this year.

FirstNationalBastard:
Ah, but the Monkees were wooden boys who wanted to be real boys. I sincerely doubt a modern Bieber creation would throw it all away just to be able to write and perform his own music, as the Monkees did.

Point taken. Although I suspect that Rafelson and Schneider would have gladly cast a Beiber-like automaton if they had realized such a thing was even possible.


SilentStrider:

86 and 87 were better, probably. Seeing as how Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax and Slayer all released fantastic albums during that time.

Good point.

FloydA: FirstNationalBastard:
Ah, but the Monkees were wooden boys who wanted to be real boys. I sincerely doubt a modern Bieber creation would throw it all away just to be able to write and perform his own music, as the Monkees did.

Point taken. Although I suspect that Rafelson and Schneider would have gladly cast a Beiber-like automaton if they had realized such a thing was even possible.




Definitely.

Don Kirschner was so pissed off at having people actually talk back to him that he formed The Archies, and swore never to work with real people again.

...and that's why the song Sugar Sugar exists.

FirstNationalBastard:

...and that's why the song Sugar Sugar exists.

Which is, of course, conclusive proof that Satan is real. ;-)

the 40's and 50's collectively gave us
Swing
Jazz
Honky-Tonk
Blues
Bebop
Soul
Doo-Wop
Rock N' Roll
R&B
Rockabilly
Country & Western

the 60's gave us
Surf rock
Drag rock
The British Invasion (beatles!)
Folk Rock
Twist songs
Psychadellia
Funk
Bubblegum

the 70's gave us
Punk Rock
Prog Rock
Hard Rock
Heavy Metal
Glam Rock
Dub
Disco
Album Rock
Rap

The 80's gave us
New Wave
Hair Metal
Europop
Italo
Synth Pop
Electropop
Hip-Hop

The 90's gave us:
Grunge
Techno
House
Ibiza
Ambient
Alternative
Nu metal
Indie

And then along comes the 2000's, and I can't think of a single new musical genre that happened. Not unless "overuse of autotune" counts.

What's the "now" sound? Is there one? It seems like all I hear on the radio is rehashes, retreads, remakes, or old music from previous decades.

and people complaining about old people thinking everything was better in their day become those people but refuse or fail to recognize it. There is plenty of good music out there, just because you haven't heard of the band doesn't make them somehow unworthy of mention. I mean, where the fark do you think bands come from, obscurity, but if they're good you share them and bam! no more obscurity. Now apply this method to other forms of media.

SoothinglyDeranged: and people complaining about old people thinking everything was better in their day become those people but refuse or fail to recognize it. There is plenty of good music out there, just because you haven't heard of the band doesn't make them somehow unworthy of mention. I mean, where the fark do you think bands come from, obscurity, but if they're good you share them and bam! no more obscurity. Now apply this method to other forms of media.

except that if you ARE an indepedent band, RIAA and other big media companies are doing their level best to shut down your means of independent distribution.

Weaver95: except that if you ARE an indepedent band, RIAA and other big media companies are doing their level best to shut down your means of independent distribution.

bands managed to distribute their music before the internet. If all else fails, selling CD's out of the trunk of your car is still a viable option.

SilentStrider: Weaver95: except that if you ARE an indepedent band, RIAA and other big media companies are doing their level best to shut down your means of independent distribution.

bands managed to distribute their music before the internet. If all else fails, selling CD's out of the trunk of your car is still a viable option.

well yeah, but why should a band be forced to use low tech methods when the internet is right there? I found Abney Park and Darkest of the Hillside Thickets via file trading networks. neither is big name or going to ever get superstar headlines from sony music...but i like them and I ended up buying a couple/few things off their websites. RIAA would prefer nobody has the ability to do that sort of thing anymore.

so part of our problem is the fight for corporate control over content. independents want to use the power of the internet to get thier product out to the masses (and tolerate a little piracy if it helps spread the world) while corporate types want to lock down every last byte of data and slap a price tag on it.

DreamyAltarBoy: It's probably easier to get by playing live than selling product, but the internet makes self distribution more viable than ever.

not after SOPA passes.

The 80s had a lot of "indie" bands. Violent Femmes and Dead Milkmen fall squarely into the indie category. And college radio was still pretty good without all the douchebaggery that the 90s and grunge through at it.

Though in the 80s we listened to pop, funk, metal, grunge, whatever was thrown at us without judging anyone for it.

And REM and U2 werent whiney emo douchebag bands then.

unyon: The only thing that hasn't changed is people that suddenly clue into the pattern of it all. The guy has a few good points- that easier access to historical cultural artifacts makes revering them in a nostalgic way possible. But it also makes mashing them and reinterpreting and reengineering them easier as well.

Pretty much this is all you need to know. This has always been going on, but now it's a lot easier to witness it as it's happening and to understand previous acts being referenced. Those that are mad at this revelation either were never "With it" (read: at least a couple of those genres are completely misplaced in the decades listed) to be begin with or are being left behind because they refuse to look beyond their narrow definitions of the medium (i.e. those complaining about why Rock doesn't "Rock" anymore).


I'm a bit annoyed at movie remakes, mostly because they don't really add anything to the original, but they've always existed. I think mainstream music has been in a sorry slump for almost 15 years now, but the underground is thriving and I wouldn't trade it for the music culture of previous decades.

Gunther: bloobeary: And then along comes the 2000's, and I can't think of a single new musical genre that happened.

Dub-step?

I would hardly call 1980s break dancing moves set to early 90s club mixing styles a new genre.

theflatline: The 80s had a lot of "indie" bands. Violent Femmes and Dead Milkmen fall squarely into the indie category. And college radio was still pretty good without all the douchebaggery that the 90s and grunge through at it.

Though in the 80s we listened to pop, funk, metal, grunge, whatever was thrown at us without judging anyone for it.

And REM and U2 werent whiney emo douchebag bands then.

I was on college radio in the late 80s and early 90s.

It got ett up. CMJ got wrecked. "Indie" labels got ett up. Indie bands got ett up. Even on the Country circuit, it happened--Robbie Fulks and Todd Snider both got the treatment. Hells, Ministry got ett up.

There are labels arising, their are a few distributors and methods, but it's a fight--especially over online sales. Want to get on iTunes? There's a price. YouTube is no longer an entirely independent way to distribute material or advertise. You have to be careful what you sign away, and to who.

Intellectual property rights are going to be one of the bigger issues this century. Especially as folks seek to extend copyright into perpetuity. Being able to distribute your own work is going to get harder as folks seek to squeeze out the competition.

Comes down to it: the muddle men are still looking for their cut..

Weaver95: pop stars are manufactured to hit key demographics, not out of any real sense of style or talent.

welcome to 1950? this isn't new.

open your ears and eyes. there are great artists out there, just as there always has been. ignore the top 40, and you'll be fine.

Nietzsche is Dead: So which album is this generation's Nevermind? Or does it not count as pop?

Radiohead: In Rainbows, if only for redefining how music is distributed.