Isn't there an element of misogyny to it all, too?
I don't think it's a coincidence JT revered on NeoGAF while Beyoncé (whose music is far more acclaimed) is spoken of as if she cannot sing.
Yes it's because misogyny.
Lmao.
Isn't there an element of misogyny to it all, too?
I don't think it's a coincidence JT revered on NeoGAF while Beyoncé (whose music is far more acclaimed) is spoken of as if she cannot sing.
Yes it's because misogyny.
Lmao.
what do you think it is then?
please explain why this matters
Because music is supposed to be art, and art is better when it's a genuine creative effort that comes from a personal place rather than something made to be a consumable product by a round table of professional McMusic makers over brunch.
So comic book McMovies can be genuinely good but not the same for music? This is an interesting double standard
I hate em both! I am too hip!
That's fair.
It's just weird how Antman is seen as a great film on GAF but the latest album by Beyoncé which has a 92 on metacritic is just another example of McMusic.
Thats fair.
Its just weird how Antman is seen as a great film on GAF but the latest album by Beyoncé which has a 92 on metacritic is just another example of McMusic.
Who listens to rock music anymore? It's dead. Hell, barely anyone listens to metal and that actually still has a lot of interesting things going on.
Who listens to rock music anymore? It's dead. Hell, barely anyone listens to metal and that actually still has a lot of interesting things going on.
Just because it's not on the radio it doesn't mean it's dead. Is jazz dead? Folk music? Don't let radio dictate your reality.
In terms of new music? It's been dead for the last 10+ years at the very least in terms of influential new bands.
are the people who actually make the music not involved in a creative process
it seems the issue is that you're unsettled that the face of the music or the person performing it didn't actually make the music
I'm asking why that matters when the writers, producers, etc. are people with musical talent that is reflected in the compositions they create
Who listens to rock music anymore? It's dead. Hell, barely anyone listens to metal and that actually still has a lot of interesting things going on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_concert_tours
See many pop, electronic and hip hop acts here? Mainly rock acts last time i checked.
https://www.google.se/amp/amp.timei...st-grossing-tours-2017-far-2113046?source=dam
Mainly rock acts that are killing it in 2017 too, so if rock is so dead why do millions go see it live?
One pop act in the top 5 this year, and artists earns the most from tours these days not radio play or selling records.
C'mon man "old people go to rock concerts" isn't some new information
Dismissing old people as dead isn't anything new either. Looks like xxx-ist attitudes are pervasive no matter what genre you're into.
If a bunch of old people want to get together and listen to music from when they were kids, that is their choice
It doesn't mean that type of music is still influential
Well "influential" is a debatable term. The only one who's influencing current trends in music since the 70s is a bunch of suits in a boardroom dictating what music they're gonna shove down kids' throats. That's nothing new. But various forms of music isn't "dead". Heck, Guns 'N' Roses had the highest grossing tour of 2017. One of the reasons why today's elelctronic dance music is highly promoted is because it doesn't cost record companies a hell of a lot to make like in the past. You get a guy with a laptop and singer and you're good to go. Whereas before you had to book studio time for months for a 5-piece band and even more if you threw in a horn section or orchestra. There is economics in trends too.
Economics and home recording does play a role, I agree. It's easier and more anti-establishment to go it alone and record your own bedroom project. This is prevalent even in genres outside of electronic, most notably in metal. The reasons why rock is no longer a thing is a complicated topic.
Rock today is all old bands selling history. In the 90s you had industrial, grunge, alternative, britpop, shoegaze, etc. all happening at once, and all kinds of influential new bands emerged- Ministry, My Bloody Valentine, Pearl Jam, The Verve. Where are the visionary rock bands today? Those weren't just visionary bands, though- they sold a lot of records. Even the lesser known fan favorites like Slowdive and My Bloody Valentine are making new albums and touring in the US. It's the new 'classic' rock, but this time there is no 'new' generation of rock music alongside it.
I used to play in rock bands in the 90s, and every once in awhile an old friend from those days will message me out of the blue wanting to make music again, and they still listen to the same 90s rock bands.
C'mon man "old people go to rock concerts" isn't some new information
C'mon man "old people go to rock concerts" isn't some new information
Look at a Metallica crowd, absolutely full of younger people.
didn't they stop making hit records in the 90s?
didn't they stop making hit records in the 90s?
Well popular music changes, thats a given. It was ragtime in the early 1900s then big band music, then Motown, and rock, disco, new wave, hair bands, grunge, boy bands, etc. The saxophone was replaced by the guitar which was replaced by the keyboard/computer and so forth. Its natural to think that the music of your teenage/youth years were the best ever. Its been marketed that way since the 50s - thats why old people gravitate to oldies radio to remember their teenage years. Its this American/Eurpeoan/Western idea that your teenage years were the time of ultimate freedom. We are all caught in it. And eventually the young people of this generation will be disgusted with whatever new stuff the next gen listens to. Its non-stop. But once you realize this cynical cycle, you can expand away from that and enjoy music on your own terms.
Metallica has younger fans just like other huge acts like Rush does today. Metallica is classic rock/metal. They might release an album every once in awhile, but it's not meaningful or influential new music.
In the context of a 'rockist' attitude, though, it can't be that significant seeing as rock is a dead/dying form of music. I think you're right though, that rock is in a similar state that big band music was post-Beatles.
What is new and influential music then? It sure as shit is not what is on Top 40. The music with most new ideas are in indie and metal.
What is new and influential music then? It sure as shit is not what is on Top 40. The music with most new ideas are in indie and metal.
For sure, artists like Sleigh Bells, Death Grips, Periphery... they don't have the cultural impact that a huge rock band like Nirvana or Radiohead, though. It's more niche, things are pushed more to the extremes which don't really find a home in mainstream pop culture.
Lol Periphery
I'll just leave this review of their second album here
https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/72153/Periphery-Periphery-II-This-Time-Its-Personal/
Periphery represents more than the quality of their albums, I sure couldn't listen to anything other than their debut album. It's about what Mansoor did for the guitar industry, bedroom metal projects, djent as a genre, stuff like that. Niche, sure, but Periphery is the definition of influential music in the past 5-10 years. Not to take that away from Meshuggah, but it usually takes a derivative artist to push things past the original artist that gets it to catch on with kids. Djent is old hat now but it pops up in mainstream pop culture similar to something like dubstep, although not to that extent. It also represents how there's not so much interest in personalities in rock derived music anymore, unlike pop which is almost entirely about personalities as opposed to their music.
in case you don't know the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism_and_poptimism
I've noticed a lot of negative bias towards pop music on this forum. Do you believe they are informed by rockist attitudes?