The Future of Pop

[RockAction]

what's next?
i mean, garage strokes-ish rock has been quite popular...but i'm wondering how music will be like in...say...2025.
Are there still any bands making truly original music today?
I think Mogwai does...but the list seems to be quite short.

bored at work,

RA

[tinobeat]

in 2025 there'll be a massively popular revival of a style of music made popular in the 2010's, which in turn was a revival of the disco punk of the early aughts, which is a revival of the late 70's/early 80's no wave, which was a melding of earlier influences of disco/rnb and punk, each of which can be traced back to bb king and carl perkins....

or something..

anywho, I don't think that Mogwai is even close to the forefront of "truly original music." I think they're really great at what they do, but I think even ol' Plasmatron himself wouldn't suggest that Mogwai are breaking any brand new ground. listen to their contemporaries like Sigur Ros (no loud parts and more vocals, but in many ways similar), Tarantel (exploring textural rock, occasional bursts of hugeness), Bardo Pond (like mogwai without the quiet parts, or should I say, 'gwai is kinda like them with quiet parts added, and more dynamics), Explosions in the Sky (Mogwai, but Texan, which means more reverb)... the list goes on. there's older bands that did that sort of texture vs. dynamics explorations before all these bands.

Everything has its roots and precedents, and it really just depends on how closely artists are sticking to them or extrapolating from them, but anyone playing music in the rock paradigm immediately banishes any possibility of being "truly original" except in how they interpret the ground covered by their elders. Like how Jimi Hendrix dosed the blues and turned it into something entirely his own, at least in his amazing guitar stylings (though Ike Turner and Buddy Guy have valid bones to pick with the concept that Jimi was the first to amplify and distort the hell out of the blues). And don't think Sonic Youth didn't pick up tons of tricks from Hendrix, among many other influences.

Bands like the Hives or the White Stripes (easy targets in this argument) are "truly unoriginal" in a sense, and what they do to stop time is to hold dearly onto everything their influences taught them and continue EXACTLY in that framework without really seeking any other direction. That doesn't make them bad bands by any means, but it does take them off the "original" list. But there are too many bands to list that work within pre-established frameworks, but imbue them with their own distinct personalities. Destroyer, for example, is clearly stuck in the bell-bottomed past owned by "Hunky Dory" era Bowie. Bejar is such a character, though, that the sonic reference points fade really fast as you pay attention to the music, the lyrics, and the synergy of the two and how they create a whole new thing called Destroyer that *sounds* like Bowie, sort of, but then again, it doesn't really matter, cos at the same time its absolutely nothing like Bowie in its intent.

It really depends on whether you're looking for "pure new sounds never heard before" in which case, you're SOL, as by this point, every possible recorded sound has been put forth as music. If you're looking for "artistic" originality, then pay attention to the artists and the music they make, and the conviction with which they make it, and the intent. If the intent is to copy a 60's garage band, then no, not very original, but if the intent is to write songs and then record them in the manner they most see fit, whether it breaks new ground sonically or doesn't, then the artistic merit of the pieces themselves, and not some vague idea of "originality" should come into play...

*whew*

anyway, this has been long enough, but one parting shot:
Eno said somewhere (I can't remember where, I found a link to an interview through a blog) that pop music is too dependent on this idea of "complete originality," and he contended that that idea is bogus. I think he brought up reggae as an example, where the artists all have their personalities, but they're unashamedly working within a style that evolves slowly and naturally. most pop music works in its own style (subdivided into countless sub-styles), but really, its one slowly evolving beast, and though there are blips of something crazy and new, its like the stock market, steadily up if you look over the course o 20 years, but all over the place when you look up close.

[Funk]

Martin, you had me at "hello".

[spurious_dander]

wow. cheers for the sermon, tinobeat. throw in a bar graph or pie chart and you got one beast of a PowerPoint presentation. I was bored to tears, sir! still, you make ONE very solid & somewhat valid point: the stock market, much like Joseph's manic behavior, is all over the place. seriously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist nor even the most sophisticated of key engravers to realize that music everso gently filed under the "POP" genus is derivative. fortunately for the reader you make this point over and over and over and over and over and over again. luckily, I picked up on your play-on-paragraphs, too; each one tapering off its predecessor. clever little devil.

thing is, you've hit the nail right on the head. those versatile rAWK archetypes you so effortlessly modeled above are easily descendent of...almost anyone. fuck, why no Karen Carpenter? MBV's always a cinch, not to mention NEU! or the venerable Tom Arico! you spent 6 paragraphs yawning about petty similarities between Mogwai & SRos., fickle nuggets of nonsense 'boot Bejar vs. Bowie (angle: I happen to like HD!), and vapid predictions of pop grandiose no sharper than my 3-yr old daughter's nightly weather forecasts. But I'm not here to discuss the charming quirks of small people, no sir. I expect more from you, tinobeat. you usually provide some insight, albeit a skewed, perverted view, into your 'lil neesh/brand of noise...no matter how stale your polemic. let's just try to garnish the argument with few better examples, shall we? not all of us are bozos. right, bitterfruit?

provisions: reggae expansion (chanelling tinobeat)
r. alphonso>lynn taitt+jackie opal>duke reid's trojansound>roscoe gordon>clement dodd>sir lord comic>lollie dodd>skatallites>hughmalcolm...and somewhere along the line, 10cc.

cheers!

[Joseph]

Originally posted by spurious_dander
the stock market, much like Joseph's manic behavior, is all over the place.

The way you talk, it sounds like you and I have dated before!

Don't hate, congratulate.

[vesper]

spurious_dander, what the hell is your point? You just spent two over-the-top paragraphs to come to this conclusion:

"...let's just try to garnish the argument with few better examples, shall we?"

It sounds like more flatulent vocabulary-grandstanding to me (booya). If we're going to critique other's arguments, we might form a cohesive one ourselves, hmm?

I thought that was a pretty insightful post, tinobeat. Although I wonder how long you've stored it up...

-edit to add-

And this: "...play-on-paragraphs, too; each one tapering off its predecessor..." is what paragraphs are supposed to do. You know, flow, if you will.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by vesper
spurious_dander, what the hell is your point? You just spent two over-the-top paragraphs to come to this conclusion:

"...let's just try to garnish the argument with few better examples, shall we?"

It sounds like more flatulent vocabulary-grandstanding to me (booya). If we're going to critique other's arguments, we might form a cohesive one ourselves, hmm?

Snap.

[tinobeat]

Originally posted by spurious_dander
still, you make ONE very solid & somewhat valid point: the stock market, much like Joseph's manic behavior, is all over the place.

actually, my minute aside about the stock market was that though it SEEMS all over the place, is actually, if taken over the course of a long time, a very stable rise (barring unforseen crashes) and evolution. But I apologize for nitpicking, because clearly the actual "meaning" of my sentence doesn't matter, as long as its a fun way to bait someone else, right? yeah!

seriously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist nor even the most sophisticated of key engravers to realize that music everso gently filed under the "POP" genus is derivative. fortunately for the reader you make this point over and over and over and over and over and over again. luckily, I picked up on your play-on-paragraphs, too; each one tapering off its predecessor. clever little devil.

I'll refer to my homie vesper's response about that one. Paragraphs separate thoughts, yes, but in a set of them, there should be a continuous theme, no? I don't need to give you a writing lesson, though, you should know what purposes paragraphs serve. Disjointed thoughts are fun, but not necessarily conducive to coherent arguments. If using language the way it was designed is a crime, then consider me guilty! oh, and speaking of which, that should have been "a rocket scientist or even the most sohphisticated key engraver."

"nor" is only used to complete the idea begun by the word "neither."

thing is, you've hit the nail right on the head. those versatile rAWK archetypes you so effortlessly modeled above are easily descendent of...almost anyone. fuck, why no Karen Carpenter? MBV's always a cinch, not to mention NEU! or the venerable Tom Arico! you spent 6 paragraphs yawning about petty similarities between Mogwai & SRos., fickle nuggets of nonsense 'boot Bejar vs. Bowie (angle: I happen to like HD!), and vapid predictions of pop grandiose no sharper than my 3-yr old daughter's nightly weather forecasts. But I'm not here to discuss the charming quirks of small people, no sir. I expect more from you, tinobeat. you usually provide some insight, albeit a skewed, perverted view, into your 'lil neesh/brand of noise...no matter how stale your polemic. let's just try to garnish the argument with few better examples, shall we? not all of us are bozos. right, bitterfruit?

Nice name dropping! damn!
If you were bored by my post, then you would have been infinitely more bored by a post which touched on EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE INFLUENTIAL BAND EVER IN THE HISTORY OF POP MUSIC. That's why I picked a couple examples that popped into my head at the moment. Maybe I should have picked examples that fit better into your idea of what the musical canon is, though.

the first paragraph of my admittedly very long post was more of an attempt (emphasis on "attempt") at a humorous faux future history. I don't really have any defense for it, but neither do I feel like I need to excuse it. then, Mogwai was the star of one (6 - 5 = 1) paragraph, brought up because the inital post in the thread named them as one of the very few bands doing anything original. Also, I loooooove Hunky Dory as well, and Destroyer's similarity in sound to that record at times is what initially attracted me to Bejar's wonderful work. Fickle nuggets of nonsense? for one accusing me of using vague terminology, that's awful open-ended. vesper already noted this discrepancy, though. nuggets of nonsense, maybe, but where's fickleness come in? I guess that word *does* have a nice ring to it, but that doesn't mean it can be thrown around like an ornament.

and friend, if you're bored reading my posts, then shit, take some initiative and make a better life for yourself! there's a whole wide world out there with things far more exciting than my writing. don't blame me for your boredom.

but if you want to tear apart my post (and please, feel free!) at least go for specific grievances instead of making it sound like you resent the fact that I somehow forced you to read.

[spurious_dander]

'booya', 'snap', 'homie'...Gareth, I've met my match. Thanks for setting me straight. No more pap, just answers.

back to the music.

(Reader: pardon my 'flow' or lack thereof.)