ITT: Rock albums from 2009 onward that are actually creative, unique, and are not more revivalism. Proof to me that there are rock is not dead at a creative level.
I don't have any examples, so pic related
How do you define "rock", op? Does it have to be drums, guitars, and bass or can it be more lushly orchestrated?
For the latter, I'm putting in Have One On Me by Joanna Newsom.
For the former, I don't know. Mainstream rock music (that is, without additions or more varied instrumentation/conceptual framework) hasn't been "new" for a while for me.
There's been a lot of creativity in meal lately but that's mostly where the creativity is in rock lately. There's still great creative artists out there in other subgenres but the highest concentration of creativity probably has to be in metal for some retarded reason.
>pic related, probably the most creative and unique rock album of the decade so far.
Honestly, as much as I hate the album, it is kinda influential and groundbreaking. Taking black metal and making it accessible is something that has never been done before, and they nailed it.
I would personally give the credit to either Alcest or Liturgy though
It's hard to label, don't know if I would call it rock
>Taking black metal and making it accessible is something that has never been done before
QOTSA's last album was fuckin' great. The Monitor by Titus Andronicus is beautiful. Let's see, if you have a looser view that could incorporate acoustic music, then Fleet Foxes' Helplessness Blues was my 2011 AOTY. Transcendental Youth by the Mountain Goats. Cloud Nothings' last two albums. Just off the top of my head. Search and you'll find good music in any genre.
pretty much the only creative rock band out there right now.
rock is essentially dead, but that's not really a bad thing considering theres loads of creative music being made in other genres.
To end the illusion of separation
The logical conclusion to rock music imo.
Also Math Rock and Noise Rock are thriving, I think everything that can be done with standard rock has already been done.
not all of them obviously
I think maybe I just think it was creative because at the time I was listening to QotSA loads when it came out and it's not much like their old stuff, but I guess in retrospect it is pretty standard. Idgaf I love it though.
This. Eula is fucking amazing, I just wish they would have cut the double album shit and made it a lot more concise. Unpopular opinion but I love their progression, can't wait to see what they do next
/fa/ users who idolise designers like Rick Owens
In your opinion.
If you could point me to an album(s) that sound EXACTLY like Lonerism, I'd be a very happy man.
Sorry, where in my post did I say Lonerism revolutionised rock? I seem to have missed that part. Because I didn't fucking say that, or imply it.
Exactly. Now you're getting it! So stop saying its completely uncreative and completely not unique, and provide me some albums which sound exactly the same, honey.
Oh wait, you can't.
>not being colorblind
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Music is subjective. The way I like at music is different to the way you look at music is different to the way your favorite artist looks at music etc etc. Just keep living in your sterile little boxed in mindset of the world it's okay.
For something to be exactly like something else, it must be a perfect copy created the moment the original came into existence, and it must always be in the same location as the original.
Otherwise there are differences on the atomic and quantum scale.
Aw dont be like that baby, you're the one that proposed it after all! By saying its not creative or unique in the slightest, that implies pretty heavily that you think it is both technically and sonically the same as all other generic rock albums. Which is why I'm kindly asking for some examples, in case you didnt realise, to prove that you're not talking out of your patronizing ass. Or, you can admit that its just your opinion. Take your pick, hun.
Red can't be confused for blue, they're on different sides of the spectrum.
>Music is subjective
No, it isn't.
Why do Marxists perpetuate this bullshit?
It sounds like a modern rehash of Sgt Pepper's, with less variety.
Why are you trolling?
The idea that something has to be innovative to still be creative is just garbage. With seven billion people living and who knows how many dead it's kind of guaranteed that we're going to reach a point where not much is truly new, but that doesn't mean that a retelling of familiar ideas can't be creative.
No, those who are color blind can't see a specific part of the spectrum.
Blind != color blind.
>Why do objectivists perpetuate this bullshit?
I'm not a libertarian neckbeard.
Something has to be innovative to be creative
Go back to your rawk.
It hardly sounds like Sgt Pepper's at all, aside from that they're both rock. I love both albums, and I'm not going to argue that the Beatles suck, but Lonerism is far more creative. Both albums set out in completely different directions, aside from the summery and colourful themes.
>i-it sounds like a modern rehash!
Run out of arguments, have we?
>why are you trolling?
Yeah, we're done here. If you have to pull the 'trolling / baiting' card when you have no true counter argument, you're done. Stop being such a condescending brat.
Also, music is subjective. Just because you think it isn't, doesn't make it so, unfortunately.
Okay so what makes beat one better than beat two?
What makes melody one better than melody two?
what makes chord one better than chord two?
Maybe i'll have some fucking mind blowing epiphany by the end of this discussion but I always thought people preferred band A to band B due to personal preference. Just as someone would prefer band B due to personal preference.
>I'm not a libertarian neckbeard
Then you should stop coming across as one
I'm partially colorblind, and that's not entirely true. Colorblind people have trouble distinguishing certain colors from each other. Like green and red, or blue and yellow, for example.
I'm not saying what makes something better than something else, just that music is objective because it can be measured. To know if something is better you should probably some statistics about what is enjoyed the most.
And while it can be personal preference, it's possible to make a consensus about what is better.
For example, I think we can agree that The Beatles are better than Brokencyde, but only if we discuss first what makes something better than other.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yup, you're a troll.
They don't confuse entirely different colors though.
I'm talking about primary colors, not combinations.
>Then you should stop coming across as one
>WAAAAAH YOU AREN'T AN IRRATIONAL BRAT LIKE ME
I listen to more challenging music than you though.
But who gives a shit about what everyone else likes? I do agree the social aspect of music is important (hence why rock music is so popular), but I listen to music for the personal, introspective side. If what you're saying is true that top 40 artists objectively make the best music. That is entirely dependent on the scope of the statistics sure, but there's always going to be sour lemons to ruin it for everyone, there's never going to be a sure-fire way to guarantee a true consensus.
You're entertaining. I like you. You're batshit retarded but you're funny.
>WAAAAAH YOU AREN'T AN IRRATIONAL BRAT LIKE ME
when you use that as a response, who sounds like the irrational brat?
Not what I was talking about
>You're batshit retarded but you're funny.
Except I'm far more intelligent than you.
97% average on my diploma finals, which is our equivalent of SAT exams.
Typical pop fan.
When you grow up and develop a genuine interest in something other than video games and masturbation, you will understand what I mean.
I do, and many others too it seems. That's why we are discussing.
And no, the Top 40 thing isn't really true, because it's based on popularity. But still, let's suppose everybody listened to all kinds of music, and on average the most liked genre is Top 40s Pop, then we could say that music is better, statistically speaking.
Obviously there will always be unsatisfied people, but at least we can agree that music taste isn't completely subjective.
What do you think?
>I listen to more challenging music than you though.
Why would you give yourself away this easily? If you're going to try and make people angry you need to at least make it not seem like that's your goal. 0/10
No, you couldn't say it's "better" statistically speaking. You could say it's more popular.
You are personally assigning popularity to the definition of "better" when better doesn't have an objective meaning, it refers to subjective tastes
except you can't prove that internet stranger and it's of no consequence anyways. I do have a genuine passion for music but I can't prove that as I'm an internet stranger and it's of no consequence anyways. It's also terribly obvious how much more you masturbate than I do, giving the nature of your posts. Your ego is hilarious.
My biggest point is that music is completely subjective. There is no such thing as a 10/10 album imo.
Say we put 50 Beatles fans and 50 Brokencyde fans in a room and ask them which they prefer. Suppose there's a few in that room (scenecore tumblr girls most likely) that are fans of both bands. Suppose one or two of those that prefer both bands prefer Brokencyde over Beatles. That would tip the scales in Brokencyde's favor, thus rendering Brokencyde objectively better.
Of course there's the matter that there are WAY more Beatles fans on earth at this moment, but that's a victim of circumstance. Beatles have been around longer and have seen more generations. Who knows, maybe Brokencyde will take the world by storm in the next 10 years ala Pantera going out of their glam phase.
It's all theoretical but that's how I see it. Thanks for being pleasant :)
Read more carefully, I said if everybody listened to all kinds of music. So that popularity isn't an issue. We probably won't know the answer to that question, but it can be used in another context, like defining what is the best part of a song (the chorus, most of the time).
What do you think?
>"But still, let's suppose everybody listened to all kinds of music, and on average the most liked genre is Top 40s Pop"
If "most liked" doesn't mean "most popular" than what does it mean?
Like I said, if everybody listened to all kinds of music. Also, the statistic should be made without knowing who is a fan of each band.
I probably have to go now, so I can't reply now, but well, see you the next time!
That's just not the case. Like I said, there's no such thing as a totally sterile environment when it comes the these kinds of things. Like fedora friend here that listens to IDM or whatever may or may not have ever heard a math rock song he enjoyed, his opinion should be invalidated on the genre upon further interest in said genre is reached.
lol I'm enjoying his responses. The dank beat part was disappointing but whatever. I was hoping for legit discussion and I got a little bit so I'm happy.
Gothninjas, young males who obsess over designer fashion and neogothic imagery and aesthetics and frequent the /fa/ board
>tfw I'm one of them
Are you people even trying?
Regardless of the quality of these records, how are they in any way groundbreaking? Do you just not know the history of rock music at all?
Lol, you've gotta be fucking kidding me. More sappy, melodramatic hisitronic whole foods-core but with added "dance-rock" flavor. That mid-2000s trend when indie bands added "dance beats" to there music was never danceable or fun, and the trend has been dead for 8 years. Arcade Fire are incredibly late to the game on that one. Why do indeh musicians think they are "improving" different genres of music by appropriating them, stripping them of what makes them unique without making any effort to understand the style of music from the people who've dedicated their life to it, and then making them into a new flavor of indeh?
0/10 one of the worst rock records of all time, not over-exageriting
Won James Won
few other bands
>The King of Limbs
yea it had it's own sound
kitchen sink "epic" post-rock has been played out for 10 years tho
Oh, 'groundbreaking'. I didn't read the thread properly. Apologies. If you're looking for a groundbreaking rock record; look no further than this...
The Stone Roses
Doesn't really convince me, but maybe.
Also, just realized that Gloss Drop is very similar to New Slaves by Zs, with the difference that Zs is noisier and the tracks are longer.
ahk ill give that a listen.
I mean it's an ok fit, just a little boring. The sneakersare pretty bad. Contrasting white midsoles usually look like shit especially if the materials aren't really high quality.
the tee is nice
Takes what has been done before and catapults it onto some hook-filled platter.
I don't think I've heard something so carefully, densefully created.
>muh post rock
>muh [insert random word]core
>muh nignog screaming like an ape on the mic
Creative and unique? Maybe. Good? absolutely the hell they aren't.
Holy shit, that was absolutely shit. 80's rock is better:
>not liking pop-prog