>L [Listology]: Do you believe there has been a general quality decline in rock-related music this decade? I ask because, for example, you have rated 154 albums of the 1990s at 8/10 or higher, and only 6 albums of the 2000s at 8/10, and none higher. Is this because the decade is only half complete, it takes a while for the cream to rise (at least, to your attention), since the 2000s you've spent less time than in the past on rock music, etc., or do you sense a genuine decline in the quality of rock-related music, despite an undeniable incline in the number of music-makers?
>S [Scaruffi]: It's an unfair question. The quality that you are referring to is about albums, right? The album in 1969 collected the best material of the artist (sometimes the best of many years). Today CDs are so cheap to make that musicians don't even rehearse before making a CD. So you are comparing two media that are actually very different: the album that went through a painful selection process and that cost a lot of money to make, and the album that goes through no selection process because it's so cheap to make. Needless to say, the former is higher quality than the latter... I doubt anyone will ever make a 9/10 album again. We are living the transition to a new medium. Then we will have to change the way we rate music. Sometimes i think i should already do it now.
...how can anyone take this guy seriously??
just because the price it takes to manufacture an album from start to finish is cheaper than it was years ago doesn't mean music is declining. There are a lot of contemporary albums that I feel are as carefully crafted as older works. plus I feel mass producing CDs in the 90s involved about the same expenses as in the 2000s, compared to the 60s and 70s. it's not like music died in the 90s, no matter what youtube comments would have you believe.
give me one album made in the last 10 years that's on the same level as these masterpieces
if you consider these critically acclaimed albums 10/10s, then I can't understand how you don't find a single contemporary p4k-core/mucore album as good. they're all in the same realm.
Eskimo is better than not Available by the way
and you consider Gong better than any modern band? I like Gong but fuck, I would place a couple of neopsych acts above them.
my point still stands. this list is just an arbitrary selection of critically acclaimed albums from decades past. you could make a selection of random contemporary p4k-core and /mu/core and the chosen albums would look perfectly at home next to the ones in your chart in regard to quality. you've got Loveless on there, for crying out loud.
now I'm not saying the albums in your chart are bad. I'm saying the taste represented by the chart reflects somebody who is dismissive of contemporary music because of the date it was released rather than quality.
By his reasoning it doesn't even mean that there'll be less 9/10s within the album medium. Yes it has gotten easier to make, and probably as a result more shitty stuff is for sure to be around, but as a result more good stuff is to be around, too. In fact, within the past 15 or so years we have had a great abundance in terms of variety to the good stuff to listen to compared to in the past. The 60s had great music, but it was all under one form of psychedelic or another minus a few jazz records which by the late 60s also ended up being psychedelic. 70s was the same with everything under rock for the most of it with a few under electronic/disco and a few under jazz fusion. The ante goes up that way every decade with the current decade having the most variety
completely wrong. 50's was the cornerstone for establishing the pop rock medium. the 60's revolutionized that concept by engineering master piece after master piece. The 70's built on that by crafting their own unique brand of rock music, furthering continuing the lineage of great music found in pop rock. The 70's bled into the 80's which the time of rebellion came to shape and created the angst of the 90's. The 00's and the 10's have so far tried to emulate music progression from the 60's to 90's by creating this "retro revival scene." It's almost all utter garbage save for a few records that are released each year.
Each decade has been unique to pop rock besides the 00's and what we have going on now. I'm not saying 00's and the 10's (so far) are bad, they're not nearly as creative, original or interesting.
>there are people in this board who thinks scaruffi is right
Jesus Christ he haves a point, of course there's gonna be more shit music if its easier to make, that doesn't mean it's all going to be bad
>"retro revival scene"
What? That's like a super tiny blimp in terms of what happened in music during the past 15 years. If that's all you're gonna pay attention to no shit the past few years worth of music will feel subpar.
see, the importance music now is being covered up by this smut. That's why I said music nowadays is not bad. I just has not gotten the recognition for it yet. There's good music around but it's hard to find that needle in this shit pile. But with time, hopefully the good ones will be highlighted and stand out. But since sales prove dominance, promotes the music industries growth, it will be harder than ever to determine how good the 00's and 10's truly are. My point is: there is plenty of good music being released today just out of probable theory but it won't have a light to survive when it's cluttered with this ever growing trend of over-sharing mediocrity via the internet.
>L: Is your choice for #1 rock song for 2005, "Dubi Dam Dam" by Banaroo, a joke?
>S: No, it's a masterpiece.
This I can agree to. But we as people who like music for what it is instead of whatever usually shallow reason that gets pushed by the mainstream industry; we need to do our job on that end in a way, too. And I think we are sorta doing it. Like shit at least I haven't met anyone remembering the 2000s for its godawful mainstream hip hop industry. That being said, we also need to be better at recognizing the good stuff when it does come out:
Kendrick phrase from his latest album:
>Critics want to mention that they miss when hip hop was rappin’
>Motherfucker, if you did, then Killer Mike'd be platinum
Yea, I know what you mean. We need to shift through it all and recognize for ourselves what is good instead of harrowing back to what does stand out now. But admittedly, this decade does provide a unique challenge that no other decade has seen. I think technology incentives more mediocre artists to push their brand of lameness. but at the same time, creates and promotes those who one day can create something beautiful juxtaposing the merits of today's intrinsic value on music and how it affects our culture and mannerisms.
I like Killer Mike btw senpai. Not a huge fan of his work but I think he is p good.
>I think technology incentives more mediocre artists to push their brand of lameness
Ugh tell me about it. I am a metalfag, too, and a lot of the type of labels and I band I used to be able to find through zines are now more easily available through the internet, but there isn't as high a chance of always finding quality. Changed even more this decade because certain underground labels from last decade have gotten more mainstream and thus there's more trash to sift through.
i'm just more concerned with all those wannabe ambient and drone artist who get their hands on garage band and audacity and clutter my search engine. Before unheard bands would usually be pretty decent. But since everyone can do it now, unknown bands or artists suck. Interesting you say you like metal. Metal is one genre I would argue is (mostly) getting more and more interesting especially here in the 10's.
I think some form of it exists in every form of music now. You are definitely covering guys that are honestly in every form of electronic music these days; the type that are the reason that soundcloud-core or bandcamp-core is a thing.
It seems to me that the internet age has over saturated and diluted a lot of genres in which a high level of creativity, but not musical skill (ie. noise, post rock, -cores, many types of electronic music). Genre's that require a higher level of technical proficiency, like metal are seeing rapid creative evolution though.
Definitely. But technically impressive and creatively underdeveloped beat technically shit and creatively vapid any day.
I think many artists in prog and it's derivative genre kind of get unfairly ripped on for being soulless wank. there is definitely a lot of soulless wank out there, but just because you need to have an understanding of music theory to appreciate a band doesnt automatically mean theyre wank.
He's wrong, but not by far.
Music quality, at least in the mainstream, has definetly decreased. Not that music has gotten worse, but with the rise of technology that doesn't call for much musical talent/skil/practice as a whole it's slowly been decreasing.
Scaruffi isn't to be taken seriously by anyone. The only reason that anyone on /mu/ likes him is that he's the closest thing to an academic that actually gives a shit about rock music.
He's a pretentious shitheel and his material is made for other pretentious shitheels.
This coming from a guy that has very similar taste to him.
man, grow up and get some real taste assholes.
thats incredibly true statement and i hadnt thought about it that way. the album is such an arbitrary. form any artist working now should really not confine themselves to a format that existed purely because it was an ammount of time that fit on a mass produceable format that could easily be bought and sold that has since become outdated. artists clearly dont want to make albums nor should they. no reason to confine yourselves to such an outdated form.
Merriweather Post Pavilion
The Age of Adz
good kid, m.A.A.d city
The Money Store
Shaking the Habitual
Run The Jewels 2
To Be Kind
I doubt they'll be as influential, but they're all at least of similar quality, and that just by using google
hes not even saying that music is bad at all. hes making no comment on music. hes saying the format of the album has become arbitrary. artists subconsciously know this. why rate music as albums. why talk about albums? music is not albums. its just a convention that is completely arbitrary. hes saying that music has moved beyond that, pretending the album is THE way of making music and listening to music is silly. theres so much more possibility. i think everyone is overlooking his point entirely. hes not saying music is worse or that theres mroe shit. hes saying that albums are shit. if your someone who values creativity and bringing fourth challenging concepts the album is holding you into a tight arbitrary tradition limiting you from truely exploring music and sonic media as ways to effect and communicate with people and their spiritual subconscious.
>implying that the 1000 people in Bandcamp threads have rehearsed and planned out their music and not just hit record and played generic, boring drone music and released an album of it.
Self production killed any sembelence of prestige in simply being a musician.
>Oh you're a musician? So is everyone else, big deal.
If you look at the average of what music is being produced these days, it s declining. The lower entry point for musicans getting their music out to the world has allowed every teenager with a guitar to record and release a full album in an afternoon's worth of effort. It doesn't matter if thre's the same amount of good artists that there were in the 60s, there's just 1000x the amount of bad artists that are drowning out the good artists in the noise.
Nope. Simply because they follow pop tropes, even as vaguely as they do, they are still following pop tropes. 9/10 music has to be truely original and one of a kind. Especially in Scaruffi's definition of 9/10.
Christ he's full of himself. If he genuinely believes, that music has reached its peak, I can't help him.
There's more genres, more variance, more possibilities than ever before and there'll always be people who want to reach masterpiece status using these tools
Scaruffi is a joke, if he's this ignorant. And so is his scores. What's the point of a 1-10 scale if nothing can get past a 9.
Come back t these albums in ten years, once you've matured a bit, and tell me that they're still 9/10. If your rebuttal is that you think they are now so they always will be, you're wrong. 9/10 albums hold up to the test of time. The albums listed above will not.
>good kid, m.A.A.d city
>The Money Store
>Shaking the Habitual
>Run The Jewels 2
You are so off base here, mate. If they're not influential they'll just be labeled as artifacts of their time. Truely 9/10 albums will be remembered of their quality regardless of when or where they were released or recorded. Albums that have done something new in music and not just shifted the stream of music slightly in their own direction.
9/10 lbums are the equivalent of the panama canal, the albums you posted are the equivalent of dredging the harbour so that a bigger ship can park in the same place ships have always parked.
How does that even make sense? The album is like a book, it can be meant to do many things: tell a story, demonstrate a feeling, expose the audience to an atmosphere (GY!BE as an example).
Why has this suddenly become arbitrary? It's complete nonsense and honestly just an old mans conservative opinion because he lives in the past.
I love The Doors - The Doors. But is the album cohesive? Not really, no. Is the album a "better" album than modern albums I've heard? Not at all.
Because they haven't really done anything new in music. They've taken existing ideas and redone them with their own flavour. A true influential and original album is not easily labeled as anything, only in hindsight is it's true influence shown as more and more artists take the ideas of the origiator and begin to popularize them.
Case in post:
Iceage is post-punk.
Death Grips is "Industrial" Hip-hop.
Both of which may be astounding in their genres (which I'm not saying either of them are, quite frankly I'm saying the opposite) but they will never be remembered as bands that really pushed music to somewhere new. They will simply be remembered as musicians the pushed music along on it's already predisposed direction. Not regressive, slightly progressive, and definitely not innovative.
scruffy has an interesting and colorful music taste which is good to find new music with, but you guys either think he's the jimi hendrix of critics or an actual retard which creates annoying threads like this one so please learn how to stop being weird just because it's the internet
why doesn't the goddamn human race mature a little bit
>Another Hip-hop album
They may be doing something new in their own genre, but not in the greater picture of music as a whole. When Kendrick Lamar or Death Grips changes the course in genres outside of Hip-Hop then I'll concede. Until then, they're just progressive hip-hop albums and nothing more. Not groundbreaking, not innovative, just refined versions of their predecessors.
Look at Scaruffi's list of 9/10 albums (as this is a thread about Scaruffi saying that there will not be another 9/10 album) and look at other albums that have come out at the same time. The albums that have been ranked as 9/10 have unanimously been unlike anything else that has been released at the time. The albums that are under question in your post (Iceage, Death Grips, Kendrick Lamar) all have contemporary albums that, while maybe of lower quality, do have a similar sound and aesthetic to the albums in question.
That is the difference between a 9/10 and a 8/10 album. Originality.
The first person to make a lightbulb is and will be rememberd forever. The innovators and optimizers of lightbulbs have been and always will be forgotten by time.
But many of his 9/10 albums didn't do anything new.
Not to forget, they guaranteed found inspiration elsewhere too. Because that's how art works, it reflects inspiration and the current culture/society.
To say they did something completely new with no influence is not true at all. Example: The Doors s/t has jazz influences in certain tracks. Already there "genuinely indescribable by existing tropes and/or genre descriptors." doesn't ring true.
I did not say anything about influence in my post whatsoever. I stated that the albums have done something that has not been done by their contemporaries. In you example of the Doors s/t album, the fact that they were able to bring Jazz, poetry, spoken word, bluesand opera into one concise, fully realized package that has not been done, at the time of it's recording, before.
There have been many jazz-hop albums, if maybe of lower quality, before Kendrick Lamar.
There have been many industrial hip-hop albums, if maybe of lower quality, before Death Grips.
There have been many post-punk albums, if maybe of lower quality, before Iceage.
Of all albums on that list you choose The ArchAndroid to defend? I think you're the one that needs to leave. There are many more albums wothy of throwing a shit-fit over than a pop-R&B album like The ArchAndroid.
But that's no different than what The Money Store did at all? No, there wasn't anything like The Money Store before.
They brought hiphop, techno, industrial, noise, rapping (with many ways to perform it (barking, speed talking etc etc)) into one concise, fully realized package, which has not been done before.
There isn't one bit of difference between those two examples.
But Dälek exists and has existed for over a decade before DG came into the scene. That's not even mentioning the other Industrial/Noise/Techno hip-hop artists that have broken into the scene between Dälek and Death Grips.
As was stated in the OP of this thread, since practically everyone has access to record their art and distribute it nowadays, there are no new ideas, just new combinations of existing ideas that somehow work together.
Dälek is nothing like The Money Store. They have similarities, like you said The Doors S/T had similarities to certain genres (and thus certain artists). The same goes for the techno/industrial artists you mentioned.
Nothing is like The Money Store, just like how "nothing" was like The Doors S/T.
It's an arbitrary distinction.
I'm gonna be honest and say your argument sounds like you just don't like Death Grips, even though they've done exactly the same as The Doors did.
It doesn't seem like you guys understand music always evolves and it evolves off of different influences, genres and culture reflections. Just because music has been more accessible to the layman, doesn't mean it has nothing new to offer. It's an incredibly conservative opinion.
B L A C K I E was active for a solid half decade before Death Grips came into the scene.
Just becasue you don't know of any artists that fit into your idea of innovative does't mean that they don't exist. You're just making yourself look ignorant of music history, even the most recent of music histories.
>No one has combined hip-hop and rock and electonic influences like *insert nu-metal band* has. They were innovative and deserve to be immortalized in the canon of music.
This is what you sound like. Just because Death Grips combine things in a slipshod whirlwind of cacophany doesn't mean that they'll have a lasting effect on music.
>But Kanye ripped them off, he's popular he was influenced.
Kanye, being the egotist that he is, saw that someone was infringing on his territory and pre-emptively struck back at them to show who has control of the mainstream. It's the same as how rock bands of the early '90s would try to add rap breakdowns to their songs to try push out the incoming wave of upcoming rap artists. A desperate attempt to cover all bases regarless of the worth of the bases being covered.
If people are saying that the album is an outdated format then what do they suggest is done instead of it? I like being able to put on a collection of music that has a set tone and just listen to it, without either having to sift through singles and/or making a playlist myself. Not all musicians make albums this way and sometimes they are just a collection of unrelated songs with no designed flow or anything but quite a few musicians do make albums designed to be listened to as albums.
And the length of an album is more a suggestion these days then anything. You can make a 4 hour long movie for instance and nobody is going to stop you (the people putting up the money might I guess, for good reason) but this is going to limit your exposure because not many people want to sit down and watch a movie for 4 hours. Same with an album. You can make an album that's multiple hours long, and some musicians/bands do because they think it fits their vision better, but it does limit exposure for the same reason as making a 4 hour long movie. The time limit of an album is only a limitation if you see it as one. It's not like in the 60s when the only way to release your music was on a record that could only hold so much music. CDs and records are still things today but digital is much more prevalent than it used to be (and exists at all compared to the past) with no limitations on how long your album can be.
But like I said above, albums are a convenience thing for me mostly as I would find it hard to sit down and listen to music if I had to constantly be making my own playlists or constantly switching singles. Obviously albums aren't a thing in all genres but there's no reason to just entirely get rid of them in the genres that still use them.
That's not what I said at all.
The guy I replied to was arguing new music wasn't about to created, because everything can be labelled or traced back to other genres.
Then I argue The Doors did exactly that, he agrees. I say Death Grips also did that, but that is apparently different.
It's a retarded distinction.