Who are some good modern singer-songwriters?

wtf I hate Dylan now

>>68236868
WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT PHOTO!?!? ARGHHHH

Joanna Newsom is the greatest songwriter under 40 I'd say.

Im ok

>>68236868
Modern? Tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of the end of modernism. I don't know much about singer-songwriters of the 1800s because they were considered bourgeois trash the same way they are today.

>>68237838
mod·ern
ˈmädərn/Submit
adjective
1.
of or relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past.
"the pace of modern life"
synonyms: present-day, contemporary, present, current, twenty-first-century, latter-day, modern-day, recent
"modern times"

Nice try though

>>68237868
Modern was a period of time, much like Medieval. Just because dictionaries are compiled by general misuse of a term by middle-class Americans doesn't mean a word's actual meaning has magically changed, mate.

The word that denotes a person of the current age is 'contemporary' - it also can be used to refer to people who worked at the same time as someone else: 'his contemporaries'.

Modernity ended exactly 100 years ago. I was literally just invited to the 100th anniversary of the first post-modern work by my city's National Modern Art Gallery.

If you check your dictionary for 'meme' it'll probably ignore the actual meaning of the term defined by Richard Dawkins 40-odd years ago too.

>>68237998
>doesn't mean a word's actual meaning has magically changed, mate.
It does actually, that's how language works. You're just being a tryhard asshat and contributing nothing of worth to the discussion.

>>68237998
>doesn't mean a word's actual meaning has magically changed, mate.

this is so ironic coming from someone who's dickwaving the importance of post-modernism

>>68238088
>that's how language works
No, actually, that contradicts the entire idea of language. Language's role is to assemble words that have specific definitions to allow for individual humans to communicate.
If you allow for misuse of words then the fidelity of communication is damaged and the point of language is lost. That's one of the major issues with English; the US and Australia were occupied with English commoners who misappropriated a tonne of words and lead to a big mess of mutated language.

You're just getting offended because I answered your question and you got insulted because you didn't know what 'modern' means.

>>68238136
I never said post-modernism was important, I said that 'modern' was a time period that ended 100 years ago - which is factual.
Also, there's nothing post-modern about fucking language up, you could argue it's post-structurist but that's a philosophy that's been almost universally written off by contemporary philosophers who are also working in a post-modern world. And you'd only have Derrida to really cite there.

Sufjan Stevens
Ariel Pink
Kevin Parker

>>68238199
>You're just getting offended because I answered your question
Even your answer was incorrect - singer-songwriter's have never been considered bourgeois, the movement as its known today got its start in the rural south and midwest among blues and country singers.

I knew what modern means and I also know what it means still to this day for the vast majority of the people using the English, so I will ask again to anyone who's not being a tryhard asshat:

Who are some good modern singer-songwriters?

>>68238199
>Language's role is to assemble words that have specific definitions to allow for individual humans to communicate.
And in the past hundred years the specific definition of modern has changed. To use its former definition is to misuse it.

>>68238298
>Singer-songwriters only exist now and there's no history of street musicians playing their own songs all throughout history
No, you're wrong about literally everything.Singer songwriters are the very same as a lord's court musician and that sort of profession in general.

Modern was a time period, it is long over.

>Who are some good modern singer-songwriters
I already answered you. Also, "were", not "are" - they'd be long dead.

>>68238333
No, it hasn't. An Americanised appropriation of the term made popular by it's proliferation through low-rent, US sitcoms has spread, though.
Using 'modern' as 'current' is like another tag that lets you know if someone's a middle-class pleb or not.

>>68238405
t. a classist git

>>68238504
>I lost an argument so I'll resort to name-calling because being corrected, to me, is akin to murder.
Here's your (you)

>>68238405
>No, you're wrong about literally everything.Singer songwriters are the very same as a lord's court musician and that sort of profession in general.
No, you're objectively wrong about this. Woody Guthrie sang to the labor unions and sang of the common folk. Hank Williams was another who, while he didn't sing to the unions, got his start as a folksinger - most biographies about him take note of the fact that he actually called himself a folksinger more than he did a country singer. Bob Dylan started by trying to emulating both of these singer-songwriters.

>>68238561
There are multiple people in this thread who've been arguing against you.

>>68238561
also
>calls other people pleb (the correct term is plebeian)
>thinks he has any ground to stand on when it comes to namecalling

>>68237998
>I was literally just invited to the 100th anniversary of the first post-modern work by my city's National Modern Art Gallery.
OH WOW YOU ARE SO SMART AND CULTURED. NO WONDER THE ACTUAL FUCKING DICTIONARY IS WRONG AND YOU ARE RIGHT!

>>68238588
So a loose term slapped onto a description of Bob Dylan is your way of arguing that the entire history folk music and parlour and lounge musicians throughout all of human history didn't exist? Then by your logic there are literally no 'modern' singer-songwriters because it's a title born in a Post-Modern time.

>>68238611
Yeah, but they're all failing miserably.

>>68238643
>>calls other people pleb
No one did that. I wrote the word pleb, short for plebeian, which is not a different word it's a shortened version of it. There's no issue.

>>68238646
>Actual proof to support an argument based in fact is bad and indicative of someone being full of themselves, especially if I TYPE IN ALL CAPS
Why are you so mad?

>>68238719
>Why are you so mad?
I'm not. I just think you're a poof

>>68238719
>>Actual proof to support an argument
You mean anecdotal evidence?

>>68238719
>is your way of arguing that the entire history folk music and parlour and lounge musicians throughout all of human history didn't exist?
I never said any of that. I said - and I'll say it again, that singer-songwriter music as we know it today rose up from folk music. The singer-songwriter has always been more akin to a bard than a lounge singer.

If it's made obvious that you're not going to change any opinions why are you still arguing?

>>68238783
There's nothing anecdotal about a Modernist Institution celebrating the anniversary of the end of Modernism. I'm sure if you look up your local National Modernist Gallery they too will have something going on.

>>68238757
so (you)'re a shitposter, alright. Please stick around, you'll probably shitpost a more sensible argument than anyone else in the thread.

>>68238804
You're going in circles. A modern singer-songwriter would be an unnamed entertainer. There may be some accounts on some of them and I'm sure there are plenty of songs of theirs passed down to us - especially war songs.

>>68238841
I don't share opinions unless it's a "what do you like" thread. I'm talking facts here, lad. This back and forth is literally how discussion work, it's not a hugbox, pat on the back contest where everyone agrees and jerks off.

File: ackchually.png (35KB, 700x700px)

35KB, 700x700px

>>68237838

>>68238880
>There's nothing anecdotal about a...
Using your personal invitation to this abstract thing to prove your point is indeed anecdotal evidence. Read more about it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

>>68238880
You're talking facts but the ones you've talked about are wrong.

And you've been sharing opinions the moment you wrote down "bourgeois trash".

>>68238880
>so (you)'re a shitposter, alright. Please stick around, you'll probably shitpost a more sensible argument than anyone else in the thread.
Sure, no prob! I'll see what I can do.

I seem to have noted you called singer/songwriter as bourgeois. Can you show me some examples of this in the last fifty years? Because it seems that the profession is somewhat the opposite of that, with singer/songwriters such as Phil Ochs, Pete Seeger and the aforementioned Woody Guthrie being fairly down-to-earth.

>>68238939
My being invited is anecdotal, the event existing is not anecdotal. The event is the proof. The event of it being the 100th anniversary of the movement that brought about the beginning of post-modernism.

>>68238947
'Bourgeois trash' isn't an opinion and the context I wrote it in wasn't based in my preference, it was as a shorthand for produce devoid of integrity. That much is surely obvious, you're trying hard.

>>68239009
Modern singer-songwriters stopped existing 100 years ago, so I probably can't help you... However, I could maybe come up with an example of a contemporary singer-songwriter with modernist sensibilities but it might be best to just write something like:

The role of a musician as entertainer - similar to a court jester and as opposed to the military musician or the orchestra - was a role of employment and it's lineage degenerated from an upper-class pseudo-servant to entertaining the middle-class (or bourgeoisie) who, during the era of modernism, began to indulge in 'art appreciation' and other such seemingly upper-class pursuits as an attempt to appear better educated.
Cabaret Voltaire, the birthplace of Dada, is probably responsible for the rise in singer-songwriter type produce that opposes this tradition. Which is specifically the thing that's 100 years old tomorrow.

>>68239150
>devoid of integrity
That's still an opinion.

>>68239189
Integrity isn't a subjective matter, mate. Either you have it or you don't. What I was referring to shorthand as 'bourgeois trash" is the practice of musicianship akin to a wedding singer today - which is a bourgeois affair and entirely devoid of creative integrity. No opinions, you shouldn't need that explained to you.

>>68239276
>Integrity isn't a subjective matter, mate.
Integrity is entirely subjective.

>>68239291
>No, it's subjective because I say so
I'll give you another (you).
Integrity is an objective qualifier eluding to the state of [thing in question]. Creative integrity refers to the creative process that lead to the production of [thing in question] and it's validity as regards the standards and practices of all relative creative works of its time.

Example: Pitbull is devoid of creative integrity as regards the pursuit of conceptual value in music - though in terms of marketability and composing music with the intention of taking advantage of the tropes in popular music he could be considered to have some sort of integrity as a businessman or opportunist.

It's pretty simple stuff, if you don't understand that instantly without the need for an explanation then you should probably not be posting here.

>>68239150
>Modern singer-songwriters stopped existing 100 years ago
I didn't specify "modern". Is this a strawman to get out of answering the question?
>The role of a musician as entertainer - similar to a court jester and as opposed to the military musician or the orchestra - was a role of employment and it's lineage degenerated from an upper-class pseudo-servant to entertaining the middle-class (or bourgeoisie) who, during the era of modernism, began to indulge in 'art appreciation' and other such seemingly upper-class pursuits as an attempt to appear better educated.
Cabaret Voltaire, the birthplace of Dada, is probably responsible for the rise in singer-songwriter type produce that opposes this tradition. Which is specifically the thing that's 100 years old tomorrow.
I didn't see a name of a singer/songwriter. Try again?

>>68240187
Your shitposts aren't of the quality I'd hoped for.

You responded within a context and I answered in the same context so there's no strawman, though I did trail off in a digression at the end.

Ed Sheeran would be entirely a product of a bourgeois singer-songwriter. Guys like that. X Factor contestant types - the ones who come one and everyone says "now this is an artist". They're the sort of contemporary equivalent in that sense, to finally answer your request for an example of that from the past 50 years.

The Dada thing, I should have explained, was that the thought process that lead to there being guys like Adam Green and so forth who take the format of a folk/singer-songwriter guy and spin it in the direction that guys like Duchamp or Ernst did with their media. An ongoing process for all media. Adam Green was a shit example, I'm sorry, I couldn't remember the name of the better example in my head.

Post-modernism will end when the 'bourgeois' farce of calling decor and entertainment 'art' and belittling actual 'art' stops happening and that'd be great because post-modernism is a mess of two opposing factions: the self-conscious middle class trying to looks smart by making a cultural hugbox where culture regresses versus cultural progression and art-making.
Last paragraph was completely unnecessary.

>>68240548
>Your shitposts aren't of the quality I'd hoped for.
Nobody in this thread has been shitposting besides you.

Did you or did you not understand what OP meant when he said modern? If you the answer is yes then there was no need for the entirety of this discussion and it has accomplished virtually nothing.

>>68240578
t. shitposter without self-awareness who can't argue

>>68240605
How have I been shitposting? I asked a question - one you clearly understood but willfully answered in an argumentative fashion to make yourself look superior to others and to rile them up. You have add nothing worthwhile to this discussion and are simply baiting.

>>68240548
>Your shitposts aren't of the quality I'd hoped for.
Well I've only done one. What others are you referencing here.
>You responded within a context
I asked you a direct question, and refused (or couldn't?) give it to me
>Ed Sheeran
Never heard of him, but I quick researched him and he seems to be from a modest home, hailing from a market town. Not bourgeois at all.
>X Factor contestant types
No we are discussing singer/songwriters, not gameshow contestants.
>The Dada thing, I should have explained, was...
Not relevant.

File: 1454838625172.jpg (49KB, 540x412px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 540x412px

>>68240603
>I can't argue with any of these points, but you explaining this means nothing because I'll keep being an idiot anyway
Do you not understand the irony in your worthless post complaining about worthlessness?

>>68240660
>make yourself look superior
How could that make sense, this is an anonymous imageboard and I'm responding matter-of-factly.
>How have I been shitposting
That trail of responses started with jokes about shitposting
>You have add nothing worthwhile to this discussion
I've literally been having the discussion and have yet to come across a proper counter-point. Why are you complaining? You're derailing the thread by trying to make it about me for no reason.

>>68240693
I dunno why I used shitposts and not shitpost, my condolences.

>Not bourgeois at all
He himself, well he'd be middle-class and that sentimentality is present in the working class now anyway (now often called 'lower-middle-class'). But I wasn't saying bourgeois in the sense of his financial background, but in the sense of the cultural scope of his output and he is a current day equivalent to what I was getting at.
Also, singer-songwriters audition for the X Factor. I used that as a generalisation. I'm sure there are more. We're in a post-modern world, though, and standard practice has shifted to emulate the approach to creating that art-making goes through so I'd have to try and remember people I intentionally forgot to name anyone.
Look up Paddy Casey, iirc he's of that same sentimentality.

>>The Dada thing, I should have explained, was...
>Not relevant
Hey, it is. It's all relevant, mannnnnn.

this thread is the perfect fucking shitstorm, i love it

someone cap the two guys yelling at each other over the definition of "modern" and put the /mu/ logo over it

File: (you).png (12KB, 702x91px)

12KB, 702x91px

>>68240952