In less than a year, this will be as old as Sgt. Pepper's,

File: 1480334521154.jpg (30KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x600px

I like that perspective on the time gap. My thoughts:

> we haven't had enough time to reflect on the cultural impact of some of the releases from the mid to late 2000's
> postmodernism in the internet age is discouraging stylistic leaps of faith. In many ways, we're currently in a state of reveling in the styles of the past.

When it comes to the postmodernism thing, you can apply this to any popular genre. New scenes aren't being created in popular spheres. It's hip-hop with live jazz influences, modern metal that harkens to 80's thrash, synthpop (80's again), and post-madonna image obsessed pop. Kurt Cobain's guitar sound, persona, vocal style and image were all nothing extravagantly new, but they weren't postmodernism. They were a conscious shift in tone from previous styles in rock that set him apart. Modern popular artists don't appear to be into the idea of achieving anything like that. I'm not even saying any of that is bad by the way. I just don't think the current musical climate is encouraging it. I do, however, think we're drawing closer to a time when it will.

No. There's so much choice now and so many subgenres that it's pretty much impossible for a new musical movement to sweep the nation/world. Back then people relied on the radio a lot for music, and they got sick of hearing the same type of shit over and over which is why alternative rock became so huge. Now people just listen to what they fancy on spotify/apple music etc. any time they want.

File: art_vivalavida.jpg (124KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 600x600px

Coldplay, Radiohead etc all be in the same basket given a little time

idk the money store or some shit like that
those cunts are playing at some big ass venues
most successful band of their style i guess

>>69558094
Yeah, Kurt and crew certainly weren't postmodernist, but their sounds weren't 100% new, either. I'd liken them to someone like Blondie or INXS, who were able to draw on all of these relatively underground concepts in music at the time (new wave, post punk, etc) and polish them into something with mainstream appeal that got heard by people who would never dream of listening to Power, Corruption, and Lies or More Songs About Buildings and Food.

But yeah, indie, outside of groups like The Knife or AnCo, has been stuck cranking out mediocre mannerist reproductions of more artistically authentic stuff from decades past, and surprise surprise, the old stuff is almost always better, because it came organically out of a stylistic scene rather than being an attempt to tap into the past.

90% percent of what indie, outside of a select few bands that were all formed in the late 90s or very early 00's, has given us is about as artistically intact as 80s Beach Boys.

I guess you could argue that electronic music is where the innovation really is, but I'd argue that the genre is so paradoxically ahead-of-the-curve and yet so masturbatorily self-referencing that most of what comes out of it is honestly timeless in the same way that all postwar Jazz is, which is why electronic titans like Selected Ambient Works and Dig Your Own Hole can be decades old and yet if they were released today they still would sound fresh.

I blame the internet and the freedom to listen only to what you want to listen to, as opposed to the radio-dominated world pre-2000 to 2005 where you were bombarded by music that you wouldn't be listen to if it was up to you, but that probably subconsciously influenced you amyways while simultaneously broadening your musical horizons. So we're stuck in sub-genre echo chambers that never would have survived in a time when artists couldn't rely on blogs and SoundCloud to get their work heard and had to be able to book gigs and move demo tapes instead.

bump, this could be a good thread

File: elseq.png (76KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x600px

>>69557955
>why has so little changed since then
because you're still listening to rock

File: Skrillex-Scary-Monsters-And-Nice-Sprites-MAU5CD004-EP-2010-copy.jpg (258KB, 1425x1425px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1425x1425px

It might make some sad but reality is that this is todays version of what you're talking about. Or maybe Justice first album

>>69558355
nah, deadmau5 was there first and definitely had a nirvana vibe to his sudden explosive popularity

>>69558369
yeah true, i remember everyone in my sisters school all of a sudden started listing to deadmau5 back then

File: 1480814814090.jpg (32KB, 706x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 706x480px

>>69558251
>Selected Ambient Works and Dig Your Own Hole can be decades old and yet if they were released today they still would sound fresh.

literally what
The biggest problem with SAW85-92 is that many of the tracks sound dated as hell. Listen to Ageispolis for god's sake

The Chemical Brothers are pretty much the definition of a dance artist that were defined by a time - their big beat style was huge for a couple of years but electronic music has moved on since then.. hence why in their more recent releases they're going with more of a psychedelic trancey sound.

I'm kind of baffled about that entire paragraph, electronic is certainly not timeless, and the only reason you would think so is if you've only listened to /mu/ and p4k approved "essentials".

Just to give an example in the rather narrow genre of ambient techno, listen to a couple of tracks released relatively recently and compare them to stuff like Seefeel or SAW85-92

deepchord presents echospace - firefly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVf0OwyjCo0

voices from the lake - ST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXlMVC_71gE

the production sounds completely different than early 90s stuff

I completely agree about the internet being the reason for it seeming like music is more static. Everything is incredibly balkanized now

>>69558355
>>69558369

If that's the case, then I need to find a nice, big oven to climb into, because the future is well and truly fucked.

>>69558430
SAW and early chemical brothers might sound dated AF to a genre junkie, but to someone, anyone else, they're absolutely timeless sounding. Just listen to the Ageispolis sample in that Die Antwoord song, and it absolutely sounds new in a context outside of an album we know to be a quarter century old.

Even the psychedelic back-halves of DYOH or Surrender (and ESPECIALLY come with us) still would get a BNM label of some rando dropped them today because of how innovative they sound.

It's like listening to Herbie Hancock or Miles Davis in terms of timelessness to people who aren't hardcore genre junkies.

Compare that to having some normie listen to "With A Little Help From My Friends" and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" back to back, where it's immediately obvious, even to the completely un-initiated, that one is 25 years older than the other.

File: 1468358859412.png (2MB, 898x2102px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 898x2102px

>>69558355
>>69558451
music is so commercialized now, and because the internet has made it so easy for people to find their specific subgenre niche, there is a massive separation between what is critically acclaimed and what is popular.

Look at Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, Beyonce, Justin Bieber etc... these are literally the most popular acts in the world but they're hardly even acknowledged by people who actively seek out music.

there is never going to be a massive overlap between the critically acclaimed and the popular anymore, like there was in the past. It's become so easy to get music to the ears of literally anyone that the surface level popular stuff has become dumbed down and simplified.. at the same time, it's become so easy to explore into the depths of whatever genre you want that those genres start to lose connection with the mainstream audience and media.. I believe R Plus Seven will be seen as a seminal classic in the future, but it received literally no attention from the mainstream public.

Today, looking at what's popular will give you little to no understanding of where music actually is. 20 years ago, and especially 50 years ago, it did.

File: 1479880261848.gif (47KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x610px

>>69558545
Have some normie listen to Ageispolis and, idk, Sad Bitch by Arca back to back and seriously try and tell me that they won't be able to tell there's a 20 year difference

>>69558558
Internet and social media ruined everything

bon iver, mgmt, lcd soundsystem, and radiohead all had nirvana potential. just not the consistency or crossover appeal.

it's especially hard since kanye in one fell swoop made hip hop a "high art" genre, so now you have the Chance the Rapper generation marring rock progress.

maybe if we can get a solid electropunk band that doesn't sound like imagine dragons or a solid baroque pop band that doesn't sound like florence and the machine, there can be some hope for rock in pop radio in the future.

and i have faith in this 2016 neo-soul trend desu

>>69558936
radiohead surpassed nirvana tbqh

>>69559216
not in a mainstream sense

>>69557955
There hasn't been a pivotal record because of Nirvana. In the 90s fucking Grunge and "Alternative" acts ruined everything, with their sloppy musicianship, "edgy" lyrics, tonedeaf singing, and anti rock n roll image. Worst part of it all, they weren't anti establishment or deep, usually they were merely media and record label creations. Furthermore alternative music isn't actually alternative, they all have the exact same formulaic sound.

>>69560152
i'd like to point you to Pavement

File: Queens_of_the_Stone_Age_-_Songs_for_the_Deaf.png (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

>>69560152
>sloppy musicianship
>edgy lyrics
>tonedeaf singing
>anti rock and roll

File: chris-cornell.jpg (90KB, 1024x769px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1024x769px

>>69560152
>tonedeaf singing

You have to be kidding me, if there is anything you can complement alternative rock scene in the 90s on its the large amount of influential talented singers.