Current music trends. Comments?

[Chaos Cricket]

When it comes to classic rock, I can generally listen to whole albums, and often numerous albums by a single band/musician (my affinity for the Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Van Morrison is proof of that). When it comes to most current music, I'm afraid that's not often the case. A lot of times, it seems like the album is one or two songs (usually the singles), which sound completely different from the rest of the album. A single + filler = album seems to be the formula for most bands anymore.

Again, you're name dropping Dylan, Morrison and the Beatles. Of course they had great complete albums. But Herman's Hermits? Foghat? Numerous other popular acts from the sixties and seventies who blew but you don't know them because they sucked? You're not listening to the right albums if you think there aren't any good ones these days. Check The Strokes or YeahYeahYeahs or PJ Harvey and you'll hear great complete albums. If you're gonna compare The Beatles to Nickelback, contemporary music is going to lose every time.

Eh, I gave the Strokes a listen. Couldn't stand them. There just wasn't anything interesting going on there. The music was so...bland. Boring chord structures, blah lyrics, and you couldn't understand a thing the singer was singing (which, upon actually reading some of the lyrics, turned out to not be a bad thing).

I will admit, there are several contemporary bands that I'll listen to. It's just that most of them have even been around for quite a while now.

And yeah, there was a lot of deadwood even in classic rock. The thing is, I don't have to listen to the deadwood now, and they aren't trying to sell me their CDs in the stores. The benefit of hindsight, perhaps, which is something you can't exactly deal with when you're talking about contemporary music. Guess that's why I really tend to stick with established bands that I know I like.

[Psiogen]

I just mean that while I can tell more interesting things are going on with Peter Gabriel fronting Genesis, it all just seems kinda goofy to me.

Well of course it's goofy! I guess you've gotta love goofy to get into it.

[Matt Lim]

Wouldn't his gay lover Donald Duck get jelous though?

[McDuffies]

Eh, I gave the Strokes a listen. Couldn't stand them. There just wasn't anything interesting going on there. The music was so...bland. Boring chord structures, blah lyrics, and you couldn't understand a thing the singer was singing (which, upon actually reading some of the lyrics, turned out to not be a bad thing).

I will admit, there are several contemporary bands that I'll listen to. It's just that most of them have even been around for quite a while now.

And yeah, there was a lot of deadwood even in classic rock. The thing is, I don't have to listen to the deadwood now, and they aren't trying to sell me their CDs in the stores. The benefit of hindsight, perhaps, which is something you can't exactly deal with when you're talking about contemporary music. Guess that's why I really tend to stick with established bands that I know I like.

Funny I was gonna mention Herman's Hermits too. But even more well known groups like Byrds are not impressive to me. But Searchers can do well too. One thing with sixties, today (or ever) bends are relaying on covers much less.
Cricket, your choice but I think you're missing much. I, for one, don't watch tv much, and even if I do, it's not music, rather news or movies. I happily avoid mainstream music scene ('cept when I come to the state of mind where stupid mind becames hilarious) and the only time I can't avoid it is in contact with people who listen to that music (I mean, even clubs relay mostly on house, which I don't mind although I don't listen).
What I like about corrent music is seeing history of music forming in front of my eye. People who liked Beatles back in sixties, probably didn't know how much that period will mean today. We're in luck to be able to see things developing, and it's like with computers: man, I still remember my old 286 and I must say it sucked, but I can't help but feel great about how things change.

[Yeahduff]

Eh, I gave the Strokes a listen. Couldn't stand them. There just wasn't anything interesting going on there. The music was so...bland. Boring chord structures, blah lyrics, and you couldn't understand a thing the singer was singing (which, upon actually reading some of the lyrics, turned out to not be a bad thing).

That wasn't the best suggestion, because they're actually pretty controversial. They aren't any good on the first listen because they have this cool detachment that's a little offputting at first. But after a couple more listens you get at what they're doing, and you see something is always going on. It's got some fire at the center of it, but the polish is hard to get through. Many people agree with you. They're a riot live, though.

[Ratbert]

Does anyone here like Frank Zappa?

[McDuffies]

Uh, I respect his work... But I really have problem with releasing to much albums in such short time...


On other note, Blur video collection was well spent money... Except a few of them, their videos are great. And they never take standing on stage with guitars as a concept for a video.
The other interesting thing is, through their videos, you can see a group starting small, raising into teenage attraction (what with fancy appearances as in "Universal"), and then getting dirty and back to the ground ("Song 2").
If I was a girl, I'd probably have a crush on Damon.

[SuperSnob]

I LOVE videos that aren't just a band playing. On the other hand, I'll try to get videos of just a band playing if they're one of my very favorite bands.

I mentioned Billy Childish in this thread earlier, but I didn't say that he was supposedly a huge influence on the White Stripes. I used to be a huge fan of that garage revival junk, but BC is the only guy from it that I still listen to.

BC has released over A HUNDRED albums under some name or another from 1977 to now, yet the few I've actually been able to track down are damn near ALWAYS enjoyable. I really can't explain it. EHhh.

[Brockway]

Does anyone here like Frank Zappa?

Yes. Although you can only listen to his songs so many times before they start to bug you a bit.

Nanuk of the north, valley girl, couple others I had on tape. Haven't heard them in forever (about 3 years.) Damn accelerating time... I'll be 30 in like 10 years, and those 10 years will probable go by faster than the last 5...

*frets about getting old*

Anybody else ever notice that techno is always the music of the future, no matter how many years go by?

[McDuffies]

When it comes to classic rock, I can generally listen to whole albums, and often numerous albums by a single band/musician (my affinity for the Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Van Morrison is proof of that). When it comes to most current music, I'm afraid that's not often the case. A lot of times, it seems like the album is one or two songs (usually the singles), which sound completely different from the rest of the album. A single + filler = album seems to be the formula for most bands anymore.

Hehe, I just noticed this comment and couldn't but think of Blur again. Their stardard is that they have a few poppy songs that they release as singles on album, while the rest sounds pretty much different - less happy, more psychedelic. The fact is, sometimes the rest is much better than the singles.
Who is it directed to? If someone buys their album for singles, there is a great chance that he won't like the rest of album at all. It's totally missaiming audience to advertise to.

[Chaos Cricket]

Yeah, maybe that's a bit misleading, but perhaps it's nice to have some stuff that's a bit different than the singles. I mean, maybe someone will pick up the album for that one song they heard on the radio, hear the other stuff, and it totally blows their mind (I've done that with a few albums myself).

What I'm mostly opposed to are the albums that have the one or two well-known singles, and the rest is filler. I don't mind songs that sound different from the singles, 'cause variety is good, but c'mon--most of the album stuff on most records anymore ends up being complete crap.

[Yeahduff]

Well, that largely has to do with the death of the single. Yeah, they still sell them, but they're not nearly as popular as they used to be. Most people buying music want albums, and to be fair, many good artists just aren't album artists. It's late so I don't want to do any research, but off the top of my head I know Chuck Berry's best work was in the single song. If he made any albums, they weren't as well regarded as what he released as singles.

[Chaos Cricket]

The death of the single is all well and good (I feel neither pain nor joy at it), but the fact that the album seems to be floundering at the same time...it doesn't make for a happy music patron.

[Warren]

Damn accelerating time... I'll be 30 in like 10 years, and those 10 years will probable go by faster than the last 5...

Go. Fuck. Yourself.

[Fi13r]

Isn't Avril just the cutest?



More flamebait: I hear she also prefers Macs!

So?

[Psiogen]

The death of the single is all well and good (I feel neither pain nor joy at it), but the fact that the album seems to be floundering at the same time...it doesn't make for a happy music patron.

Some of the best albums ever have come out just in the past few years. (1999 in particular was a bumper crop.)

Super Furry Animals - "Guerrilla"
Flaming Lips - "The Soft Bulletin"
Dismemberment Plan - "Emergency & I", "Change"
Neutral Milk Hotel - "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea"
Radiohead - "OK Computer", "Kid A"
And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead - "Source Tags & Codes"
XTC - "Apple Venus"

[Chaos Cricket]

True, true--there's some good stuff there (Flaming Lips, Radiohead, and XTC are bands I listen to myself). But you said it yourself--that was in 1999. And that's really only a handful. I mean, how many albums in the general pop-rock genre were released that year? And since then? I'm not saying there aren't still some great bands and albums out there, just that you have to do a lot more digging anymore to find them, and there's a hell of a lot of rubbish to sift through.

[Psiogen]

How many truly great albums are released in any year? Not that many. Not even in 1969.

[Yeahduff]

Exactly.


And yeah, nice list.

[McDuffies]

Any list with Radiohead in it is good.

Yeah, maybe that's a bit misleading, but perhaps it's nice to have some stuff that's a bit different than the singles. I mean, maybe someone will pick up the album for that one song they heard on the radio, hear the other stuff, and it totally blows their mind (I've done that with a few albums myself).

What I'm mostly opposed to are the albums that have the one or two well-known singles, and the rest is filler. I don't mind songs that sound different from the singles, 'cause variety is good, but c'mon--most of the album stuff on most records anymore ends up being complete crap.

I got what you were saying, that's actually the way good group separates from bad. I mean, whatever your taste in musics is, if you buy an album from a group and realise that all songs except a few ones you knew from before are crap, that is just not a good group.
Thing with Blur is different, I actually started really liking them when I bought first albums, back before they were popular, and realised it's a good stuff as any.
Radiohead has a thing, they like to start an album with song totally different from the rest. Like"Planet telex" or "Airbag".