Does Contemporary Music Suck?

General music discussion.
Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115992
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Howard Beale wrote:
06 Aug 2022, 10:40pm
It's interesting that the soundtrack to Stranger Things resonating with younger audiences was brought up in support of the Contemporary-Music-Does-Suck side of the argument. The non-original music from that show is mostly from the '80s—there was certainly no shortage of absolutely abysmal music topping the charts back then. With the benefit of hindsight, the producers were able to go back over that decade's popular songs and select the best it had to offer. That will likely someday be possible with this era as well.
I've made a comparable argument about the fallacy that movies were better back in the 40s or 50s, or rather that the overall quality was better then. It just seems like that because the rebroadcasting of old movies skews toward the better stuff. It filters things to appeal to a larger audience. Duh, of course. But the effect is to make us think or feel that, man, it was nuthin' but classics back then. Cultural critics tend to be lousy historians, too focused on the immediate. Instead, we need to be aware that we're always living in the mixed-bag era; the past gets to forget the shit. Same with music. So we need to be cautious in how we compare the past to the present. (However, in terms of cultural production, we certainly experience a greater quantity than in the past, but I suspect the effect is less one of influencing our sense of quality than increasing the amount of the stuff we just plain never encounter; vast, vast numbers of movies, records, etc that hardly anyone ever encounters.)

Re. the Barnes piece, while the music industry certainly engages in more detailed analysis, all entertainment industries have relied on genre to minimize putting out something that won't turn a profit. There are two basic formulas that are use: the star and the genre. In the former, it relies on past success of a performer. Love that Harrison Ford movie or Taylor Swift record? The industry figures if you liked them before, you'll like them in the future. In the latter, did you like that disco record or zombie flick? Cool, here's some more disco and zombie movies. Ride those horses until the audience shows they don't want to pay for it. So what Barnes is describing isn't a new development—capitalism is all about profit—but rather fine-tuning the process. There are dangers with more and more sophisticated techniques of analyzing audience preferences, but the impulse itself isn't new.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Howard Beale
Bang Ice Geezer
Posts: 172
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 1:51am

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Howard Beale »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 7:42am
Re. the Barnes piece, while the music industry certainly engages in more detailed analysis, all entertainment industries have relied on genre to minimize putting out something that won't turn a profit. There are two basic formulas that are use: the star and the genre. In the former, it relies on past success of a performer. Love that Harrison Ford movie or Taylor Swift record? The industry figures if you liked them before, you'll like them in the future. In the latter, did you like that disco record or zombie flick? Cool, here's some more disco and zombie movies. Ride those horses until the audience shows they don't want to pay for it. So what Barnes is describing isn't a new development—capitalism is all about profit—but rather fine-tuning the process. There are dangers with more and more sophisticated techniques of analyzing audience preferences, but the impulse itself isn't new.
Following on from this—when studying popular music over time (the 1960s vs. today, let's say), there's a dynamic at play that I find interesting: if you think about it, there's no real reason why current pop music should suck. I'd imagine most of the Katy Perrys, Taylor Swifts, et al don't write their songs or play any of the instruments you hear on their recordings. The pop "star" you see on the album cover generally has almost nothing to do with the music contained therein. They're just there to lay down the vocal, and even that is then usually given the Pro Tools/Auto-Tune treatment. So, the songs themselves are the product of seasoned professional songwriters and the instrumentation is provided by skilled studio musicians. One might say that's an obvious recipe for soullessness but I'd counter that Motown followed a similar formula and the results were consistently amazing. So, it's interesting to try to pinpoint exactly when formula becomes stifling to quality.

matedog
User avatar
Purveyor of Hoyistic Thought
Posts: 25804
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: 1995

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by matedog »

Howard Beale wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 11:51pm

Following on from this—when studying popular music over time (the 1960s vs. today, let's say), there's a dynamic at play that I find interesting: if you think about it, there's no real reason why current pop music should suck. I'd imagine most of the Katy Perrys, Taylor Swifts, et al don't write their songs or play any of the instruments you hear on their recordings. The pop "star" you see on the album cover generally has almost nothing to do with the music contained therein. They're just there to lay down the vocal, and even that is then usually given the Pro Tools/Auto-Tune treatment. So, the songs themselves are the product of seasoned professional songwriters and the instrumentation is provided by skilled studio musicians. One might say that's an obvious recipe for soullessness but I'd counter that Motown followed a similar formula and the results were consistently amazing. So, it's interesting to try to pinpoint exactly when formula becomes stifling to quality.
I think you are doing that selective history thing we’ve been discussing, implying that pop music used to be less soulless. But again, listen to the songs that actually topped the charts in that time period and there is a ton of soulless dreck in the Motown era. Hell even within Motown.

Also, Taylor Swift does write her own material. Often co-writes, but has had hits with solo credit.
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58887
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Marky Dread »

Howard Beale wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 11:51pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 7:42am
Re. the Barnes piece, while the music industry certainly engages in more detailed analysis, all entertainment industries have relied on genre to minimize putting out something that won't turn a profit. There are two basic formulas that are use: the star and the genre. In the former, it relies on past success of a performer. Love that Harrison Ford movie or Taylor Swift record? The industry figures if you liked them before, you'll like them in the future. In the latter, did you like that disco record or zombie flick? Cool, here's some more disco and zombie movies. Ride those horses until the audience shows they don't want to pay for it. So what Barnes is describing isn't a new development—capitalism is all about profit—but rather fine-tuning the process. There are dangers with more and more sophisticated techniques of analyzing audience preferences, but the impulse itself isn't new.
Following on from this—when studying popular music over time (the 1960s vs. today, let's say), there's a dynamic at play that I find interesting: if you think about it, there's no real reason why current pop music should suck. I'd imagine most of the Katy Perrys, Taylor Swifts, et al don't write their songs or play any of the instruments you hear on their recordings. The pop "star" you see on the album cover generally has almost nothing to do with the music contained therein. They're just there to lay down the vocal, and even that is then usually given the Pro Tools/Auto-Tune treatment. So, the songs themselves are the product of seasoned professional songwriters and the instrumentation is provided by skilled studio musicians. One might say that's an obvious recipe for soullessness but I'd counter that Motown followed a similar formula and the results were consistently amazing. So, it's interesting to try to pinpoint exactly when formula becomes stifling to quality.
You could level that same thing with Elvis but I would never call his music soulless. I don't think having song writers for you is the problem. But the throwaway nature of some of those songs being written.
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115992
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Dr. Medulla »

matedog wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 12:49am
Howard Beale wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 11:51pm

Following on from this—when studying popular music over time (the 1960s vs. today, let's say), there's a dynamic at play that I find interesting: if you think about it, there's no real reason why current pop music should suck. I'd imagine most of the Katy Perrys, Taylor Swifts, et al don't write their songs or play any of the instruments you hear on their recordings. The pop "star" you see on the album cover generally has almost nothing to do with the music contained therein. They're just there to lay down the vocal, and even that is then usually given the Pro Tools/Auto-Tune treatment. So, the songs themselves are the product of seasoned professional songwriters and the instrumentation is provided by skilled studio musicians. One might say that's an obvious recipe for soullessness but I'd counter that Motown followed a similar formula and the results were consistently amazing. So, it's interesting to try to pinpoint exactly when formula becomes stifling to quality.
I think you are doing that selective history thing we’ve been discussing, implying that pop music used to be less soulless. But again, listen to the songs that actually topped the charts in that time period and there is a ton of soulless dreck in the Motown era. Hell even within Motown.
Right—that's what I meant about the present being a mixed bag and the past being filtered. It's ironic, too, to cite Motown when Gordy applied an assembly line approach to music construction, eliminating so much of the individual musician as a meaningful creator. The idea of "playing on" a record really comes to fruition—as in, playing just small parts of a song—and then it was assembled later on by someone else. Not for nothing did Motown artists bristle against that control as they gained confidence and experience. We love the Motown classics, but we should be aghast at how it was all done.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58887
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Marky Dread »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 6:46am
matedog wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 12:49am
Howard Beale wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 11:51pm

Following on from this—when studying popular music over time (the 1960s vs. today, let's say), there's a dynamic at play that I find interesting: if you think about it, there's no real reason why current pop music should suck. I'd imagine most of the Katy Perrys, Taylor Swifts, et al don't write their songs or play any of the instruments you hear on their recordings. The pop "star" you see on the album cover generally has almost nothing to do with the music contained therein. They're just there to lay down the vocal, and even that is then usually given the Pro Tools/Auto-Tune treatment. So, the songs themselves are the product of seasoned professional songwriters and the instrumentation is provided by skilled studio musicians. One might say that's an obvious recipe for soullessness but I'd counter that Motown followed a similar formula and the results were consistently amazing. So, it's interesting to try to pinpoint exactly when formula becomes stifling to quality.
I think you are doing that selective history thing we’ve been discussing, implying that pop music used to be less soulless. But again, listen to the songs that actually topped the charts in that time period and there is a ton of soulless dreck in the Motown era. Hell even within Motown.
Right—that's what I meant about the present being a mixed bag and the past being filtered. It's ironic, too, to cite Motown when Gordy applied an assembly line approach to music construction, eliminating so much of the individual musician as a meaningful creator. The idea of "playing on" a record really comes to fruition—as in, playing just small parts of a song—and then it was assembled later on by someone else. Not for nothing did Motown artists bristle against that control as they gained confidence and experience. We love the Motown classics, but we should be aghast at how it was all done.
I wonder that in some perverse way those musicians on the "assembly line" productions were actually given a leg up by having that to eventually rail against.
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115992
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 9:30am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 6:46am
matedog wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 12:49am
Howard Beale wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 11:51pm

Following on from this—when studying popular music over time (the 1960s vs. today, let's say), there's a dynamic at play that I find interesting: if you think about it, there's no real reason why current pop music should suck. I'd imagine most of the Katy Perrys, Taylor Swifts, et al don't write their songs or play any of the instruments you hear on their recordings. The pop "star" you see on the album cover generally has almost nothing to do with the music contained therein. They're just there to lay down the vocal, and even that is then usually given the Pro Tools/Auto-Tune treatment. So, the songs themselves are the product of seasoned professional songwriters and the instrumentation is provided by skilled studio musicians. One might say that's an obvious recipe for soullessness but I'd counter that Motown followed a similar formula and the results were consistently amazing. So, it's interesting to try to pinpoint exactly when formula becomes stifling to quality.
I think you are doing that selective history thing we’ve been discussing, implying that pop music used to be less soulless. But again, listen to the songs that actually topped the charts in that time period and there is a ton of soulless dreck in the Motown era. Hell even within Motown.
Right—that's what I meant about the present being a mixed bag and the past being filtered. It's ironic, too, to cite Motown when Gordy applied an assembly line approach to music construction, eliminating so much of the individual musician as a meaningful creator. The idea of "playing on" a record really comes to fruition—as in, playing just small parts of a song—and then it was assembled later on by someone else. Not for nothing did Motown artists bristle against that control as they gained confidence and experience. We love the Motown classics, but we should be aghast at how it was all done.
I wonder that in some perverse way those musicians on the "assembly line" productions were actually given a leg up by having that to eventually rail against.
I suppose it’s possible that seeing how the sausage is made sped up their consciousness raising. The conventional argument is that it was the Black Power movement, and more general radicalism in the air, that made them realize Gordy wasn’t much better than any other label head.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58887
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Marky Dread »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 9:57am
Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 9:30am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 6:46am
matedog wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 12:49am
Howard Beale wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 11:51pm

Following on from this—when studying popular music over time (the 1960s vs. today, let's say), there's a dynamic at play that I find interesting: if you think about it, there's no real reason why current pop music should suck. I'd imagine most of the Katy Perrys, Taylor Swifts, et al don't write their songs or play any of the instruments you hear on their recordings. The pop "star" you see on the album cover generally has almost nothing to do with the music contained therein. They're just there to lay down the vocal, and even that is then usually given the Pro Tools/Auto-Tune treatment. So, the songs themselves are the product of seasoned professional songwriters and the instrumentation is provided by skilled studio musicians. One might say that's an obvious recipe for soullessness but I'd counter that Motown followed a similar formula and the results were consistently amazing. So, it's interesting to try to pinpoint exactly when formula becomes stifling to quality.
I think you are doing that selective history thing we’ve been discussing, implying that pop music used to be less soulless. But again, listen to the songs that actually topped the charts in that time period and there is a ton of soulless dreck in the Motown era. Hell even within Motown.
Right—that's what I meant about the present being a mixed bag and the past being filtered. It's ironic, too, to cite Motown when Gordy applied an assembly line approach to music construction, eliminating so much of the individual musician as a meaningful creator. The idea of "playing on" a record really comes to fruition—as in, playing just small parts of a song—and then it was assembled later on by someone else. Not for nothing did Motown artists bristle against that control as they gained confidence and experience. We love the Motown classics, but we should be aghast at how it was all done.
I wonder that in some perverse way those musicians on the "assembly line" productions were actually given a leg up by having that to eventually rail against.
I suppose it’s possible that seeing how the sausage is made sped up their consciousness raising. The conventional argument is that it was the Black Power movement, and more general radicalism in the air, that made them realize Gordy wasn’t much better than any other label head.
Nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining fame and success. These things always get wrapped up in political radicalism but the reality is more likely people need to eat. And getting a better meal to sweeten the deal.
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115992
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 10:05am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 9:57am
Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 9:30am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 6:46am
matedog wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 12:49am

I think you are doing that selective history thing we’ve been discussing, implying that pop music used to be less soulless. But again, listen to the songs that actually topped the charts in that time period and there is a ton of soulless dreck in the Motown era. Hell even within Motown.
Right—that's what I meant about the present being a mixed bag and the past being filtered. It's ironic, too, to cite Motown when Gordy applied an assembly line approach to music construction, eliminating so much of the individual musician as a meaningful creator. The idea of "playing on" a record really comes to fruition—as in, playing just small parts of a song—and then it was assembled later on by someone else. Not for nothing did Motown artists bristle against that control as they gained confidence and experience. We love the Motown classics, but we should be aghast at how it was all done.
I wonder that in some perverse way those musicians on the "assembly line" productions were actually given a leg up by having that to eventually rail against.
I suppose it’s possible that seeing how the sausage is made sped up their consciousness raising. The conventional argument is that it was the Black Power movement, and more general radicalism in the air, that made them realize Gordy wasn’t much better than any other label head.
Nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining fame and success. These things always get wrapped up in political radicalism but the reality is more likely people need to eat. And getting a better meal to sweeten the deal.
The age-old story of artists coming to realize that the label was also cheating the performers and writers on royalty. Motown was a printing-press for cash, but still gotta cheat the talent.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58887
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Marky Dread »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 10:17am
Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 10:05am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 9:57am
Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 9:30am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 6:46am


Right—that's what I meant about the present being a mixed bag and the past being filtered. It's ironic, too, to cite Motown when Gordy applied an assembly line approach to music construction, eliminating so much of the individual musician as a meaningful creator. The idea of "playing on" a record really comes to fruition—as in, playing just small parts of a song—and then it was assembled later on by someone else. Not for nothing did Motown artists bristle against that control as they gained confidence and experience. We love the Motown classics, but we should be aghast at how it was all done.
I wonder that in some perverse way those musicians on the "assembly line" productions were actually given a leg up by having that to eventually rail against.
I suppose it’s possible that seeing how the sausage is made sped up their consciousness raising. The conventional argument is that it was the Black Power movement, and more general radicalism in the air, that made them realize Gordy wasn’t much better than any other label head.
Nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining fame and success. These things always get wrapped up in political radicalism but the reality is more likely people need to eat. And getting a better meal to sweeten the deal.
The age-old story of artists coming to realize that the label was also cheating the performers and writers on royalty. Motown was a printing-press for cash, but still gotta cheat the talent.
Definitely a sad state of affairs. But I reckon those guys probably had it good to the previous generations blues artists. So much talent filling the corporations pocket.

Just like the early ska and reggae guys that came out of Jamaica. Sounds that are still being milked today.
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 17319
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Kory »

Marky Dread wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 4:24am
But what really is contemporary music?
Whatever fits the boomer's narrative, I suppose
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58887
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Marky Dread »

Kory wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:15pm
Marky Dread wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 4:24am
But what really is contemporary music?
Whatever fits the boomer's narrative, I suppose
I was coming at it with the view of Kate Bush getting so high in the chart with "Running Up That Hill" on the back of Stranger Things. An old song has now in my mind become contemporary. Should we just date everything and put it in a box marked yesterday. Or is there so much more to it.

Isn't contemporary music still just popular music. Or should we view older stuff as being traditional. If so new music is never going to be new.
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115992
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:25pm
Kory wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:15pm
Marky Dread wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 4:24am
But what really is contemporary music?
Whatever fits the boomer's narrative, I suppose
I was coming at it with the view of Kate Bush getting so high in the chart with "Running Up That Hill" on the back of Stranger Things. An old song has now in my mind become contemporary. Should we just date everything and put it in a box marked yesterday. Or is there so much more to it.

Isn't contemporary music still just popular music. Or should we view older stuff as being traditional. If so new music is never going to be new.
It is an interesting question as to how to define contemporary. There is a time element to it, but what's the cut-off where something is contemporary one day and passé the next day? Are some genres contemporary and others not, even if released the same day? I get the sense it's a style question related in some way to a zeitgeist, but as we've talked about before, if music and culture more broadly is really fucking fractured, is there such a thing as a zeitgeist. Contemporary is actually a lot slippier an idea than I first thought. There's a kind of pornography aspect to it—I know it when I see/hear it. But actually pinning a definition to it all is tough.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58887
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Marky Dread »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:36pm
Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:25pm
Kory wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:15pm
Marky Dread wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 4:24am
But what really is contemporary music?
Whatever fits the boomer's narrative, I suppose
I was coming at it with the view of Kate Bush getting so high in the chart with "Running Up That Hill" on the back of Stranger Things. An old song has now in my mind become contemporary. Should we just date everything and put it in a box marked yesterday. Or is there so much more to it.

Isn't contemporary music still just popular music. Or should we view older stuff as being traditional. If so new music is never going to be new.
It is an interesting question as to how to define contemporary. There is a time element to it, but what's the cut-off where something is contemporary one day and passé the next day? Are some genres contemporary and others not, even if released the same day? I get the sense it's a style question related in some way to a zeitgeist, but as we've talked about before, if music and culture more broadly is really fucking fractured, is there such a thing as a zeitgeist. Contemporary is actually a lot slippier an idea than I first thought. There's a kind of pornography aspect to it—I know it when I see/hear it. But actually pinning a definition to it all is tough.
I agree and feel the same. If a new act bring out a track in a contemporary style that contains a 35-40 year old sample that offers a familiarity is it still contemporary?
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115992
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Does Contemporary Music Suck?

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 4:55pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:36pm
Marky Dread wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:25pm
Kory wrote:
08 Aug 2022, 3:15pm
Marky Dread wrote:
07 Aug 2022, 4:24am
But what really is contemporary music?
Whatever fits the boomer's narrative, I suppose
I was coming at it with the view of Kate Bush getting so high in the chart with "Running Up That Hill" on the back of Stranger Things. An old song has now in my mind become contemporary. Should we just date everything and put it in a box marked yesterday. Or is there so much more to it.

Isn't contemporary music still just popular music. Or should we view older stuff as being traditional. If so new music is never going to be new.
It is an interesting question as to how to define contemporary. There is a time element to it, but what's the cut-off where something is contemporary one day and passé the next day? Are some genres contemporary and others not, even if released the same day? I get the sense it's a style question related in some way to a zeitgeist, but as we've talked about before, if music and culture more broadly is really fucking fractured, is there such a thing as a zeitgeist. Contemporary is actually a lot slippier an idea than I first thought. There's a kind of pornography aspect to it—I know it when I see/hear it. But actually pinning a definition to it all is tough.
I agree and feel the same. If a new act bring out a track in a contemporary style that contains a 35-40 year old sample that offers a familiarity is it still contemporary?
An additional thought: I wonder if audience enters into it. That is, is what is considered contemporary that which the 18–24 crowd is into? Young people drive trends and fads, so whatever gol-dang goofy thing the kids are into is what is contemporary. So 80s music redefined as 80s retro could be contemporary for as long as the kids are tiktoking it.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Post Reply