Am I the only one who has been finding the whole range of popular 'indie' music a little sameish lately? Or just modern music in general? Or maybe I've caught up to everything? Not to knock some of the wonderful stuff out there, but I'm bored.

 

(Rant ahead)

I mean there's lots of variety, but it's all within a certain range. It's done with a certain range of various instruments playing within a certain range of styles. Sometimes you get a little more dance music in the mix, or a little more hiphop or potentially a classically-inspired lick from the very brave, but generally it's a choice at the basic level between rock and pop. You have a guitars, singers, drumming, and sometimes a little something extra for texture and ambiance.

 

Going outside the indie world adds more genres, but they're still working on the same paradigm. And frankly most of the best music of the last while has been mainly retro to some degree or another. The only stuff the pitchfork crowd seem to anoint as new (or perhaps the only genuine new-ish stuff they can find) is usually very avant garde rather than something you would listen to for fun on a bad day.

 

Going backwards you get into the world of accepted milestones. There was grunge and alternative in the 90's. The indie kids have their standard lists of acceptable music like New Order or My Bloody Valentine. Stray outside it and you wind up in the world of bad 80s pop. Run away from that and you get 80's hair metal. But all three were still working with variations of the same ingredients. Go back further and you've got Led Zepplin and Pink Floyd at one end, and punk and new wave at the other. And the British invasion before that.

 

They're all working within the same basic structure. Even urban, modern country, jazz and electronic music still work within the bounds of the modern paradigm- heavy emphasis on rhythm and if guitars are present chords. Now the things that make a great song a great song in western music haven't changed much in nearly 1000 years. There's going to be similar elements. But the modern range of possibilities is really so narrow.

 

 

...The two main things that exist outside of the modern paradigm are classical and ethnic music. I grew up listening to classical music. I'm not asking for classical recommendations. I like a lot of types of world music in small amounts, but that's not what I'm asking for either. What I miss is the heady joy I got when I started exploring the range of world of music and found all these styles that I hadn't known about before. (Wasn't allowed to listen to pop or rock as a kid.) I loved the way something as simple as a Franz Ferdinand song could turn my head inside out because I just hadn't heard anything quite like up to that first moment.

 

My question is what out there is both good and new? What sounds completely different? What stretches your minds in new directions? What defies comparisons to other groups? What makes you think 'this must have been beamed in from another planet because I've never heard anything quite like it on earth'? What's going to save the music world from going around in circles? I'm all ears.

For the confused, my favorite long-loved example of what I'm talking about would be Zoe Keating:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYrcXX4nWOA]YouTube - ‪Zoe Keating Plays"Escape Artist"‬‏[/ame]

 

But lately I've mainly been finding glimpses of what I'm talking about in various soundtracks, since they shouldn't fit in the pop mould. But then they aren't satisfying as stand-alone pieces either.

 

This is what I was listening to while writing the last entry:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT3_EzeOL1Y]YouTube - ‪Bye and Stuff- Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (Original Score by Nigel Godrich)‬‏[/ame]

 

I love how fresh it feels. It's been a long time since a typical rock song made me feel like that can. But even that is still just putting familiar elements together, and it's not a song. (Have drum kits even changed at all in the last 60 years?)

I hate to say it, but I think you might be right - I don't think there are many different or new ways to twist popular music. I've heard people like Ozzy Osbourne and Billy Corgan make similar statements. World music probably is your best bet. Maybe others have suggestions for you, but the music I listen to (and like), is basically just similar to what has been done in the past. I mean, there are differences, but it's nothing revolutionary.

Burial was the last extremely different thing i've heard :(

my favourite 15 albums from last year sounded nothing like each other. each was unique and covered a myriad of different sounds. i just think people need to look a little harder. and not be so put off with what's popular or what's on the charts.

 

these are some of the artists that i'm talking about

 

LCD Soundsystem - Dance punk with prog elements

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sokz0oy7wo]YouTube - ‪LCD Soundsystem - Home‬‏[/ame]

 

The National - songwriting in a league of its own

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hl6GnmvMMA]YouTube - ‪The National - England‬‏[/ame]

 

Kanye West - hip hop

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N29WWcLmgzQ]YouTube - ‪Kanye West- Dark Fantasy‬‏[/ame]

 

Tame Impala - modern pysch rock

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfcHq0hhFWg]YouTube - ‪Tame Impala - Half Full Glass Of Wine‬‏[/ame]

 

Parades - hard to categorise

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppg85en7hKM]YouTube - ‪Parades - Hunters‬‏[/ame]

 

Sufjan Stevens - weird?

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTsDcjHj54M]YouTube - ‪Sufjan Stevens - Vesuvius‬‏[/ame]

 

Crystal Castles - noise pop

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrTiT3YkUQg]YouTube - ‪Crystal Castles - Baptism‬‏[/ame]

 

Owen Pallet - swoom pop

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNWyXd0cIVo&feature=fvst[/ame]

 

i think we still do have those wide varieties you mentioned above. and i would say that people always tend to look at the past with rose petaled glasses.

i just think people need to look a little harder. and not be so put off with what's popular or what's on the charts.

 

I agree

 

i think we still do have those wide varieties you mentioned above. and i would say that people always tend to look at the past with rose petaled glasses.

 

I think people do tend to glorify past music as being more groundbreaking and revolutionary, but I've always believed that was largely due to the fact that there was more of an opportunity for it to be that way. All the bands we love from the past were dealing with far more of a blank slate. Now, so many things have been done, an it's more difficult to find new areas to explore.

nothing is revolutionary today

there are many bands mixes genres,

folklore with the rap I like it

Manau

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbIoOuYqUhg]YouTube - ‪Panique Celtique‬‏[/ame]

 

and have heard much from classical & pop. this singer emma Shapplin one of my favorite singer have a fantastic voice but the classic is truly in the wrong moment time of my life.

 

[ame=http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaajlc_emma-shapplin-discovering-yourself_music]Dailymotion - Emma Shapplin - Discovering yourself - une vidéo Music@@AMEPARAM@@http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video@@AMEPARAM@@video[/ame]

i went through the same... but i'm satisfied now and i don't like it nothing that i caught up.

ART IS DEAD

 

I was going to say, "Listen to classical," BUTTT you said not to.

 

How's some Indian Jazz Fusion?

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiOfof013mc]YouTube - ‪Luki by Remember Shakti - Saturday Night at Bombay‬‏[/ame]

 

OHHHH yeahhhhhh

 

(that's not their best song that I've heard, but it's their shortest... the album I have is 4 songs long, but one of them is 20 minutes long, so yeah...)

I've been trying to think of a way to explain what I mean all weekend, so here goes.

 

I am not talking about style or genre (although they are both affected), but the underlying structures they share that form sort of the skeleton of the music. Take Sigur Ros for example (or Explosions in the Sky or post-rock in general). The whole definition of post rock is music that uses typical rock instruments in a non-rock, more ambient way. They still have guitars and drums, but could you even imagine a punk band trying to cover one of their more unique songs?

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6LCbJe1dmg]YouTube - ‪Sigur Rós: Von‬‏[/ame]

 

Could you imagine strumming Von around a campfire? If you tried, each chord would be a single note, which would kind of defeat the purpose of strumming, wouldn't it. THAT'S what I'm talking about. That's what I mean by underlying structure.

 

I just happen to think that it's possible for immediate, accessible music to exist with a different structure without it having to be slow and ambient.

 

 

Every era shares a philosophy on what that structure should be, but vastly different sounds and styles can exist within that structure. In the Baroque era it was counterpoint- pieces of music built by playing several melodies that complimented each other. Classical era music built pieces out of a single frilly sort of melody. Romantic music mapped out a story first and then built a shifting dynamic piece of music around that story to act it out. In folk and celtic music most of the poor people who wrote the songs couldn't afford any instruments at all, so they wrote songs with nothing but their voices which emphasized a single, simple, powerful melody.

 

In modern music that structure is first and foremost a heavily accentuated beat, usually 4/4, and chord-based melodies.

 

Chords have always been a lesser aspect of music, but it took on a different significance when rock came along. It was great for a while. Bands like the Beatles who came across interesting ways of using chords first came up with amazing signature sounds. But all the new chord sequences are used up now. There are still some great new songs out there written with chords, but because there is no real alternative to it in any modern genre with a melody, modern music as we know it has hit a dead end. Anything both fresh and chord-based is usually retro for a reason.

 

As for that beat, it unites almost all the various modern genres. Outside of traditional African music, playing music with a heavy beat the way we do in everything right now is a very modern thing. Currently, especially in the urban genres, it is taking over from chords as the main thing defining a piece of music. This isn't a bad thing- there's some amazing stuff coming out of this new philosophy. Look at what Radiohead and TV on the Radio are doing. Look at some of the stuff coming out of the Hip Hop or Dubstep scenes. There's a lot of room left for innovation there.

 

BUT there are only so many practical ways to divide up a 4/4 timing into a rhythm. We will run out just like with chords. Think of Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life". It's a great beat, but it's an obvious beat you can do lots of interesting things with, like Travis' Selfish Jean for example. But if you use that beat you're using the Lust for Life beat. How much more true is it for a Timbaland beat?

 

There's an added level of tyranny to a heavy modern beat, though. There are two main ways to use it, either come up with it first and fit the song around it, or come up with a song and place the beat on top of it. When you write to the beat, the song will have to fit within the bounds of that beat. There will be a rigidity to it. Everything is chopped up into precise pieces. And the sad thing is that people who grew up listening to nothing but beat-heavy music probably don't even realize that they are missing anything. I miss the style of the folk songs I grew up with that could flow to their own internal rhythm. Sometimes the pace could vary quite a lot from verse to verse, but it gave the song the room to breathe, and that elasticity of tempo and ability to flow could be used to incredible dramatic effect.

 

This song was modified to fit the story of the tv show, but it's a good example of what I'm talking about. There is a heavy internal rhythm going on, but because it is internal the song can slow down and speed up and have little dramatic pauses in it.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-SfqTwU9MY]YouTube - ‪Alfie's Song‬‏[/ame]

 

Now something happens with old songs (and new songs with old styles like Country) where because the song was written in a melody-based way, there is only room for a very simple beat to fit over top of it. But because they modern structure dictates that song even old songs must at least have a standard drum kit playing over top of it, on it goes, and then every song played that way starts to sound the same. (See: anything rock or country you would hear in an elevator.) Here's an example of that gypsy song again with a drumkit involved:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0znZ-IoZtm4]YouTube - ‪Irish Descendants - Raggle Taggle Gypsy‬‏[/ame]

 

The drums kick into typical mode at 1:38 and great song gets really boring from that point on because they don't traditionally belong there. It's less obvious in music written to have drums over it, but it can still take away from the music.

 

Or if you want the really crass modernized version of that song, compare this one to the first example:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phAO0ts2VYM]YouTube - ‪Take Me Home - Raggle Taggle Gypsy‬‏[/ame]

 

 

 

Chords and rhythm will always be an important part of a song, but the question is how important? Do they come first or second? A song written by working out a single melody on a violin will out of necessity have a different structure than a song written by strumming chords on a guitar because it will have that back and forth motion built into it, and the musical phrases will fit the length of the bow. Keyboard-written tunes can be flowy because you have access to every single note at once, but they can also be plunky and disjointed because you are hitting single keys. Soundtrack music can be very different because the images existed first and then music was built to suit it. Songs that tell stories rather than stating all the ways I love you or I hate you can end up quite different.

 

My point is, there are so many elements to music that you can chose to emphasize. There are so many ways that music can come together into something new. Why only rely on (and exhaust) two of them? I want more.

Burial was the last extremely different thing i've heard :(

Seconded. And yet so often it's textbook Dubstep which as much as I love it can be pretty formulaic. :confused:

 

I guess the difference is that he's a real true romantic in the old fashioned sense of the word. He really listens to the sounds and moods of a place and then tries to express them through his music rather than trying to write 'that type of music'.

 

Which is good and needs to be done more.

 

my favourite 15 albums from last year sounded nothing like each other. each was unique and covered a myriad of different sounds. i just think people need to look a little harder. and not be so put off with what's popular or what's on the charts.

 

I have been doing exactly that for over 6 years now. I will grant you, you have the width and breadth of what's popular in the indie world right now just about pegged. But those artists in spite of excellent quality still generally fit quite neatly into their respective genres. Or combination of genres in LCD Soundsystem's case. And that isn't a bad thing at all. (I would say the one big exception to that is Owen Palett, who is definitely does his own thing, right down to a structural level on occasion, though interestingly when it's really unique he's using the same technique as Zoe Keating with the string instrument and the loop pedals. So it's a technological shift.)

 

My point is that all that is not enough. There should be more. There is the possibility for more, but no one can seem to thing outside of the modern paradigm.

 

I think people do tend to glorify past music as being more groundbreaking and revolutionary, but I've always believed that was largely due to the fact that there was more of an opportunity for it to be that way. All the bands we love from the past were dealing with far more of a blank slate. Now, so many things have been done, an it's more difficult to find new areas to explore.

Exactly. Modern music exists the way it does because black american music finally got a foothold to cross racial lines, triggering a massive paradigm shift. Recording technology also played a really big role in the shift. The first wave reveled in what was new but didn't feel the need to change it much (the 50's) the second wave got to explore the limits of it and really innovate with it (the 60's) and the third wave settled into it's strengths (the 70's) or looked at the roads not chosen (70's punk through to the early 90's grunge scene). Now it's been thoroughly explored, so everything is stuck in it's form, and no one has come up with a new paradigm yet.

 

 

there are many bands mixes genres,

folklore with the rap I like it

Manau

 

and have heard much from classical & pop. this singer emma Shapplin one of my favorite singer have a fantastic voice but the classic is truly in the wrong moment time of my life.

That rap thing was great in a bonkers sort of way. But both of those kind of prove my point. It really is pretty typical for rap- the celtic sample is just a sample used in a rap way. The rhythms and structures that make celtic music the way is is aren't there at all. Most classical crossover music has a very generic (dare I say bland) modern beat with some classical-ish sounds thrown in. They're borrowing from other genres, but nothing that makes up the structure of the music has changed.

 

How's some Indian Jazz Fusion?

*scratches head* :confused: Well, that definitely fits the bill. I can't say I have ever heard anything like it. :nice:

:nice: Indian jazz fusion cures all ills when you're bored with music.

 

You could try going out of your way to listen to non-Western music in general, I think. Listen to Chinese folk music. It's totally great. We have some old records of a bunch of old-fashioned farmer-type Chinese musicians in this village or something and they're just so good.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3SEJSK_jqg]Bjork - The Comet Song[/ame]

 

how about that. She's the queen of strange. I wanted to post her song called Ancestors, but I couldn't find the any video with the whole song in youtube.

I have similar frustration. We are in the era where music is being controlled by chord progressions and all the same beat. I haven't learned about Bjork's composing methods yet, but from listening to her music, she's somewhat free from beat and chords. She's all about melody and lyric. Seems like she will find the chords later. Either that or she incorporates everything all at the same time. I honestly don't know. You can also try Nattura, Declare Independence, or Unravel; maybe you'll get what I mean.

 

 

That rap thing was great in a bonkers sort of way. But both of those kind of prove my point. It really is pretty typical for rap- the celtic sample is just a sample used in a rap way. The rhythms and structures that make celtic music the way is is aren't there at all. Most classical crossover music has a very generic (dare I say bland) modern beat with some classical-ish sounds thrown in. They're borrowing from other genres, but nothing that makes up the structure of the music has changed.

 

 

I could go see the band in concert, they were fantastic.

although live concert and studio is not the same thing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngwgep97g3s]YouTube - ‪Victor Wooten - A Moment So Close by Bela Fleck and the Flecktones‬‏[/ame]

^The guy at the beggining there was so cute, like he was trying not to grin ear to ear so he could keep going.

 

And yes I probably should start listening to more Bjork. But man she really is weird. Weird just that little tiny bit beyond my weird limit... which can take some doing.

 

Sorry if I'm starting to sound preachy, but I think something can be different and still be pop. (Pop in my definition here meaning it's accessible and you can hum it afterwards.)

i can't help but feel that you've stopped looking for good music and instead you just want something weird and different.

^#1 haven't stopped looking. #2 Different yes, weird, no. (And not difficult either. So often the arty blog music can be purposely difficult for it's own sake in an attempt to be different.)

 

I suppose it may be because the next wave of hipsters coming through have reached such a critical mass of obnoxiousness that it's hard to like any sound I associate with them at the moment. Which isn't fair, I know, but it's not like they're trying to not fit into the approved hipster indie bubble either.

 

Or maybe because after years of listening to at least one song from most of the new artists in the albums of the year poll every year, (so say a taste of about 100 unknown to me groups a year) I've started to notice the patterns more, and wish there were more genres available for the less well known bands to stretch their wings in rather than sounding like a studied combination of hipster-approved musical inspirations.

 

Or maybe I just need to stop listening to anything for a while, find something involving to do so my brain can reset. But I already tried that once this spring. But I am being too grumpy. Maybe I've gotten too old an cynical? Hit 28 and suddenly everything is less fresh?

 

But here's what I think it really is for me: It's Doctor Who's fault. The music industry kept certain styles going beyond their best before date because they were easier to market. High school was musically traumatic for me- I was there when boy bands, girl groups, Britney Spears and too-tight too-short tops were in vogue to the point of being social law. It was nasty. When the net started getting all this new stuff noticed and the record companies started to crumble, it was like this massive breath of fresh air. So many new things started to surface and I hoped it meant that things could finally start shifting into something new. But it didn't happen. There was a burst of creativity and great new bands between about '04 and '06 and then they stabilized. The new, less commercial music world organized itself into about 15 or 20 loose subgenres enforced by label-happy music bloggers and everyone got in line. And that is REALLY DISAPPOINTING. It's a missed opportunity. I want to know what comes next. I want to know what the next big shift will sound like, and I can't jump in a box to find out. I certainly can't live my way to the end of this century to find out.

 

But you know what? Rather than focusing on the negative, I made a list of what my idea of what would be good and different and not weird would sound like. I'm not a musician and anything I attempt will probably suck and not achieve anything I want it to at all.

 

But as C.S. Lewis once told J.R.R. Tolkien, "You know, there's far too little of what we enjoy in stories. I'm afraid we'll have to write them ourselves." And so they did.

 

(And so I'll shut up and stop ranting and try to write something.)

hate to say it but i do think it has something to do your with your age. you mention 2004 to 2006, thats when you would've been in your early 20s. exactly where i am now. and i find myself being immensely proud of what this era of music has produced. but i am afraid that when i do get a little older that passion will be die and be replaced with a sense of resentment and a yearning to go back to the way things were when i was young. it may just be inevitable.

Yes, musically the brain starts to loose it's elasticity and ability to adapt to new genres somewhere around 35.

 

But I'm not at that point yet, and I don't want to go back.

:stunned:

Yes, musically the brain starts to loose it's elasticity and ability to adapt to new genres somewhere around 35.

 

But I'm not at that point yet, and I don't want to go back.

>I'm doomed, is that what you're saying?:laugh3:

Back to Frank Sinatra and Glen Miller, I guess.. and that Elvis fellow..:elvis:

There is as much to be discovered in the past as there is to be created in the future. Check out some of the interesting works from eons ago - I'm still discovering things I've never even heard from past times!

Some they rarely ever play simply because the music has long pauses, or is just too plain long for radio play, normally. Or with really long intros. This one is particularly good from Elton John, way back in 73': [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GYI6XJH9Ss]YouTube - Elton John - Funeral for a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding[/ame]

If you like the dramatic sound in music..

YouTube - ‪Victor Wooten - A Moment So Close by Bela Fleck and the Flecktones‬‏[/url]

 

YES YES YES BELA FLECK AND THE FLECKTONES, ME AND MY DAD BOTH LOVE YOU CHRIS YES!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuzAGH61GAY]YouTube - ‪Ah shu Dekio - Bela Fleck and theFlecktones‬‏[/ame]

 

THIS VERSE IS FOR RICHARD FEYNMAN.

 

HE WAS NOT A SIMPLE SIMON.

 

:heart:

YES YES YES BELA FLECK AND THE FLECKTONES, ME AND MY DAD BOTH LOVE YOU CHRIS YES!!

Came across him last semester when a jamaican and I were looking up mongolian throat singing. great stuff!