The Best Era Ever for New Music is... Right Now.

So based upon what I have listened to so far relating to the OPs point. There is indeed a lot of music out there that has a chance of being heard. Communication has never been as powerful as now. Ironically, imo, the ability and ease to be able to be heard still outweighs the worth of what is being created and distributed. Thats an opinion. I cannot tell you what you listen to is awesome or is crap. I can only say its awesome or mediocre to me.

But, BUT, if youre going to throw the crap sign up...at LEAST give a listen to what you knee jerk judge.

 

Best era for New music is right now??? I went to Rough Trade East today to pick up a Mono copy of Bringing it Back Home. There was some new band who's cd was playing & you could listen through headphones. It has to be said the playback equipment was of a High quality but as for the music....The same old Indy spindy one note drone. You know all Indie bands either sound like an imitation of the Fall or White Light White Heat Velvet Underground.

 

uh, did you bother to find out the band's name?

 

Your ability to be unimpressed doesn't impress me.

 

Why, so he wouldn't accidentally buy it?

 

yeah i guess it doesn't matter, all "indy spindy" bands sound the same anyway.

 

I find the thread topic to be optimistic for its own sake and (in my opinion) very, very inaccurate. While music consumption might be at all time high when you incorporate downloading, streaming, mobile devices, etc, true music appreciation is at an all-time low in my opinion. Decades ago it seemed that music was something that literally changed lives in a real way (note the use of the word "seemed" because whether or not it did actually change lives is probably debatable), not some post-modern, self-aware way that amounts to little more than being entertained or being thankful that you can fill every spare moment of your life with some new band or new sound.

Here are some of the reasons why I think music used to have a more dramatic overall effect:

1) Because it wasn't as easy to consume. Yes, I know it sounds crazy but sometimes less is more. If you have to save up to buy the next album from your favorite artist (as opposed to hearing it for free before it even drops), you might devote more time to that album and take more away from it. Plus, by limiting the ability to devour such a broad spectrum of different acts, there's a more likely possibility that you'll latch onto something that sounds genuinely new and appreciate it for all it's worth before moving on to the next thing. Likewise, the music itself might be more rewarding because...

2) It wasn't as easy for artists to record (or distribute). To make a nice-sounding record in the prime era of music, a lot of factors had to come together. In that regard, every minute counted, and as a result there was often a very palpable focus on providing about 45 minutes of great music, not 4 minutes of one great song or 80 minutes of acceptable music. Furthermore, as with film the completed album was often the result of compromise because everyone from the engineer to the producer to the label executive had an opinion that aimed to elevate the music. In many cases, such compromise would trim away the fat and the music itself would be less indulgent. Plus, because bands (like audiences) had to put more labor into the product (in spite of the care-free rock and roll image being tossed to the public), and additionally didn't have as many distractions, there was a sort of forced work ethic involved that kept the focus on delivering top-shelf results (at least among top-shelf bands).

3) Popular music was emerging with a new counter-culture that valued it above nearly everything else. When say the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper, that was the sound of the future--it opened minds and doorways and provided the ongoing soundtrack for a new culture that saw the world much differently than previous generations. I simply see no equivalent of that phenomenon today except for maybe the technology itself, which in my opinion is often taken for granted. Sgt. Pepper was worshipped--the newest streaming service or mobile device is usually bought and complained about all in the same day. I see a much stronger sense of devotion (and pay-off) toward something like video games when it comes to fan appreciation.

Music is still great--there's no question about that. But I can't think of the last album that sounded fresh enough to inspire endless discussions about all the possibilities of music itself, as opposed to the possibilities of distribution or marketing or whatever. Furthermore, today's headline-grabbing album is tomorrow's old news and it appears half the music-listeners don't seem to be able to finish a complete album without clicking away to some new band. That's not to mention that a good portion of the concerts I attend have the majority of the audience with their phones in the air because of some lame desire to record every moment for a reason I still can't really figure out. I don't consider any of this the ideal setting for music appreciation, and while again the music itself is of great quality, it generally seems to be less important as music than it's ever been. It is what it is, though. Eras come and go and that's just how culture works. As far as new modes of consumption, Pandora's Box has been opened and there's no going back because no one (including myself) ever votes for inconvenience. Does all this mean that music will never achieve the same heights of previous decades? Of course not. But I simply don't think we are currently in that era. I think we're in an era where the listener takes most things for granted or simply wants to have a good time as opposed to being blown away by the sort of mythic implications of the art itself. It's not that big a deal, though, because ultimately music, like most art forms, is in fact just entertainment.

 

In fairness to the good guy he is consistent in his dismissal of new bands.

 

I love all kinds of music but I usually find myself listening to the same artists along with the same albums over and over. After a while, I want to hear something different, something newer. A lot of today's music does nothing for me but I constantly check the new release section of Rhapsody and iTunes hoping to find something that jumps out at me. There are two female artists who I discovered this way Lorde and Elle Goulding. Both of these ladies have produced albums that I would consider modern classics. It's great to listen to classic artists but the majority of them aren't releasing any new material or material that has been sitting in a vault. Instead, they repackage the same hits or rerelease the same album with a remaster that sounds horrible.

 

Absolutely correct. There was never filler on albums in the 60s

 

I actually make the distinction that I'm referring to the "top-shelf" artists and the fact that there was plenty of inferior output back in the 60s and 70s is 100% besides the point. It seems relatively obvious (to me) that I'm referring to the artists who have retained an audience and who were considered excellent then and now. Maybe you're not aware of it, but there was a time where certain albums existed with no filler. Notice the use of the word "certain", as opposed to "all". But by all means, be the one who generalizes and then act like I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

I did not bother to find the bands name because I didn't like it, if I did like it I would have found out the name & if I really liked it I would have bought it.

 

Yes, I know. I've bought dozens of new releases over the last few years that have none. Unfortunately for your argument, some of the bands who are haliogaphized here have a lot of filler: The White Album, any Stones album, etc.

 

I put it to you that most indie bands do sound sound like imitations of the Fall , Velvet Underground or a Kraftwerk rip off

 

The Lorde album didn't do enough for me to buy it. Last year was such a good year for music that I had to really like something a lot to buy it. Her album has always been just to far down my list of albums I want to buy.

 

Well...not to me, but if I hear something I don't like on the radio or whatever, I really don't go out of my way to find out who it was. Do you?

 

I've heard the same said about 60s white blues players ripping off black blues players. Yet they seem to be popular with people who claim they can't listen to new stuff that does a similar thing.

 

If I saw or heard a new band that was worthy I would buy the record or see them live. A lot of bands I see on Jools Holland for example just seem like pale imitations of stuff from the 1970s for example Rival Sons=3rd rate Physical Graffiti , the Strypes=Dr Feelgood but without the menace , Rumer=the Carpenters

 

I would say an album like Sticky Fingers or Beggars Banquet has little to no filler, as do a slew of Beatles albums, especially when compared to pretty much any album you want to name from the last few years. That's not to mention how those Stones and Beatles albums have both tremendously popular singles (lots and lots of them) that are still being played (and covered by other bands) decades later, and tremendously popular deep cuts. The albums you are referring to are by and large appreciated by smaller groups, which in general is sort of the current music scene in a nutshell (or at least the part of the current scene that's producing actual great music). And that's fine, but there was a time where the culture at large seemed to generally agree on the latest masterpiece and that's what I mean by a broader sense of music appreciation being governed by constraints on choice in contrast to overabundance of choice. Decades from now when they have museum exhibits dedicated to music, I think it's way, way, way more likely you'll find the White Album or Sticky Fingers in the exhibit than you will the latest War on Drugs album or Arcade Fire album or whatever band you want to name (bear in mind this has nothing to do with own feelings towards these bands). But that's sort of the essence of the ongoing debate anyhow. It's the listeners who swear by the albums they love personally vs the listeners who swear by the albums that the culture at large has generally accepted as essential.

 

To me both Beggars Banquet and Sticky Fingers do have filler. I do agree that some Beatles albums don't, but for me, even back in the 70s when they were my favorite band, the only two that don't are Rubber Soul and Revolver. I also do agree that both bands have a lot of singles that stand the test of time. IMO, The Stones were a great singles band and that's about it. I'm pretty much an album oriented listener so those albums with a lot of filler. That includes current music as well. I don't like most alt/indie rock. If you stretch the definition of rock, these are the rock albums I've bought from artists that don't go back to the classic rock era

Nicole Atkins - Slow Phaser

Beck - Morning Phase - some people will think this is all filler

Olga Bell - Krai - all vocals are in Russian, but no filler. One of my favorite from this year https://soundcloud.com/bellinspace/perm-krai

Earth - Primative and Deadly - I like their previous couple of albums more, but this is still good

Quilt - Held in Splendor

Sleepy Sun - Maui Tears - has filler

That1Guy - Poseiden's Deep Water Adventure Friends

Abraxas - John Zorn's - Psychomagia - Zorn's been around since the 80s, but the rock band Abraxas is playing his music here. No filler but it won't be to everyone's taste

Stretching to other genres that rock fans might like

Bushman's Revenge - Thou Shalt Boogie! - could appeal to prog fans,

Krokofont - Krokofont - guitar/sax/drum trio, one of my favorites from this year - https://soundcloud.com/rune-grammofon/krokofant-bodega

Richard Carrick - Stone Guitars - classical music for electric guitar, much more likely to appeal to rock fans than the typical classical fan. Another of my favorites - https://soundcloud.com/new-focus-recordings/richard-carrick-dawn

And finally a few from recent years that are great albums, with no filler IMO

Bill Callahan - Dream River - I'm sure some can claim this is dirivative. Defininately not anything earth shatteringly new, but very nice and no filler https://soundcloud.com/juliavalentine2/bill-callahan-the-sing

Earth - Angels of Darkness, Demons of Light, Vol. 1 - in my top 10 all time albums https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb-3eBlv_qE

Galactic - Canrivale Electrios - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwBRCQ-mSjw

Janel and Anthony - local band I just discovered a few months ago, guitar cello duo with lots of effects and loops https://soundcloud.com/janelandanthony/big-sur-1


Keep in mind, this is just what I think might appeal to rock fans and doesn't include many of my favorite albums from the last few years.

 

When you and so many others make this blanket statement, exactly what are you getting at? Are the blues -- or any other genre of music -- race specific? I'm sick of seeing/hearing this tired trope.

 

My friend, if you and I sat down over a drink and had a conversation about music, I'd floor you with all my experiences surrounding it and all I know about it.
I've seen thousands of concerts in my lifetime and I've been listening to music since the early 60's. That's a long time.
I'm informed in my opinions on the subject; I know what I'm talking about.
I've put enough effort into 'new music' in the last few years.
Don't make assumptions about one being 'lazy' or anything else, just because they don't enjoy this wealth of dreck out there right now that the public and kids are lapping up.
I'm still 'active' in music and I know more about the whole scene than anyone I personally know.
...and "this is the worst era ever for new music"

 

COHEED AND CAMBRIA RULLLLZZZZZ

 

So am I. I threw that out because the same tired trope is thrown out for new music. There have been many posts just on this thread dismissing some new music because it sounds imitative of older bands.

As for the black/white thing, no blues are race specific in who can play them. Evidently, back in the early 60s, it was though. When I read the review of the AF reissue of the Paul Butterfield album, it mentioned that it was commonly thought at the time that white kids weren't able to play authentic blues and Butterfield proved that wrong.

I also went to a lot of blues concerts in the last 70s and early 80s. I have to say, if the band was black, the audience was 80% black, if they were white, the audience was 80% white. The worst example was a Bobby Blue Bland/BB King concert. The entire front row was young white guys who, like me, made bought tickets the moment they went on sale. The rest of the audience was black and mostly quite a bit older.

 

Well, that's an odd thing about the audience composition you witnessed. For instance, I saw James Brown live about a dozen times over the years in nyc. You could count on one hand the number of blacks in any audience. I've also noticed the same dynamic at blues concerts -- very few blacks.

it mentioned that it was commonly thought at the time that white kids weren't able to play authentic blues
Well, that's a racial attitude isn't it? Was Leontyne Price 'ripping off' other opera singers? Was Ritchie Havens "ripping off" other folk singers? Anyway, I'm sure you get my drift. So, let's not do anymore thread hijacking.