The Future of Music...

Thanks. Any recommendations?

 

My personal belief is that all the music is out there already. Occasionally someone creative will take some of what is there already and re-work it a little,
put their own "spin" on it, and it sounds "original". Music doesn't need a "future of", it's already there. I will never know all of it, so why does "new" music matter?

 

I agree with what Paul McCartney is talkng about fully 100% If you kill off live music venues you will kill off music.

I have no opinion on your opinion & fail to see what it has to do with what Paul McCartney is talking about.

 

Try Explosions In The Sky and you'll get an immediate idea. Sigur Ros are usually taken as an example too.

Post-Rock is many things. Mainly is "using a rock band to make music that is not rock anymore".
The main difference is that Prog is part of rock, expanding its language, borrowing from classical, jazz, ethnic, etc. also, using expanded song structures; while Post-Rock, as any "post" genre, implies going further, denying some premises while keeping others: there's no necessary stylistic resemblance with prog, nor the need to imitate its standards; it's still music made by a "rock" band, so electric guitars and such, but it's free from the constraints of the genre: riffs, power chords, song structure, even a singer! The instruments are used in a more free way, to create layers of sounds. But everyone does it more or less as they want. "prog" is more uniform in comparison.

 

Let me explain very briefly.

Here in Spain, music is virtually dead. Media are only promoting reggaeton and trap songs. Home-grown talent is reduced to, let's say, some balladeers which resorts to the same song pattern, with virtually no changes. New talent is also reduced to some talent shows. Some are extremely good (Operación Triunfo has tons of quality), others are just disastrous (X-Factor) . Almost no new rock groups are appearing on TV (unless you stay up until 5 in the morning) or radio (except honorable mentions).

Without being extremely disastrous: if the situation doesn't change quickly, Spain will have a dearth of musical talent, all because Latin rhythms that are mindless, stupid and meaningless.

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation and the examples. I a little familiar w/ Sigur Ros, but I thought they were still considered prog, at least neo-prog.

As for prog being uniform, it makes sense since it was a label applied to similar bands after the fact; it's not like Yes, Genesis, ELP, KC, et al had rules they were following; they were all about breaking rules/boundaries. But I understand what you're saying that they were still rock; those were the boundaries they were pushing.

It almost sounds to me as if what's being described as post-rock is picking up where prog left off (when all those bands stopped progressing) and just kept evolving to the point where it's not really rock anymore- other than perhaps the instruments they employ (which some claimed about prog back in the day- "that's not rock!).

 

Sure, my favorite ones are:

Slint - Spiderland
June of 44 - Four Great Points
Tortoise - TNT
The For Carnation - s/t
Labradford - Mi Media Naranja

 

Schoenberg was more or less of the same idea, at the beginning of last century.
He did something about it.
Cage was more or less of the same idea, 70 years ago.
He did something about it.
Young, Reich and co. were more or less of the same idea.
They did something about it.
I have the feeling that even Monteverdi was more or less of the same idea.
And he did something about it.

And of course, to please everybody, the Beatles did something about it.
And Krautrock musicians did something about it.
And prog rockers did something about it.
[...]

It starts to look like a pattern, doesn't it?

We have too many labels today, for sure.
Look at how many sub-variants of a main genre are listed on Wikipedia. It's crazy.
Most of those were created by music critics to show how smart they are. I wonder how many will survive in 50-100 years, speaking about the future.

 

I guess post-jazz was 50's rock and roll.

"They still had drums."

 

music is meant to be throwaway. we are not meant to be listening to the Beatles 50 years+ on. all music is made for the moment. theres so much music now, new scene, genres, clubs, venues opening. it may not be rock, but to kids Rock music is what their grandparents listen to. not many people n the 60s were making grandparent music. but even saying that, theres bands that sound like Sabbath around still. open your ears and find something new, itll lead you down an amazing path or discovery.... or just say all new music is crap and show how old you are

 

Wow. Pontificate much? I guess people have been crazy for centuries listening to that throwaway crap like Beethoven, Mozart, Bach...

I guess people should just disregard what gives them pleasure and just listen to new music- or else be labeled as old and saying music is crap. No room to say I like what I like and new music doesn't appeal to me in general but that doesn't mean it's crap...

You are actually the same as people saying new music is crap; you just reverse the bigotry and say any music that isn't new is crap.

 

I think Paul is right. I have seen that the advent of songfiles has basically destroyed the rockstar dream. There isn't really money in recording great music anymore. A lot of good artists have given up altogether.

 

Once upon a time they used to teach music appreciation in school.

 

And once upon a time before that.......they did not.

 

i like loads of music, i don't go around saying new music is crap. you can listen to what you want to. no rules. i think all jazz is awful. that doesn't mean i don't like any music from when jazz was made.
most "pop" music which is what 60s music was, was all throwaway. meant to be a hit or if it missed you did something else.
you should listen to what makes you happy, everyone should. but there is a massive mountain of music out there, if you close yourself off from it you are closing yourself off from loads of amazing songs.
just this week i discovered Sia, which i love, but i also discovered an Anathema album from 1995 that my mates have been telling me about since it was new, and a new Hendrix song.

i haven't said anything that isn't new is crap. that's misreading. i like loads from classical to brand new, via reggae, hip hop, edm, rock etc

ill say jazz is crap. ill stand by that. i bloody hate it all.

 

It is cool that folks have managed to make music that appeals to millions by focusing on the rhythmic element, which has always been the most crucial element in rock music. It doesn't prevent others, like me, from making other types of music.

 

i take it you have never heard anything Dr Dre has produced? one of the best producers around at the moment.

 

For those who have been posting who dismiss whole genres of music ( such as rap or one poster doing likewise with jazz ) we have been requested on this Forum not to do that.

 

Music is alive and well. In home studios, in video games, on television reality shows and contests, in movies, via mobile devices and downloads, and is still being performed live all over the place.

It's too dynamic to remain stagnant.

And there's plenty of melody still around.

And if we don't call much of it "Rock" anymore, that doesn't mean music is dying off.

 

"we are not meant to be listening to the Beatles 50 years + on." - Why not, if it still sounds good? I think it will hold up pretty well over time. That's great song writing.

 

Music will continue so long as there are people still making it. I agree that venues are extremely important but I don’t see them as the be all, end all in regards to music’s continuation. We have more outlets for music to reach audiences then we used to especially with the internet. Things are changing faster every year and with that change will come some major growing pains.

 

I think Paul would be more embarrased about what gets discussed/dissed on this forum than he is worried about the future of music.

 

OK- so I misread this then:

If we're not meant to be listening to the Beatles 50+ years on, how are we meant to be listening to classical that's waaaaay older than that. And if music is throwaway, that sounds to me like you're saying we should only listen to new music; esp. when you follow the above w/ "all music is made for the moment."

Maybe I misread it, maybe you expressed yourself poorly or maybe you're not being very consistent...

And saying something is crap just b/c you hate it all- how is that different from folks who say new music is crap just b/c they don't like it?

 

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ( compliments of Ralph Waldo Emerson ) being misapplied , perhaps.

 

Did McCartney actually say anything remotely like this? Apparently, he was referring to the availability of live music venues, so this whole thread was premised on a gross misrepresentation of his comment. Despite this, it has produced some thoughtful responses. . .