The Music Thread

[m7600]

Near the end of the video he says that rock is starting to be seen as a legacy genre of music, much like blues and jazz. I find that extremely unsettling, and yet somehow true.

 

[JustKneller]

Near the end of the video he says that rock is starting to be seen as a legacy genre of music, much like blues and jazz. I find that extremely unsettling, and yet somehow true.

In the words of Blink-182...Dammit!

I was surprised by the bit about how current generation is apparently the "first" to be tapping into music from before their time because a) I haven't really seen that myself and b) my generation did that too. I was a 90s kid, but tons of us were listening to Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Van Halen, etc. Even at my peak of punk (when skater punk was the popular thing), I was listening to the original stuff like Bad Brains, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys. I had tons of punk albums that came out before I was even born.

I don't really know what the "now" music is, though. The radio and MTV are dead media. You Tube can be ad-saturated SEO bullshit when it comes to finding something good. I can't stand pop music. Most of the bands I find out about come from going down the rabbit hole on bands about which I already know. For example, starting with Pat the Bunny, I found Moon Bandits and Rail Yard Ghosts. Or, if I'm feeling adventurous, I'll surf bandcamp.

Also, I think the resurgence of bands like Kate Bush and Metallica is largely due to Stranger Things.

I think the evolution of technology could easily kill all "real" instrumentation, which would kill rock as we know it. After all, why learn to actually play a guitar when you can get a program that can create whatever sound you can imagine?

Then again, this kinda happened in the 80s with the lean-hard into synthesizers and then that was followed by grunge with guitars again. Everything goes away and everything comes back. If bellbottoms could come back in the 90s, rock can come back for my grandkids.

 

[m7600]

Maybe it's just me, but I really need to emphasize how unsettling the comparison with blues and jazz is. There are still blues musicians that play to this day, every year there are new jazz bands. But these are legacy genres. We should probably add classical music in there as well. And bluegrass, and country, and honky tonk, and whatever else you fancy. It's old-timer's music, even if the musicians themselves are youngsters. Yes, there are new punk rock and heavy metal bands every year. But the same is true of jazz and honky tonk. This is what I find unsettling, because rock (broadly understood) wasn't supposed to fall in line like that. That wasn't the creative intention behind it. It was never supposed to be conservative or traditionalist in any way. And yet...

 

[JustKneller]

There are still blues musicians that play to this day, every year there are new jazz bands. But these are legacy genres.

I think that the process of a genre being relegated to a "legacy" is more of a commercial label rather than an artistic one, and that's fine by me. I think this actually takes some of the pressure off the genre from the industry. You don't have to worry about (either by accident or coercion) making music as product. "Legacy" just means the industry has finished milking this cow and can move on.

So much of the meta of genre and the change in music over time is, in my opinion, largely due to the need for novelty in the industry. You always need a new product to replace the old one. Often times, genre is thrown away for no good reason. The industry just creates its mass marketable singular version of it, milks it for all its worth, and then the genre is "dead". Look at ska. We had a few years of No Doubt's happy horseshit and then poof, the commercial scene is dead. Meanwhile geniuses like Mephiskapheles with a more serious tone just flew under the radar:



and I still listen to them at times to this day.

Not to be a snob, but I think genres like blues and jazz, and even more contemporary legacies (for example, post-rock) require a more refined palette to appreciate. It's pretty easy to buy into the sensory stimulation of low-brow edm. But to really dig into the layers of someone like Aphex Twin is another story. I didn't appreciate At the Drive-In when they were together. It wasn't until later, when my tastes had grown and I had discovered The Mars Volta, that I could go back and appreciate At the Drive-In (and even hear the parts of it that I could see inspiring The Mars Volta vs. Sparta).

To make matters more complicated, you could have a "legacy genre" running along side a more commercial version of the same genre. Of course, the media is going to crap on the legacy genre side of it. The industry needs to pull people away from those scenes so people will spend more money on their controlled product. For example, country music. Maybe this will cheer you up:



Of course, real country music is doing as fine as it always has been, but the stadium country music is heading towards legacy land if it's not there already (I don't really listen to country so I don't know).

I dunno. The fact that "young" bands are still coming out in "legacy genres" is, if anything, evidence against a genre just being a legacy, right?

 

[m7600]

You raise a lot of good points, and I can't comment on all of them right now, but I'd like to say something about this one:

Not to be a snob, but I think genres like blues and jazz, and even more contemporary legacies (for example, post-rock) require a more refined palette to appreciate

How refined does your palette have to be in order to appreciate The Sex Pistols? This is exactly what they were rebelling against. It's why Johnny Rotten wore a t-shirt that said "I hate Pink Floyd". That to me is what rock is all about, being rebellious in some way, shape or form (not that I hate Pink Floyd or anything, though!). On the other hand, conforming to an already established sound, just because that's what tradition dictates, is anti-rock IMHO.

But what do I know : P

 

[shmity72]

I think that the process of a genre being relegated to a "legacy" is more of a commercial label rather than an artistic one, and that's fine by me. I think this actually takes some of the pressure off the genre from the industry. You don't have to worry about (either by accident or coercion) making music as product. "Legacy" just means the industry has finished milking this cow and can move on.

So much of the meta of genre and the change in music over time is, in my opinion, largely due to the need for novelty in the industry. You always need a new product to replace the old one. Often times, genre is thrown away for no good reason. The industry just creates its mass marketable singular version of it, milks it for all its worth, and then the genre is "dead". Look at ska. We had a few years of No Doubt's happy horseshit and then poof, the commercial scene is dead. Meanwhile geniuses like Mephiskapheles with a more serious tone just flew under the radar:



and I still listen to them at times to this day.

Not to be a snob, but I think genres like blues and jazz, and even more contemporary legacies (for example, post-rock) require a more refined palette to appreciate. It's pretty easy to buy into the sensory stimulation of low-brow edm. But to really dig into the layers of someone like Aphex Twin is another story. I didn't appreciate At the Drive-In when they were together. It wasn't until later, when my tastes had grown and I had discovered The Mars Volta, that I could go back and appreciate At the Drive-In (and even hear the parts of it that I could see inspiring The Mars Volta vs. Sparta).

To make matters more complicated, you could have a "legacy genre" running along side a more commercial version of the same genre. Of course, the media is going to crap on the legacy genre side of it. The industry needs to pull people away from those scenes so people will spend more money on their controlled product. For example, country music. Maybe this will cheer you up:



Of course, real country music is doing as fine as it always has been, but the stadium country music is heading towards legacy land if it's not there already (I don't really listen to country so I don't know).

I dunno. The fact that "young" bands are still coming out in "legacy genres" is, if anything, evidence against a genre just being a legacy, right?

although i do think no doubts first album was one of the last commercial albums that weren't fully algorithmically crappy. as far as 'pop' goes. I liked it.
How does one take all 10 of the top 10 pop songs on the charts? Wow they must be musical virtuoso's or maybe it has something to do with marketing...aka taylor swift.

 

[shmity72]

all you can hope for is to locate and imitate though interpret in a new way the legends of sound and visual and motion that have existed since Confucius. here's one. in my upcoming interview of me i make a nod to tony robins he makes 50 million packaging Confucius in a newly digestible way. and so it is with music.

 

[JustKneller]

How refined does your palette have to be in order to appreciate The Sex Pistols?

What a loaded question.

I think the Sex Pistols are a pretty complicated entity. Probably unpopular opinion, but I sometimes think they were more avante-garde stage performers than punk musicians. I think Steve Jones picked up a guitar for the first time a few months before the band formed. I mean, granted, punk doesn't require the technical know-how of classical or jazz, but that's still pretty crass. Johnny Lydon, in particular, was more shock-and-awe than anything. I don't think his "I hate Pink Floyd" had anything to do with Pink Floyd no longer being cutting edge. I mean, the Sex Pistols came together in the wake of Dark Side of the Moon, of all things. I don't think he was rebelling against Pink Floyd as much as he was saying, "Hey! Look at me!". I think John Lydon's "oppositional tendencies" was a large part of their message.

Side note, I can't think about the Sex Pistols without thinking about the time I saw John Lydon on Judge Judy.

The Sex Pistols thing has its own inception. Let's say they were legitimately protesting the rock music of the time. Lydon later goes on to form PIL, which is part of New Wave, which is the thing that supposedly pushes punk into a legacy genre. Does he crap on his own previous work? Not really. He even brings in stuff he wrote for The Sex Pistols to his first album. But PIL was really a whole other series of train wrecks. I dunno.

The other thing of it is that the Sex Pistols and PIL were major label bands: Virgin, Warner Brothers, EMI, etc. I'm sure that made a difference. Compare that to bands like Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Bad Brains, etc. who all debuted on indie labels.

On another note, another thing I would throw out there is that the video you posted is by a YT marketer, not a musician. I skimmed through his videos and none of it seems to be about the music artistically (e.g. from a compositional standpoint) but from a more cultural or "scene" standpoint (people are mad at MGK, history of AFI, evolution of band merch, etc.). Not to be rude to the guy, but I take all that with a grain of salt.

 

[m7600]

Fair points again, all of them. I still think that it's in some sense true that rock has joined blues and jazz as the third major legacy genre of contemporary music. I had never thought about it that way until I heard Finn say it, and I think he has quite a disturbing point. He didn't mean it that way, I'm sure. It was just an offhand comment at the end of a video. But I found it distressing nonetheless.

On a related note, if I'm not addressing all of your points one by one, it's simply because I'm not sure what to say (and not, for example, due to laziness).

 

[Antimatter]

What a great discussion, so many insightful points raised. I'm not an expert in this field and my knowledge is very limited. So I only listen to music I want, and I don't care about trends, marketing, genres falling into legacy or becoming modern. I don't care which artists get millions of fans and which do not. I still listen to my fav bands--or even my fav albums of certain bands, ignoring everything else. And I try to discover new music as well, looking at sites like Rolling Stone etc.

That's how I discovered Nightwish will be releasing a new album--I follow the band and everything that happens with them. I still listen to Muse, Radiohead, Franz Ferdinand. Is Alex Kapranos a meta or not, I don't care. I still like him! What I care about is that Franz Ferdinand performed a fundraising benefit held at the Roundhouse in north London in 2022 to help Ukraine.

What I also care about is how another group I followed (and liked their music before) - Placebo - is going to perform at Park Live, an event in Kazakhstan and paid for by Russian-sponsored Yandex etc. This doesn't paint a great picture for me, so my opinion of them changed, unfortunately. No amount of marketing/meta can achieve the same result for me.

On a side note, yes, I hate Roger Waters from Pink Floyd.

Roger Waters: Former Pink Floyd star's UN speech criticised by Ukraine

Roger Waters tells the United Nations Security Council that Russia's invasion was "not unprovoked".

www.bbc.com

Before that, I respected the whole band for Dark Side of the Moon, and all, but can't listen to that anymore.

So, on topic: I don't care if the music I listen to is considered popular, dad-rock, or not. The only thing that matters to me is my personal appreciation of the band, their members, and their music. The music can fluctuate as well. For example, I loved Muse pre-2012, but their post-2012 music basically killed the band--for me personally.

 

[JustKneller]

I still think that it's in some sense true that rock has joined blues and jazz as the third major legacy genre of contemporary music.

As a "scene", probably. As an artistic genre, definitely not. I think Blink-182 is a good example. I've got nothing against them. In fact, my college band covered Dammit! (not even ironically) back in the day. However, they were (I may be overstating it) the voice of a generation, and then that generation grew out of that scene. I've got a career, kids, and a bad knee. I'm not out at all hours, tagging bridges, and turning the mall into my personal skate park.

This doesn't push punk (and I'm being generous by putting Blink in that category) to a legacy genre. The "punk product" is now obsolete in the market, for sure. However, a lot of the fans (that I knew) of Blink-182, MxPx, Offspring, etc. didn't even know who Dead Kennedys or Black Flag were. They weren't musically "punk". It just so happened that skater punk was the popular mainstream readily available music product when they were at a time in their life where they were on some kind of journey of self-discovery.

If you notice though, a lot of this discourse (that YTer is a good example) focuses on bands who primary fanbase (particularly during their peak) are the youth/adolescent demographic. In other words, the goldilocks zone for product consumption. Younger people buy lots of shit. By the time I hit my mid 20s, I had boxes of CDs I couldn't even unload at used music stores. Older people have other obligations/responsibilities and are generally more discerning. Is the gestalt of the post-adolescent music audience less culturally meaningful because they don't buy a ton of crap? I say no. I think it's actually more authentic and meaningful.

That's how a band like Blink-182 becomes "Dad Rock". This is the music that more people (at least from that generation) are familiar with, even if they never really liked it at first. When it comes on the radio 10-20 years later, it reminds them of a simpler and happier time, I'm sure. It's nostalgic. I'm not so sure I would say that Blink can stand on its own merits as opposed to just being music for a soundtrack of people who liked to party during a certain period of human history. They're the ones that end up in a McDonald's commercial (to make a few more bucks on the product), or some compilation CD sold decades after their peak (for the same reason). Bad Brains will never be Dad Rock, and they released their music decades before Blink. They didn't have mass appeal. They were just doing one particular genre of music authentically and well. They have stood the test of time and product placement. And, I think that's what matters more.

So, if rock becomes a legacy genre, it just means it's not as marketable. They can't build as much of a product or scene around it. As you said yourself, new rock bands will continue to spring up. The only difference is that these new bands aren't trying to become "stars", they just want to make rock music. And, it's even possilbe that rock music is going to come back to "rebel" against all the artificially/electronically produced product that is being produced now (like grunge did in relation to synth-pop and new wave of the 80s). So, while some YTer (who is a promoter and not a musician) is eulogizing rock as a genre, you really don't need to have any fear. Unless of course, that fear is a punk band from LA.

On a related note, if I'm not addressing all of your points one by one, it's simply because I'm not sure what to say (and not, for example, due to laziness).

Lol...no worries.

On a side note, yes, I hate Roger Waters from Pink Floyd.

Holy hell! I didn't know about this. And this guy wrote The Wall? How the mighty have fallen...

 

[JustKneller]

That's how I discovered Nightwish will be releasing a new album--I follow the band and everything that happens with them.

So, on topic: I don't care if the music I listen to is considered popular, dad-rock, or not. The only thing that matters to me is my personal appreciation of the band, their members, and their music.

I wanted to reply to this part. That right there is what it's all about. Nothing is "legacy" as long as people are still playing it and listening to it. And, I'm sure Nightwish is still bringing in (to some extent) a younger generation of listeners. But, it's not "kids" trying to get into the (legacy) metalhead scene. They just like the music.

For me, I actually like folk punk more now that the 2010s are over. The fans that remain generally aren't the ones that think it was Pat the Bunny (albeit, he's a genius) who started the genre (as if The Pogues and Violent Femmes never existed), and being a barefoot homeless white person with matted hair or dreds isn't trendy anymore. Folk punk is a legacy genre (again), and that's a good thing.

 

[m7600]

Thanks for joining the conversation and giving us your thoughts, @Antimatter . There's one point in particular that you raise that I'd like to comment, it's this one:

I don't care if the music I listen to is considered popular, dad-rock, or not. The only thing that matters to me is my personal appreciation of the band, their members, and their music.

I've seen you raise this point in the past, not only in regards to music, but also in relation to video games, movies, etc. And I've heard other people say this outside of TavernRPG as well. What I would say in response is that everyone, myself included, share this sentiment. We all listen to the music we like, and none of us care what other people think. But beyond that appeal to subjectivity, there are (to my mind, at least) some things that are worthy of being objectively discussed. Roger Waters plays the bass better than Sid Vicious did. That's just a fact. It doesn't matter if you prefer Sid's bass style, that's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is whether or not Sid's style has an equal or even greater artistic merit even though it's objectively worse than Water's. And I think that it does, and I would argue against @JustKneller that it is an act of rebellion against Pink Floyd's ultra-polished sound, which did indeed have less of a cutting edge when compared to what the Pistols were doing at the same time.

Bad Brains will never be Dad Rock, and they released their music decades before Blink. They didn't have mass appeal. They were just doing one particular genre of music authentically and well. They have stood the test of time and product placement. And, I think that's what matters more.

Bad Brains is dad rock (or, maybe "parent rock" is a better term, since it should also encompass rock n' roll moms). You listen to them, I listen to them, and both of us have kids. It's dad rock. Hell, I'd argue that Fugazi is dad rock as well. Same goes for The Germs, Youth of Today, Shelter, and NOFX. It's all dad rock. And even though I don't like GG Allin, I'd argue that in this day and age, GG Allin is also dad rock. You might find that discomforting, as I do, but it is what it is.

So, while some YTer (who is a promoter and not a musician)

Why are you homing in on his profession so much? It sounds like an ad hominem. Does the fact that he's a YouTuber and a promoter somehow make his claims false? I'd argue that he brings a fresh pair of eyes to these sorts of discussions. It's rare to find someone from the hardcore scene who is also into marketing. I've listened to many musicians on these topics, but very rarely have I considered what someone into marketing has to say.

 

[JustKneller]

And I think that it does, and I would argue against @JustKneller that it is an act of rebellion against Pink Floyd's ultra-polished sound, which did indeed have less of a cutting edge when compared to what the Pistols were doing at the same time.

Huh. I never considered that angle. When I think of Pink Floyd, I think of The Wall and Dark Side of the Moon. Objectively speaking, even though The Sex Pistols are closer to home to me musically than Pink Floyd, I still recognize that Pink Floyd had a more refined message and I don't think The Sex Pistols improved on the model. So, even with my personal bias towards the Sex Pistols, I still recognize that Pink Floyd was a superior project and pushed boundaries in more profound ways. If Lydon is effectively rebelling against being good at composition and music, then I would write that off as silly sour grapes nonsense. Lydon is not a super talented musician, he's an avante-garde performance artist and just kind of an asshole.

Bad Brains is dad rock (or, maybe "parent rock" is a better term, since it should also encompass rock n' roll moms).

Then I'm not sure what Dad Rock really is. I thought it was just music of your dad's generation that doesn't really resonate with later generations. Bad Brains put out all their best stuff before I was even born. Black Flag broke up well before my adolescence. I didn't even exist during the prime years of classic punk. But, that's my jam. And, the message of a lot of it is still relevant today. "Kill the Poor" by Dead Kennedys? "TV Party" by Black Flag? These are not dated songs.

I don't know if there's a clear cut definition of Dad Rock. However, I think the one I'm developing is that if I hear it on the classic rock radio station when I'm driving my car, then it's possibly/probably Dad Rock. Blink-182 is there now. I even (sadly) just heard Nirvana and Pearl Jam on it a couple days ago. But, there's a lot of music from a time past that has aged well and I wouldn't consider Dad Rock, in my amateurish opinion.

Why are you homing in on his profession so much? It sounds like an ad hominem. Does the fact that he's a YouTuber and a promoter somehow make his claims false?

I'm not saying his claims are false in any way. I'm saying, he's not talking about music as art, he's talking about it as a more casual sociocultural experience (and he has the professional background for that, so it makes sense). He's not doing videos about the compositional differences between the Sex Pistols and Black Flag and how the artistic backgrounds of John Lydon vs. Henry Rollins shaped their worked that followed when they went solo. He's just talking about the impact of these bands on mainstream culture, and in some ways, on a superficial level. I think his examples of rock bands that become "parent rock" are also often stadium rock bands. There is plenty of rock still being made after these bands' time, that is plenty edgy. These bands just can't fill Madison Square Garden. Here's a couple for you:





But, is/was stadium rock really the anthem of any counterculture? Or was it a relatively safe industry product to legitimize a youth culture in a liminal state transitioning to adulthood? What did the shocking hair bands of the 80s put out that was really more profound and rebellious than (for example) "Holiday in Cambodia" (1980)? They might have been visually more shocking than Jello Biafra, but that's just fashion. Do you think the current trend of hip hop being the "rebels" is anything different? NWA and Snoop's generation was actually putting people in the ground before all these phony mumble rapper kids got a twitter account where they could run their mouths off and are most likely just fronting how bad they are. It's just a product now. This is what that Bo Burnham video I posted was talking about.

I thought it was funny how he used Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds in the end as an example and I wonder if he's even aware of The Dirty Three (Warren Ellis' post-rock side project that is pretty cutting edge). Also, did you not see the irony in his comment about rockers effectively no longer being relevant, just making social commentary, and being dudes in black t-shirts looking grim, which was coming from someone just making social commentary in a black t-shirt and looking grim?

 

[Antimatter]

I wanted to reply to this part. That right there is what it's all about. Nothing is "legacy" as long as people are still playing it and listening to it. And, I'm sure Nightwish is still bringing in (to some extent) a younger generation of listeners. But, it's not "kids" trying to get into the (legacy) metalhead scene. They just like the music.

Just to comment about this: I don't know much about new metal bands (maybe I should tag @Skatan as he's from Sweden) and how mass-popular they are, but one thing I know is that Nightwish has been changing a lot over the years, and their last album heavily talked about such topics as ecology and evolution (that are closer to the younger generation than, say, religion/fantasy and other "usual" metal tropes), and the upcoming album will further explore those topics. Also, they've been changing their singers (for one reason or another), and it contributed to the "fresh" feeling the band gives.

When I look into the crowd that usually goes to their gigs, I mostly see young people there, for example:



So yeah, Nightwish is not "Dad Rock/Metal" (yet?).

 

[m7600]

If Lydon is effectively rebelling against being good at composition and music, then I would write that off as silly sour grapes nonsense.

Well, allow me to disagree, since there are several artists in other genres that do precisely that. I'm thinking of Merzbow and other noise projects specifically. The dude behind Merzbow studied art at college, and he decided to through harmony, melody and rhythm out the window. What he does is harsh and abrassive, and it barely qualifies as music, if it does at all. But I wouldn't write him off just because he made the conscious decision to throw the most basic musical conventions out the window. In fact I would argue that there's a lot of artistic merit to what he does.

Lydon is not a super talented musician, he's an avante-garde performance artist and just kind of an asshole.

I agree that he's an asshole, and he made the conscious decision to be one. Sid Vicious was even a greater asshole, since he wore a shirt with a swastika just to piss people off. But I wouldn't say that they were avant-garde performance artists. They were just punks, literally. As in, street urchins whose musicianship was next to zero. And yet I don't think that anyone can argue that they weren't making cool music.

Kill the Poor" by Dead Kennedys? "TV Party" by Black Flag? These are not dated songs.

Yes, they are, and I say that as someone who loves them as well Come on man, we're both having the musical equivalent to a midlife age crisis here, as is anyone else who refuses to acknowledge that punk rock is effectively dad rock nowadays.

Also, did you not see the irony in his comment about rockers effectively no longer being relevant, just making social commentary, and being dudes in black t-shirts looking grim, which was coming from someone just making social commentary in a black t-shirt and looking grim?

I did, and he does as well. From what I've noticed, he's very self-aware in that sense.

 

[m7600]

I'm saying, he's not talking about music as art, he's talking about it as a more casual sociocultural experience (and he has the professional background for that, so it makes sense). He's not doing videos about the compositional differences between the Sex Pistols and Black Flag and how the artistic backgrounds of John Lydon vs. Henry Rollins shaped their worked that followed when they went solo. He's just talking about the impact of these bands on mainstream culture, and in some ways, on a superficial level.

I forgot to address this point. Let's not act as if the sociocultural, or "scene" element, isn't relevant to these discussions. Take vegan straight edge, for example. What does not eating meat or not drinking alcohol have to do with composing a melody or a chord progression? Or think of heavy metal. Does having long hair have anything to do with lyrical ability? Contemporary music genres are just as much about their respective scenes as they are about their purely musical aspects. And I think that Finn does a great job in analyzing the former, even if he might lack a bit in the latter.

 

[JustKneller]

At this point of the discourse, I just want to point out how much I really like this forum for specifically conversations like this. The gaming side of thing is pretty cool, too, but I appreciate the depth here.

Well, allow me to disagree, since there are several artists in other genres that do precisely that. I'm thinking of Merzbow and other noise projects specifically

I don't really know Merzbow that well. I'm assuming they aren't walking around in shirts that say "Fuck Pink Floyd", though. It's one thing to be a "noise artist" and another thing to be a "noise artist" in protest of more, I guess you would say, "technically refined" composition. I don't actually know why Lydon didn't like Pink Floyd. I've never actually seen him give a thoughtful opinion of anything. He puts on a good show, but he doesn't really say a whole lot compared to his peers.

But I wouldn't say that they were avant-garde performance artists. They were just punks, literally. As in, street urchins whose musicianship was next to zero.

But, if they have no musicianship, wouldn't that leave (avante-garde) performance art as their most viable outlet? I mean, what are they, then?

Come on man, we're both having the musical equivalent to a midlife age crisis here, as is anyone else who refuses to acknowledge that punk rock is effectively dad rock nowadays.

I think that I just don't understand what dad rock is. I'm thinking it's either a) music that was made "back then" or b) music that is no longer relevant to pop culture? I dunno. What's the criteria for dad rock?

I also don't see myself as being in any kind of mid-life crisis. What's the criteria for that, too?

Contemporary music genres are just as much about their respective scenes as they are about their purely musical aspects. And I think that Finn does a great job in analyzing the former, even if he might lack a bit in the latter.

I would agree to this to an extent. I mean, you can put the "artistry" of music in a bubble and leave it at that, but it's impact to the world is plenty relevant. Still, this is a layered effect. "Anarchy Means I Litter" by Atom and his Package has a message with a different depth than "Your Boyfriend Sucks" by the Ataris. There's "this band really brought awareness to inhumane practices in southeast Asia" and "this band is why we wore a lot of leather pants for a few years". The latter is far more on the pop culture side of things and is generally not that meaningful or relevant. We wore a lot of flannel (for kind of a dumb reason) in the 90s and then we generally stopped. So it goes. But, "Fake Plastic Trees" has a message that's even more relevant today.

I haven't watched a lot of this guy you posted (I think you posted one of his videos before), but between that and scanning through his videos, he seems far more focused on the pop culture layers than the deeper ones. Just scanning through his video post history, nothing really jumped out at me as "This is something I'd find interesting about music". He brands as "punk", but a lot of his content is pop. I mean, not boy band level pop, but I didn't see any content that struck me as being a deep cut (and he sure has a lot of merch to sell). It just strikes me as pretty commercial. This kind of commentary doesn't worry me.

 

[m7600]

I don't actually know why Lydon didn't like Pink Floyd.

Because (in his own words, as he went on record on this point), it was the most insulting thing you could say in Britain at that time. He really, truly, wanted to be an asshole, that was the entire point. Eventually people took his "I hate Pink Floyd" shtick to heart, which is why he said a few years ago that he actually loves Pink Floyd, lol. He's a punk, basically.

I mean, what are they, then?

A punk rock band. They play simplistic, shitty music, and they're unapologetic about it. As grunge musicians would say decades later: "we have a right to suck". Which is something that Courtney Love took issue with at one point, and she argued that Led Zeppelin is good music, implying that people should strive to reach that level of musicianship. And I think it's entirely legitimate in turn to take issue with what she said. Kurt Cobain did. He went on record saying that he hated musicianship. Is that sour grapes? I don't think so. If technical proficiency is the pinnacle of music, then all of us would be listening to Dragonforce and Yngwie Malmsteen, and we would be laughing at Nirvana, the Sex Pistols, and Bad Brains. Not that there's anything wrong with Dragonforce or Malmsteen, as I happen to like both. I just don't think that good music (in an objective sense, not a purely subjective one) is reducible to technical proficiency.

I also don't see myself as being in any kind of mid-life crisis. What's the criteria for that, too?

I was jesting : P
Or maybe you're in denial?

I would agree to this to an extent. I mean, you can put the "artistry" of music in a bubble and leave it at that, but it's impact to the world is plenty relevant. Still, this is a layered effect. "Anarchy Means I Litter" by Atom and his Package has a message with a different depth than "Your Boyfriend Sucks" by the Ataris. There's "this band really brought awareness to inhumane practices in southeast Asia" and "this band is why we wore a lot of leather pants for a few years". The latter is far more on the pop culture side of things and is generally not that meaningful or relevant. We wore a lot of flannel (for kind of a dumb reason) in the 90s and then we generally stopped. So it goes. But, "Fake Plastic Trees" has a message that's even more relevant today.

Again, I see what you're saying. I really do. But I just have to bring up Pink Floyd again. Surely The Wall has an extremely powerful message about (among other things) the horrors of war. How could anyone hate a band like that? It would be extremely insulting to say that you hate them.... hence the infamous t-shirt.

I haven't watched a lot of this guy you posted (I think you posted one of his videos before), but between that and scanning through his videos, he seems far more focused on the pop culture layers than the deeper ones. Just scanning through his video post history, nothing really jumped out at me as "This is something I'd find interesting about music". He brands as "punk", but a lot of his content is pop. I mean, not boy band level pop, but I didn't see any content that struck me as being a deep cut (and he sure has a lot of merch to sell). It just strikes me as pretty commercial. This kind of commentary doesn't worry me.

A lot of underground bands became mainstream, like Green Day, Rancid, and Nirvana, just to name a few. I think we should be able to talk about those transitions in a meaningful, thoughtful way, and that's one of the things that Finn brings to the table. I find his perspective interesting, as its not out-of-touch Ivory tower sociology, nor is it baseline scene chatter. It's somewhere in the middle, and I find that refreshing.

 

[JustKneller]

Because (in his own words, as he went on record on this point), it was the most insulting thing you could say in Britain at that time. He really, truly, wanted to be an asshole, that was the entire point.

Ok, and that's kind of how I took it. So, it has nothing to do with Pink Floyd artistically and entirely due to Lydon just wanting to be controversial for its own sake. That's what I figured.

I just don't think that good music (in an objective sense, not a purely subjective one) is reducible to technical proficiency.

Totally agree with that. Kenny G is objectively a better technical musician than Pat the Bunny, but you'd have to strap me down to get me to listen to any of the former's music.

A punk rock band. They play simplistic, shitty music, and they're unapologetic about it.

But, that's not how I see punk music. It can be simplistic and shitty, but it can also be (perhaps) primal but with quality musicianship. Fear did that with "NY is Alright if You Like Saxaphones". Bad Brains did it with "Don't Need It" (Dr. Know is kind of a guitar virtuoso). It doesn't have to be polished to have good musicianship. They are playing "dirty" but well. Blink-182, frankly, is simplistic and shitty. The Dead Milkmen are kinda brilliant.

I was jesting : P
Or maybe you're in denial?

Ok, but I apparently still don't know what dad rock means. Tell me.

True story. This past week or so, my wife started pressuring me to get back into music. Our oldest is starting to get into music and she wants me to take charge of shaping his musical tastes. I get it, she's not wrong, but I'm not totally on board with the idea. I don't really want to do music unless I'm playing with a band, and if I'm going to get into it, I want to do something different style-wise (even a different instrument). I also am not really inspired to write anything. In any event, I may likely end up being the only middle-aged person who starts a band a) not really of my own free will, and b) not due to any kind of mid-life crisis. After your comment, I've at least come up with a band name: "This is Not a Mid-Life Crisis".

A lot of underground bands became mainstream, like Green Day, Rancid, and Nirvana, just to name a few. I think we should be able to talk about those transitions in a meaningful, thoughtful way, and that's one of the things that Finn brings to the table.

I haven't seen that from him in the two videos you've shown. It just seemed like pop culture punditry. But, I haven't really looked into his other material so grain of salt and all that. When it comes to music, I'm more interested in the artistic than the cultural side, though, and basically lose interest when pop culture factors come into play. The inspiration (lyrically and instrumentally) for The Mars Volta's first two albums is riveting to me. "The Rise and Fall of Bowling for Soup", not so much.