I think it's interesting how "modern music" means something so different than "modern" pieces of most any other type of medium at this time. I hardly consider myself equipped to begin trying to compare it to all mediums, but I feel like music, more than any other medium, stands so much taller as it leans over our shoulder from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. For the amount of incredible, life-altering music that came out during those decades, listening and searching for music in the 2000s, well now 2010s, is tough to do without letting in the demons, whispering in your ear that you're never ever going to find anything as good.
It's every stupid story told about a kid trying not to live his dad's life, but knowing that even though he wants nothing to do with career his dad had, he identifies on a deeper level with the man whether he wants to or not. You can't deny the past. Well you can, but then you're an idiot. The point is, there is a shit ton to live up to from past music - and not just any music, but music that echoes from our parents' generation, what we grew up hearing on the radio, what we found later in great films also from their generation, and what influenced every goddamn thing we hear today - except autotune, that's different.
But that's why I love music, and why I love trying random things that come along, because, more than almost any other medium, the experience hits you before you know you've been hit. If you're really listening, really letting go of your ears, then the world opens anew, and the best part is, is that this works for every and any decade of music. Of course the stuff from before our parents' generation is a bit tougher, but I'm sure it would come in time (and as Edward says, discipline - too true).
I like saving things, knowing that they'll be there when I come back, while I keep them in reserve. This is the way I find myself with older music. I know it well enough to trust it, and keep my heart with it. But at the same time, I use that security to push on and throw whatever crap I find onto the speakers, to push farther into oblivion, leaving threads connecting all the way back to what I know won't go away. I know we posted a lot at the beginning of this blog about music, how it's heard, and where it's going. I think it's fitting that this month has come back to music.
There's something about the medium that manages to change at a fast enough pace on the surface that the catchy and engrossing will keep our attentions in the filler, while the overarching changes in the genres and artists and styles define the greater movements of our generations. I can feel this more than with movies, more than with TV, and more than with books. Everyone is pretty much aligned somewhere along the spectrum with music. It defines regions, eras, and art. It manages to be relevant from all times, all the time.
Interesting post. I see what you're saying about music being the defining creative expression of a generation. Why do you think this is? Certainly books can't be anymore, because not enough people read. Perhaps music is because it requires less intellectual stimulation to get the full effect of it than other mediums, especially when you're talking about pop music. Music hits people on more of an emotional level than other kinds of art. I'm not sure if music was always the catch-all medium, though. I do think pop music is a big part of this. Early rock music was some of the first stuff (any sort of product) aimed at a very young, teenage market. I think in large part we see music as being the defining thing that we share because it affects young people so strongly and is very largely aimed at them. Music from the past was probably aimed at an older audience.
ReplyDeleteAs to liking the same music our parents do...I don't know, I've never found this weird. My dad likes music before the big heyday of classic rock, so that isn't really an issue. It is interesting that my favorite rock artist and my mom's is the same (Bob Dylan), but it's hard to feel too weird about this, since we both like him for the same reasons--he's that good! I just have never felt that weird about liking older stuff. Not that older is necessarily better, but only the best things survive, so you can better determine the quality and worth of an artist. There is a lot to dig through with modern stuff, and my life is only so long, so I guess I try to hit up the best stuff first, because that is ultimately what I will find most worthwhile. This holds true for all kinds of art. To paraphrase either Emerson or Thoreau (I forget which, and I know you love these guys!), never read a book that isn't a hundred years old. With time, the cream of the crop comes to the surface.
I do realize that there is lots of great stuff going on nowadays, but I always felt that life is limited, so only go after what is the most worthwhile, because you can't hit everything. I know there's lots of people who like to be fans of bands when they aren't popular yet, but I'm never going to be the first fan of any band, so why bother? Someone is always there first. Let it go.
Yeah, believe me, I never meant that liking older music was somehow weird. I think of it as more innate and natural, because like you said, the cream has risen to the top, and bands from back then that maybe weren't as good and people followed have dropped off. It's impossible for me not to like, not to love the bands from earlier on. They capture things that I can't possibly imagining being captured in today's world and music.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I kind of want that feeling for today. Even if the stuff isn't going to be timeless and last forever, if it means something now, none of that really matters to me.
I don't know, whenever I think about things happening live in our time, I generally don't try and jump on any bandwagon or necessarily want to get into a lot of it - politics, techie gadgets, fashions, or any sort of crazes per se, but for whatever reason, finding things in music that's alive now isn't about quality and finding what's going to last forever and be great when people in the future look back, but more about identifying with people who are also alive now, doing what I'm doing (note that this does not include Gaga or Bieber, although keeping up with them from a far away perspective is interesting in terms of society's nutso adoration/scorn factor). The fact that I can go to a show where bands play material that is still new and hasn't had time to either rise or fall, it means something that is very hard to describe. Again, it's like there's more at stake for their music because it's so fleeting, and it's nice to kind of feel around in the dark for what's coming music-wise, because the medium is so dynamic, and it involves so many different types of people and can affect you in so many different ways.
Yeah, I don't know, I just can't relate to any of the new music that I've heard. I'm sure there is some out there that I can, but I have not found it. As much as I might try to be, I'm not a hipster and I can't really feel that, ya know? What I loved about prime mid-period Dylan, I just could relate to that type of music. I'm not against the idea of new music, but it's always hard for me to justify spending money on it when there are still albums as big as London Calling or It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back that I don't own. :/
ReplyDeleteUnderstandable, although you don't actually have to spend money to hear anything new, but I guess you do if you don't want to find each song from the album online on youtube and put them in order of the album in a playlist (I've done this a couple times so it is possible depending on the availability of the album). And yeah, there's a whole labeling of hipsters and intellectual a-holes that like music nowadays, but I think there's a difference although possibly more subtle than I'd like, between hipsters and everyone else who likes music that isn't on the radio at all times of the day. But the labeling makes sense when it comes to trying identify the music and the people as something, it's just a whole easier to group everything into one. It's just funny that the radio is the ultimate in submitting to the masses and listening to stuff off the main radio stations is the ultimate in being pretentious. But that's if you worry about such things (I swear guys, I don't!).
ReplyDeleteSatellite radio is a beacon of light in an otherwise troubled terrain.
ReplyDeleteLot of stations you'd like on it for sure.
ReplyDeleteThough I may not agree with all that was mentioned within your post, Daniel, I certainly like the way in which it was written-- Harking to Tarantino-esque post-modernity wherein self-referentiality rules. The tone was straightforward, like a drink on the rocks, and the narrative felt effortlessly cool, as if I were on a metaphorical smoke break whilst perusing it.
ReplyDeleteI also find your and Edward's banter thoroughly thought provoking (I especially was fond of Edward's "To paraphrase either Emerson or Thoreau (I forget which, and I know you love these guys!), never read a book that isn't a hundred years old.") I, myself, am more interested in the dichotomous nature of music itself-- the notion that at once a piece of music can encompass an evanescent, fleeting feeling of total ephemerality and also exist simultaneously as a symbol of the steadfast; an art form so transcendent it may be boundless, everlasting, infinite. What a paradox, I know! But that's how I see it, anyway.
On the whole, I disagree with the idea that music is our generation's defining medium. Or film, for that matter. I, personally, feel all mediums henceforth (or since about 2009) have been replaced by the technological social networking giants (facebook, twitter, blogs)... Hell, even smart phones and text messaging. I believe social media is our generation's medium. Sitting behind the confines of a computer and typing, anonymously or known, has become the new release, the proverbial "expression" that defines today's youth. Though I myself am a champion of romanticism and lauding all things artistic (particularly where the Classics are concerned), I see a future far more grim and far less creative. Call me Sarah Connor blaming Skynet, but hey, that's what I think!
One thing is for sure: music was a lot more important for older generations than it is with ours. Just because we listen to a greater variety of music and have it blasting from our iPods at all times does not mean it's as important to us.
ReplyDeleteI fervently agree, Edward. Music was once a soundtrack to daily existence and now it seems to be a symbolic bumper sticker for advertising one's own sense of self. Pretty indulgent, though I'm sure I commit this regularly.
ReplyDelete