Hacker News Reader

Comment by nunodonato | Hacker News Reader

we still have Bieber.. stay strong! /s

As easy that joke was, I'm very often wondering about generations these days. I often feel this generation is really cheap. Now, surely most people feel this way about how the new one isn't worth their own, but really there were such iconic periods from the 50s to the 90s (in a westerner point of view) .. and this makes his leaving (among other peers who shaped the 70s) as powerful as hurting.

There's a ton of interesting, adventurous music being made by young people right now but you will never hear it because the music labels still dominate pop music and they've become more conservative than ever.

So don't judge the current generation by what you see in the top 40. Dig around on Bandcamp instead and be amazed.

It's funny, Bowie did speak about Labels disappearing. As I said above, the top before had more interesting stuff (if you consider The Police, or Dire Straits interesting that is).

I'll seek through bandcamp, I rarely hear things intersting these days but maybe I'm under a passeist phase.

No idea what your tastes are but here's a bunch of interesting stuff that went under the labels' radar.

http://hcmj.tumblr.com/post/135300528373/hcmjs-favorite-albu...

They had the Monkees back then. We have real artists now. Have things changed so much?

So I only look at the past through what stood the test of time, while failing to see this about this era ...

The "50s to the 90s"--which is so laughably general, that's four generations of music, if not more--had The Beatles and David Bowie and it also had The Monkees and Men Without Hats. We have the artists who it's funny to make fun of, like Bieber, and we have Jack White, we have Kanye West, we have Radiohead--and we had David Bowie, he's a modern artist today, have you listened to Blackstar, which openly tips its cap to Kendrick Lamar?

Twenty years from now, Bowie and Kanye will be spoken of in the same breath (and sure, that happens today, but that's by the people who pay attention), and that's fine. Great work is done today just as much, if not more, as it was in the past, and you're being That Guy and you should never, ever, ever be That Guy.

Isn't the situation reversed ? were men without hats big ? the good music today is in the shadow while the mainstream pours industrialized music overwhelmingly.

I don't understand how Kanye West is anything but an arrogant dude, but I'm biased against Hip Hop nowadays. Radiohead is very much a 90s in my eyes.

Well, it's fortunate that Kanye West isn't a "hip-hop" musician, he is a musician, and pulls in influences by the wheelbarrowful. Even were that an adequate definition--congratulations: you know your biases. Now overcome them, because if you can't draw a barely kinked line between David Bowie and 808s and Heartbreak, that is on you.

But I don't think that's the problem here, is it? :) He's "arrogant"--and my, but your choice of adjective here is so interesting!--so, well, that's all she wrote.

Bowie was just a shrinking violet, right?

  > > I'm biased against Hip Hop nowadays Congratulations: you know your
  > biases. Overcome them. Because if you can't draw a straight line
  > between David Bowie and 808s and Heartbreak, that is on you.  But he's
  > "arrogant" (my, but the coded language, isn't that interesting!), so
  > that doesn't matter I guess. Bowie was just a shrinking violet, right?

I don't get what you mean about drawing a straight line ? you mean judging fair ? I admit it's difficult to understand why I would say "Let's dance" is good iconic music while West is tasteless Pfip Pop. And Let's dance isn't Bowie most beautiful music. I just discovered Space Oddity .. well.

I just heard '808s' and I quit before half. I never heard anything from West that was worth being arrogant that what I meant. Most of what I heard from him was just mundane flat post 2000s hip hop that I can't bear anymore. It's far from my definition of music, flat, processed, easy. It's barely even music to my ears. People should dig in Jazzy Jeff, Dilla, D'angelo then reflect on todays mainstream.

>I never heard anything from West that was worth being arrogant that what I meant

I think you're getting caught up in marketing. While you're not the target it still effects you and how you enjoy music. I've started to ignore what artists say or do and it's really allowed me to appreciate a lot more music because I can just enjoy it for what it is instead of thinking about the image they're trying to sell.

Fair point. But in West's case, it's not even marketing, his running into Swift to rage about Knowles award loss was him entirely. Unless it was his PR team that gave him the idea. I'll keep your idea in mind though.

My conspiracy theory would be that Swift (or her people) put him up to it. Sympathy sells, and a whole lot of people heard of her as a result. And she has shown herself to be extremely savvy.

How would that work ? She teased him to the point of him rage-invading the stage ?

I mean the two of them planned the whole thing beforehand. (Relies on them knowing she'd win before the ceremony, but is that so implausible?)

nothing is implausible, but what was in it for Kanye West ? unless he's into career sado-masochism.

He drank an entire bottle of Hennessy before that incident. It's not like he planned to do what he did on stage. It was an unfortunately public mistake, and I'm sure anyone who had been drinking that much would have done something stupid even if it wasn't that specifically.

Kanye's music is HUGE. I don't think you quite understand. Every album he's put out has been a certified classic (with the exception of Yeezus, which was very polarizing).

You don't win 21 grammys for no reason. He really is that influential and responsible for a generation of music and a generation of artists that took after him (and continue to do so). I don't think anyone comes close to being a "rockstar" in the classic sense in the modern era than Kanye.

Since everybody seems to agree, I'll revisit my "judgements". I thought I had my mind opened enough not to dismiss music for stupid reasons.

For every one of those decades I could name several rock bands who were commercially successful and whose music also represented a major, youth-oriented cultural movement which challenged the status quo. I am hard pressed to name a single band like that which started recording in the 21st century. Interpret it as you will but I think he has a point that the stuff that gets into the top 40, certainly within the rock genre, is not as politically or culturally relevant as it used to be. If that kind of music is still out there, people aren't buying it anymore.

>> "For every one of those decades I could name several rock bands who were commercially successful and whose music also represented a major, youth-oriented cultural movement which challenged the status quo."

Take a look at some of the big EDM acts. It may not be your thing (and it's not really mine) but it's undeniable that acts like Swedish House Mafia and Avicii changed youth culture. If you take a listen to popular music from the 2000's it was all indie rock and then there was this dramatic shift late in the decade.

Yup. And in terms of politics, there are a pretty decent selection of young rap and hip-hop artists (similarly--with rare exceptions, not my thing either) who are speaking to the concerns of an unheard segment of the population in the United States. Limiting this to "rock" cuts out a lot of people, both in the U.S. and out.

"Rock" has essentially transformed to any music that sits in popular culture, and particularly youth-oriented culture. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame thankfully recognized this and have now inducted several artists who wouldn't fit into the traditional definition of "rock".

It also has to do with cultural and social boundaries. Every time a new "genre" came (no odd new music genre came since long ago AFAIK) it was felt. Every time a new medium (from radio to LP, Video Clips, CD) came it was felt. The odd part is that the web didn't recreate that. I feel this generation is diluted by too large market, too much technology, not enough structural pressure (limited places and market means competition, not always bad even with the drawbacks) and maybe the shadow of the past media hysteria around multimillion albums artists.

But rock is the status quo; with anything rock-like, you run the risk that your parents will like it. That makes it hard for rock to challenge the status quo.

When I hear "major, youth-oriented cultural movement which challenged the status quo" I think about house, hip hop, and rap.

The problem there is that young parents now like rap, too. People that were kids when It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back or Run-DMC's first album have families now.

So nothing's safe.

> we have Kanye West

For what it's worth Kanye West is still regarded like a sort of a joke in most of Europe, at least for people like me, who are over 30.

> and we have Jack White

At first I said to myself "who's that?", then I saw that he used to sing for the White Stripes. It's a so-and-so band, at least one of their songs got pretty popular among the football ultras, as did the Pet Shop Boys' "Go West!" back in the 90s.

> we have Radiohead

This is a late '90s - early 2000s band. Some say (at least I say) that they haven't been able to produce anything quite as good as the albums from that time in the last 10+ years. At the very least they are not as influential as they used to be back then.

For what it's worth Kanye West is still regarded like a sort of a joke in most of Europe, at least for people like me, who are over 30.

I'm not sure old people were known for being massive Bowie or Stones fans in the 60s either.

I wasn't born and always assumed they weren't just pop star of the moment. As a kid later, even without knowing anything, I felt these song were infectious. When I criticize today's mainstream it's that this quality isn't there anymore. I could say the same about movie score too.

>When I criticize today's mainstream it's that this quality isn't there anymore.

No, it's because you don't like it and can't feel superior any longer if you were to enjoy it. It's just incredibly elitist to assume the music you don't like doesn't have any quality.

One of the best "mainstream" albums in recent times was Kanye's My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. A record with such masterful production, songwriting and depth that is absolutely high quality.

In 40 years people will look back on My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy much in the same way we look back on Ziggy Stardust now. Likewise it will be remembered for it's fearlessness, creativity and influence.

It's an incredible album indeed. I can also recommend To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar. Just watch his live performance on The Colbert Report and tell me there's no quality anymore!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS0geQsfcHk

Or this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1ZUgIZKDI

> One of the best "mainstream" albums in recent times was Kanye's My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJae2OpoHeE , his latest YT video is basically an ad. And while I tried listening to some of his other melodies I found out that most of them are about his material accomplishments, and that's about it. Or maybe this is all a post-modernist thingie where this is a veiled critique about today's society, in which case I'll pass.

For comparison, take this IAM piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQ_X6nQ8xk , which talks about real people with real problems from the real world. They're miles ahead in terms of artistic performance and impact.

I don't think Radiohead's earlier albums were as influential as they were released to an audience who was influenceable. They had influence because young people listened to them, and now the people who listened to them a lot aren't up-and-coming musicians anymore.

Jack White isn't a great singer, but he might just be one of the 5 greatest guitarists alive today. I'd argue he is the best guitarist alive. As I read somewhere, Jack White is in his own personal genre.

Yup. His music isn't even my thing (as it happens, neither are the other two artists I mentioned), but...if you can't recognize it, you aren't paying attention.

Bowie got as big as he was because of labels pushing him down a captive audience's throats. Was he good? Sure. But there were many other really good artists who never got much attention because the only place to hear music during Bowie's era was on the radio or in a record store. "This generation" has wider tastes and a broader selection than any before it. That they can't be defined by a single sound or genre is a good thing.

Good point. The constriction of music production (or TV distribution) before has a deep impact on what people discover and how they experience it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com