The future of Music? (big question)

**Janszoon** · 01-06-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

I'd argue that for a band that was as huge as they were, they had a lot of the aspects that many other large acts lacked. Their songs were very intricate, and varied by mainstream standards especially due to a lot of the under the surface experimentation in rhythmic shape. System of a Down may not have been all the way down the path to where thing should have went, but they're a damn start.

I'd argue that they were basically just another crappy nu-metal band in an era of crappy nu-metal.

Dotoar · 01-06-2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

If anything, this is a confirmation of my point. This **** will become nostalgia until something like Led Zeppelin/Nirvana/System of a Down comes around and mysteriously breaks into the mainstream giving a little bit of hope before it crashes down again. Sad thing is - with the exception of Led Zeppelin - even the bands listed are very limited, poppy, and short of the true potential of excellence music can reach.

When one of them breaks out we'll experience a brief moment of sunshine before it's sent crashing down again, and this stuff crawls out leaving us twenty years from now saying "Could be worse, could have been Gaga and Katy Perry".

One has to remember though, that most people aren't really interested in music (and no, cranking up the stereo for the weekend party, which most people do, alone doesn't count) and thus, not at all interested in digging deeper. My point is, however, that we who are interested also do our best to dig up something more profound than the background muzak on the radio, and some of us also try to cook something up ourselves that others might appreciate. But wether you're into "just" exploring even more obscure bands/artists for listening, or writing and performing new music, it all takes a considerable amount of dedication and as long as that community as a whole persists, good music* will continue to be made and evolve in the process.

If you'll excuse a not entirely accurate analogy: Think about scientists and inventors, those who really carry the technological evolution forward. As a part of the total population there aren't many of them, and there are not that many who in addition are very interested in their work. I.e. most people don't really care for science and technology, even if they all benefit from it. Those involved in it, however, carry on anyway since they know they may be gratified in the end, either upon seeing their own vision finally becoming realized and maybe even become acknowledged by others in the scientific community, or upon the commercial success of it when the masses acknowledge it (or rather, the fulfilling of the need it grants) through which he/she can make money.

Just the same, every - and I dare you to find an exception - popular mainstream musical genre has evolved from an at one time or another underground movement in which bands and artists has dwelled upon their own vision and maybe even the acknowledgement from the closest inner circle.

(I don't know if that made sense, but it sounded good in my head)

* "Good" music as I see it could be summed up as any music containing an artistic depth and vision in itself, in contrast to what I like to call "utility music", the thing you hear on the hit radio etc. That's not to say that artistically valid music cannot be commercially successful as well.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 01-06-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I'd argue that they were basically just another crappy nu-metal band in an era of crappy nu-metal.

I'd argue that's absurd. System of a Down were only nu metal on their surface. I don't think they were the most original band on earth, either. But for a band that was literally selling #1 chart topping albums, they're quite a bit expansive.

Unlike most acts in that position they:

A) were live focused, and could preform their songs without additional production. You didn't go to their shows to see lights, and dancing. You went for music.

B) Albeit, they heavily exploited their political viewpoints to get over(and really very little of their music was related to), they were still selling themselves on music. Nobody got into System of a Down because they wanted to compliment Serj Tankian's Wardrobe.

C) They TRIED to include some influences outside the mainstream norm. Sometimes you hear a bit of an operatic tinge in Serj's voice, or some jazz/swing like bass work, whatever. Sure many bands before this explored it, did it better, and made massive success doing it(Faith No More, Red Hot Chili Peppers) but very few were able to keep as firmly in the spotlight as System of a Down did. From Toxicity to Hypnotize they were pretty much consistently selling number one albums, which means they could be an influence on direction. They were the biggest act in music at the time they were big.

D) Even if not known for their virtuosity they played off each other well as a unit. Yes, the guitarwork was retardedly simple tuned down power chord bull****, and they overused the whole "SCREAM sing SCREAM sing with dual harmonies SCREAM" thing. However, there was a lot of ambition in the arrangement especially during their ultra-frantic songs.

System of a Down appear as a shining moment to me because of these thing, and because they stayed somewhat popular as these things were going out the window. Not that System of a Down is a shining moment for music in general, but it is for the direction of mainstream music which is going back to the way of the Madonna(And Yes, I'd prefer even truly abysmal Nu Metal like Limp Bizkit, or Linkin' Park over this any day).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

One has to remember though, that most people aren't really interested in music (and no, cranking up the stereo for the weekend party, which most people do, alone doesn't count) and thus, not at all interested in digging deeper. My point is, however, that we who are interested also do our best to dig up something more profound than the background muzak on the radio, and some of us also try to cook something up ourselves that others might appreciate. But wether you're into "just" exploring even more obscure bands/artists for listening, or writing and performing new music, it all takes a considerable amount of dedication and as long as that community as a whole persists, good music* will continue to be made and evolve in the process.

If you'll excuse a not entirely accurate analogy: Think about scientists and inventors, those who really carry the technological evolution forward. As a part of the total population there aren't many of them, and there are not that many who in addition are very interested in their work. I.e. most people don't really care for science and technology, even if they all benefit from it. Those involved in it, however, carry on anyway since they know they may be gratified in the end, either upon seeing their own vision finally becoming realized and maybe even become acknowledged by others in the scientific community, or upon the commercial success of it when the masses acknowledge it (or rather, the fulfilling of the need it grants) through which he/she can make money.

Just the same, every - and I dare you to find an exception - popular mainstream musical genre has evolved from an at one time or another underground movement in which bands and artists has dwelled upon their own vision and maybe even the acknowledgement from the closest inner circle.

(I don't know if that made sense, but it sounded good in my head)

* "Good" music as I see it could be summed up as any music containing an artistic depth and vision in itself, in contrast to what I like to call "utility music", the thing you hear on the hit radio etc. That's not to say that artistically valid music cannot be commercially successful as well.

I'm not bashing the music community of more serious listeners(a seemingly dying breed). I'm just saying my comments on mainstream music. That's why I say I like the fact the music industry is crashing. It makes good music less about finding the best of all time, and a more exploitative experience. Plus, I'm all for people making their own music. In fact, if people are doing it with the guarantee there's a 95% chance they won't make a dime, it's proof that the love of music is more important than the industry.

**Janszoon** · 01-06-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

I'd argue that's absurd. System of a Down were only nu metal on their surface. I don't think they were the most original band on earth, either. But for a band that was literally selling #1 chart topping albums, they're quite a bit expansive.

Unlike most acts in that position they:

A) were live focused, and could preform their songs without additional production. You didn't go to their shows to see lights, and dancing. You went for music.

B) Albeit, they heavily exploited their political viewpoints to get over(and really very little of their music was related to), they were still selling themselves on music. Nobody got into System of a Down because they wanted to compliment Serj Tankian's Wardrobe.

C) They TRIED to include some influences outside the mainstream norm. Sometimes you hear a bit of an operatic tinge in Serj's voice, or some jazz/swing like bass work, whatever. Sure many bands before this explored it, did it better, and made massive success doing it(Faith No More, Red Hot Chili Peppers) but very few were able to keep as firmly in the spotlight as System of a Down did. From Toxicity to Hypnotize they were pretty much consistently selling number one albums, which means they could be an influence on direction. They were the biggest act in music at the time they were big.

D) Even if not known for their virtuosity they played off each other well as a unit. Yes, the guitarwork was retardedly simple tuned down power chord bull****, and they overused the whole "SCREAM sing SCREAM sing with dual harmonies SCREAM" thing. However, there was a lot of ambition in the arrangement especially during their ultra-frantic songs.

System of a Down appear as a shining moment to me because of these thing, and because they stayed somewhat popular as these things were going out the window. Not that System of a Down is a shining moment for music in general, but it is for the direction of mainstream music which is going back to the way of the Madonna(And Yes, I'd prefer even truly abysmal Nu Metal like Limp Bizkit, or Linkin' Park over this any day).

They most definitely were not the biggest act in music when they were big. And whatever you say they did or didn't attempt to put into their music, at the end of the day the result was no better or more interesting than the other nu-metal garbage of that time period so what does it matter?

Geetarguy · 01-06-2011, 03:44 PM

in the future drums will be so fast that only robots can hear them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 01-06-2011, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarguy

in the future drums will be so fast that only robots can hear them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

I think this is my favorite response so far

Dotoar · 01-06-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

I'm not bashing the music community of more serious listeners(a seemingly dying breed). I'm just saying my comments on mainstream music. That's why I say I like the fact the music industry is crashing. It makes good music less about finding the best of all time, and a more exploitative experience. Plus, I'm all for people making their own music. In fact, if people are doing it with the guarantee there's a 95% chance they won't make a dime, it's proof that the love of music is more important than the industry.

I didn't interpret your comments as bashing?

Anyway, I don't see how the "music industry" is crashing, it's rather changing its ways of distribution (at long last). Your last sentence pretty much sums it up though, what I tried to get through.

**Janszoon** · 01-06-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarguy

in the future drums will be so fast that only robots can hear them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

TockTockTock · 01-06-2011, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

42.

Indeed...

s_k · 01-06-2011, 06:59 PM

6x7.

I think music will be fine.
Altough sound quality may descent, I think computers and the internet will create an entirely new music scene within now and 15 years. With a lot of free sharing and little gigs and festivals.

01-06-2011, 06:59 PM	#30 (permalink)
s_k Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,206	6x7. I think music will be fine. Altough sound quality may descent, I think computers and the internet will create an entirely new music scene within now and 15 years. With a lot of free sharing and little gigs and festivals. __________________ Click here to see my collection

01-06-2011, 03:44 PM	#25 (permalink)
Geetarguy Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 127	in the future drums will be so fast that only robots can hear them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!