|
Originally Posted by spellchecker
yep, bingo bango. i think saying the term rock music is misleading however. i was just trying to think of a term meaning all encompassing un-pop and off-playlist music, which i might have suggested was rock music, but perhaps not anymore.
however, at the time, i was very, very drunk.
in a small way, i was thinking about this very thread in my head whilst in bed instead of watching father ted, today. i thought that if you found yourself running out of music, then your musical spectrum is too narrow. don't get me wrong, i still run out of music and find myself playing old classics for medium-scale self-entertainment, however the thought crossed my mind that if you enjoyed enough variation of music, you would like so many bands, that at least one of them would be putting out a new record every couple of months or so, hence, you should never run out of music. i've actually done alright this year, and that new björk album is going to help.
coming back to the question however, to say that rock music is becoming or already is impotent, raises two questions. or two scenarios.
i can't believe the powercut didn't make my computer reset there. i heard the modem click, so i know it died. the computer has already reset twice, and it's got to be said, i'd be pretty fucked off it reset now after typing all this bullshit.
anyway, the scenarios. fuck, there it goes again. yes the scenarios. You either don't have enough variation in your musical spectrum; you need to broaden your musical horizons; you need to actively search for something that touches you in a different way. if you find rock music impotent, then why the fuck are you still pondering about that bored and tired genre. maybe the real question is, "why the fuck is good music not falling into my lap anymore?". now there's a deep question. your friends are boring? you are stuck in your ways and blinkered when it comes to other types of music? Music did used to fall into my lap, recommendations were easy and choices were good, but now I find that i have to live with my ears open and pay attention to what's going on around me; not necessarily musically, but quite possibly personably.
the second scenario of course being, rock really is dead. a certain part of me thinks that from around 1990 to 2005 rock music took an escalating form of extremism, whereby each new record had to in some way better, or beefierise (v. : to make more beefy), the last one. pixies -> nirvana, nirvana -> alice in chains, alice in chains -> guns 'n' roses, guns 'n' roses -> marilyn manson, marilyn manson -> korn, korn -> limp bizkit, limp bizkit -> slipknot, slipknot -> mudvayne, etc. blah blah blah. i'm not saying any of these bands were a progression on each other genre wise, but the music just kept getting heavier, and more extreme, in some cases obscene, in others - serene. sorry, just needed something that rhymed. anyway, the natural conclusion to this scenario being, that a new take on music, a new way to express emotion, a new honesty, a new awareness about the musical environment, is required to revive what is essentially - normal people's music. alternative is the REAL pop - it is the music for people that feel; the music for people who are compassionate and who empathise, for people that understand the world they live in and accept that it may not be right (the greatest crime of all?). real music is not divided by genres, but by relating and understanding. there is nothing to "get" about the top 40. the thunderstorm is over by the way.
anyway, none of this was personally directed at you philip.
motherfucker, it's started again. i'm just going to post before i lose it all.
|