Thread: film and Music

Originally Posted by stonedape

Do people care more about being impressed by things than moved by things? Is this trend(imagined or real) inherently a part of the human condition, or is it something that is emergent in American culture because of marketing and commercialization of culture. Is this human nature or systematic conditioning? Or is it that culture was never really about art, but rather human connections and people like myself who actually enjoy art for the sake of art are just crazy?

Its a social thing, mainly. Some people just aren't that into music or art in general. But they still use it as a social lubricant. Everybody does to some extent. We all tend to like someone more when they like the same things we do, and we tend to get very offended when someone tells us our music sucks. Its people that value social dynamics far higher than art that are in the mainstream, cause obviously with much more people there's more opportunity there. We're not crazy, we're just the minority that appreciates these things more.

A big issue is one that Carou alluded to, all the money is in the hands of 16 year old highschool students. For a while now they've been the biggest market. And in that highschool environment social dynamics tend to be valued very highly. They'll listen to anything on the radio to talk about it later. Someone once asked I believe Sumner Redstone "How do you always know what the kids like?" To which he replied "We don't know what we like. We tell them what to like".

Now that the corporations have it down to a system mainstream culture will continue to decline until a big change happens. The internet's already changing that. Piracy, whatever you may think of it, is broadening people's tastes. If those methods of distribution could take the place of record labels then bands would actually have to be really good to get noticed and spread through word-of-mouth. Of course first the artists will actually have to be compensated though. Right now artists are just getting screwed from every angle.

Its also up to us, the artists. Staying inspired and creating the best stuff we can, to inspire others.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Lord of the Rings movies are great for times when I want to get to sleep in a hurry, and Radiohead works really well when I want to torture my ears.

There's both more good (or great) work and more crap being produced now, because there's simply more film and music being made. The barriers to entry are falling on the production side, while the channels for reaching an audience increase exponentially.

Overall I'd say culture, including music and film, is getting more diverse, which in my book means better. The attempt to draw large trends about, "oh there are more sequels" or "genre x is going downhill" obscures broad swaths of what's out there, ignoring both large eddies in the mainstream and the fact that a lot more is happening outside of the mainstream than ever before.

A lot of the idealizing of past works, I think, just comes from the greater difficulty of finding the best of what's happening right now. The more you look to the past, the more everything has been sorted and filtered through other people's sensibilities, whereas the more you deal with emerging art, the more you're called upon to do the sorting and the filtering (and the legwork of finding the stuff).

The Young Ones = EPIC CLASSIC BRITISH HUMOUR

Course it's getting worse. Which way is it going to be we're running out of ideas?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Radiohead works really well when I want to torture my ears.

I'm frowning again.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

The Young Ones = EPIC CLASSIC BRITISH HUMOUR

I'm not sure what to think about that show. It's definitely entertaining, and certainly must have been amazing when it first came out.

But I feel like classic British humor is something you can only watch when you're really in the mood for it. It's essentially a lot of loud noises and surprised looking faces.

"DID YOU JUST THROW THAT AT ME???? I'M GONNA PUNCH A HOLE IN THE WALL!!!!! LOOK HOW BIG THIS CHAINSAW IS HEYYY THERE'S SOMEONE FAMOUS SINGING IN MY LIVING ROOM WHERE IS MY LUNCH???!!!!!!!!!"

To be honest the majority of classic British comedies had nothing to do with that.

It's interesting how dated old comedy is though. Most of the comedy we're told is 'classic' from say 40 years ago is totally unfunny (with a few outstanding exceptions). Like... I dunno, the Two Ronnies. You'd get more laughs in a 30 minute panel show nowadays then you would in their entire repertoire. Maybe because they were breaking the mould back then and that was funny (for example all of the innuendos... nowadays you'd tell them to stop acting like a couple of excited children and just say 'fuck'), but nowadays you can explicitly say pretty much anything you want so perhaps the only think you can do is make jokes which are actually funny.

Nuances of expression have also changed a great deal. Maybe that is also important.

But yes, it's interesting. Objectively, comedy seems to have improved, but maybe that's actually due to the relative social environment.

Most American comedy is still shite but maybe you Americans think that too. Save the old Simpsons episodes.

I have to reserve judgement in terms of films, because I don't watch many new movies, mainstream or otherwise.

But when it comes to music, I find myself at odds with many in this thread in that I believe mainstream music is slowly starting to come around.

Obviously, there's going to be a lot of junk thrown into the mix as well [as is to be expected in any form of media]...but with the explosion of music on the internet, people are catching on to good stuff quicker than they used to. Which is making labels stand up and take notice and get with the program to give people what they want.

Granted, the market is becoming a lot more fragmented, but that provides a slew of distinct advantages in and of itself.

For a long time I used to be adamently anti-radio [to a fault, even], but more and more I find myself enjoying and even appreciating some of the things that are now included in radio rotations. Which I never would've done before...let alone the idea of dancing to them. But I do so now, without pretension, and even gladly.

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

Obviously, there's going to be a lot of junk thrown into the mix as well [as is to be expected in any form of media]...but with the explosion of music on the internet, people are catching on to good stuff quicker than they used to. Which is making labels stand up and take notice and get with the program to give people what they want.

Granted, the market is becoming a lot more fragmented, but that provides a slew of distinct advantages in and of itself.

I agree with this.

Were it not for the fact that I can easily find non-corporate, independent acts on the Internet I might care more about what goes on in the "mainstream" (i.e., corporate radio, music television channels, awards shows, etc). As it is, I have found so many wonderful artists through the Internet that I don't have to rely on corporate marketing machines to make my listening decisions for me.

So I really don't care what they put on the radio or television anymore. If I was measuring the quality of music solely based on what is on the charts, radio and television, then yeah I might tend to say that the quality of musical acts has gone downhill.

But the bottom line is that all of that mainstream stuff is just a business, and I don't begrudge them that as long as other options are available to seek out and find original music.

All of this is very subjective - I don't think my taste is superior to any others.
Just making sure noone feels offended

There seems to be a correlation between my subjective taste and the
mainstream-i-ness of the perticular artist or film. Very many of the famous
musicians I just can't stand. There are a few greys, though - Radiohead being
one and Arcade Fire I like, too, of which the description could be applied to
mainstream.

Compared to the masses of artists, even only in mainstream and taking into
account how much of it really is just crap, I'd say that yes, the music the
masses listen to probably got worse in relation to what is/was available. But
there are so many more bands and artists around now in general - and since
the music improves once disembodied from mtv, the good and great bands
probably now outnumber the ones at any given time in the past.

I think it is similar with movies. There are only very few movies out of the
hollywood bunch that I watch in a year, but there are many more films with
less marketing, many foreign ones also, that I hold in high regard.

Music in charts seems to focus increasingly on songs that are easy to get
and dance to, ideal for clubs. To me this is not what music is, it's a language,
an art form and a doorway to different states of mind. While listening to a
song, I want to be able to sense what the artist was feeling or might have
been thinking while writing the song, it can give you a deeper understanding.
When listening to chartmusic I get more of the feeling that isn't the artist
I connected with, but the guys at the label.

With movies I find it sad that the increase in technology and special effects
seems to negatively correlate with depth of charackter and storyline, you
can have a movie that is pretty much solely based on CGI and still have it
make millions - transformers being one. There is no need for more complexity,
the short attention span is what matters.

There are, of course, exceptions. Quite a few probably.

Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot

But the bottom line is that all of that mainstream stuff is just a business, and I don't begrudge them that as long as other options are available to seek out and find original music.

Yeah exactly. I don't really get all the mainstream hate. If you don't like it you don't have to listen. There's plenty of great stuff out there, even in the worst of creative times.

The only issue I see is the monetary gap between the mainstream and the underground. Most often the most creatively stimulating stuff I find is somewhere outside the mainstream, but nearly always the people producing it are just barely getting by in the world. Almost everyone in the music industry at least is either super super rich (regular radio play, exposure through record deals, and large sold out shows) or barely getting by. There's not that many bands out there simply making a workable living like everyone else.

I hope someday there can be a more even distribution of wealth in the industry. I'm optimistic too, I think we'll get there soon enough.

In my experience I've seen the quality of music go down. It could have to do with corporate labels and severe sensorship. Coming from the western culture I'd never expect to hear music on MTV or the radio promoting anti-capitalistic values or drug use or voicing critical issues people need to hear or think about. It's very one-sided, naturally.

Some exceptions include artists that form their own labels or make deals with smaller labels that share their values. However, if mainstream media companies don't approve their lyrics or style they simply won't air it. They won't get the same attention as Hannah Montana, say.

I begrudge them, I begrudge them greatly. In the same way I hate a pimp for what he does to a woman.

I guess I started this thread attacking the quality of music and film but I now realize the real problem I have with mainstream media. It destroys culture. It takes jazz and makes kenny G. It takes rock'n'roll and creates nickleback. It takes hip hop and gives us akon. It ruins everything sacred in life. Given the kind of music out there there's no reason why anyone should listen to music like this. But not only do they listen to it but they flock to it. I'm not trying to say that these people are stupid, or they don't know what music is, but rather that they've been had. Some asshat in a bussiness suit told them what their culture was then sold it to them in conviently shrink wrapped packages. Maybe I should just ignore all this, but it's in my face everyday, so I can't.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I begrudge them, I begrudge them greatly. In the same way I hate a pimp for what he does to a woman.

I guess I started this thread attacking the quality of music and film but I now realize the real problem I have with mainstream media. It destroys culture. It takes jazz and makes kenny G. It takes rock'n'roll and creates nickleback. It takes hip hop and gives us akon. It ruins everything sacred in life. Given the kind of music out there there's no reason why anyone should listen to music like this. But not only do they listen to it but they flock to it. I'm not trying to say that these people are stupid, or they don't know what music is, but rather that they've been had. Some asshat in a bussiness suit told them what their culture was then sold it to them in conviently shrink wrapped packages. Maybe I should just ignore all this, but it's in my face everyday, so I can't.

I had the same opinion of the music industry once upon a time, but I've come to a deeper realization of a profound and ancient teaching: different strokes for different folks. It's true in food, booze, religion, games, and certainly films and music. It can be frustrating to see people enjoying culture that strikes you as the bastardization of more nuanced, stimulating or 'authentic' art, but perhaps those people just don't prioritize nuance, stimulation and authenticity as much as you do, or perhaps that poor knock-off will eventually lead them to the 'good stuff.' Just keep in mind that for any 'good stuff' you find, there is a more rarefied, cerebral, and difficult-to-attain pleasure out there, and someone looking down there nose at you for stopping at the top shelf and not prying open the walls.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

In my experience I've seen the quality of music go down. It could have to do with corporate labels and severe sensorship. Coming from the western culture I'd never expect to hear music on MTV or the radio promoting anti-capitalistic values or drug use or voicing critical issues people need to hear or think about. It's very one-sided, naturally.

Some exceptions include artists that form their own labels or make deals with smaller labels that share their values. However, if mainstream media companies don't approve their lyrics or style they simply won't air it. They won't get the same attention as Hannah Montana, say.

Yeah I definitely think that censorship plays a huge part in it. Music's only as good as the culture it reflects, and mainstream culture is highly censored. We live in a largely commercial culture now, so most of the focus is on commercialized, shrink-wrapped packages in the words of stonedape.

In my opinion the best music surfaces when there's a true counterculture involved. More specifically, the uncensored communication that occurs within one. In that network of communication flows an unlimited exchange of truly creative ideas, which influences people through cause and effect. In the 70s we had the drug culture, today we have the internet.

Think about it. If there was no way to communicate like we do on the internet, our tastes would probably be very different right now just because we wouldn't know there's better stuff out there. And with that lack of audience, nobody would be making that better stuff to begin with. All because we can't communicate freely in the real world today.

I often wondered why I could find so many amazing albums from 74, but by the time 77 rolled around everything seemed to dry up. I found the answer was the advent of punk culture. I, and many others think punk was a culture created by commercial interests to reclaim control over the public at large. It was too hard to market to people in the early 70s because tastes were so eclectic. Once punk came about, censored communcation came back with a vengeance. The eclectic mainstream was gone and replaced by disco and punk songs.

Most people in the rock crowd despised disco because they thought it was killing rock and roll.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Most people in the rock crowd despised disco because they thought it was killing rock and roll.

This is the same reason I hate gangster rap, smooth jazz and modern rock, but it's like the spawn of the old genres were born and now there eating their mother for food.

Originally Posted by stonedape

This is the same reason I hate gangster rap, smooth jazz and modern rock, but it's like the spawn of the old genres were born and now there eating their mother for food.

The point of UM's post, I think, is that the rock-n-rollers had nothing to worry about. How exactly are the derivative genres harming counterculture and progressive artists? Would there be a place in the mainstream for the 'real deal' if Justin Timberlake and Kanye West weren't there? Or would that place just be filled by something else shallow, but highly accessible?

As people get older, most spend less time looking for emerging artists and rely more on past favorites and the mainstream. This trend can create the perception that music is getting worse, but the fact is that the most influential and experimental artists have always operated 'behind the curtain.' You're just not peeking backstage anymore.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The point of UM's post, I think, is that the rock-n-rollers had nothing to worry about. How exactly are the derivative genres harming counterculture and progressive artists? Would there be a place in the mainstream for the 'real deal' if Justin Timberlake and Kanye West weren't there? Or would that place just be filled by something else shallow, but highly accessible?

I do think disco did put an end to the golden age of classic rock. The rock musicians from that era have said they couldn't get the same kinds of record deals unless they agreed to play a few disco songs on their albums. Still, the golden age of heavy metal, a form of rock and roll, happened the next decade. Also, I will admit... I am a huge fan of disco. I still think music peaked between 1967 and 1974, and I like pretty much nothing in pop or rock that is recent. There is some damn great ambient space music and jazz coming out these days, though.

I am peeking behind the curtain though, shit I am behind the curtain, I play in a post-rock band.

I agree about the most experimental artists being behind the curtain, but the most influential artists weren't, at least in the past. Who influenced rock more than Led Zep, Floyd, Hendrix, Black Sabbath, The Who, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones. These were all mainstream to an extant at their time. Who in mainstream rock can hold a candle to the fire that these bands were. This is basically my sentiments, that nothing really good comes out of the mainstream, if you aren't mediocre, if you aren't willing to compromise you don't get played on the radio(other than random shows hosted by weirdos like myself).

If those specific artist weren't there, yes someone else would just take their place, but there's no reason that mainstream music has to be so bad(other than that it's supposed to be bad), especially if you deviate away from straight pop music and look at mainstream rock or rap. I think rock'n'rollers had every right to worry. The style of music that they like died in the 80s with the advent of metal and punk. The only people who play traditional(meaning like the bands I mentioned above) are cover bands, and they don't have the same kind of drive as an original act. Rock is dead. That's why I play post-rock, I see it as funeral music. I don't think it had to die, but you have to go with the changes.

I do see things eventually getting better because of the internet, but not for another 10 years at least. Besides, I want to be able to see good live music, not just sit on my ass at home.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is some damn great ambient space music and jazz coming out these days, though.

I agree, ever heard of The Bad Plus?

I very much agree with a lot of your points. Even your begrudgement, in this case. But just a thought...

I always assumed that the more tv/radio get flooded with absolute crap, the more motivated people feel to produce something that isn't crap.

Sure, there will always be people to by crap...but so then, I would assume there would always be people who see the need for more non-crap and so decide to take it upon themselves to create it.

That's how diversity and alternative avenues of distribution are developed. And even how people tap into their creative potential; people who might otherwise not be motivated enough to produce/distribute music themselves.

Basically, I get the idea that mainstream interests don't destroy culture per se...because they represent part of said culture. If anything, mainstream interests could be looked at as a catalyst for other interests within the culture in question.

...No?

I see what you mean. I think the media on the radio and tv being so awful is a big reason why I don't listen or watch them. Which is good in some ways because it makes me work to find the good stuff which does make it more enjoyable in some ways.

I just really wonder if the next generation is really going to be any better. It looks like it's going to get a lot worse unless something radical happens, but maybe something will. I'm probably going to get sick of things here and move before that happens. I'm thinking Iceland.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I am peeking behind the curtain though, shit I am behind the curtain, I play in a post-rock band.

I agree about the most experimental artists being behind the curtain, but the most influential artists weren't, at least in the past. Who influenced rock more than Led Zep, Floyd, Hendrix, Black Sabbath, The Who, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones. These were all mainstream to an extant at their time. Who in mainstream rock can hold a candle to the fire that these bands were. This is basically my sentiments, that nothing really good comes out of the mainstream, if you aren't mediocre, if you aren't willing to compromise you don't get played on the radio(other than random shows hosted by weirdos like myself).

If those specific artist weren't there, yes someone else would just take their place, but there's no reason that mainstream music has to be so bad(other than that it's supposed to be bad), especially if you deviate away from straight pop music and look at mainstream rock or rap. I think rock'n'rollers had every right to worry. The style of music that they like died in the 80s with the advent of metal and punk. The only people who play traditional(meaning like the bands I mentioned above) are cover bands, and they don't have the same kind of drive as an original act. Rock is dead. That's why I play post-rock, I see it as funeral music. I don't think it had to die, but you have to go with the changes.

I do see things eventually getting better because of the internet, but not for another 10 years at least. Besides, I want to be able to see good live music, not just sit on my ass at home.

I agree, ever heard of The Bad Plus?

I don't know, maybe you're right at least to the extent we're in a slump right now--it does seem like a lot more good music was breaking through in the '90s, and a lot of what's still decent in the mainstream is left over from then, but there's also ridiculously more happening outside the mainstream, in electronic music (I agree ambient space is one of the more fertile areas right now, and a lot of good progressive house/soul/hip-hop came out of the '00s), indie rock, jam/roots/bluegrass on the festival circuit... At least in my part of the country, more people have more options for both live music and finding recordings.

One thing music may be lacking right now is independent radio, which is where a lot of great bands break into the mainstream. Clear Channel has locked down a lot of markets, taking control out of the hands of DJs and program directors. In Cleveland, the only listenable stations left are college radio and classic rock, which is a sad state for a city with so much radio and music history.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I had the same opinion of the music industry once upon a time, but I've come to a deeper realization of a profound and ancient teaching: different strokes for different folks. It's true in food, booze, religion, games, and certainly films and music. It can be frustrating to see people enjoying culture that strikes you as the bastardization of more nuanced, stimulating or 'authentic' art, but perhaps those people just don't prioritize nuance, stimulation and authenticity as much as you do, or perhaps that poor knock-off will eventually lead them to the 'good stuff.' Just keep in mind that for any 'good stuff' you find, there is a more rarefied, cerebral, and difficult-to-attain pleasure out there, and someone looking down there nose at you for stopping at the top shelf and not prying open the walls.

This.

Generalizing away from music, I think this thread exemplifies a much more broad phenomenon which I call "everything was better back when everything was worse" syndrome. I think if people actually went back and relived the various "good times" they go on about, they'd realize that their memories were leaving quite a bit out of the picture. Not only were things usually not better, they were very often worse. Back to music, I happen to think we live in one of the very best times for music ever. So much good music is being made right now that it is ridiculous. It's hard to even scratch the surface.

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

I very much agree with a lot of your points. Even your begrudgement, in this case. But just a thought...

I always assumed that the more tv/radio get flooded with absolute crap, the more motivated people feel to produce something that isn't crap.

I agree with that, and I was just looking at a quote from Dean Ween that someone posted on their Facebook profile earlier today:

"Music was better ten years ago," asserts Dean Ween, "and better still 20 years ago, 30 years ago, and so on. Live 8 made it so obvious, because you could compare veterans like Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder to modern acts such as Linkin Park and Coldplay. It's all due to the dumbing down of society. It's a failure on the part of everybody--especially the record labels. They should be ashamed. And the power of MTV and Clear Channel has totally and absolutely ruined rock and roll. There is always good music out there, but if it's not exposed to the public, then the public won't realize it's being duped when it hears Creed or whomever. Nothing sneaks through the cracks any more, so it's up to the kids to find good stuff on their own. Listen and learn from David Bowie or Black Sabbath instead of the crap on modern rock radio, and start a band. There has always been a musical revolution when people get sick of the bullshit, so I'm banking it will happen again -- although it's been a long time since the last one!"