has this site turned into Mojo/Uncut?

[judith]

for whatever reason my generation (being 25 I think I'm just about yoof if not quite down with the kids!) has had a lot more respect for the music of your generation than your generation seemed to for the one before it. This seems to me a generally positive thing - having a healthy appreciation for the likes of the Rolling Stones and Beatles seems a much more sensible approach than automatically dismissing it as Dad music if it expands musical horizons. But with this appreciation has been passed on a cynical and unhealthy notion that nothing produced nowadays can ever match the music of these glory days.

Thank you, Chris, for your truthful perception. I quoted what you had written not to comment, but to read it again, for comment feels superfluous. Now I'm going to follow Ted off thinking.

[whitebeard]

Wonderful words Mr. Chris. I just got back from my beginning conducting class learning how to cue various string parts in Mozart's Requiem Mass, and I couldn't wait to put on Dose One's first solo rap album "Hemispheres."

When I was in high school 1993 to 1997 I despised my parents hippie music (except for Hendrix, R&B, Doo Wop) and would only listen to Hip Hop and what inspired Hip Hop even though people would make fun of me for being a "wannabe black person."

When college rolled around, Naturally I was introduced to a whole new world of music. My perspective changed from "Hip Hop only" to "there's no reason I shouldn't like any music." In a sense i could find some reason to like any music. Every piece of music has a benefit, but at the same time no one piece of music will all people like.

Back to Chris's words. People today (I mean young people) in general not all, are exposed to more different kinds of music than ever before. When I was in High School there were only 10 different kinds of electronic music. Now there at least ten different styles of House Music alone. Type Hip Hop into the "Beatport.com" website and there are at least 15 different kinds of Hip Hop.

One of the things I'm getting at is music is getting broader and broader while at the same time the world of music is getting smaller. People are able to listen to music from small villages in Asia with the click of a button.

To use myself as an example. Someone who grew up listening to only Hip Hop and didn't learn how to read and write music til their early 20's and is now conducting a symphony was unheard of in my mother's generation. Mom's generation dropped classical when they took up the music of their peers, it was either or. Our generation deserves some freeking credit. Just cuz I know about Hip Hop does not mean that I didn't know Josquin Des Prez was a Renaissance Composer or that Dylan wrote "all along the watchtower." Whether it is obvious or not, there are at least one million people out there in the world my age who are like me.

Hip Hop, Electronic and Reggae Music are just as important as Classical, Rock & Roll, and Ewe drumming of west africa. Some one once said music is the sound of love. To say one doesn't like a kind of music is to say one doesn't know about that music. Oh and taste is relative.

Chris thank you for your opinion. I felt like you stopped yourself, and had more to say. I didn't mean to take over the thread but you "lit a fire under my ass." You hit the nail on the head, while at the same time making me feel proud to be who I am.

[whitebeard]

Oh a little side note for the beginning of this thread. If people do not know yet Hip Hop has become a "World Music." I can name at least one Hip Hop group from every continent on this earth minus Antarctica, and maybe a couple from Mars. What drew me to this forum was Charlie's playing of Hip Hop from cultures other than the dominate Western one. And from that I've come to the belief that Hip Hop is truly a world music. It was created on this earth, it is listened to all over this earth, but that does not make it better than any other kind of music on this earth. It has wedged itself into the whole of music.

[Hugh Weldon]

we also have Radiohead, the White Stripes, Basement Jaxx, Timbaland, Rufus Wainwright, Outkast, the Prodigy, Four Tet and a host of other artists who have made that albums that can easily compare to the best albums released in the 60s and 70s

I think that's debatable, at least.

But you add:

if only they could be judged by the same standards.

Not sure how you do that. Though assuming that anyone over 40 would be prejudiced in favour of the old stuff, a blindfold test on a random group of 20 year olds would be an interesting experiment.

my generation (being 25 I think I'm just about yoof if not quite down with the kids!) has had a lot more respect for the music of your generation than your generation seemed to for the one before it.

This is a hard one, and a hard one to prove. It depends on exactly what you mean by the music before 'our generation' which if you mean the bland dance band pop of the fifties I thoroughly agree. But if you mean all the great blues, R&B, rock and roll etc which we had to work very hard at finding (unlike today) no sir. Not guilty.

Of course comparisons can only be taken so far because it's a different world, music wise and everything wise. I'm glad you're getting excited about music you like that's happening now -this is what those of us stricken in years miss to a large extent, though it's made up for by the stuff we hear from places we had never heard of back in the olden days when world music was a rare and exotic beast.

[Adam Blake]

One of the main things that has changed (for the better) is the lack of tribal associations which would prevent one from hearing much good music. Punks couldn't listen to music made by people with long hair, for example. How stupid was that? When I was at school, you could be a glam rocker or a prog rocker as long as you weren't a soulboy. It sounds stupid, it WAS stupid, but these things used to really matter. I couldn't buy "Theme From Shaft" by Isaac Hayes - even though I really wanted to - in case it turned me into a soulboy. When my secret soulboy friend first played me Toots and The Maytals I had to pretend I didn't like it. I mean, how pathetic is that?

I think, I hope, all that nonsense has gone. Music stands or falls on its own merits now. If it sounds good, it IS good - as Duke Ellington once pointed out.

"Classic Rock" - as identified by the music that first gained ascendancy from, say, 1965-1973 - is undoubtedly given far more attention than it strictly deserves. I would say that the very best of it (ie, the very best work by the Beatles, Hendrix and Dylan) remains unsurpassed in its field but even that may just be my age. To my ears it is anyway. I'd say that, culturally, the stakes were higher then but ultimately, who cares? It's good music, yes, but so is so much else that's new, nearly new or positively ancient. The thing about that Classic Rock stuff is it reminds the generation who have now attained positions of power in the media of their youth, and they like to be reminded of their youth, it makes them feel better about what they've become to remember what they once were. But there's more to it than that: there was a bona-fide cultural renaissance in the 60s, the last one Western Civilisation had and certainly the last one we're likely to get, and that music was the product of a time when it seemed like anything was possible and so much that had been used to repress people for at least 100 years was swept away (only to be vigorously re-instated in the 80s). Even if the economy was ever stable enough again to support such a thing, leisure society is far too diffused now to produce anything comparable again. That's OK. There won't be any more great Classical symphonies written either. It's an anachronism and there's nothing wrong with enjoying it and appreciating it and even making your little artistic nest in it if you love it enough. But to use the music of the past to deny the validity of the music of the present and future? That's as stupid as pretending not to like Toots and The Maytals.

[Adam Blake]

Having said that, I hate click tracks and autotuning devices and they make it very difficult for me to listen to vast swathes of modern music. Whenever I do hear something good that's emerged from out behind the tyranny of modern commercial production techniques, I feel like applauding it for merely managing to be born...

[joel]

has there been anything as revolutionary as Trout Mask or Hendrix in the four dcecades since? I somehow doubt it...

The sampler has revolutionised music, arguably even down to the way it is listened to. Maybe I'm being too literal here, but "music", like much else isn't so much consumed as sampled these days.
I suppose those of us who have little interest in rock or rawk, classic or new, should really contribute more to the forum and thereby change the balance a little. This writing lark is bloody hard work, though (or is that hard, bloody work?).

[Nick Boyes]

One of the main things that has changed (for the better) is the lack of tribal associations which would prevent one from hearing much good music.

Are you sure about this Adam ? I have read some fairly dismissive posts on this forum regarding other peoples choice of listening. It takes a braver person than me to mention english folk music !

One of the joys of the internet 'machine' is that old 50+ blokes like me can hear all types of music , without buying it first or trying to persuade the record shop staff to let me have a listen. Hands up who remembers listening booths.
I still feel young people are still as blinkered as I was in what they listen to. Same as it ever was, follow a fashion or be considered odd.
When my mates come round I may put on Orchestra Baobab but would never play my reggae or broken beat cd's and my 12in vinyl disco collection is well hidden from all. The Hip Hop that I do like seems to rely a lot on samples of familiar jazz tracks over a different beat , not exactly groundbreaking music, but then a lot of my favourite soukous music is all very similar.
I thing I can't get my head round is my friends teenage sons listen to a lot of black rap and hip hop music and copy the language and lifestyle and yet are very, very racist.

'There are more questions than answers'

[howard male]

Nick Boyles wrote -

It takes a braver person than me to mention english folk music !

You don't like English folk music, do you Nick? Blimey!

But, anyway, moving swiftly on. One difference between us old fogies looking back on the previous generation's music, and 20-Somethings looking back on our music, is that most of the music we loved and grew up with, is essentially the same as the music of the 20-Somethings. So, for me anyway, it's very easy to dismiss bands who seem to have nothing new to say, or even a new way of saying it.

There was world of difference between Glenn Miller (my father's favourite) and T.Rex (my favourite) yet they were separated by only 30 years. But it's only production values that separate T.Rex from any number of modern, kit-drum and guitar-based bands, another 30 years on. So how can we oldies be expected to respect these silly boys who seem fixated on the past, rather than finding new avenues, both instrumentally and stylistically, to take their music up?

In other words I think most of us older forumistas do have a HUGE respect for the music that came before us, because it was so DIFFERENT. And for this same reason we have higher expectations of young musicians today to make similarly huge quantum leaps in the music they produce.

While I find most hip-hop intolerably dull, I do agree with MurkeyChris that the likes of Timberland (and I would add Missy Elliot) have added greatly to the sonic palette of popular music, and that - in theory - there are some electronica acts that have done too, I've just not heard them yet. But I am constantly looking for great music from younger generations as that is what keeps me interested in music.

I also agree with MurkeyChris that the muso crowd - encouraged by the muso mags - inexplicably ignore many of the more interesting aspects of contemporary music. But perhaps it's the muso mag's fault? When I pitch a great pop, R&B, hip hop, or world CD to one of these mags, I always know I've only got about a 10% chance of having that pitch accepted.

And sometimes I'll get the review - feel proud that I'm going to get some non-generic, non-rock piece of interesting music under these readers' noses - and then the review isn't printed because suddenly there isn't enough space due to extra advertising coming in at the last minute, or something. And it's always going to be the 'unsafe' review that bites the dust.

And then I look at the pictures of all the artists on the cover-mount CDs of these magazines and always notice the lack of black faces (unless it's old blues, black faces.) Obviously it's not racism, so what is it then? Is it a kind of lazy, misinformed acceptance that all hip-hop and R&B is intrinsically the same generic product that these magazines are convinced their readers have no interest in? Yet, Miss Elliot for example, has made some of the most exciting pop music (yes, pop music) in the last ten years.

So perhaps it's simply that white rock fans always take at least a decade to realise that they also like other forms of popular music that they simply don't have the ability or will to assimilate at the time, as Adam suggests with his mention of Toots and the Maytals. Except that Adam thought this phenomena was now a thing of the past: I think it's still very much with us.

The rock music fan is essentially the new trad jazz fan - he (for it is mostly he) doesn't want anything to rock his rock boat. He's got a few blues, reggae and Motown compilations, because the passage of time has somehow proven their worth, and his ears have adapted to the offbeats of reggae and the brassy upfrontness of Motown. But anything new coming from African Americans he'll need time to get used to. Or he'll wait to see if the likes of Andy Gill thinks Beyonce or Rihanna have enough credibility for him to grant them a listen.

So what do these cover-mount CDs feature month after month? Well, as far as I have observed, they either seem to contain contemporary rock artists doing inferior covers of deified rock artists of old, the old blues or soul records that these same deified rock artist of old were influenced by, or a bunch of new singer-songwritery types doing sensitive pop-rock in a way that will never upset the neighbours and sounds vaguely like the music that was made by deified rock artists of old.

I suppose, to be fair, I should add that world music gets covered a bit by these publications. But hip-hop, R&B or some of the excellent African American pop which is essentially the contemporary equivalent to Stax and Motown? Not as far as I'm aware from a casual flick-through at WH Smiths.

[Charlie]

But hip-hop, R&B or some of the excellent African American pop which is essentially the contemporary equivalent to Stax and Motown? Not as far as I'm aware from a casual flick-through at WH Smiths.

The most recent Observer Music Monthly included a report by Luke Bainbridge on Detroit today (ie since Berry Gordy moved Motown out of the city, to LA) which was mainly based on a long interview/encounter with Smokey Robinson in which Smokey told most of the same stories he has told many times before. But one phrase jumped out. He said that when Berry Gordy was setting his sights for his new Motown company in the late 1950s, he wanted to do something beyond pop music, he wanted to make world music. It wasn't used in the same sense that we now use the phrase, but the outcome has been that in the US today, pop music and R&B music are more or less synonymous. The latest Kanye West album is full of melodies, with hardly any hip hop posturing. My impression is that the visual presentation of pop music today includes far more black faces than at any time in the past.

[matt m]

Actually, as a 30something, I'm most often struck by how conservative most of the music made by young people is. Thousands of wannabe James Blunts, Damien Rices, Didos etc etc For me, the fact that the NME write about bands such as Razorlight with anything other than ridicule is baffling, when it was the NME (and John Peel) that turned me onto things like Public Enemy, My Bloody Valentine and Extreme Noise Terror when I was growing up.

Or maybe it's simply that it's easier to get music out (myspace et al), so perhaps it's more that I'm just hearing music that would never have made it out of the bedroom 10 years ago.

all the contemporary music that I like comes from scenes and sub-cultures: grime, the noise/experimental music scene, dubstep, techno and some folk stuff. There's been nothing anywhere near the charts that I've been interested in for years. I can't remember the last time I heard good music that had any commercial success, or which was anything near registering with mainstream tastes. Hip-hop being the sole exception. [/i]

[matt m]

The latest Kanye West album is full of melodies, with hardly any hip hop posturing.

I like hip-hop posturing, and what I've heard of West's newie sounds like Cher's early 1990s disco hits.

[howard male]

Charlie wrote -

My impression is that the visual presentation of pop music today includes far more black faces than at any time in the past.

Absolutely. But is that reflected in the pages of Uncut, The Word, Q, or Mojo? Not as far as I can see.

It seems to me that things are no different from the 1970's when you rarely saw soul acts in any of the weekly music papers. How can we still be in this position?

[Hugh Weldon]

Adam wrote:

I couldn't buy "Theme From Shaft" by Isaac Hayes

I not only could, but I did. I distinctly remember asking my mum to order it for me when she passed the record shop, because although it had been played on the radio, it hadn't actually been released yet.

The previous week I'd probably been enjoying a Lindisfarne LP.

I never felt music was about the need to conform to social groupings (though maybe I kept certain records out of the way of certain people ) It was my personal thing and often something I didn't particularly need or want to share with anyone. The radio influenced my tastes as much as anything else. Peel was the one who made it ok to like a range of stuff.

Maybe I was unusual in this? But I don't think the absence of musical tribalism is really the big difference these days, just the absence of a living shared vital pop music culture. (In the same way almost as a shared TV experience has disappeared). I think it's very difficult for younger people to understand how we experienced our aural landscape back then.

[howard male]

Adam wrote -

I couldn't buy "Theme From Shaft" by Isaac Hayes

I made do with the Music For Pleasure, Hot Hits version. It wasn't bad, you know.

At least with those 75p compilations, session musicians were kept in steady employment.