Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 242 posts

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#41

Post by stuart78 »

I think that the narrative of last twenty years has been a re-blending of genre in a way that is not fully appreciated. While you can certainly find plenty of music that fits the mold established in the 60s, 80s or 90s around you also find much more at the top of the charts that challenges those categories. Right now the top 10 Billboard chart includes Lil Nas X and The Weeknd, neither of whom fits comfortably in the genre they are assigned to by the RIAA.

And if you look at what is happening on Bandcamp or Soundcloud or YouTube or wherever else young people are trying new things you see a tremendous heterogeneity of inspiration and not a lot of concern for where the sound fits in.

The parallel trend of course is the power migration from labels and producers to artists, and these are intrinsically related. The artist wants to experiment and find their own path, the label is always trying to replicate success (to radically oversimplify on both counts). Labels have a role to play in supporting artists, but the power dynamic is different when the artist brings the audience they've been building independently for years.

The direct connection between artist and audience shows how much more open to new ideas we can all be. It is the same receptivity that powered the integration Dylan describes taking place in the 1950s, and I think its great.

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#42

Post by antihero »

llamataboot wrote: post #3

I often reflect on the similiarities to that and how techno and house became EDM. When I started going to Midwestern raves in the 1990s they were literally some of the first fully integrated places I hung out in. Definitely some of the Detroit techno parties we went too, some of the first places where it was a majority Black space. EDM now is thought of as this totally white music, all electronic music really, by eve…

You know, techno parties (and illegal raves) like the ones you talk about are still happening, especially here in Europe.

EDM is pure garbage and rife with narcissism.

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#43

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

criddell wrote: post #32
sjg007 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classical music is 300+ years old. I also love Opera as do my parents and grandparents. I think it is more about what gets played on the radio. The music is good and new. That tricks our brain into pursuing it. Eventually each genre finds its own classics that basically capture most of the attention.

Do you think radio still matters?

For people who drive, yes. It does to me at least.

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#44

Post by tomgp »

wayneftw wrote: post #21
bumbada wrote: post #20

What killed rock n roll is the same thing that "killed" every other music genre before: Demographics. People get older and young people want to differentiate themselves from older people, so they just do different things, including listening to different music. This even happened with what we consider classical music, from Beethoven Eroica to Stravinski Rite of Spring and specially Operas. Old people will consider a…

Why hasn't rap died? It's been popular for multiple generations now.

Let's say hiphop started in 1980 so it's abouyt 41 years old. That's the begining of the 90's for rock music (if we consider it's origins to be the early 50's, though of course none of these dates represent hard boundaries) which feel about right. Hiphop and it's ofspring are the dominant forms of popular music but the tide of creative progress has perhaps slowed somewhat since the peak. Maybe. I don't necessarily believe this because the technological/ cultural landscape for music is so different from the late 20th century that making these broad comparisons doesn't really make sense. I guess my point is that 40ish years isn't that old for a musical genre to still be hanging around.

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#45

Post by ilamont »

Popular music has been on a fast-track evolutionary cycle since the invention of the radio and LP. Other factors have contributed, from the music press to cable television to more disposable household income in the United States after WWII. The idea that popular youth music would stay locked into the modes of mid-1950s America while culture and society shifted, millions of new teenage humans entered the scene every year, musicians absorbed new influences, and musical trends crossed borders and linguistic barriers -- and sometimes came back -- seems like a stretch.

But one thing that is not a stretch is what might be called Payola 2.0, after the 1.0 scandal described in the article died down. Record companies couldn't give outright cash payments to DJs, but there were many other ways of exerting influence on influential media gatekeepers. In my opinion, this is where the suits really were really able to promote biases and sideline non-mainstream musical trends.

Some of the influence was obvious. Picking artists that had the "right" look. Promoting "safe" artists. Selective access and backroom benefits for powerful DJs and music journalists and other influencers. Ignoring, sidelining, or co-opting trends bubbling up from the underground, from proto-metal in the late 60s to punk in the 70s to rap in the 80s.

And then there are the charts, which were segmented according to race and other factors aligned with the needs of the music "industry." Did you know that until the early 90s music charts in the United States were based on a sample of self-reported sales from record store managers? Can you imagine the bias and BS that went on with those numbers? As soon as soundscan was implemented, there was an immediate realignment, with rap and grunge and techno and country storming the pop charts. (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/22/arts/billboard-s-new-char...)

Since then, the digital transformations have resulted in an interesting fragmentation of pop music and youth tastes ... but with the music industry literally controlling major streaming platforms, we're shifting into Payola 3.0, and with whatever algorithmically dictated patterns that will entail.

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#46

Post by drewcoo »

sjg007 wrote: post #25
bumbada wrote: post #20

What killed rock n roll is the same thing that "killed" every other music genre before: Demographics. People get older and young people want to differentiate themselves from older people, so they just do different things, including listening to different music. This even happened with what we consider classical music, from Beethoven Eroica to Stravinski Rite of Spring and specially Operas. Old people will consider a…

Classical music is 300+ years old. I also love Opera as do my parents and grandparents. I think it is more about what gets played on the radio. The music is good and new. That tricks our brain into pursuing it. Eventually each genre finds its own classics that basically capture most of the attention.

Is the classical you all listen to all "top 40" "oldies" from folks like Bach and Beethoven or do you listen to anything reasonably new? I'm talking 20th or 21st century classical. Say John Adams or Kaija Saariaho, maybe?

That's the classical music that I enjoy that my mom can't stand. And that is the difference this is talking about.

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#47

Post by WJW »

mycologos wrote: post #19
WJW wrote: post #16

It's just https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths all over again. As old as the world.

I like that theory, but TFA doesn't really advance it. Among other things, TFA argues that commercially powerful interests like record companies deliberately fractured rock and roll's racial integration into segregated genres. I don't think "geeks, mops, sociopaths" covers this kind of intentional, external crackdown on a subculture.

The way I read the article, the actual "crackdown" was motivated more by financial than racial reasons by the record companies. The racial segregation was just collateral damage from that process. Doesn't that fit super neatly in the "sociapaths extracting value from a subculture at the cost of internal coherence" part of the theory?

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#48

Post by crucialfelix »

ehnto wrote: post #29
bitwize wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDM is its own separate thing now, it basically means "radio pop with a four-on-the-floor beat and synths".

I don't agree at all with that outlook, unless I missed a beat EDM has encompassed everything from House to Trance, Jungle to Breaks, even IDM, acid and techno, and the dozens of genres in between. I see in another comment they mention that's how their friends understand it, so maybe it's a regional thing.

I also regard the term EDM as a specific scene. It absolutely does not encompass the previous 40 years of club culture.

Re: Bob Dylan lays down what killed rock n roll (2016)

#50

Post by ehnto »

crucialfelix wrote: post #48
ehnto wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree at all with that outlook, unless I missed a beat EDM has encompassed everything from House to Trance, Jungle to Breaks, even IDM, acid and techno, and the dozens of genres in between. I see in another comment they mention that's how their friends understand it, so maybe it's a regional thing.

I also regard the term EDM as a specific scene. It absolutely does not encompass the previous 40 years of club culture.

That isn't the implication. I wouldn't even say EDM represents any particular club culture at all, just a shorthand for electronic music in general. If I wanted to refer to a club scene or genre I would use it's actual name and for me at least none of them are called EDM.

It's not surprising to me that there are different interpretations of the term and I am not particularly worried about that. It's all muddied up across the globe, across time and across the internet, music is as colloquial as it is worldwide.

There are so many genre placement disagreements all across music, slotting everything into discrete groupings is only useful in a shallow and practical way, not a meaningful one.

Post reply on HN