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

51–60 of 242 posts

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

#51

Post by TomSwirly »

stuart78 wrote: post #41

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…

To compare this to the 1950s is... very strange. For listeners, the broadening of access to the full diversity of music between 1950 and 1990 was unprecedented in history and will never happen again, simply due to the rise of technology, and the sudden access to all the traditions of the world within a single generation.

> Lil Nas X and The Weeknd, neither of whom fits comfortably in the genre they are assigned to by the RIAA.

For me, this is generic and formulaic music that could have come out any time in the last thirty years (except for the ubiquitous "autotune/overcompress" sound I suppose).

"Not fitting comfortable into a genre" is so bland a compliment!

But I agree with this - all the action is in Bandcamp and similar.

-----

A composer named Steve Reich wrote several pieces of tape music (processed tape recordings) back in the 70s that were a huge hit (in avant circles), but then he went to study in Ghana and decided that this was a mistake. He felt that the purpose of music was for humans to play and sing together as a group activity, and that pre-recorded music did not fulfill this very deep human need.

I was skeptical when I first read this, but time has proven him entirely right.

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

#52

Post by cainxinth »

What's interesting to me about the music scene of today is how closely it now hews to a "long tail" model. The publishers have so much data about what streams, so the most popular stuff has become incredibly homogenous (not that pop music wasn't always in a pretty narrow groove). But at the same time, thanks to the proliferation of music production tools and channels to share it on, the long tail is filled with diverse and interesting stuff from every conceivable genre.

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

#53

Post by j4yav »

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 have been a DJ for about 25 years, playing in the US and Europe so I can at least talk about how the terms are used in those places. EDM used to mean something close to “electronic music”, but as of about 10 years ago or so it has come to mean a quite specific subgenre.

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

#54

Post by j4yav »

ehnto wrote: post #31
jorvi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, no? At least in Europe, EDM is a specific set of big club / festival House that's all about big bombastic bass drops. If one of my Techno buddies says with disdain 'all they were playing at that place was EDM' I know exactly what he means, and it isn't techno

I have always used it as an umbrella term too. Maybe it's a distinction you and your friends have because of the scene you're in?

Could be age too. That use of EDM is in my experience a 90s/00s thing.

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

#55

Post by ehnto »

j4yav wrote: post #53
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 have been a DJ for about 25 years, playing in the US and Europe so I can at least talk about how the terms are used in those places. EDM used to mean something close to “electronic music”, but as of about 10 years ago or so it has come to mean a quite specific subgenre.

Hm fair enough, I am probably just out of touch then, which makes sense. I used to DJ back in the late 2000s, 2010s, so that's where my perspective comes from. I never played dubstep, but the commercial uprising of dubstep was about when I stopped playing along.

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

#56

Post by gonehome »

stuart78 wrote: post #41

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…

One hypothesis for why genres matter less is musical abundance and identity as a result of that.

I think when you had to buy a record or CD people would consider themselves a “punk rock” person or whatever for any genre and they’d tend to buy and listen to/show their friends that music.

With streaming services, and easy access to wide variety there’s not much need for this kind of thing so tastes blend more on the consumption side. They then start to blend more on the creation side too.

One thing I’ve noticed is that music has gone from an activity (listen to this record I got) to entirely personal and mostly ambient.

Maybe that’s a factor of my age, but I think it’s mostly related to higher stimulus activities now available on the internet.

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

#57

Post by moomin »

stuart78 wrote: post #41

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…

The "Old Town Road" Billboard kerfuffle was a great demonstration of the thesis of the piece: that the hard categorisations of music are racially driven.

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

#58

Post by ramphastidae »

bsenftner wrote: post #24
wayneftw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hip hip is the philosophy of survival in a racist culture. It dies when the racism dies.

Oh come off it. Little to no mainstream hip hop addresses racism in any meaningful way. It’s still mostly sex, drugs, objectifying women, glorifying the rich, and violence.

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

#59

Post by dangerbird2 »

moomin wrote: post #57
stuart78 wrote: post #41

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…

The "Old Town Road" Billboard kerfuffle was a great demonstration of the thesis of the piece: that the hard categorisations of music are racially driven.

Yep. If you listen to "hillbilly music" and "blues" from the 20s and 30s, or "rock" and "r&b" from the 50s or 60s, they are musically indistinguishable. The difference almost always solely lies in the race of the musicians or the target audience

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

#60

Post by svantana »

TomSwirly wrote: post #51
stuart78 wrote: post #41

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…

To compare this to the 1950s is... very strange. For listeners, the broadening of access to the full diversity of music between 1950 and 1990 was unprecedented in history and will never happen again, simply due to the rise of technology, and the sudden access to all the traditions of the world within a single generation. > Lil Nas X and The Weeknd, neither of whom fits comfortably in the genre they are assigned to by…

Interesting, I didn't know that about Reich. Another leftfield hitmaker, Bill Drummond of the KLF, came to a similar conclusion, which prompted him to start a series of collaborative live music projects ("the 17" maybe the most well-known)
Post reply on HN