Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: Actually, more than you might think. Pop and rock were obviously going through major transitions but some of the cross-cultural musical pollination you were talking about was already happening back then. Of course, as a Beatles fan, you'd be aware of that.

Anyway, rock and pop were exploding but jazz was also big in the '60s. Electronic music and musical movements like minimalism were in their infancy but by the end of that decade, the groundwork for electronic music in the 70s had been laid. Folk music was huge. Funk was being born and then there are the musical genres you mentioned above. I think the music scene was at least as diverse as it is now, if not even more diverse.

Yeah, I was going to make the comparison that the explorations of the 60s bred a crazy laboratory known as the 70s, and a very similar thing happened with the 90s into the 00s, which I think is very much like the 70s in that there's tons of stuff going on. But you're right about the 70s...dub was invented, reggae, disco, funk..rock was everywhere, hip-hop and electronica were just starting to take seed.... I feel like now is very much like that, but even further splintered.

BGM, the albums and bands I listed in my post before this one would be good ones to check out if you have doubts as to the accuracy of what I'm saying. If you haven't heard them, you should go investigate.

But bubbling just beneath the surface is a soapy mix of every type of music that has ever been played, arranged in perpetually unique ways so that we'll never run out of possibilities.

All I hear is more techno-pop. But instead of straight techno they just jumble it all together...Arcade Fire is whiney voiced teen angst music, with "heavy" lyrics, too bad they're coming from a nasaly "I hate my life" singer who would be goth, if goth wasn't dead. They mix in all the different sounds, but that doesn't mean, to me, that it's better because of it. It sounds chaotic, it reminds me of abstract art, and maybe if I was on some type of hallucinogenic I might get it. But as it stands I'll just have to clump it into the category of music that won't make it out of the decade.

Colinito wrote: but my dislike for the hair-band rock is purely aesthetic, and it is one of the only types of music (along with Tejano) that I simply completely dislike.
.

I love some good Tejano music. Are you familiar with Little Joe? He has some great songs. If you can listen to Margarita or Redneck Meskin Boy, I suggest giving those a try.

Yeah, I live in Texas. Now, I hope people don't interpret "Tejano" as "Mexican" music, because there is some great Mexican music. I mean specifically Tejano, that blend of Mexican music and German polka that results in that plodding, dopey bassline and the accordians.

but my dislike for the hair-band rock is purely aesthetic

So you dont like 80's MUSIC because of what they LOOK like?

Nevermind.

VikingMachine wrote: So you dont like 80's MUSIC because of what they LOOK like?

aes·thet·ic or es·thet·ic (ěs-thět'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Relating to the philosophy or theories of aesthetics.
2. Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste: the aesthetic faculties.
3. Characterized by a heightened sensitivity to beauty.
4. Artistic: The play was an aesthetic success.
5. Informal Conforming to accepted notions of good taste.

I was going to add a really funny personal diss right here based on your misunderstanding of the term and your previously stated tastes in music, but I guess I'll be the bigger man.

Colinito wrote: I was going to add a really funny personal diss right here based on your misunderstanding of the term and your previously stated tastes in music, but I guess I'll be the bigger man.

Gee thanks for not adding a really funny personal diss.

Excuse me if I asked a question. In my experience the term aesthetics has been used to describe mostly how something looks but it can be used for other things. I just went with what I was used to, sorry to have asked a question of you trying to understand what exactly you were saying. Dont worry, I am done with you and it wont happen again.

VikingMachine wrote: Gee thanks for not adding a really funny personal diss.

Excuse me if I asked a question. In my experience the term aesthetics has been used to describe mostly how something looks but it can be used for other things. I just went with what I was used to, sorry to have asked a question of you trying to understand what exactly you were saying. Dont worry, I am done with you and it wont happen again.

Word means the same thing to me.

I guess we just don't get it, man.

Colinito wrote:Thanks for talking about why you like the Scorpions, as I did when people criticized bands (SP) and artists (Tupac) that I respect. It is much better and more constructive than crying about it.

Why do you feel you have to use condescending phrases? To express that I don't appreciate the topic being run off the rails is a legitimate statement. It isn't whining or crying.

I believe you don't understand the issue; this was not a thread about what you do or do not like. It was a specific topic that dealt with specific times and specific music.

Your posts were like hijacking a thread about how Star Trek influenced people to embrace science and technology by stating, "I think Star Trek bites; I like LA Law and Cops."

For the record, and I don't blame you for assuming I'm a "grunge" kid based on my age,

I didn't say you were a grunge kid, I said you grew up in the time of grunge. In the 1990's, hair band bashing was the "in" thing. Perhaps none of that influenced you, but it sounds like it did from your arguments.

the Beatles were my favorite band from grade 3 on, by 5th I was rocking out to Jimi, Janis, The Who, Zeppelin, the Moody Blues, etc., and in 8th grade I discovered Bob Dylan, who I spent almost all of high school obsessed with and listening exclusively to, except for a band called the Grateful Dead. My mantra in high school was that "All modern music sucks."

It is a typical counterculture outlook. I didn't like a lot of 1970's music, but there was still much to like.

So really, as far as my musical history is concerned, I'm a 60s kid all the way. It wasn't until college and later that I discovered a bunch of 90s-00s rock and hip-hop.

No, you were not a 60's kid at all. You can appreciate the music, but you did not live in those times. You did not grow up in the 1980's either, so it would be difficult for you to understand a point of reference from that time.

I know that my point of view is different than yours, living in a different era, but I felt I needed to clear that up ... my sensibilities, for most of my life, were acid-tinged and revolutionary.

The difference is that I have lived through your era. I can understand it much better than you could understand the 1980's.

In short, I do not wish to interrupt (or "hi-jack") your nostalgia, but from where I'm standing, I wouldn't trade what we've got going on musically right now for anything. (And that's not even getting started on how awesome technology is now, and what it has done for music.) British culture is still alive here, as evidenced by the Coldplays and The Offices, etc.; it's just not the only thing.

As I stated, your first post was fine. When the bashing began, it was way out of line for this topic. Again, I don't mind talking about music tastes; this just wasn't really the place for that.

Arcade Fire gives me a real Bauhaus-type vibe. Replace the vocals with Peter Murphy and you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, IMO. The female singer is very very Bjork with the Sugarcubes. That doesn't mean I hate it, just that I don't find it all that groundbreaking. But then, that's the problem with revisiting and reinterpreting multiple influences... sometimes it just sounds like a nice re-creation instead of a reinvention.

As for the New Deal, they have that way too cheesy Casio-Moog throwback keyboard sound for my taste. I can't shake the feeling that I heard their sound somewhere before and then it hit me... jazz fusion, early 80s funk, late 70s Zappa. They've added an updated backbeat, but it just sounds too recycled.

Of Montreal was very interesting. I kind of like what they are doing. They wear their influences on their collective sleeve, but they at least are trying to do something new. And they've been around for a while, so they have been honing their particular sound.

Truly, I am not trying to go out of my way to be critical. This is just my opinion and is subject to argument and even change at a moment's notice.

BGM

Nice, glad you checked 'em out! The New Deal isn't in my favorites category, and you may have to see 'em live to truly enjoy them (like my much preferred Disco Biscuits), but Arcade Fire and Of Montreal are two of my favs, so that's definitely a representation of what I'm feeling. Impressed you took the time to listen..