The golden age of (contemporary) music is over - and that's OK.

EricTheWeary

We had a Discussion on classic albums on here the other day. Pretty much anything described as such was made before 2000, the classic albums of hip hop from the late 80s and early 90s.Grunge gave us the last classic albums with guitars. 

However ,I think that probably just indicates two things:
- the era of the album as an important artefact was probably over by the start of the 21st century.
- the idea of a music lead cultural movement ( mods, rockers, punks, goths,etc) didn't make it past the millennium either. Young people don't relate to music tribes as much as they once did ( of course plenty of people didn't anyway).

As for the music whatever we are in the middle of we can't judge as golden or not, that takes a passage of time. As others have said plenty of largely forgotten recordings from the past.

Sporky

EricTheWeary said:

We had a Discussion on classic albums on here the other day. Pretty much anything described as such was made before 2000, the classic albums of hip hop from the late 80s and early 90s.Grunge gave us the last classic albums with guitars.

And if you'd asked ten years ago, pretty much anything described as "classic" would have come from before 1990.

How many of the classic dubstep, chipcore or post-rock albums were made before 2000?

lloyd

I agree to an extent, I'm 35 so don't remember or have any real experience of pre 1988 really.

Thing is great GUITAR music will continue to be made and people will look back at it like a great era, for me The Strokes Is This It, and the first few KOL albums will be looked back on as juggernaughts of my time, there will be a few others for sure, Arctic Monkeys perhaps.

You miss out the 90's too, which had some massive iconic bands, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Oasis etc, Nirvana especially defined a generation.

The thing is is that there will never be an era that's been mystified as much as the 60's because it was the first generation to document an entire youth movement in print, video and record, throw in the drugs, hippies (which is a pretty unique movement IMO) post war stuff and a million other things, but you'll never have another Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, The Who etc, these guys are worshipped and revered in a way that I don't think any other bands are.

Contemporary music these days has little to do with guitar, but there are people out there knocking out great tunes, whether we like them or the way they're written (a million songwriters) or not.

Calvin Harris, Taylor Swift, Drake, even fucking Bieber's new album has some good songs/moments on it, not my kind of music at all, but I'd hesitate to call it all "shit" because some of its extremely well put together.

lloyd

Also there's a shit load more to do these days and more music than ever to choose from, I used to literally sit in my or a mates room and listen to cassettes back to front and play guitar, we had 4 channels, one tv in te house and that was it.

My nieces and nephews childhood/teenage years (and it's them that define a genre really) are as different to mine in terms of entertainment available as mine was to some of you on here that are In your 40's/50's.

mellowsun

More music is becoming more automated. In the not too distant future, no real musicians will be required for the majority of popular/chart music. The next Adele may well be a bot.

Music is free , ubiquitous and commoditised to a greater degree than ever before.

but there is still good stuff being created. Thanks to Acoustic magazine I discovered Frank Turner recently. I realise now he's been around for ages but I'd not come across his music before. 

TTony

Sporky said:

EricTheWeary said:

We had a Discussion on classic albums on here the other day. Pretty much anything described as such was made before 2000, the classic albums of hip hop from the late 80s and early 90s.Grunge gave us the last classic albums with guitars.

And if you'd asked ten years ago, pretty much anything described as "classic" would have come from before 1990.

How many of the classic dubstep, chipcore or post-rock albums were made before 2000?

lloyd said:

I agree to an extent, I'm 35 so don't remember or have any real experience of pre 1988 really.

Thing is great GUITAR music will continue to be made and people will look back at it like a great era, for me The Strokes Is This It, and the first few KOL albums will be looked back on as juggernaughts of my time, there will be a few others for sure, Arctic Monkeys perhaps.

There are probably 2 main factors that are determining whether something is good/classic or not.

Firstly it's the passage of time.  Something may be popular today, but can be incredibly unpopular in a year or two's time.  That doesn't mean that it's necessarily good or bad, just that it was aurally/culturally fashionable today and unfashionable a year or two later.  But it does mean that it's probably not a "classic" because it hasn't stood the test of time.

Secondly it the age of the listener.  I'd claim and argue to the death (that might be a slight exaggeration) that particularly albums are "classic".  But my argument will be based on where I was in my life at the time they were released or I first heard them.  There are probably a dozen 76-78 era punk albums that I'd argue were classics because "I was there" and they are the soundtrack to very strong memories of a key time in my life.  But to anyone born after 1980, they're largely irrelevant.

On the first factor we usually achieve some sort of general consensus.

On the second, it's all down to who you were, and when you were.

guitarfishbay

There was an 18 year old girl that auditioned for my band ages ago and she'd never heard of Limp Bizkit. That's when I realised music was dead.

TTony

lloyd said:

I used to literally sit in my or a mates room and listen to cassettes back to front and play guitar, we had 4 channels, one tv in te house and that was it.

My main sources of new music were the John Peel show - on MW - from 10pm-midnight, literally under the bed covers with the lights out, and my mate's house when his older brother came back from Uni with his latest LPs, which we had to sneak a listen to when he went out 'cos he didn't want us kids messing with his vinyl.

Both of those were really concentrated listening experiences.  You weren't doing anything else (even under the bed covers with the lights out) because you were actively listening to whatever was being played.

Bucket

RocknRollDave said:

Once the Stone Roses blew up huge, the NME were verrrry quiet about the lukewarm review they gave the debut album when it first came out.

But since when have the NME ever been worth listening to?

JezWynd

JezWynd said:

The era of music defining fashion, culture and wider society may be done.

Actually that's bollocks.

Winny_Pooh

guitarfishbay said:

There was an 18 year old girl that auditioned for my band ages ago and she'd never heard of Limp Bizkit. 

Good

lloyd

TTony said:

Sporky said:

EricTheWeary said:

We had a Discussion on classic albums on here the other day. Pretty much anything described as such was made before 2000, the classic albums of hip hop from the late 80s and early 90s.Grunge gave us the last classic albums with guitars.

And if you'd asked ten years ago, pretty much anything described as "classic" would have come from before 1990.

How many of the classic dubstep, chipcore or post-rock albums were made before 2000?

lloyd said:

I agree to an extent, I'm 35 so don't remember or have any real experience of pre 1988 really.

Thing is great GUITAR music will continue to be made and people will look back at it like a great era, for me The Strokes Is This It, and the first few KOL albums will be looked back on as juggernaughts of my time, there will be a few others for sure, Arctic Monkeys perhaps.

There are probably 2 main factors that are determining whether something is good/classic or not.

Secondly it the age of the listener.  I'd claim and argue to the death (that might be a slight exaggeration) that particularly albums are "classic".  But my argument will be based on where I was in my life at the time they were released or I first heard them.  There are probably a dozen 76-78 era punk albums that I'd argue were classics because "I was there" and they are the soundtrack to very strong memories of a key time in my life.  But to anyone born after 1980, they're largely irrelevant.

On the first factor we usually achieve some sort of general consensus.

On the second, it's all down to who you were, and when you were.

I'm not so sure I agree, The Rolling Stones are in my top 5 bands, they were  in their 40's (and not producing quality music IMO) when I was born, Exile, Sticky Fingers and Banquet are undeniable classics, to me and anyone who doesn't like the content
in fairness.

My parents aren't big music fans and aren't Rolling Stones fans in any way, which negates me listening to them growing up, so I discovered them kind of by myself in my early 20's.

Same goes for the Smiths, I've no one older who introduced them to me and no generational link to them.

I agree that it probably helps, but it's not something that's needed.

Youd have to be a knobhead to deny Nevermind the Bollocks as a classic, whether you like it, are 81 or 21 for instance.

ThePrettyDamned

I do wonder at the longevity of current music - although some Slipknot stuff has aged well (relatively - it's not that old), dark side of the moon still sounds as contemporary as it ever did. It's timeless, seemingly. Which is ironic. 

Will people listen to Trivium in thirty years time? Will Bieber still be relevant? 

Is Scooter ever going to be fondly remembered? 

lloyd

TTony said:

lloyd said:

I used to literally sit in my or a mates room and listen to cassettes back to front and play guitar, we had 4 channels, one tv in te house and that was it.

My main sources of new music were the John Peel show - on MW - from 10pm-midnight, literally under the bed covers with the lights out, and my mate's house when his older brother came back from Uni with his latest LPs, which we had to sneak a listen to when he went out 'cos he didn't want us kids messing with his vinyl.

Both of those were really concentrated listening experiences.  You weren't doing anything else (even under the bed covers with the lights out) because you were actively listening to whatever was being played.

Yeah there was the Peel show, and the odd other-Sunday night rock show was on Radio 1, which was pretty shit if I remember but you had very few intros to alternative music in those days.

Dropping £15 on a cd or tape only to find you didn't really like it was par for the course, then registering to it 6 months later and getting into it....great days.

UnclePsychosis

Next time someone starts a thread about Guitarist magazine and why do they only cover 60 year old blooz guys the response should just be a link to the OP.

Moltisanti

actually the OP is only 38, and stopped buying Guitarist a long time ago as print media is also dead

lloyd

ThePrettyDamned said:

I do wonder at the longevity of current music - although some Slipknot stuff has aged well (relatively - it's not that old), dark side of the moon still sounds as contemporary as it ever did. It's timeless, seemingly. Which is ironic. 

Will people listen to Trivium in thirty years time? Will Bieber still be relevant? 

Is Scooter ever going to be fondly remembered? 

Yes, no and no (apart from a select few I'm sure).

There's top quality music from any era and any genre that people will look back on and recognise as such.

Bieber will Probabaly be remembered as a talented young kid that behaved like a bit of a gobshite because too much too young, he'll have a few tunes under his belt that people will appreciate as decent dance/RnB tunes. "Sorry" is what's known as a banger in the contemporary parlance and packs the dance floors in the knobhead bars in Manchester (and around the world I assume).

Bucket

Winny_Pooh said:

guitarfishbay said:

There was an 18 year old girl that auditioned for my band ages ago and she'd never heard of Limp Bizkit. 

Good

Nah, Limp Bizkit are great - this isn't even the booze talking.

Fantastic guitarist, drummer AND bassist. I don't like Fred Durst but listen to how good they sound without him.



Really interesting guitar part, the bass part is awesome and the drummer grooves like a bastard. Great band spoiled by a shit vocalist.

ThePrettyDamned

Bucket said:

Winny_Pooh said:

guitarfishbay said:

There was an 18 year old girl that auditioned for my band ages ago and she'd never heard of Limp Bizkit. 

Good

Nah, Limp Bizkit are great - this isn't even the booze talking.

Fantastic guitarist, drummer AND bassist. I don't like Fred Durst but listen to how good they sound without him.



Really interesting guitar part, the bass part is awesome and the drummer grooves like a bastard. Great band spoiled by a shit vocalist.

Chocolate starfish was a freaking great album. I don't even know how he plays most of the heavy guitar riffs - like a bendy, slimy sludge monster. 

God, they were huge when I was a kid. My g-g-generation! 

Winny_Pooh

@bucket, you've totally changed my mind about them.



Nope


The Beastie Boys had a great drummer, guitarist and bassist but time will remember them more fondly. Try playing Chocolate starfish vs the in sounds from way out when you next have some musicians over and please post the reaction back here. LB's best work is easily eclipsed by dozens of 90's cult albums.