Lootsteen figures (and so do I) that it is people around age fifty who see this most clearly. We are the ones who grew up with world superstars like Elvis, The Beatles, Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, U2, and several other immensely popular, successful, and most importantly, inspirational artists.
Important musicians of that era have lost a lot of their relevance today, often due to mortality and the decades of separation from their peak... and in many cases, the over-saturation on "classic rock radio". What's new and shiny will obviously grab the attention of younger music fans, who could be up to thirty or more years old!
As artists like Lemmy, Bowie, Chris Squire, and Glenn Frey shuffle off this mortal coil, we lose a bit more of a connection to that era. Sure, their music lives on, but again, their relevance diminishes as the glut of new "big shiny tunes" overpower our senses, and some of us (not me) forget their importance.
Dep Leppard's pure sugar of the mid-80's was glossy and
successful, but not nearly as fun and fiery as their earlier work
Lootsteen laments that there are few, if any, music artists today who really inspire us, make us think and feel something, and make a lasting difference in the world. Okay, I'll admit I'm not exactly on top of things in the scene like I used to be.... I mean, from my teens into my 30's or so, I sought out music and music world news on a weekly basis. Not any more. If I hear about something new from Kanye or Stone Roses (neither of whom I care about), it's accidental.... in the daily news or on a random entertainment site.
But today, can I even name a hugely popular artist whose name is on everyone's lips and who has something truly creative and inspiratonal to say? I mean, Bieber isn't even known for his music any more, just his wacky personal life shenanigans. Beyonce, Rihanna.... lots of money there, but are they good for anything besides the dance clubs? As Larry Lootsteen points out in his article, "pop (music) rarely grabs you by the jugular". I completely agree.
Pop has traditionally been - with exceptions, of course, formulaic, same-sounding (same producers and songwriters handling so many of the artists), and geared toward high sales numbers. And as the album format becomes less and less important to consumers of pop, the focus, right from the start, is on hit singles... repeat, singles. Because most fans of pop want to simply download their fave song by so-and-so onto their phone, and that's the extent of it. And once they're tired of that song, it's either bumped down their playlist or simply deleted. It's disposable.
I grew up during the 70's, hearing the tale end of Monkees and Beatles fandom, but also saw artists like Van Halen, Fleetwood Mac, Queen, and Journey rise to prominence on the world stage. Album-oriented bands, record producers, and radio stations thrived in this heyday of the long-play record. The 80's was probably the last decade where I remember a variety of stars who made a big impact on the planet, inspiring young musicians and fans alike. Prince was among them, as were Madonna, Michael Jackson, U2, and Springsteen. Heavy rock was a force to be reckoned with, too. We had Def Leppard at their peak, Metallica rising fast, Guns'n'Roses tearing it up, and Rush and Yes leading prog-rock out of the 70's and into the punchier and radio-hits-oriented 80's.
Talkin' 'bout my generation....
I tell you, Metallica and Guns'n'Roses grabbed me "by the jugular" with more than a few of their songs. And it's not entirely a matter of playing heavy or not. It's the spirit and soul and guts of the songwriter(s), the singer and the instrumentalists. U2 music from the 80's continues to move me, and early G'n'R still gets me all charged up.
The album format allowed the listener to become more invested in his or her purchase, appreciating the radio hits, but then moving past those into the "deep cuts", where one can read more into the artist's thoughts and feelings. An album is (or was) like a book or meal to be savoured and appreciated, whereas a single is usually little more than a quick fix until the next one comes along. There is rarely a glimpse into the artist's mind, heart, and soul in a three or four minute song.
Sometimes a big talent can achieve this on the mere single... I think of Adele, who certainly won the hearts of listeners everywhere with Rolling in the Deep. Then again, her albums have been described as emotional journeys, stories that flow from song to song. I'm not enough of a fan to have heard a full Adele album, but I can believe those opinions based on the depth of the individual songs that I have heard. Rolling in the Deep and Skyfall are two that I know well and consider among the best of the last decade or two.
I am also fond of First Aid Kit, a sort of pop-folk duo. The first song I heard by them - a stunner - was a cover of America, originally by Simon and Garfunkel. Okay, so an old classic hooked me in there, but then FAK showed me what they were capable of, and that was Emmylou, a beautiful and touching song that transcended country music cliches as it spoke to the genre very intimately.
70's Rush music inspired me to pick up a guitar, to practise
daily, to be creative in all aspects of life, and most importantly,
to be an individual
Now and then I check out some younger artists out there just to see what all the fuss is about. I am nearly always unimpressed. As writer Lootsteen indicated, I feel songwriters today don't grasp what made songs of the "past" great and memorable. Will there ever be another Dark Side of the Moon or Thriller? Albums that stood the test of time in so many ways.
Rock music, often at its best, used to be fired by anger... anger at parents, authority, the world. I immediately think of The Who. Guns'n'Roses. Or Dead Kennedys. And speaking of the Kennedys, punk rock was, if not the most musically fulfilling, a fiery statement of defiance against everything that was wrong with the world. Rap/hip-hop also used to provide political and social commentary, and it was the anger and frustration that fed those artists' inventive and creative processes. What passes for rock, punk, and rap today is pretty weak-kneed in comparison. These musical styles, too, have become rather disposable. Not very inspirational and rarely memorable.
I still buy CDs on occasion, but I hear little new stuff that really grabs me and compels me to pick up an album. So much new music out there, but where are the true winners, stuff that'll get me pumped, will hit me where I feel it? Feel angry, elated, sad, whatever. Make me feel something. Skrillex and Ed Sheeran, even as polar opposites, lack that special something. Yeah, Skrillex will appeal to the electro fans who just want a psychotically noisy backdrop for their cool parties. But any lasting impact on the EDM scene or anything beyond that? And Ed Sheeran may make teen girls swoon to his warm and fuzzy tunes, but where's the passion and inventiveness?
So... back to Mr. Lootsteen's question: "(Are these) transitional times or the end of an era?"
The answer is a toughie. Is this a period of flux, in which a lot of average and weak (and some bad) music must occur - and maybe die, in order for something more interesting to rise from the ashes? Or are we doomed to a future of Beyonce and Kanye clones, their uninspired toons force-fed to us via internet radio and TV and web ads? Is that the best we'll get?
Thankfully, if you are devoted enough to music you love, you can dig deep into your chosen genres and find the undiscovered gems, old and new. That's sort of the route I'm going with, dabbling in a bit of the new, but mostly searching out music of decades past that I've yet to experience. Because music is about experience, not just insipid wallpaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment