Music over the years....What's your view?

[marcwormjim]

Some of the best things my band when it existed ever played spawned from a cannabis induced dazed state of mind when I was just playing because it was something fun to do zero intentions of ever making money off what I did.

Shame things didn't pan out.

 

[vansinn]

Technical quality, both in terms of tech, compositiut at times on and skills, have gone up a lot in some styles, though sometimes can feel a bit overcooked.
No complains, though, I just miss 80's Big Hair Metal singing arrangement.
And I miss 60's Motown.

Mjusick always changes with time, always enuf to make anyone happy.

 

[7soundz]

^ Hair Metal singing was definitely a cut above some of what we hear today and what was most impressive is that singers sounded the same live and on the record (some at least)..

There are still amazing singers out there today, but going back to the guitar aspect of things, what was impressive to me is how guitarists in the 80s and early 90s used very simple scales and chords to compose some of the most memorable songs. Their rhythm playing was on point and they mostly used standard or Eb tuning which (to me) makes playing "technical" riffs much harder.

As an example, after listening to riffs from bands like Extreme, Blue Murder, Winger (first 2 albums), RATT, Hardline (Double Eclipse album), Dokken, Alias, Danger Danger, Signal, Queensryche, Giant (Dan Huff), and Racer X (bands that were popular and not so popular), you will notice that the creativity was a bit different to the mainstream rock of today.

 

[dantejayg85]

I think it falls somewhere in the middle if we look at it objectively.

I agree with what was said about people today on a technical level being better than a lot of guitar players from the 70s - 90s but a lot of them can't write a catchy song that connects with other people to save their lives. I also think there's something else at play that I don't think was touched on.

Time and place. It's not that I can't connect with music anymore, I recently discovered Fantastic Planet by Failure (somehow i completely missed this band growing up)
And I can't stop listening to it, it immediately grabbed me in a way that that hasn't happened since I was young but that's very rare.

But I think a lot of the reason some of that music seems better from back then is because of it being associated with being young or your friends or better days etc

Someone mentioned going back and listening to their old demos and now recording them, I've been doing the same and have the same feelings - they're naive and simple songs and compared to the level I can write at now are pretty tame but they have an energy or feeling that I struggle to capture now and it was just flowing back then.

Again, I think this has to do with the fact that I was an angry emotional teenager who's girlfriend was either the greatest thing ever or was gone or the songs were about friends and family issues etc now I'm a married dad in my 30s with a 9-5 and a fairly stable happy life - I don't have that teens/twenties angst anymore so it's harder to find places to not only draw inspiration for my own music but also to connect with other people's.

 

[Demiurge]

But I think a lot of the reason some of that music seems better from back then is because of it being associated with being young or your friends or better days etc

I think this is pretty accurate.

Maybe there was no "bygone era" or "good old days" but rather just the way that we arbitrarily assign greater importance to experiences during our development. Maybe we tend to imprint something as its ideal form at our first experience of it and that's why when an artist changes direction (the post-Load Metallica era has lasted much longer than pre-Load but they're still treated like they're on a tangent) or passes-away (recently Bowie, Prince, and Petty- brutal) it's like a TILT on the pinball machine- nothing makes sense anymore.

 

[dantejayg85]

I think this is pretty accurate.

Maybe there was no "bygone era" or "good old days" but rather just the way that we arbitrarily assign greater importance to experiences during our development. Maybe we tend to imprint something as its ideal form at our first experience of it and that's why when an artist changes direction (the post-Load Metallica era has lasted much longer than pre-Load but they're still treated like they're on a tangent) or passes-away (recently Bowie, Prince, and Petty- brutal) it's like a TILT on the pinball machine- nothing makes sense anymore.

Exactly, there's many bands I loved as a child/teenager that I just can't listen to anymore.

For example I loved 311 growing up, I had every album and loved pretty much every song until the don't tread on me album and they started connecting with me less and less until it got to the point that I can't really stand anything they produce anymore.

But to go back to the point of assigning importance, I think that's spot on. Old 311 is tied to memories of learning their songs to teach myself guitar and then teach my brother to play bass and then forming our own band with a friend. It's also tied with friends and trips we took and blasting their albums and so due to nostalgia I can still listen to those songs because they remind me of "the good old days".

If I'm being objective their music has always been kinda cheesy but I give it a pass because it makes me feel good, the new stuff gets judged on a much harsher set of terms because I no longer listen in the same way, there's no ties to friends or events with their new music therefore if I think it sucks I move on. Same goes for many other bands I thought were cool in the 90s/00s linkin park, korn etc

 

[Rational Gaze]

This is going to be very specific to a breed of guitar oriented music as well as its assigned time period, and I'm probably going to ramble, so excuse me if I accidentally reiterate someone else's point:

As far as guitar oriented music goes, so many of the dudes that have come out in the past 5-6 years, since virtuoso Djent prog really sunk its roots, kind of forgot how to write a good song. I think that whole movement really opened up a lot of doors for a lot of very technically gifted guitarists and song writers, that essentially blew their load on the onset, and have kind of meandered since. The oversaturation of consistently mind blowing technicality, glassy atmospherics, and a very specific and easily imitable sound aesthetic kind of wore itself out. Imagine that at the onset of bedroom production, there was a very tiny, very exclusive pool (yes, I am using a water pool metaphor here) that all the stalwarts of this scene deposited their ideas into. Then as the means to make music became more accessible to everyone, and imitation and emulation became inevitable, the pool needed to be expanded. Now the amount of folks contributing their ideas started to grow. That's not to say there is anything wrong with that. I'm happy for anyone that is able to make music. I took advantage of this myself. But for all the Angel Vivaldis, Misha Mansoors, Plinis, Sithu's...etc....there are 20 people to a man that try and do exactly the same thing, with seemingly very little want to write a good, solidly written record with something cohesive throughout. Arguably, one may not always want to look for albums to digest, but that cohesion is what draws people to experience someone's output.

Well, as it stands, the consequence of this meant that this movement grew to such size, that the things that stood out in this once curated environment have become aped and copied, and recopied, and resaturated so much, that we are almost at the dawn of a reset era. So many artists that I looked up to have hit a ceiling so long ago, that now it all kind of sounds indistinguishable from the next. And I think that while some of these guys have an unbelievable gift, few have demonstrated what could set them apart from the pack. Everyone uses the same recording techniques, everyone wants everyone's presets, everyone wants the same gear....it just yields an atmosphere that's frankly stagnant, and uninspiring. Which will also inevitably lead to people intentionally branching out and doing something different. There is nothing more motivating to me than seeing someone use unimpressive equipment but push themselves to new heights by harnessing what they have. I think we are in a place where the copy-cat mentality is king, and few people want to admit that to themselves.

Now this is nothing new, I feel like this happens with every decade of music. It reaches tipping points and has to fall apart and recycle. So it's more or less an observation of what I've seen. On a pure level, I don't dislike a lot of what I hear nowadays. It's fine. It does the job. But it's forgettable and it's content with doing just enough to impress a few people. It feels less like self expression and more of a display act with so much focus on one particular dynamic, that there is no cohesive package, no grander idea.

I'll end this with focusing on one particular guitarist: David Maxim Micic. In all this time, ever since he put out Bilo so long ago, he has continued to completely reinvent himself with each and every thing he has put out. His unapologetic insistence on using his roots as something that informs his playing has really resonated with me. Additionally, saxophone solos, operatic vocals, an uud....he always seems to go out of his way to entertain a sensibility of the mind in the most unexpected and beautiful way. And he takes so much time and patience. I almost forgot about Who Bit the Moon? when it came out, and spinning it recently, I just find so much emotion and power in how he expresses himself. Right now, I few musicians that play so emphatically and convincingly. His mastery of engineering also provides him with a great medium for his art. He is more or less what I want more of in music. That sensibility really does it for me. Not for everybody, but I'm happy with crowning him one of the best ones.

Anyway, sorry for the book.

 

[Keel]

I'm going to start by saying that I'm a young guy, so obviously I am biased. But I mean, obviously the longer a certain style of music or playing is in existence, the less creative it will become. There is just less to create without being called derivative or copying something from somebody. However, imo, guitar music has done nothing but get better as time goes by (the nineties may be an exception, but we did have some guys in the metal scene and instrumental guys like vai and satch, but they were doing shit in the eighties too so idk if that counts). You just have to find the good stuff. Think of how far tapping has gone from Eddie Van Halen to Josh Martin. There would be no Josh Martin if not for Eddie, but does that make Eddie better? Hell no, Josh Martin will blow your nips off every time you watch him play. Theres a lot of talented metal players out now who do groundbreaking shit (marc okubo, patrick soumolay, jordan lockrey and cory arford, Jason richardson, sims cashion, jesse cash, the list goes on) and plenty of instrumental and non metal musicians are bringing some serious heat to the table as well (mario and erik of chon, scottie and tim of polyphia, aaron marshall, tim collins, beau diakowicz, brandon ewing, todd pritch, matteus asato, nick johnston, yvette young, the list goes on). What I'm saying is that even though some stuff might be derivative of older music, that doesn't diminish the degree of excellence of which these kids nowadays are pulling this shit off. Also, everything sounds better nowadays because you don't need a million dollar studio to make professional quality music. You can find 100 prog bands on facebook with less than 1000 likes with A+ sound quality and musicianship on their albums that they made in their bedrooms.

 

[Unleash The Fury]

My thing is though, are any of those players going to be "rock star" status? Or is the rock stardom dying/dead?

I think that while these modern players have an immense amount of skill, perhaps more devoloped than ever able to be attained before, they all seem to be just basically doing live playthroughs while putting on a lackluster entertaining stage performance. Im not saying everyone has to be running around jump-kicking like EVH used to (nor is it easy or even practical to do all the time especially for someone playing at Jason Richardson's level).

Guitar Idols have become almost like a "niche fad" instead of a "global sensation", for lack of a better term. The legendary great guitar players (i need not go down the list) will always be that: legends. On an immeasurable scale. And while today we have new players that may be more technically advanced, theyre already as popular/famous/mainstream as theyre going to get. (Im not saying they need to try to be any of those things)

This thread is supposed to be about music and im just rambling.

As far as music, i believe there will always be something interesting to listen to, and i am very curious to see how it it will sound in the next 10, 20, 30 years

 

[bostjan]

I'm going to start by saying that I'm a young guy, so obviously I am biased. But I mean, obviously the longer a certain style of music or playing is in existence, the less creative it will become. There is just less to create without being called derivative or copying something from somebody. However, imo, guitar music has done nothing but get better as time goes by (the nineties may be an exception, but we did have some guys in the metal scene and instrumental guys like vai and satch, but they were doing shit in the eighties too so idk if that counts). You just have to find the good stuff. Think of how far tapping has gone from Eddie Van Halen to Josh Martin. There would be no Josh Martin if not for Eddie, but does that make Eddie better? Hell no, Josh Martin will blow your nips off every time you watch him play. Theres a lot of talented metal players out now who do groundbreaking shit (marc okubo, patrick soumolay, jordan lockrey and cory arford, Jason richardson, sims cashion, jesse cash, the list goes on) and plenty of instrumental and non metal musicians are bringing some serious heat to the table as well (mario and erik of chon, scottie and tim of polyphia, aaron marshall, tim collins, beau diakowicz, brandon ewing, todd pritch, matteus asato, nick johnston, yvette young, the list goes on). What I'm saying is that even though some stuff might be derivative of older music, that doesn't diminish the degree of excellence of which these kids nowadays are pulling this shit off. Also, everything sounds better nowadays because you don't need a million dollar studio to make professional quality music. You can find 100 prog bands on facebook with less than 1000 likes with A+ sound quality and musicianship on their albums that they made in their bedrooms.

My thing is though, are any of those players going to be "rock star" status? Or is the rock stardom dying/dead?

I think that while these modern players have an immense amount of skill, perhaps more devoloped than ever able to be attained before, they all seem to be just basically doing live playthroughs while putting on a lackluster entertaining stage performance. Im not saying everyone has to be running around jump-kicking like EVH used to (nor is it easy or even practical to do all the time especially for someone playing at Jason Richardson's level).

Guitar Idols have become almost like a "niche fad" instead of a "global sensation", for lack of a better term. The legendary great guitar players (i need not go down the list) will always be that: legends. On an immeasurable scale. And while today we have new players that may be more technically advanced, theyre already as popular/famous/mainstream as theyre going to get. (Im not saying they need to try to be any of those things)

This thread is supposed to be about music and im just rambling.

As far as music, i believe there will always be something interesting to listen to, and i am very curious to see how it it will sound in the next 10, 20, 30 years

It seems clear to me, but maybe I'm totally wrong, but "rock star status" for guitar players is long gone. I think Pettrucci came onto the scene 5 minutes too late to gain mainstream acclaim. Any guitar players since him can only be named by other guitar players, unless you count people who also are known as the lead singer of their band, or people who would be described by John Q. Public as "that crazy looking guy with the goatee in System of a Down." I think rock is done as the predominant style of music influencing western culture, and now it's a subculture, and I don't really think many people would argue with that. As such, the very foundation of the concept of a "rock star" is crumbling away. A "rock star" in 2017 would essentially be what a "punk star" would have been in the 1990's, or a "jazz star" in the 1970's. There's little star power left in the genre.

Also, the music industry in general is still rattling from the series of salvo shots it took from the internet over the 2000's: Napster, youtube, file sharing in general, and now iTunes and Google Play and such is giving people the freedom to choose what they want to support, so big labels and big recording studios are facing more overhead with less profit, so they are shifting their eggs to two or three different baskets, and rock music is not one of them.

But rather than rock going away, it's moved into the bedroom, or the home studio. Now my shitty band can record and release a glorified demo as an album and get reviewed in magazines and podcasts, and I can sell $40 worth of downloads and split it with distributors and band mates and end up only losing a few hundred bucks, rather than go into a professional studio and deal with some asshat recording engineer who thinks he knows everything and some record executive who thinks he knows even more than the engineer, and then end up with a record that makes even less profit and costs even more to make.

 

[Rational Gaze]

It seems clear to me, but maybe I'm totally wrong, but "rock star status" for guitar players is long gone. I think Pettrucci came onto the scene 5 minutes too late to gain mainstream acclaim. Any guitar players since him can only be named by other guitar players, unless you count people who also are known as the lead singer of their band, or people who would be described by John Q. Public as "that crazy looking guy with the goatee in System of a Down." I think rock is done as the predominant style of music influencing western culture, and now it's a subculture, and I don't really think many people would argue with that. As such, the very foundation of the concept of a "rock star" is crumbling away. A "rock star" in 2017 would essentially be what a "punk star" would have been in the 1990's, or a "jazz star" in the 1970's. There's little star power left in the genre.

Also, the music industry in general is still rattling from the series of salvo shots it took from the internet over the 2000's: Napster, youtube, file sharing in general, and now iTunes and Google Play and such is giving people the freedom to choose what they want to support, so big labels and big recording studios are facing more overhead with less profit, so they are shifting their eggs to two or three different baskets, and rock music is not one of them.

But rather than rock going away, it's moved into the bedroom, or the home studio. Now my shitty band can record and release a glorified demo as an album and get reviewed in magazines and podcasts, and I can sell $40 worth of downloads and split it with distributors and band mates and end up only losing a few hundred bucks, rather than go into a professional studio and deal with some asshat recording engineer who thinks he knows everything and some record executive who thinks he knows even more than the engineer, and then end up with a record that makes even less profit and costs even more to make.

This is also valid. I attribute this to the consequence of the symptom (not used in a negative connotation) of accessibility. For better or worse, all of the guitarist monoliths we speak of as untouchable pillars of the instrument were all very indicative of a label driven era. In a way, their talent was curated for display, and it was very specific. It was tied together with image, and a certain vibe and aesthetic. Not EVERYBODY had access to put their music forth. So when they did, they were noticed by label executives, A&R, and talent scouts at bars and small venues. Now, that process has been flipped upside down, multiplied times a thousand, and generally takes place on Youtube or BandCamp. I would argue that were Steve Vai to come up in the current era of music, he would have a very difficult time being regarded the way he is in comparison to how he came up in the first place. People would have to wade through a river of homogeneity before they discovered his talent. Or maybe not entirely, but his career trajectory wouldn't have as much impact as it does as a result of his era, and the fact that he was extremely unique but also noticed because no one was like him (or that we knew of), or alternatively, no one like him had the means to display their talent.

Also, another consequence of the bedroom based and internet orient music dissemination and communication is how all this talent comes up on our monitors first instead of conversely, having to grind it out in live venues before a single demo was made, that had to be commissioned off to someone. These people that had the chutzpah to get up in front of strangers on a nightly basis from the start, had a very different perspective and experience. They HAD to be flawless and entertaining. They had to create a personality on stage, and make their instrument grab people in a moving way. Now, there is very little risk involved. If any. The worst you'll get is a few comments on your youtube channel telling you that you suck instead of having to deal with the inimitable pressure of bombing in front of a live audience. These things all drive creativity and proficiency. But instead, you pump out another flawless sounding jam that you sync your live performance over, and wait for another response, and you build your audience through endless trial and error. Very little psychological connection can be made from a video of a guy sitting at his desk with a gopro mount or cellphone video, often times having their face occluded. It's cool to see how the song is played, but at that point all you have is how does the production sound, and how sick is the guitar that he is playing on. And if I'm talking trash, I'm really not as I have done all this myself. It's just the realization that i'm not really connecting with anyone on a level that is more than people hearing the song and watching me do a static rendition of it. It's all a combination of so many factors. It can be a consequence of the genre, internet, musical accessibility, and so forth.

The "rock-star" persona funnily lives on in megalithic pop star performances. Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and others have absurdly talented guitarists that do so much shit on stage and have terrific stage presence. I don't know any of their names, which says more about me and less about them, but that whole element lives there, even though the music may not always be my thing. I don't really know what the future looks like. I'm not very encouraged about watching a prog guitar virtuoso of recent years stand at the front of the stage and not move a muscle while the rest of their band tries to make up for it. If the songs are great, fine, but they are usually not. I guess I'm getting fucking old or something.

 

[bostjan]

Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and others have absurdly talented guitarists that do so much shit on stage and have terrific stage presence. I don't know any of their names, which says more about me and less about them

Can anybody name them without looking it up?

If not, it just further proves the point, I think.

 

[wankerness]

Agreed with everything Bostjan said. Rock is a subculture (or for old people) and the only mainstream bands are the same ones that existed 20 years ago. Everyone can still name Dave Grohl or James Hetfield, but any guitarists that popped up since then are unknown. What's really weird is that current 20 year olds can often name them and can't name anyone newer. It's like mainstream rock is still arrested in the 90s. I guess labels stopped trying to push anyone new but still push them cause they still make money.

What's good is that many of these same kids are all aware of their own favorite players (ex, I had student workers into the likes of Chon or whatever else they had found and gotten into on Youtube). Of course, those guitarists are making next to no money and the concept of paying for music is completely foreign to almost everyone under 25. But, I know a lot of people are of the mindset that musicians shouldn't be allowed to make a living off it cause it's "fun." Kind of ridiculous. Maybe things will come around again if Spotify and the other streaming services get shut down for not paying anyone anything (yeah right, as long as the music companies still make money).

 

[couverdure]

Can anybody name them without looking it up?

If not, it just further proves the point, I think.

I know Monte Pittman is the guitarist for Madonna, and he's also a Metal Blade Records signed artist. He was also her guitar instructor and this was the result of her taking lessons from him.

 

[bostjan]

I know Monte Pittman is the guitarist for Madonna, and he's also a Metal Blade Records signed artist. He was also her guitar instructor and this was the result of her taking lessons from him.

That sort of works, even though Madonna is an 80's artist, she didn't start collaborating with him until around 2000, I think.
OT for this thread, but it is quite interesting that Pittman has released solo records that topped the Billboard Rock Album charts, and that he's the pinnacle of hired-gun success by touring with one of the top 100 most popular music acts of all time, yet he still has to run a kickstarter campaign to pay for his albums. : / To me, that suggests that he's not making enough money to fund his own records, although I am assuming a few things along the way there.
Also, in the 90's, if you had a #1 selling rock album, you'd bet people, generally, would know about you. I don't think "Monte Pittman" is a household name outside of guitar circles, really. That's the 2010's for you - #1 in rock means not charting at all overall against all of the pop, rap, and R&B records.

 

[fps]

What do you think? While there are obvious exceptions today, has guitar oriented music gotten better over the years? Or has it generally gotten less creative?

Creative doesn't necessarily equal good. I feel a lot of the best things an electric guitar can do have been explored, almost to the point of saturation. This doesn't mean there aren't still great pieces of music being written on the guitar, but it does mean that the end of the road has come in terms of the guitar being a medium for pushing music in new directions. And THAT does not mean that playing and learning the guitar is any less wonderful, necessarily, or that it can't be the perfect tool for people to find their voice. But it is not the prominent instrument in pushing music in new directions, though it may have a part to play in arrangements that do so.

 

[Masoo2]

Can anybody name them without looking it up?

If not, it just further proves the point, I think.

Mateus Asato is the guitarist for Tori Kelly and he's insanely good.