Stuff You Just Don't Get.

[slackster]

I realise I’m not the target audience - being a middle-aged bloke rather far removed from The ‘Hood these days - but I really struggle to enjoy any of the various UK Urban sub-cultures since Garage. Grime, dubstep, 2-step...you name it: I’ve tried it and been left cold by all but the poppier stuff. The often shouty messages from the MCs and the broken beats just turn me off - with very few exceptions. Not that keen on treacly modern r&b either. Considering how much I love vintage soul, dance & reggae and early hip-hop sounds, it always surprises me I can’t get into much of the newer stuff.

[WOM]

Blame Asia. (I mean, Jesus...)

Nooooooooooooooooooooo...........

[Jah Womble]

But you said..!

(Of all 'supergroups', why in the world would you defend Asia?)

[WOM]

That first album is, to these early '80s teenager ears, wonderful. I could listen to it any old time. I even saw them on their 'original members' reunion tour before Wetton died.

[WOM]

Upon further investigation, that album did much better in Canada and the U.S. than it even did in the UK.

[Jah Womble]

It didn't really surprise me - what Asia were peddling really didn't sound in any way hip alongside the post-punkers, New Romantics and shiny new popsters of 1982. The album went gold - presumably bought up by devotees of the various predecessors - but flagship single Heat of the Moment didn't even make the Top 40 over here.

[WOM]

Yeah, I suspect that was the difference. It was a Top 40 radio-type album over here, and although I knew they were billed as a supergroup, I couldn't have honestly told you who was who and from which bands (at the ripe old non-prog age of 15).

[ursus arctos]

Also an absolute staple of very early MTV

[Bored Of Education]

I realise I’m not the target audience - being a middle-aged bloke rather far removed from The ‘Hood these days - but I really struggle to enjoy any of the various UK Urban sub-cultures since Garage. Grime, dubstep, 2-step...you name it: I’ve tried it and been left cold by all but the poppier stuff. The often shouty messages from the MCs and the broken beats just turn me off - with very few exceptions. Not that keen on treacly modern r&b either. Considering how much I love vintage soul, dance & reggae and early hip-hop sounds, it always surprises me I can’t get into much of the newer stuff.

Also being middle-aged, I am quite pleased that I don't 'get' Dime, Grubstep, Trap, Drill etc. as it means that ver yoof are coming up with stuff that is genuinely their own. I do get fed up with families at festivals who are all into the same music made by artists neared the parents' (or, sometimes, grandparents') age than the the kids. However, what constantly surprises me about these styles of music - being predominately hip-hop-derived - is the lack of bass. Initially, I thought it was because it is always coming out of phones but I have since listened to it on other devices and it appears to be bass-free. I wonder what the evolution of that is.

[Benjm]

There seemed to be a bit of a thing around then for erstwhile prog rockers to enjoy success with comparatively succinct and radio friendly offerings. Yes and The Alan Parsons Project spring to mind as well as the Collins fronted Genesis.

[Benjm]

Also being middle-aged, I am quite pleased that I don't 'get' Dime...

Get with it, grandad; it's called Daim now.

I agree with you though. When Dave Grohl was mentioned upthread, I almost posted something about he silly he sounded when he was talking about hiding his daughter's pop records and making her listen to AC/DC.

[Bored Of Education]

Yes, that seems like the sort of thing he would say.

[Patrick Thistle]

I doubt anyone here is into him, but Ed Sheeran. I. Just. Do. Not. Get. It.

Here's a guy who used to roadie for Nizlopi, who I saw live several times and quite liked (although Mrs Thistle was a much bigger fan that I was). Yes, he plays his own guitar, but his songs are just drivel. But you talk to teenagers and they think he is the most amazing artist ever to have walked the earth.

And Coldplay. Why anyone owns a Coldplay album is beyond me.

[Amor de Cosmos]

We're not supposed to get popular music intended for a generation (or two) behind us. It's their voice and their choice.

[Jah Womble]

You're not *seriously* suggesting that Sheeran is 'for the kids'? Like Adele, he's a one-size-fits-all, which is why he sells in bucket loads. (I mean, there's nothing 'to' get here - and I'd suspect that many of his actual fans would agree with that.)

My nineteen-year-old daughter was listening to more challenging stuff when she was eight, tbh.

[Patrick Thistle]

Like Jah said, I don't see how Ed Sheeran is the 'voice of da yoof' given how lamestream he sounds.

There are certain singers who come along and seem to cross over the age barriers. I know a lot of mums and teenage daughters go to Ed's gigs together. I can get his appeal to parents - he's a gawky ginger kid who is totally non-threatening. His songs are mawkish but don't seem to have any rebellion in them. It's not like your kid is going to start dressing in a confusing way or coming home with illegal tattoos because they're into Ed Sheeran. But that's precisely my point. Why is he so popular with the generation who would be my kids if I had kids?

[WOM]

I've made a point of trying to not get dry, creaky bones when it comes to music. Pop/rock seems largely dead in the water, so most of what I've heard and genuinely enjoy is hip hop. Lil Wayne, Kendrick, Chance The Rapper, stuff like that.

Dinner conversations are quite interesting with the kids.

"You hear the new Travis Scott yet?"
"Yeah. I wanna like it, but it's just......meh."
"Okay, that's what I thought, too."

[Amor de Cosmos]

I'm not suggesting he's "The Voice of Youth" in any Dylanesque sense. Only that his core audience is neither the age (nor gender for that matter) of most people here. For the most part his appeal is inevitably going to pass us by. Popular music has also never been validated solely on how challenging or threatening it is. Sometimes some people just want a hummable tune sung by an appealing persona (cf: of my generation, Donovan or Cat Stevens.)

[Benjm]

My guess is that he's got the gift or skill that some massive stars have of convincing their fans that he is talking to them individually, despite strong external evidence suggesting otherwise. In that respect the content of the message, whether it is rebellious or conformist, is less important that the sense that it is being whispered in your ear.

It's not like your kid is going to start dressing in a confusing way or coming home with illegal tattoos because they're into Ed Sheeran.

Legal but crap tattoos might be more of a risk judging by the state of Ed's forearms. Which, following our logic, is exactly what I should think about them, I suppose.

[WOM]

Every generation needs its James Blunt.

[Hot Pepsi]

I've made a point of trying to not get dry, creaky bones when it comes to music. Pop/rock seems largely dead in the water, so most of what I've heard and genuinely enjoy is hip hop. Lil Wayne, Kendrick, Chance The Rapper, stuff like that.

Dinner conversations are quite interesting with the kids.

"You hear the new Travis Scott yet?"
"Yeah. I wanna like it, but it's just......meh."
"Okay, that's what I thought, too."

Pop and rock are fine. They just aren’t as popular as they used to be and that’s fine too because in the years where they were popular, most of what was on the radio was garbage. (Not Garbage - who are good - but garbage. Like Foreigner.) I’m constantly finding young bands on Spotify that I like. I don’t know how they’re making a living or where they’re getting gigs, but they seem to be getting by.

Jazz isn’t as popular as it once was. Neither is classical. Neither is folk. But all of those genres are still out there, being made by creative and talented people, and matter a lot to the people who love them. That’s what matters, not what is big or “of the moment.”

But as time goes on since the dawn of recorded music, there’s more and more music out there and more and more genres and subgenres. But when a new one emerges, it doesn’t replace the old one, so much as just shove it a bit to the side. But those sides are getting more and more crowded and starting to take up space from the middle, especially now that everything ever recorded is available to anyone anywhere at anytime (more or less).*

And hip-hop will also eventually cede the center of the stage for something else - if it hasn’t really already - and the cosmic ballet goes on.

There will never be another Beatles or Dylan or Stones - not because no band will ever be as good - but because almost everyone watched the same tv shows and read the same magazines in 1964 and that’s not remotely true anymore.


AdC is right to compare Ed Sheehan to Donovan or Cat Stevens rather than Dylan. I don’t know if he’s as good as those two, but 20 years hence, that’s about how he’ll be remembered and respected. But I doubt he has the reach of those artists because the audience is so much more fractured. Kids of a certain age will always be somewhat susceptible to peer pressure, so certain pop cultural things - especially the ones that parents find non-threatening - will be able to get a big audience for a while, at least - but it
won’t be like it was in our day where we were all listening to the same thing simply because we didn’t have much choice.

* Given that, maybe it would be better for magazines like Rolling Stone and Pitchfork to not pretend that they’re covering “everything that matters” or whatever and admit that they can only hope to cover a fairly narrow range of musical genres and let the magazines that are better at covering hip-hop or EDM or jazz or whatever do that.

[Jah Womble]

Every generation needs its James Blunt.

One or two at the most perhaps, but the overriding majority of new singer-songwriter types emerging seem only to peddle this same ambitionless slop.

It's too simplistic (IMO, at least) to put this down to some kind of 'generational impasse' - if people of my age group are complaining that this stuff is bland ('His hair isn't long enough! You can hear all the words!' etc, etc), then something's not right somewhere. Of course I have no problem with mainstream pop existing, it just concerns me that what is really no better than mediocre is latterly lauded as though neo-genius.

Sheeran isn't untalented - he's just leadenly uninspired. And I doubt he'd have lasted a month in 1972.

[WOM]

I think I agree with you in principle more than I do in experience. Most 'rock' (if that still exists) sounds just like a rehash of old ideas. When, say, Pearl Jam or Foo Fighters came along, it sounded like new ideas. Now it just sounds like more riffs on old ideas. It's like trying to find new ideas in ska or the blues. You don't...you just get tired riffs on the same theme. It's dead.

Pop...yeah, maybe. I hear some good stuff, but what does a breakout pop band even look like anymore? Sadly, maybe it looks like Ed Sheeran. Or Bruno Fucking Mars.

I like listening to jazz in the car, but god knows how you'd start to get really into it. I also like jazz for the fact that you're listening to guys named Art and Pat and Norman.

Never been taken with folk (which tends to make my teeth hurt) or classical (which just doesn't engage me).

[Amor de Cosmos]

When, say, Pearl Jam or Foo Fighters came along, it sounded like new ideas. Now it just sounds like more riffs on old ideas.

Which, I'm afraid, is pretty much what they sounded like to me in the early 90s.

[Jah Womble]

I think that those guys - and even more so the Chilli Peppers - got stadium-sized and middle-aged some while back. But I don't object to new bands re-hashing old styles (which they undoubtedly are) if said styles have a bit of attitude to them in the first place.

All that said, rock could do another revolution, IMO. (As HP suggests, that's very unlikely in the near future.) Rap still seems able to diversify or reinvent itself - not always in a way that I like, but at least in a way that shows fluidity.