Why is it that bands aren't as political reactionary anymore as in the sixties and seventies. Also, why is it that since the late 80s no new (big) music styles have surfaced and also why is it that

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
i got so many questions, but since the postpunk/hiphop/dance things blew up it seems like musical evolution is on a hold and we're slowly going backwards. I know, it's going round in circles, but it wasn't going round THIS QUICKLY when we were in the 70s. People were still doing NEW things

or do i miss something?

rizzx (Rizz), Thursday, 1 September 2005 13:46 (twenty years ago)

Yes.

mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 1 September 2005 13:49 (twenty years ago)

postpunk is sub genre. hip hop isnt. there have been plenty of different sub genres of hip hop popping out in the last 10 years....

Lovelace (Lovelace), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:02 (twenty years ago)

also, I always feel like people overrate the 'originality' and 'innovation' of previous decades for some reason that espcapes me.

Lovelace (Lovelace), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:06 (twenty years ago)

Start listening to techno.

Jena (JenaP), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:16 (twenty years ago)

start listening to plops music i like plops music very polirtical that

plops, Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:17 (twenty years ago)

Start listening to techno.

i do, and?

@Mark, what do I miss? Care to elaborate?

rizzx (Rizz), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:19 (twenty years ago)

OK now stop listening to techno...

OK now start listening to techno...

OK now stop.

Pretty trippy, huh?

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:25 (twenty years ago)

I assume you mean politically active. "Reactionary" means "conservative/against progress." There's plenty of that around.

Old School (sexyDancer), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:25 (twenty years ago)

ok so people don't care

awesome

rizzx (Rizz), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:27 (twenty years ago)

Fuck dude, don't you remember when musicians made poverty history!!!!1!

PB, Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:30 (twenty years ago)

rizzx, i think you may find, with a little searching that all of the questions of yr original post have been addressed on ILM ad nauseaum, which perhaps accounts for the relative lack of interest in discussing them again.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:40 (twenty years ago)

Confounded (Confounded), Thursday, 1 September 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)

ok thanks Matt, sorry for the inconvenience ...

rizzx (Rizz), Thursday, 1 September 2005 15:40 (twenty years ago)

two years pass...

Keith Richards raised the profile of a campaign against hospital cuts today by joining protesters in a march through Chichester.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/10/27/nstone.jpg

Bob Six, Saturday, 27 October 2007 16:02 (seventeen years ago)

I think that's fucking awesome, local causes are where it's at

J0hn D., Saturday, 27 October 2007 16:19 (seventeen years ago)

revolt in the 60s was enjoyable, babyboomers could convince themselves that smoking dope or sleeping around was some kind of revolutionary act against the straight-laced establishment. maybe it was at the time, to a degree.

of course, now they are the establishment. most of the things they thought were rebellious were accepted and sanctioned by the 80s. (hippies becoming yuppies)

being anti-establishment is too much like hard work now, you've got to watch what you buy, watch how you treat and what you think about other people, you've got to understand complex political and economic theories...

it's not enough to light up a fat one and sneer at the "squares" anymore.

pc user, Saturday, 27 October 2007 16:27 (seventeen years ago)

In fact, being pro-establishment today means you have roughly the same opionions that were anti-establishment in 1968. And I have never seen the point in rebellion for rebellion's own cause.

Today, however, people like Bono, Sting or Peter Gabriel may get a lot of shit from expressing the same opinions that would make whoever expressed the same opionions in 1968 look like a rebel and thus a hero.

Geir Hongro, Saturday, 27 October 2007 16:45 (seventeen years ago)

this is complete and utter bullshit. since 2001 and the invasion of Iraq there have been scads of politically motivated releases: the mekons-oooh!; Springsteen-devils and dust AND the rising; Arcade Fire-neon bible; i know Neil Young and James McMurtry fit on this list; and i can't think of any more off the top of my head, but they're there

outdoor_miner, Saturday, 27 October 2007 16:54 (seventeen years ago)

doesn't add up to an entire youth culture against "the man".

my nan's against the invasion of iraq, ffs.

pc user, Saturday, 27 October 2007 16:57 (seventeen years ago)

I was kind of hoping for some riffs on the Keith Richards photo but anyway....this seems to be a recurrent argument, which the New Musical Express summarised/satirised as a reductio ad absurdum with:

"Us Teds slashed cinema seats in the 50s, so that you punks would have the freedom to walk down the Kings Road in yur safety pins and bondage trousers".

Bob Six, Saturday, 27 October 2007 17:10 (seventeen years ago)

doesn't add up to an entire youth culture against "the man".

Wasn't there an entire youth culture against Vietnam in the late 60s as well? Or an entire youth culture against Thatcher in the UK in the 80s?`

Geir Hongro, Saturday, 27 October 2007 17:12 (seventeen years ago)

Today, however, people like Bono, Sting or Peter Gabriel may get a lot of shit from expressing the same opinions that would make whoever expressed the same opionions in 1968 look like a rebel and thus a hero.

I think there is a difference between say, Bono's "REVOLUTION VIA CORPORATIONS" red campaign bullshit and what was happening in the 60s.

filthy dylan, Sunday, 28 October 2007 03:16 (seventeen years ago)

cable

PappaWheelie V, Sunday, 28 October 2007 04:49 (seventeen years ago)

it's not enough to light up a fat one and sneer at the "squares" anymore.

still works for me

m coleman, Sunday, 28 October 2007 11:49 (seventeen years ago)

then you're one of them.

pc user, Sunday, 28 October 2007 12:16 (seventeen years ago)

In the 60s programmes they show here on UK tv, there always seems to be a big difference between the US and the UK:

US - Background tensions: getting drafted, vietnam war, race issues

UK - Background tensions: restricted supply of bananas during WW2 rationing, England looks a bit grey and clapped out (so what's new?)

As a result, the US music scene genuinely seems more wild and revolutionary [MC5, Grateful Dead], whilst here in the UK the Rolling Stones enjoyed the opportunities offered through the shifting class structure to hang out and hold court with various Guinnesses, Ogilvies etc. and become part of the new aristocracy.

Bob Six, Sunday, 28 October 2007 12:23 (seventeen years ago)

Keef just thinks it's a parade in support of his canonization.

bendy, Sunday, 28 October 2007 12:25 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah, even though it must be a coincidence, it seems kinda funny with him holding a sign that says "Let's support St. Richards".

Tuomas, Sunday, 28 October 2007 17:16 (seventeen years ago)

Twenty years after his death, his flesh still has not decayed. There's the beatitude. He'll be the patron of African-American influence on white music.

bendy, Sunday, 28 October 2007 17:48 (seventeen years ago)

Bono, Sting, and Peter Gabriel: spokesmen for the rebellious youth of today

Curt1s Stephens, Sunday, 28 October 2007 20:20 (seventeen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.