• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Who is moving music forward today?

#101
ajunea3 said:
My favorite post-rock band by far. I believe they are unfairly categorized with bands like Explosions in the Sky, who frankly, although I adore their music, are pretty one-dimensional. Listen to "Hunted by a Freak", "Glasgow Mega Snake", and "Radar Maker" and try to tell me that they even sound remotely like the same band in all 3. They've raised the bar for rock instrumentation creativity.
Click to expand...


another +1 for mogwai.

I'm more inspired by mogwai's newest album "hardcore will never die, but you will" than i am radiohead's newest album.

I just bought tickets to see mogwai perform at the mayan theater in LA in May.
 
#102
There are a few musicians who, to me, fall into a special category. The criteria is that every time I listen to them, I notice something that I didn't hear before. It might be how a particular sequence stands out, a stylistic flourish or technique, a special moment of harmony or other relationship between instruments, whatever. Most of these guys are older (or even dead) but to me, their music is still "moving forward" in that there are always "new" things lurking on their old albums, waiting to be discovered.

- Jimi Hendrix
- John Entwhistle and The Who
- Eddie Van Halen
- Eric Clapton
- Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler
- Pink Floyd and David Gilmour
- Chet Atkins
- Rush
- Miles Davis
- Charles Mingus
- Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, and Vic Wooten
- Herbie Hancock
- Jeff Beck
 
#105
BigOldHarry said:
yeah, define "Moving Forward" !

Was Punk moving music forward? I think that, at the time, a good punker would insist he was moving it *backward*...
Click to expand...

I could go on and on about particular band's contributions like The Clash for example, but generally speaking, punk moved music forward in a HUGE way by opening the doors to, well, EVERYBODY to just go for it and express yourself musically, regardless of things like musical training, instrumental prowess, etc. The ramifications of that are still being felt today in too many genres to list and will never go away(and not just in music!).
 
#106
plekan said:
I clearly don't understand your point at all. Please clarify how MJ and Elvis and Bowie did nothing but a visual thing for music...

Are you familiar with these artists or just dislike them?

For instance, I can't stand most later John Cage, but there is no disputing what it meant to music. People may think Schooly D was lame but he certainly lead hip hop to a new level even if it was short lived. But MJ, Bowie, Elvis? They didn't just popularize what was already happening at the time.
Click to expand...

It may be hard for me because english isn't my first language but I'll try.

Yes I do have listen to those pop stars ( artist may be a little stretching ). Yes they do have influanced a lot of people but I don't think influanced, popularized goes hand in hand with moving music foward. Elvis Presley sang black music while being a white and he was dancing. All that was only for black people before him but he didn't create anything he just give it to the mass.

MJ if you remove music videos and his choreographies, there is not a lot left musicaly. Very normal pop music. People want to see him dance. It has nothing to do with actualy playing an instrument in a new way, or create something no one have ever listen to.

Prog existed before Pink Floyd, what they really bring new to the table is their ideas for live concert. Like color light, surround sound and of course the use of synthetizer. Same thing with Rush who created live play-back and loops but their music is a normal prog-rock song.

All that to say, all those people have bring something new to deliver their music ( you know, something to catch attention )but they didn't bring something new musicaly.

To explain it in a bassist point of view. There was a before and after Larry Graham, same thing with Stanley Clarke, Jaco and Micheal Manring. Those guys put something new to the table no one ever have done before them. Those are great exemple of moving music foward and not just for us bass players.
 
#107
pbass2 said:
I could go on and on about particular band's contributions like The Clash for example, but generally speaking, punk moved music forward in a HUGE way by opening the doors to, well, EVERYBODY to just go for it and express yourself musically, regardless of things like musical training, instrumental prowess, etc. The ramifications of that are still being felt today in too many genres to list and will never go away(and not just in music!).
Click to expand...

Kind of sad if you ask me. It opened the door to making music simplier and simplier to the point of making it dumb. For Punk band it is way more the message than the music, the same could be said for rap and hip hop.
 
#109
Does post rock really move things forward though? they seem pretty self contained, just because its 'post' rock doesn't mean its the way of the future. Mogwai is pretty cool though :P

I go with Cee Lo Green, definitely raising the bar for the genre. I'll also go with Indy labels like my favorite, Quote Unquote records. They put all their mp3's out for free, as many are switching to, but also selling hard copies to the fans.

Bands like the Taxpayers go cross country only on money raised from gigs and somehow make it to Florida to record another album. As a collective, this kind of indie music is out there and the kids are paying to see it. DIY ethics are growing.
 
#110
Mayers said:
It may be hard for me because english isn't my first language but I'll try.

Yes I do have listen to those pop stars ( artist may be a little stretching ). Yes they do have influanced a lot of people but I don't think influanced, popularized goes hand in hand with moving music foward. Elvis Presley sang black music while being a white and he was dancing. All that was only for black people before him but he didn't create anything he just give it to the mass.

MJ if you remove music videos and his choreographies, there is not a lot left musicaly. Very normal pop music. People want to see him dance. It has nothing to do with actualy playing an instrument in a new way, or create something no one have ever listen to.

Prog existed before Pink Floyd, what they really bring new to the table is their ideas for live concert. Like color light, surround sound and of course the use of synthetizer. Same thing with Rush who created live play-back and loops but their music is a normal prog-rock song.

All that to say, all those people have bring something new to deliver their music ( you know, something to catch attention )but they didn't bring something new musicaly.

To explain it in a bassist point of view. There was a before and after Larry Graham, same thing with Stanley Clarke, Jaco and Micheal Manring. Those guys put something new to the table no one ever have done before them. Those are great exemple of moving music foward and not just for us bass players.
Click to expand...

This is highly subjective.

I strongly disagree that "influencing" doesn't move music forward. That's sometimes the PRIME mover. I find, over the long arc of popular music, that influence and inspiration are the seeds that start the forests of other good things to come.

Also, guess what? Music transcends the conduit of sound and is, by nature, a highly visual medium. We consume music in such a large part via its visual manifestations, so I feel they go and in hand...almost inextricably.

Elvis probably inadvertently was the catalyst for the beginning hundreds, if not thousands, of bands and artists, and is on the influence list of multitudes of many greats over the decades. Doesn't matter if it's just popularizing something already extant, he pushed rock and roll forward, mate. In some regards, it wouldn't matter if his music was complete tripe; without him, so little would exist today. It doesn't matter if he was just co-opting black music and singing the bloody phone book! He was at the apex of an explosion. He also did something very specifically new, with his appropriation of gospel (via a "white" filter) into the rock and roll form. Think "Jordanaires"....completely blew everyone's mind back then.

MJ: those records influenced countless people, particularly Off the Wall and Thriller, and arguably Bad and Dangerous. Stunning arrangements, melodies, chordal movement that set a very high bar and pushed forward the whole genre of contemporary R&B in the late '70's and beyond. Not to mention the advancements in studio technology, drum programming, etc. Moving things forward. You can easily put MJ in that category with his/Quincy's production values alone. And the undeniable amalgam of dance/video/music was his to bring into the pop mainstream, even though it had its obvious roots in James Brown, Earth Wind and Fire, and many others. I put Prince on the same pedestal. They put R&B in the popular lexicon and set it up to be an undeniably powerful force across race/culture/national/continental divides.

Bowie: huge huge huge huge. Just take Low, Heroes & Lodger alone and you're done. So much more than that. If you don't see the ways with which he moved music forward, then you need to lock yourself into a room with some records.

Pink Floyd: doesn't matter if prog existed before, that's completely irrelevant. What about the complete acceptance of concept albums by the zeitgeist? That's Dark Side and The Wall. Amongst their many other achievements.

Moving music forward? To me, it means spawning something new by way of your own creations, inadvertently or otherwise, and adding dimension and depth to the field. Making an impact to a large spectrum of music listeners and music creators.

Jaco? Completely undeniable. Michael Manring? A bit less so, but unquestionably to a niche and probably a bit beyond. Unfortunately, I do believe (just my opinion) that listenership and visibility are a component to this, at least in terms of the scale that the artist is able to move things forward. Not an entirety of the thing...just a component of it, unfortunately or not.

So with this, my feeling is that you have to look pretty broadly. "Inventing" something or being strictly innovative, to me, is not necessarily a requirement in the "moving music forward" club. Nor is technical facility or sophistication a requirement in the least. Sometimes it's just positioning, or something catalytic like the Pistols. They moved the SH*T out of music foward, along w/ Ramones, Clash (arguably the biggest forward movers of music of the punk era) , Dead Boys, Slits, Pere Ubu, Wire, Damned, Germs, Fear, Black Flag, DK's, Stooges, Bad Brains, etc etc ad nauseam. And, for the record: really The Sonics and MC5, if we can get right down to it. But I digress.

Burial, Mogwai, Deerhoof? Sure! Influential, great, and moving it along into the future, all in unique ways. And many others of the current crop.

Anyone want to argue Madonna with me?

JMJ
 
#111
pbass2 said:
I could go on and on about particular band's contributions like The Clash for example, but generally speaking, punk moved music forward in a HUGE way by opening the doors to, well, EVERYBODY to just go for it and express yourself musically, regardless of things like musical training, instrumental prowess, etc. The ramifications of that are still being felt today in too many genres to list and will never go away(and not just in music!).
Click to expand...

I do not disagree; But the very ethos of punk was to be indifferent to these things. Ironic, no?

I submit that short of developing clear differences in competence or technology, there is no "Forward" in music - there is only more. This notion that an artist or group of artists have moved music "Forward" is merely a fancy way of saying that they've made it *better*. In most cases, I don't buy that. There are a few that opened new doors - The Beatles leap to mind... but 99.99% of music available to the normal listener is just *more* - not revolutionary or even really "better", in the objective sense.
 
#112
jmjbassplayer said:
Moving music forward? To me, it means spawning something new by way of your own creations, inadvertently or otherwise, and adding dimension and depth to the field. Making an impact to a large spectrum of music listeners and music creators.
JMJ
Click to expand...

Well, I think we just have a different way of seeing "moving foward". By what you say, anyone could move music foward just by comming up with a concept or be on radio.

To me a true innovator isn't popular, at least not during is own time because he is ahead of is time.
 
#113
BigOldHarry said:
I do not disagree; But the very ethos of punk was to be indifferent to these things. Ironic, no?

I submit that short of developing clear differences in competence or technology, there is no "Forward" in music - there is only more. This notion that an artist or group of artists have moved music "Forward" is merely a fancy way of saying that they've made it *better*. In most cases, I don't buy that. There are a few that opened new doors - The Beatles leap to mind... but 99.99% of music available to the normal listener is just *more* - not revolutionary or even really "better", in the objective sense.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
#114
jmjbassplayer said:
Anyone want to argue Madonna with me?
Click to expand...
sure. getting felt up onstage doesn't mean you're moving music forward. it was very good, well-produced stuff, but other than getting hot chicks to dress like sluts on a regular basis (don't get me wrong...i am NOT against that by any means), i don't think she was particularly different or earth shattering musically.

i imagine you'll point to how so many current acts cop her swagger, and i will definitely agree. so on that point, it could be argued successfully that she did move music forward. but i'd argue that she did most of her moving music forward in ways that had little to do with the music itself.

how did i do? ;)
 
#116
Mr. Mayers, with respect, I find this slightly cynical and sad. So when Bowie blew everyone away with Ziggy Stardust, he wasn't pushing music forward? It wasn't legitimate because he hadn't languished in partial obscurity?

When Talking Heads put out "Remain In Light", it wasn't innovative because "Once In A Lifetime" was a hit on MTV? There is no way that anyone can argue the impact of that record, and all the wonderful innovations contained therein.

And with your logic, what about the Beatles? Are they disqualified due to popularity?

Those artists were "ahead of their time", but also "in the now" and popular, even. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Where did I say that anybody that comes up with a concept or is on the radio is moving music forward? It's all relative to impact/innovation/cultural resonance AND what the beholder has experienced personally. The cookie cutter young female artist on Hollywood/Disney records is not moving anything forward, seriously...we can all agree on that. So I'm not being all utopian and claiming that anyone can be innovative just by nature of popularity or exposure Not what I said at all. The 13 year old girl from Iowa or the jazzer with the 9 string bass aren't going to necessarily concede that The Clash contributed much. But I don't hate on them, it's just subjective knowledge and experience...which I think this thread nobly attempts to broaden amongst several of us. I feel that you are perhaps vastly oversimplifying my response for the sake of convenience. Some people move things forward/innovate more than others, to overstate the obvious. There is a vast spectrum of this phenomenon. Can you acknowledge that?

Please tell me that David Bowie did not move music forward. I double-dare you. ;)

BigOldHarry: I get your drift, but I think you may have incorrectly extrapolated that people are making the assertion in this thread that music forward = music better. I think music was "better" back in the day, personally. But there are still revelations that blow my mind. Still very exciting "enhancements" occurring all the time, most of them in the eye of the beholder. But that's the beauty of it. As a listener (which I try very consciously to do from a naive/pure vantage point), I get turned on to things all the time that definitely, without reservation, push music forward to whatever degree. Someone earlier mentioned Sufjan - so right! Are you familiar with his stuff? It's not just recycled notes from music's past. It's creating a new moment. And I'm not even particularly a fan.

I think contributors to this thread have largely been approaching this from a refreshingly open-minded vantage: Examining/sharing some examples of artists that push things ahead. Are they all the Beatles? But of course not...it's an infinite spectrum. For the sake of this discussion, I put aside my bias of personal taste. I sense that in some cases there may be a filter of personal taste/personal experience that is not willingly being put aside.

JMJ
 
#117
JimmyM said:
sure. getting felt up onstage doesn't mean you're moving music forward. it was very good, well-produced stuff, but other than getting hot chicks to dress like sluts on a regular basis (don't get me wrong...i am NOT against that by any means), i don't think she was particularly different or earth shattering musically.

i imagine you'll point to how so many current acts cop her swagger, and i will definitely agree. so on that point, it could be argued successfully that she did move music forward. but i'd argue that she did most of her moving music forward in ways that had little to do with the music itself.

how did i do? ;)
Click to expand...

Ah well done. :) But she opened doors, yes? Influenced the S&*T out of Gaga, etc. Musical excrement or otherwise, it's pushing things...again: to a DEGREE that's hard to quantify because taste factors in, but a degree nonetheless. Not a lot of musical moving things forward, I'll concede, but a LITTLE bit, actually. For instance: Vogue. One of the first American radio singles using beats from European house (which ultimately came from Detroit). But her and her co-producer (I think Shep Pettibone?) took a risk there, pushed the envelope of pop radio at the time, which I think was around '89 or '90. That's a very poor/small example, but again, I can use that to illustrate that even small innovations can be valid. Kind of. :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back