A Musical Discussion: What is Relevant

[omit]

more and more i see the term "Relevant" being bandied around on forums, blogs and on pitchforkmedia by keyboard heroes in what can only be seen as poor attempts to either discredit (...are no longer relevant) or hype up a band (xxx are becoming increasingly relevant...). i say poor attempts because more often than not there is very little in an attempt to back up said claims

so what defines a bands relevance in the musical world, what styles/ideas/bands are relevant today and is it really important for a band to be "relevant"?

 

[Madtiger2006]

The only style of relevant Rock music is jazz/classical rock(eg fusion, old style prog). Most other styles just aren't good enough for me. I don't follow trends(eg metal, punk, alternative, funk, dance). I follow quality

 

[omit]

The only style of relevant Rock music is jazz/classical rock(eg fusion, old style prog). Most other styles just aren't good enough for me. I don't follow trends(eg metal, punk, alternative, funk, dance). I follow quality

so relevant music for you is a style that were in their prime some 30 years ago and really haven't progressed much since?

 

[blackshadow]

!@#$ed if I know what is relevant but I know there is a lot of stuff out there I like and a lot more I can't stand.

The two best gigs I have seen this year are from a fairly fresh (but not particularly young) band - Eddy Current Suppression Ring and Patti Smith - a lot of the keyboard jockeys might question her relevance but the show she put on at Hamer Hall was pure rock.

As someone who is lucky enough to get out and see heaps of live music a few up and coming bands that have impressed me this year are The Scientists of Modern Music, Children Collide and Tame Impala.

Neil Young was probably at the height of his powers in the 70s yet he is headlining the Big Day Out - is he relevant? F*ck Yes!!!

 

[Madtiger2006]

so relevant music for you is a style that were in their prime some 30 years ago and really haven't progressed much since?

Inventing new styles of music isnt progression. Great Rock melodies with busy bass lines, jazz drumming and classical keys is progression

 

[John]

Inventing new styles of music isnt progression.

Think hard about that statement. If "inventing" (ridiculous term) new styles of music is not progression we would all be banging bit of wood on fallen down trees.

 

[omit]

interesting quote i found that jonathon kramer made in 2002, music theorist, on post modern music (music created after the modernist movement that ended sometime in the 60s or 70s)

is not simply a repudiation of modernism or its continuation, but has aspects of both a break and an extension
is, on some level and in some way, ironic
does not respect boundaries between sonorities and procedures of the past and of the present
challenges barriers between 'high' and 'low' styles
shows disdain for the often unquestioned value of structural unity
questions the mutual exclusivity of elitist and populist values
avoids totalizing forms (e.g., does not want entire pieces to be tonal or serial or cast in a prescribed formal mold)
considers music not as autonomous but as relevant to cultural, social, and political contexts
includes quotations of or references to music of many traditions and cultures
considers technology not only as a way to preserve and transmit music but also as deeply implicated in the production and essence of music
embraces contradictions
distrusts binary oppositions
includes fragmentations and discontinuities
encompasses pluralism and eclecticism
presents multiple meanings and multiple temporalities
locates meaning and even structure in listeners, more than in scores, performances, or composers

 

[John]

interesting quote i found from jonathon kramer, music theorist, on post modern music (music created after the modernist movement that ended sometime in the 60s or 70s)

I presume that he is discussing modern Classical composition.

 

[omit]

I presume that he is discussing modern Classical composition.

i wouldn't be able to tell you, the quote was in response to post modern music (might have been taken out of context i don't know). no mention of it was about contemporary classical

but even if he is discussing modern classical, i can't help but read over the list and notice so many similarities between it and music being produced today

 

[John]

i wouldn't be able to tell you, the quote was in response to post modern music (might have been taken out of context i don't know). no mention of it was about contemporary classical

but even if he is discussing modern classical, i can't help but read over the list and notice so many similarities between it and music being produced today

He was. He was a US composer. I have just read up on him. One of his composition teachers is a name I am familiar with Karlheinz Stockhausen. FWIW Stockhausen was on the cover of Sgt Peppers. Stockhausen is an influence on the likes of John Cale of Velvet Underground who are, as you know, one of the most important and influential bands in modern music. Cale studied minimalist theory under the likes of John Cage who was a contemporary of Stockhausen.

I find what you posted very interesting but you will be hard pressed to have a conversation around here about this type of theory.

 

[Schism]

Black metal,doom metal and dark ambient are relevant to me. I don't much care what other people think is relevant.

 

[John]

Black metal,doom metal and dark ambient are relevant to me. I don't much care what other people think is relevant.

And that is the truth brother. Relevance in the ear of the relevee.(not that there is such a word but you get my drift.)

 

[Upgrayedd]

I don't follow trends(eg metal, Punk funk,). I follow quality

30+ years means its more then a "trend"

 

[Schism]

30+ years means its more then a "trend"

To me Beethoven is heavy metal. He started it.

 

[Madtiger2006]

Think hard about that statement. If "inventing" (ridiculous term) new styles of music is not progression we would all be banging bit of wood on fallen down trees.

Who said inventing new musical styles is a good thing? If it doesn't send shivers down the spine then it doesn't progress. The reason they are trying to invent styles is because they can't write great music. 95% of new age bands aren't even worth downloading

 

[John]

Who said inventing new musical styles is a good thing? If it doesn't send shivers down the spine then it doesn't progress. The reason they are trying to invent styles is because they can't write great music. 95% of new age bands aren't even worth downloading

It does not send shivers down your spine so therefore you dismiss it? I have no issue with you living in the past but to post as if your past is the be all and end all is rot! You are your parents. Your post is full of your own bigotry against anything out of the safety of your preferred genres and your own era.

I am still constantly amazed and excited at the music that is bought to my attention on good music sites and by my own research. I see appropriately 10 - 12 gigs a year and purchase a couple of CD's a week. Just last week I was recommended an album by Spirutulized called Songs in A & E and have been amazed at the way that it has grown over the last few days to become one of favourite albums, why don't you look up Beirut and Texas Tea as just two diverse example of young 20 something bands doing something different. And by the way your inept comment dismissing punk dismiss the likes of The Clash is just an example of cheap dismissal but knowing. Punk is a sub genre of Rock.
Nah Madtiger2006 you ain't , your stuck in a rut of your own making.

 

[Schism]

No doubt about it,Madtiger is stuck in a permanent acid flashback

He rated a Saturnus song i posted in the rate my song thread 6/10, which means he must love it because he rates everything else 0's. He probably loves alot of the music we bring up on this board, but just can't bring himself to admit it.

 

[John]

No doubt about it,Madtiger is stuck in a permanent acid flashback

He rated a Saturnus song i posted in the rate my song thread 6/10, which means he must love it because he rates everything else 0's. He probably loves alot of the music we bring up on this board, but just can't bring himself to admit it.

And that proves that there is no such thing as Relevant music.

Speaking of acid I played Shocker by Pineapples From The Dawn Of Time today. They don't make acid rock like that anymore.

[youtube]94U55FdCquo&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[Schism]

Ahh LSD...nectar of the gods

 

[Madtiger2006]

It does not send shivers down your spine so therefore you dismiss it? I have no issue with you living in the past but to post as if your past is the be all and end all is rot! You are your parents. Your post is full of your own bigotry against anything out of the safety of your preferred genres and your own era.

I am still constantly amazed and excited at the music that is bought to my attention on good music sites and by my own research. I see appropriately 10 - 12 gigs a year and purchase a couple of CD's a week. Just last week I was recommended an album by Spirutulized called Songs in A & E and have been amazed at the way that it has grown over the last few days to become one of favourite albums, why don't you look up Beirut and Texas Tea as just two diverse example of young 20 something bands doing something different. And by the way your inept comment dismissing punk dismiss the likes of The Clash is just an example of cheap dismissal but knowing. Punk is a sub genre of Rock.
Nah Madtiger2006 you ain't , your stuck in a rut of your own making.

Has nothing to do with being stuck in the past. I know that music is better in so many ways. I can see right through your 95% of your modern bands trying to be technical and I see pretty average music once I've got through the 2nd listen . Maybe you will see that too one day when you move on to the next trend

 

[Suspense]

WHATEVER PITCHFORK TELLS US IS RELEVANT...
​

In all seriousness, I don't particularly like the term when it is applied in an objective manner to music. I think it is quite possible to determine which bands are relevant to specific genres and sub-genres, but as for what genres would be considered "relevant" to all music today, it's largely based on subjective tastes.

I think hindsight is often required to assess the most relevant bands of a specific time period. For instance, I could tell you, somewhat objectively, who were the most relevant bands and genres of the 70s and 80s, based largely on their contributions to music and musical progression and their influence upon bands that followed, but without hindsight, it's almost impossible to determine this criteria for today's bands and genres.

Just last week I was recommended an album by Spirutulized called Songs in A & E and have been amazed at the way that it has grown over the last few days to become one of favourite albums

It's pretty good, hey? If you haven't got it already, make sure you check out their debut as well as Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating in Space. Their live album from the Royal Albert Hall is a must have as well.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Well if every person equates to one relevency point naturally bands that total the most relevency points are the most relevent.

You can be the greatest technical band ever but if only 7 people know you, well your relevence is minimal.

 

[HorseHead]

"Relevant" is whatever is relevant to you. Stuff what the hipsters think.

 

[omit]

Well if every person equates to one relevency point naturally bands that total the most relevency points are the most relevent.

You can be the greatest technical band ever but if only 7 people know you, well your relevence is minimal.

on the flip side of that though, if those 7 people all start bands, together create a genre that takes over the world and claim your band to be their biggest influence, then despite having little - no audience your band would be considered very relevant

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

on the flip side of that though, if those 7 people all start bands, together create a genre that takes over the world and claim your band to be their biggest influence, then despite having little - no audience your band would be considered very relevant

Not really, their actual music is still irrelevant.

The new bands aren't that band they are a seperate entity.

And thus that band with 7 fans still get totally smashed for being relevant in peoples lives as compared to ABBA.

Because that's what musics about, being relevant to someones life.

Thus I use ABBA as an example because I could find thousands of people for which an ABBA song has some special meaning(relevance) to some time in their life.


Dave Grohl liked the Clash but that doesn't give the Clash any more relevance in regards to Grohl's other projects.