Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What the kids are listening to...
Spaced Out Forum > Media > Music
Jon 79
I was just wondering...
With what band, or at what age were you, (if you're old enough) when you truly disassociated yourself from "the kids of today", by realising you'd no idea what they were into, music wise?*

My personal experience is the Arctic Monkeys.#
This was the 1st really popular band that I really didn't 'get'. Possibly because in the summer of 2005 I was living in New Zealand and had never heard of them. I'd only got wind of the name through occasionally checking out the NME website. - (in fact one of my housemates at the time didn't think they were real).

Before this I was always on top of who's who in music, even if i wasn't into a particular scene. ... but what with me being an indie sort of guy, and the Arctic monkeys being an indie sort of band,... this stands out for me.

Maybe it's to do with being on the other side of the planet... or maybe it's to do with turning 26 at the time. I don't know. But if you'd like to share your 1st 'what the kids are listening to these days' story with me, it might make things clearer. Thanks.




* ...Yeah, I know that's a slightly disjointed question, but I'm a bit drunk, & i'll have forgotten to ask by the morning.
# ...By the way, could someone tell me: does 'the robot from 1984' refer to either the Terminator, or just generally the robot dance from that era, or some droid I wasn't aware of from the George Orwell novel... or something else I haven't though of? ...thanks.
logger
There's loads of music that's popular that I don't understand, I'm not sure if it's teh kidz or just a matter of taste. I wasn't a big fan of the UK garage scene but that was because most of what I heard was polished chart fodder which is usually insipid. I did eventually like the grimier garage, though. At the moment I don't understand this really slow dubstep. I don't mind some of the normal dubstep but I don't see the point of this really slow stuff. Why not just make proper dub or out and out ambient, that's proper music. These kids, eh.

Oh, and the Artic Monkeys are just boring indie playlist pop, which is nothing new.
Rua
QUOTE (logger @ May 3 2009, 11:19 AM) *
UK garage scene

Awful, just awful. The only form of music I actually hate. My achilles heel.
QUOTE (logger @ May 3 2009, 11:19 AM) *
really slow dubstep


Trendy bullshit. Dubstep is valid enough, but the output at the minute is absolute trash.
Jon 79
QUOTE (logger @ May 3 2009, 11:19 AM) *
Oh, and the Artic Monkeys are just boring indie playlist pop, which is nothing new.


This much I realise.
But I wasn't sure why they were so popular, so I thought it might actually be down to me...
If i had been younger when the arctic monkeys came about, would I have liked their music? ...or would I still have thought they were shit.

Probably the latter.
Sir_Robin_the_brave
Arcticv Monkeys are alright but nothing that special IMO.

Alex Turner certainly has a fair bit of talent though as The Last Shadow Puppets are great.

Never really been sure what some of his lyrics are on about though.

I've never really 'got' modern R&B (except for some of the more eclectic stuff like Missy Elliott or Kelis)
Jon 79
QUOTE (Sir_Robin_the_brave @ May 3 2009, 12:58 PM) *
I've never really 'got' modern R&B (except for some of the more eclectic stuff like Missy Elliott or Kelis)


But are you saying you used to be into R&B back in the day?... and do you think your tastes have just moved on in a different direction to the way the genre has evolved?
Sir_Robin_the_brave
QUOTE (Jon 79 @ May 3 2009, 01:19 PM) *
But are you saying you used to be into R&B back in the day?... and do you think your tastes have just moved on in a different direction to the way the genre has evolved?


Not really, I just wanted to make clear that I've never really been into R&B (but not Rhythm & Blues, which is something else entirely) and lots of kids seem to be into it despite the fact that most of it really does sound the same. I think this is because it's all made by about three producers.
maian
I like Arctic Monkeys, but then again I was 18 and living in Sheffield when they started to get press and used to meet Alex Turner at house parties (where I once said to him "that dancefloor song's not very good", which he agreed with me about)and was a part of the whole Sheffield scene at the time thanks to my work at the University radio station. I was never that into them, though, since I was busy listening to Arcade Fire at the time.

There's quite a few bands and artists that I don't like that a re popular, but I've never felt like I was out of step with popular music or anything, just that I didn't like it.
Wife Of Rolex
I'm not sure if it's such a clear line today. There used to be a distinct difference in the appeal of music genres/eras between generations that ran from the 40s/50s up until the late 80s/early 90s. Since then, and certainly over the last decade, the generation lines have blurred. What's aimed at a younger audience can also appeal to older people and younger audiences are always discovering older acts from their parents' or even grandparents' youth. It's no longer about age, but purely taste.

A big difference in the idea of 'what's popular with the kids' is the swift demise of Saturday morning kids TV and music on general tv. The big music acts of the day would always be on things like Going Live, Saturday Superstore, Live and Kicking, What's Up Doc?, SM:TV/CD:UK and so on. So these acts would be sold to the kids and their record sales shot up on Saturday afternoons and the following week. With these shows now gone, acts have to appear on more generic shows peppered about the tv schedule to promote themselves. Although this means they are now seen by smaller audiences, the age and music taste range of those watching is wider. With the odd exception here and there, most new acts coming through now have no specific target block of fans to aim for like they did in the hey-day of Saturday morning TV. Because of that, it's actually harder now for new acts to break onto TV and reach that wider audience, unless they're being pushed by a major label.

Music on TV in general has had an impact. I'll use Boyzone as an example. 10 years ago they released their greatest hits album. They released 'You Needed Me' from it and it reached No.1. At the time of it's release they appeared and sung live on GMTV, This Morning, SM:TV/CD:UK, Live & Kicking, The Pepsi Chart Show, Top Of The Pops, TFI Friday, their own TV special and other various TV spots. Last year they released 'Better'. They sung it on GMTV, X Factor, Paul O'Grady Show and a couple of other entertainment shows. It got to No.22. Had they had the same TV coverage as before, it would at least have made Top 5 easily. But on the flip side of that, tickets for their arena tour sold brilliantly, so it shows that music is being consumed differently. And at a Boyzone concert, you do get a hell of a range in the audience.

Bad music today is no longer down to 'the kids' and you're not too old to 'get' certain acts. You either like it or you don't these days, whatever your age.
sweetbutinsane
QUOTE (Wife Of Rolex @ May 3 2009, 06:47 PM) *
Bad music today is no longer down to 'the kids' and you're not too old to 'get' certain acts. You either like it or you don't these days, whatever your age.


I agree.

I don't even know much of what other people my age are listening to these days (except for that God-awful Lady Gaga) because I don't listen to the radio any more, let alone the chart shows.
Jon 79
QUOTE (Wife Of Rolex @ May 3 2009, 06:47 PM) *
But on the flip side of that, tickets for their arena tour sold brilliantly,


That's because their audience have grown up and have jobs now.


Anyhoo.... The point of this thread was not to ask if you listen to what the kids listen to... but to ask: If you used to be aware of what the latest bands were, was there a time when you suddenly realised you didn't know what was going on with the music scene, particularly in reference to a genre that you were really into.


...did that make sense?
Wife Of Rolex
QUOTE (Jon 79 @ May 3 2009, 10:46 PM) *
That's because their audience have grown up and have jobs now.


Boyzone have a more diverse fan base than you'd think. Even 10-12 years ago the audience at concerts ranged quite widely in both age and gender.



QUOTE (Jon 79 @ May 3 2009, 10:46 PM) *
Anyhoo.... The point of this thread was not to ask if you listen to what the kids listen to... but to ask: If you used to be aware of what the latest bands were, was there a time when you suddenly realised you didn't know what was going on with the music scene, particularly in reference to a genre that you were really into.


No, I pretty much have a decent grasp of what's popular at the moment. I can't say that I especially like most of it but I don't hate it and I'm fairly aware of what's about that's considered "new". Frankmusik is very good, I like him. At the same time, I'm still coming across music that either passed me by first time round or from before I was born.

I don't follow the charts as closely as I used to, but then most people don't these days. I still check them every other week out of interest, though. Looking at this week's Top 40 I'd only heard a 3rd of the songs and for the rest had either heard of the act but not heard that particular track or had no knowledge of either. But I don't think I've hit the wall of music estrangement yet.

I'm still "dan wiv da kidz, innit."

U getz me, blud?


Cool as.
Jon 79
QUOTE (Wife Of Rolex @ May 4 2009, 02:52 PM) *
I'm still "dan wiv da kidz, innit."

U getz me, blud?


I've no idea what you are talking about, I'm sure.


My lack of current music knowledge could be as you said; new bands lack of TV coverage. Especially these days as I generally don't watch much tv*, apart from the odd comedy series or The Apprentice.

*not including the 6 or so hours of archive tv I watch each day at work.
logger
QUOTE (Jon 79 @ May 3 2009, 10:46 PM) *
Anyhoo.... The point of this thread was not to ask if you listen to what the kids listen to... but to ask: If you used to be aware of what the latest bands were, was there a time when you suddenly realised you didn't know what was going on with the music scene, particularly in reference to a genre that you were really into.

I have no idea who the bands are or what youngsters listen to. I've pretty much just listened to what I listen to for the last ten years or so and just investigate out from there. A lot of these indie bands sound the same and are interchangeable to me.
Jon 79
QUOTE (logger @ May 4 2009, 04:28 PM) *
I have no idea who the bands are or what youngsters listen to. I've pretty much just listened to what I listen to for the last ten years or so and just investigate out from there. A lot of these indie bands sound the same and are interchangeable to me.


Yeah. That's the sort of response I was after with this thread. You could've almost said the above whilst shaking a stick (and sat in a rocking-chair with your pipe and slippers etc.) wink.gif

Were you ever in the know music wise? ...You see, I was... but now I'm not.
Starscream`s Ghost
I never was, and I'm quite proud of it. I don't think I've even listened to the charts in 20 years.
logger
QUOTE (Jon 79 @ May 4 2009, 11:59 PM) *
Were you ever in the know music wise? ...You see, I was... but now I'm not.

I so was until my mid teens, I knew all the bands, then I just went my own way. I blame Brit Pop.
Jon 79
QUOTE (logger @ May 5 2009, 10:52 AM) *
I so was until my mid teens, I knew all the bands, then I just went my own way. I blame Brit Pop.


Are you not blaming Fleetwood Mac?
Sostie
As an old fogey I thought I'd give my tuppence worth. Two moments have made me think "I don't get what the kids are listening to.

The first was after I hadn't seen any mainstream bands live for a while. I started gigging again, and noticed I was taller and older than a lot of the audience. Bit of an eye opener. What was more disturbing though was the audience's attitude. Having spent years going to gigs and seeing many a so called "heavy band", the likes of The Ramones, Faith No More, Nine Inch Nails, Nirvana, Mudhoney, Ministry, Anthrax etc The experience in the "mosh pit" was never really that bad. Sure there was always one arse hole in the crowd, but the whole idea was to have fun, and if anyone fell or got hurt, people stopped and made an effort to help them up/out. Later on it had changed. These younger audience members were still enjoying the mosh pit, but if anyone got into their space, bumped into them etc they would use it as an excuse to get violent. And God help any girl who got caught up in the melee. That was seen as an open invitation to get groped.

The second moment was the over the top reaction towards The Strokes. There is not one thing, in either their music or image that is original or special. Yet they were treated as the new messiahs. Because basically one music paper (the only weekly paper left) with a buch of writers who I am sure have a record collection that doesn't go any further back than Britpop, says they are "cool".


I know every generation gets to a point where they think modern music is not really as good as the old day, but really, what has become of:

Hip-hop - the social commentary of the likes of Public Enemy, Grandmaster Flash, NWA etc has turned into mainly the violent, misoginist, I'm better than you boasting

R&B - the glory of Stax & Atlantic is now basically people verbally jizzing over computer generated farts and samples

Punk - Green Day and their ilk in the same catergory as Sex Pistols, Clash and Ramones. Fuck off

Goth - well it's called Emo now, and instead of being fun it seems to be about blaming everyone except yourself for the world's/your problems. Seems to me a lot of Emo's find the band and then adopt the attitude, rather than have the attitude and adopt the band.

Indie - Razorlight and The Kooks are labelled in the same group that gave up The Smiths, The Fall & Jesus & Mary Chain. This is embarrassing and insulting.

I admit that there have been some real gems churned out by new acts in these categories, but it just feels different. I find myself looking for and discovering more and more great music from the past, as well as still buying releases by new acts. But more often than not the older stuff seems more satisfying. I guess the more you listen to older records the more you realise very little "new" music is being made.
Jessopjessopjessop
Sostie sums up my thoughts on other genres pretty well but they're not my forte.

For me, the dance acts that came along in the early noughties - Basement Jaxx spring to mind - were not a patch on the giants of the 1990s like Underworld, Orbital and The Chemical Brothers. There is/was no substance or seriousness about these new acts, and they were too chart-orientated for my tastes. But they came out of the clubbing revolution and laddism of the late 90s and were more about partying than making mind-altering music like the post-rave bands.

Since then, new and interesting acts have appeared but none with as wide an appeal as those big three above. But that's not necessarily bad. Now it's more about niche genres and some artists within these areas are creating some really interesting stuff. Lindstrom for example is heavily inspired by the past, but polishes up his influences to create something shiny and modern. Ulrich Schnauss and M83 have popularised 'nu-gaze' but have an intellectuality that rip-off bands on the indie scene lack. Simian Mobile Disco are as close as you come to the big dance acts of the 1990s, probably because they have the same acid house influences.

In the main I don't feel too distressed about new music not appealing. It seems this happens in more chart-friendly genres - like indie, R&B, etc - and apart from cherry-picking a few of these acts to follow, the music I follow tends to keep innovating within their respective pigeon holes.
Wife Of Rolex
BBC4 has been showing the Pop On Trial series again, with the finale on last night. Some probably caught it first time round last year, but if you missed it (or want to see it again) it's worth watching as it raises a few interesting points that sort of go with this thread.


Pop On Trial Finale
dandan
[big load of waffle]the kids, bless 'em are doing what they've always done, only slightly more so...

genres become confused, they evolve, people either embrace the change or they don't. some people stick rigidly within the confines of a genre, dipping into it and, occasionally, straying towards the bands which are hailed as having influenced it, but little further. others like to have fingers in many pies and would have real difficulty narrowing their tastes down to specific eras or genres of music. sometimes great swathes of bands / acts emerge and forge a new genre (sub-genre or label) which becomes the focus of great attention, other times eclecticism is the way of the day. this is the way it has always been and the way it always shall be. listening to friends, who are old enough not only to have upgraded their vinyl to cd, but also remember making the move from 78s to lps, they remember hearing chuck berry for the first time and thinking "hang on, this isn't jazz...". listening to a lot of radio 3, the same happened throughout the various movements of classical music - debussy (who i love) was slated by a lot of critics of his time, with an eminent composer (i can't remember who) commenting that 'if we're not careful, we could end up quite liking this'...

and so on, and so forth...

in terms of current music, as sostocles says, there is a tendency amongst the music press to hype bands and focus on inventing genres. again, something which has always happened, but with so much information available to enquiring minds, so many ways to discover and listen to music, these events are bound to occur, either as a desire to manufacture a scene or to simply raise one's head above the others and get noticed. it is something which has happened a lot in the past, but with a glut of information being thrown at us, whenever we turn on the tv, radio or go online, it's just happening a little more...

as a result, it's very easy to stumble across shit music, if you're not willing to make the effort. but, by the same rationale, it's also a lot easier to have good music thrust into your auditory catchment area. the lowest common denominators of indie, r'n'b, house, techno, rap, hip-hop, drum'n'bass, electronica, punk, ska, classical, jazz, rock, metal and every other genre one could care to mention, are all easily accessible and pumped into your ear holes as you walk through shopping centres, watch television, listen to radio or whatever. by the same token, you'll often be surprised to find that you're also getting to hear quality chunks of seemingly obscure music in all of these places as well, but to a much lesser extent. go figure...

personally, as i get older, i do find myself dipping into the past a lot more with each passing year, but that's not to say that i still don't see and hear an awful lot of new bands as well. however, with an interest in music of almost any genre, i would find it crazy if i didn't continue to explore and expand my musical diet...

as for new music: there's still some very good new indie bands, house, techno and electro producers, hip-hop mcs and djs, jazz and classical players / composers, as well as huge swathes of people producing good music of almost every genre. of course, here's a lot of people producing shit and working towards a populist agenda, but there always has been.

in terms of older music, there are certain styles, movements and genres which arose during certain socio-political circumstances which cannot be replicated, or embraced new ideas, technologies and techniques, of which the same can be said. some things, such as the initial fusing folk and classical influences in the evolution of jazz, writing operas that weren't in italian, the development of music technology: from harpsichord to piano, lute to guitar, bongos to multi-piece drum kits, adding electric pick-ups to guitars, embracing the sampler, using a turntable as an instrument, the invention of roland tr-808, tr-909 and the tb-303, and so on and so fourth... technology cannot be re-invented, but it can change and the influences of these changes can be felt. exact socio-political conditions may never be repeated, but times will always change and, once again, these effects will be felt.

as things stand, people will always look at certain bands, acts, sounds and eras which mean something to them, and feel that it is, in some way, better than what followed. but, by the same token, there will be people who have felt exactly the same way in the past...

for instance; as much as jessop likes the three bands that he mentions, i see them as being part of a raft of british acts who appropriated the sound that came out of the evolving spheres of disco, salsoul, hip-hop, electro, house and techno scenes from chicago, detroit and new york. that's not to say that i haven't liked records which they have created, but they're just not acts who i place any importance with.

by the same rationale, when sostie bemoans the current state of hip-hop, i could argue that he's actually talking about rap, not hip-hop. ain't labels great... i could, however, also say that the likes of prince paul, q-bert, rob swift, edan, anti-pop consortium are, between them, currently producing hip-hop which rivals any of their predecessors, in terms of fun, lyrical content, technique, artistic endeavour and so on and so forth...



so, after all this waffling, i guess i'm trying to say that it's just about opinions, frames of reference and no one is really right or wrong. people may label and pigeon-hole all they like, but music is music and no one will ever agree on what sounds best...[/big load of waffle]
Sostie
I actually call it hippity hoppity. I also have a dislike for modern R and/or B.
Sostie
QUOTE (dandan @ May 7 2009, 02:39 PM) *
there was too much waffle...



Well it seemed ok to me. And now my last post makes no sense.
dandan
sorry, i was re-reading it and there was just too much, so it went...
dandan
okay, it was still on my clipboard, so it's back and now none of the last four posts make sense...
Nonus Aequilibrium
I can't really think of any genre of music I don't "get". There's plenty of stuff I don't like but it's not hard to see why others do. I suppose having tastes in the far extreme range of the musical spectrum has helped to stop myself being quite so dismissive of anything unconventional.
angle
In the eighties i followed the metal scene and considered myself part of it (hairstyle clothes,rock pubs and clubs, all the latest releases etc) .In the nineties i was still into metal but also fell into the drum and bass scene, not to be trendy, it just struck a chord so i started collecting drum and bass albums and going to club nights but i don't consider myself part of any scene these days, if i hear a song i like i seek out the band on the net maybe download the odd track and if i like it, go buy the album.
Ive always liked a wide range of music anyway,being a musician you have to listen to as many styles as possible for inspiration.
I don't really feel out of the loop with new music i think im just way pickier about what i spend my cash on now and i think that has a bearing on being part of a 'scene' when you are younger you're happy to splash your cash on album after album as you don't have the same costs and responsibilities as when you get older.
Like Sostie said, going to gigs is slightly different as you do notice how young everyone looks but i still don't feel out of place particularly.
One thing i have noticed is when i hear a band i like but don't know much about i tend to look up how old they are because im a bit edgy about bands that are too young, i couldn't wholeheartedly get into the lyrics if the song writer was like 15 just because i'd have no respect for their life experiences, i mean, what life experiences really? i have to feel something in common with the song writer to have respect for them.
every so often a band comes along that is just so interesting that i'll put aside any reservations and just go with it, eg Bat for lashes, i kept hearing them mentioned but the name put me off, my first thought was 'ach bloody kiddy band,no thanks' but then i heard a few tracks off the new album and loved it, having listened to the full album i was surprised how deep it is, it's not so much a band as a song writer (Natasha Khan) with a different set of musicians backing her up on each album, Charlotte Hatherly is playing with her now which surprised me as she didn't seem a good fit to the songs at first, i always thought she was more rocky but it works, there are definate comparisons to Kate Bush and Bjork but it never strays into plaigarism or style copying and most importantly the music moves me.
I think i could get into any new band or artist as long as they move me emotionally and i connect with them on some level but as for particular 'Scenes' i just don't have the desire or need to belong, i like to just be free to tap into anything that inspires me these days.

To answer your original question Jon, I don't think i've reached or will ever reach an age where i just don't get it or feel like the whole scene is alien to me, I'll just pick and choose the artists that move me, watching Jools Holland never fails to surprise me, usually when i see the line up for the show there will be maybe one or two acts that im watching for specifically but i always end up enjoying every band on there and thinking ' well that surprised me, i thought they were gonna be shit'.
I think the people who moan the most about so called 'modern music' or 'them bloody kids' are people who wouldn't have liked the music even when they were the same age as the act in question, i guess some people are just born old.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.