OK my post was a mix of getting in last night in a state of excitement and also putting up something to spark a debate (the only one of you I see regularly face to face is Robin, who likes this kind of thing and threatens me with the nth resurrection of the "analogue vs. digital" thread if I don't come up with something better ;-).
It seems to have been successful as there's been lots of interesting comments. I'll comment back in turn below but first let me get some disclaimers in that maybe I wouldn't have to do if I'd worded my original post more carefully (it was late): I AM NOT BORED WITH MUSIC. I still like a lot of stuff that's coming out - I wish I didn't, I'd be quite happy if, as of this weekend onward, I found that each time I went to the record stores I found everything there a bunch of absolute [EMAIL PROTECTED] This would save me an immense amount of money, time and I wouldn't need to be thinking about moving to a bigger flat. I still wouldn't be bored as I have accumulated a huge pile of stuff over the last few years that I haven't had time to experience properly and I look forward to a time when I'm going to be able to do so. I certainly never said I was "tired of music"! (or life Ken and MEK - I do need a vacation but that's another story). I also acknowledged straight off that I'm of an age where I'm unlikely to find things new forms of things as stimulating as I did 20 years ago (so no need to remind me I'm old JT). I guess the way I worded it was that I was "waiting around" for the new music rather than watching with interest (and some trepidation - will I be left behind?) - my mistake. There's still some merit in the discussion though - I think Fred appreciated my point, we're not tired, we're still digging - or else why would I be talking the trouble to write this? So a bit more: > From: JT Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 November 2007 01:03 > > there is music out there that you > haven't heard that will knock your socks off if you seek it out I'm sure there is - e.g. there's a whole world of classical music I know so little of and can't wait to find out more, however > it's not going to fall in your lap it used to - this is my whole point really, there used to be whole explosions that you couldn't ignore if you tried and to whoever said I'm being impatient, to me the last one seemed to be in the mid 80s (OK maybe early 90s Fred). I reckon at one time if you played a kid stuff from the previous decade they'd have said "that old stuff is what my parents listened to". This lot are still listening to the same stuff. > certainly doesn't have to be "new" either Granted. But that's not my point. My point was not 'there's no music left for me to enjoy', it was 'where is this "new"'? > little wrong-headed, no offense. No offense taken mate (though next time you're here I'll take you outside one of our old boozers you said you enjoyed and teach you not to call me wrong headed ;-) > From: Thomas D. Cox, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 November 2007 04:45 > > im not sure i agree. i used punk as an example of people throwing out > the previous rules and inventing a style without anything "new", Yeah to me it was a style but not new. It was just very primitive, raw rock and roll. I always think the new wave was really OMD, Human League, John Foxx Ultravox, Joy Division etc. a year or two later - with SYNTHS. OK I know that wasn't new either as there were German bands etc, doing this before but it was new as the new pop music. > really house and techno to a large degree were like that as well I dunno, I think a synth, sampler, drum machine ensemble was kind of intrinsic to a lot of the early stuff. > "worthless" synths and drum machines that had been used and abandoned > by pop music already OK but they used them in a different way so although in some ways they were old they were in others new - e.g. acid house came from people getting wild unnatural sounds out of a 303 that was supposed to simulate a natural bass, didn't do that well and was so discarded. I know that fits well with the counter argument that it was pure human creativity using existing technology but what I mean is that making a different instrument available to creative people gave a new sound and a whole new thing sprang up from it. > obviously the electric guitar and the synthesizer changed music and > alot of ideas about music, but not every major change can be tied to a > "new" tool! for sure - I was acknowledging that with the Mahler thing but I think I'm trying to say that - as you say - the electric guitar and synth changed music. Maybe without things like that prodding us we take longer to change our music. Maybe things will go back to a rate of change similar to 300 years ago when instrumentation was fairly stable - i.e. not as fast as over the last 100 years? > From: still want to [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 November 2007 07:09 > > Because I don't think you are bored of music. You are bored of stereo! Nah, I'm not buying that. I wouldn't stop liking stuff I like in stereo if it was in mono. It's the melodies, rhythms and textures that matter not the number of channels. > From: Martin Dust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 November 2007 09:47 > > what we need is some civil unrest, a return > to the 3 day week, power cuts and rubbish in the streets, riots - Heh, heh that's you Martin. I'd like my rubbish collected thanks - and if the power's cut before I send this mail I'll be annoyed. You want Thatcher in power once more? - the above is route to the same outcome again. I think this last copied post below is the one that gives me most pause for thought. I'm not sure I'm taking it 100% simply because I'm old enough to have been around for a few different eras of music therefore it can't just be about timing can it? I.e: I liked some of the prog rock stuff when I was at school - I just liked it, it was the most interesting stuff to me as my "ears began to open" about age 12 - 14. Punk came along and I liked it at first as a pure fashion thing: it was the rebel music when I was 15 - 16. Then I decided I hated much of it as I came to find it musically rubbish (not all of it, The Clash and The Stranglers came out of it and I still love them as well as other people who got tied in at the beginning like Siouxsie). Then there was a real revolution to me - the bands I mentioned above - I was blown away. A mere 5 years or so later I was blown away all over again by house. And it wasn't like I'd never heard a disco record. I reckon this was revolution as well as evolution. But still I think you've given me something to think about here. In fact I think just about every post in this thread has. Cheers all! > From: JT Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 November 2007 06:21 > > yeah i'm with tom and completely disagree with both fred and francis. > to you (or, us) techno and house, or jungle, or whatever, was super > "new" and exciting etc when we heard it..it seemed like a radical new > sound. but that is all because of timing -- our relatively naive ears > when we were first exposed to it. we can never get that feeling back > again,
