As the next presidential election rolls around, few Americans are happy with a state of the union. The Fed is inflating the dollar, the government won't stop wasting money on inefficient programs and needless wars, and there is less transparency than ever. Obama was elected on change, but his policies are not unlike a moderate Republican 20 years ago. He is seeming more and more like a neoconservative, giving bailouts and tax breaks to huge corporations while the average American gets the shaft. But up until now, the GOP offered no sound alternatives. All corporatists, from Newt to Mitt to Santorum, or jokes, like Palin or Trump.
Today, I have slightly more hope. Not just because Ron Paul announced his candidacy. I like Paul, but he is more socially conservative than I would like and can come across as old and kooky. Rather, someone I've had my eye on for awhile, someone actually feasible, practical, logical, intelligent, entered the race for the GOP nomination: Gary Johnson.
Johnson is the former governor of New Mexico. His tenure was significant for a number of reasons. New Mexico is a 2 to 1 Democrat state. He was elected and reelected. In the process, he vetoed more bills than all other governors combined. No corporate welfare. No useless spending. That was his policy. When he did leave office, New Mexico was one of four states with a surplus. On the personal level, Johnson is a libertarian. He believes in the individual, and he lives as an example. Out of college, Johnson built a construction business from the ground up. By the time he sold the company 23 years later, it was one of New Mexico's largest construction companies, with a multi-million dollar value and over 1000 employees. On top of this, he participates in triathlons, climbed Mount Everest - and he's only 58. Unlike Paul, he's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-immigration. Like Paul, he advocates ending the War On Drugs and legalizing marijuana, and rejects auto and banking bailouts, state bailouts, cap-and-trade, card check, and the mountain of regulation that protects special interests rather than benefiting consumers or the economy. Personal freedom is what Johnson is all about.
Though I don't see Johnson winning due to his low recognition status, his and Paul's presences in the debates will surely bring a new dynamic. The GOP can't deny the problems with these two loudmouths around. I have faith that this election cycle might actually usher in some real change - at the very least in the direction of freedom and in the heart of the average American rather than the Forbes 500.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Pros And Cons Of P2P
The battle against illegal file sharing has proven to be the most important issue of the modern music industry. The turn of the century marked the beginning of an online music revolution, with peer-to-peer (P2P) networks such as Kazaa and Napster becoming popular music services, notably for being free of charge - as well as for engaging in copyright infringement. In effect, music sales have dropped significantly in recent years.
In March of 2000, 'N Sync's “No Strings Attached” broke one-week sales records when it moved 2.4 million units. This has yet to be broken. In fact, the chances of it ever being broken are doubtful upon examination of the charts. In June 2009, every album on the Billboard 200 chart cumulatively sold less than 'N Sync did in its first week nine years earlier. Has music become less popular? In a world of constantly advancing connection capabilities? Quite the contrary. In 2001, the iPod hit stores, and with it, the idea of music as a physical product began to fade. In an effort to crack down on file-sharers, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued nearly 35,000 people. But sales continue to drop. And in reflection upon the last decade in music, the second best-selling album was in fact “No Strings Attached,” by 'N Sync! And at number one is The Beatles' “1.”
While illegal downloading undoubtedly hurts major labels, it has huge benefits for everyone else. It's become incredibly simple for artists to mass distribute music on their own with three easy steps: find an online service, plan the release, and promote. These tools are readily (and cheaply) available on the Internet. For a piece of the profit – which would have been taken by a record company anyway – TuneCore will accept uploads from any artist. It takes minutes to set up, and within two weeks, it could be on iTunes, Rhapsody, Amazon, and Napster. For promotion, social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, last.fm, and iLike have millions of users ready for the next viral entertainment.
Through the Internet, artists are instantly globalized. Without need for a physical record, artists are no longer dependants of corporate intent. Indeed, if record companies don't find solutions, artists will go elsewhere. The same rule can be applied to music buyers looking for cheap and easy access to the music they love. The increase in music accessibility, with the help of the MP3 player, means consumers are listening to more music, more often. With iTunes, one can buy individual songs and albums instantly, and with illegal P2P services, one can download an even broader selection of music for free. With the line between mainstream music and the marginal music of global and sub cultures becoming increasingly blurred, it no longer rests on major record labels to manufacture music. The music listener can easily find anything, from obscure to popular, on the ever-expanding Internet.
In March of 2000, 'N Sync's “No Strings Attached” broke one-week sales records when it moved 2.4 million units. This has yet to be broken. In fact, the chances of it ever being broken are doubtful upon examination of the charts. In June 2009, every album on the Billboard 200 chart cumulatively sold less than 'N Sync did in its first week nine years earlier. Has music become less popular? In a world of constantly advancing connection capabilities? Quite the contrary. In 2001, the iPod hit stores, and with it, the idea of music as a physical product began to fade. In an effort to crack down on file-sharers, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued nearly 35,000 people. But sales continue to drop. And in reflection upon the last decade in music, the second best-selling album was in fact “No Strings Attached,” by 'N Sync! And at number one is The Beatles' “1.”
While illegal downloading undoubtedly hurts major labels, it has huge benefits for everyone else. It's become incredibly simple for artists to mass distribute music on their own with three easy steps: find an online service, plan the release, and promote. These tools are readily (and cheaply) available on the Internet. For a piece of the profit – which would have been taken by a record company anyway – TuneCore will accept uploads from any artist. It takes minutes to set up, and within two weeks, it could be on iTunes, Rhapsody, Amazon, and Napster. For promotion, social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, last.fm, and iLike have millions of users ready for the next viral entertainment.
Through the Internet, artists are instantly globalized. Without need for a physical record, artists are no longer dependants of corporate intent. Indeed, if record companies don't find solutions, artists will go elsewhere. The same rule can be applied to music buyers looking for cheap and easy access to the music they love. The increase in music accessibility, with the help of the MP3 player, means consumers are listening to more music, more often. With iTunes, one can buy individual songs and albums instantly, and with illegal P2P services, one can download an even broader selection of music for free. With the line between mainstream music and the marginal music of global and sub cultures becoming increasingly blurred, it no longer rests on major record labels to manufacture music. The music listener can easily find anything, from obscure to popular, on the ever-expanding Internet.
The Loudness War
It's a fact that people respond more positively to louder audio stimulation. With the progression of technology, the music industry has always tried to capitalize on this, resulting in the "loudness war." It originated with the introduction of the compact disc, which doesn’t have the same dynamic limitation that vinyl does. The call for a louder listening experience in the analog era ultimately resulted in a loudness “arms race” upon the emergence of the digital music format, due to competition between radio stations and recording studios to create louder, more powerful records. Because maximum dynamic levels are available in digital recording, increasing the overall loudness of a track will eventually saturate the audio, creating a sound that is uniformly loud throughout.
Destroying the loudness range actually takes away from the emotional power of the music, instead creating what is called "listener fatigue," and exceeding the saturation point has the tendency to create clipping, or unwanted distortion, in a recording, destroying the quality of the audio. Additionally, radio stations and MP3 players have audio equalizers and volume control; the purpose of the loudness war has therefore been defeated – and has arguably resulted in turning off more listeners than it has attracted. The production quality of albums such as “Memory Almost Full” by Paul McCartney and “Death Magnetic” by Metallica has received criticism for being muddy and annoyingly loud. “Death Magnetic,” in particular, has been characterized for being distorted and musically undefined. As of June 2009, an online petition calling for its re-release without dynamic range compression has been endorsed by over 20,000 people. Whether or not calls from fans and within the industry will result in the death of the “loudness war” remains to be seen.
Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory? is generally seen as a catalyst, mixed louder for crowded pubs. Masterer Vlado Meller later mastered Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication, which was criticized for being atrociously loud. Nowadays, artists like The Strokes, Kanye West, and Katy Perry have louder records than the Megadeth releases of the 80s. On the other hand, many indie and post-punk artists like The Cure, Hot Hot Heat, and Nine Inch Nails have retained creative control and avoided the "loudness war" phenomenon.
Destroying the loudness range actually takes away from the emotional power of the music, instead creating what is called "listener fatigue," and exceeding the saturation point has the tendency to create clipping, or unwanted distortion, in a recording, destroying the quality of the audio. Additionally, radio stations and MP3 players have audio equalizers and volume control; the purpose of the loudness war has therefore been defeated – and has arguably resulted in turning off more listeners than it has attracted. The production quality of albums such as “Memory Almost Full” by Paul McCartney and “Death Magnetic” by Metallica has received criticism for being muddy and annoyingly loud. “Death Magnetic,” in particular, has been characterized for being distorted and musically undefined. As of June 2009, an online petition calling for its re-release without dynamic range compression has been endorsed by over 20,000 people. Whether or not calls from fans and within the industry will result in the death of the “loudness war” remains to be seen.
Oasis' (What's the Story) Morning Glory? is generally seen as a catalyst, mixed louder for crowded pubs. Masterer Vlado Meller later mastered Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication, which was criticized for being atrociously loud. Nowadays, artists like The Strokes, Kanye West, and Katy Perry have louder records than the Megadeth releases of the 80s. On the other hand, many indie and post-punk artists like The Cure, Hot Hot Heat, and Nine Inch Nails have retained creative control and avoided the "loudness war" phenomenon.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
One Size Doesn't Fit All
My problem with politics is the same as my problem with music. It's the same; whether we're talking about government agendas or industry standards, hipster pretention or neocon moral pretention, it doesn't matter. Everyone is always so certain that if something works for them, it must in fact work for everyone. It's this "one size fits all" mentality that has destroyed both the economy and image of pop music.
Let me break it down. I'm not an objectivist libertarian. I firmly believe in the power of the individual, and I think everyone has his or her own idea of what society should be, of what ideal music is, of what's moral and immoral. To me, the only things that are decidedly moral are what is private to oneself and what is consensual between persons. The rest is up for debate. Abortion? Good luck finding any universals there. I think it's an individual issue. Others think it's murder. The death penalty? I think the justice system leaves too much room for error and the government needn't make life or death decisions regarding citizens. Others (oddly the same group that feels that abortion is murder) think it's justified. Violence? I think it's only justified in self-defense. Others (usually the same group that feels that abortion is murder and the death penalty is not) think it can be used to promote a greater good.
Okay, those are the landmark left vs. right issues. On these issues, I side with the left. What about the trickier issues? What about things like welfare, health care, the War On Drugs? Many will argue (on either side of the aisle) that these issues are too touchy, too impersonal, too widespread to be left to the individual. Penn Jillette, magician of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! fame says it nicely.
Penn might come off as a dick, and he's obviously biased and relying on a few ad hominems, but he's right. I'm not talking about fringe safety net welfare here to help the select few that are on the streets (partially because of the government, but that's another thing). But saying health care is a right means taking away a different right from a laborer. Health care isn't free, and doctors go to school, work long hours, and take a lot of risks. Saying health care is a right implies obligations on the part of others to provide it. And if health care, something extremely expensive, is a right, then why not food and water? Where do you draw the line? A government that intervenes so far as to say "food and water is a universal right and we can provide it" is preposterous and the result would be disastrous (and Soviet-esque). The truth is, you can't know everything about everyone. You can't assume what works for you will work for everyone, and you can't assume what should work will work. Systems are more complicated than anyone can understand from their own personal standpoint, as Penn points out. The problem with health care is that there is no one universal set problem-and-answer. We can't know what everyone needs, what will work for 350,000,000 people simultaneously. Laws can't and will never make everyone happy. So don't make them. Fair doesn't exist, because everything is completely subjective and open-ended. Affirmative action becomes just as one-sided as the racism it fights. Feminism becomes so extreme that it too is sexist. We understand what works for ourselves and sometimes what works for our closest friends and family. But no one is better at spending my money than me, and no one is seemingly worse at spending my money than the government. Look at the government. They're in mountains of debt. When they've clearly mismanaged public money to this extent, why would anyone want to give them more? Universal health care sounds so nice and benevolent. But leave it to the individual. And those willing to work for others who cannot support themselves do exist, and they will help.
One might wonder, how does this even apply to music? Easily. Turn on pop radio and 90% of it sounds the same. You can align certain songs on the Top 40 and they will progress simultaneously. Not only that, but their tones and timbres are the same too! And yet I meet very few people who love Top 40. Most people love pop, whether it's indie pop or pop punk or baroque pop or noise pop. But try and compare those 4 subgenres and you'll find some overlap in structure but monumental differences in tone, timbre, character, substance, instrumentation, etc. Some people like angsty pop. Some people like experimental instrumental pop. Some people like ambient pop. The problem with the music industry is it sets itself up on something that is, in their eyes, seemingly universal. It's not, and they were doomed to fail! The Internet opens up individualism and democratization in music and now whole new genres are popping up all the time. It's stupid to be pretentious about music taste; everyone likes something different. Your taste is not better than my taste, and vice versa. And I certainly don't want to hear music that's manufactured to try to satisfy as many peoples' tastes as possible. You end up alienating everyone. But hey, if you do like Top 40, that's cool too.
JUST LEAVE IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
Let me break it down. I'm not an objectivist libertarian. I firmly believe in the power of the individual, and I think everyone has his or her own idea of what society should be, of what ideal music is, of what's moral and immoral. To me, the only things that are decidedly moral are what is private to oneself and what is consensual between persons. The rest is up for debate. Abortion? Good luck finding any universals there. I think it's an individual issue. Others think it's murder. The death penalty? I think the justice system leaves too much room for error and the government needn't make life or death decisions regarding citizens. Others (oddly the same group that feels that abortion is murder) think it's justified. Violence? I think it's only justified in self-defense. Others (usually the same group that feels that abortion is murder and the death penalty is not) think it can be used to promote a greater good.
Okay, those are the landmark left vs. right issues. On these issues, I side with the left. What about the trickier issues? What about things like welfare, health care, the War On Drugs? Many will argue (on either side of the aisle) that these issues are too touchy, too impersonal, too widespread to be left to the individual. Penn Jillette, magician of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! fame says it nicely.
Penn might come off as a dick, and he's obviously biased and relying on a few ad hominems, but he's right. I'm not talking about fringe safety net welfare here to help the select few that are on the streets (partially because of the government, but that's another thing). But saying health care is a right means taking away a different right from a laborer. Health care isn't free, and doctors go to school, work long hours, and take a lot of risks. Saying health care is a right implies obligations on the part of others to provide it. And if health care, something extremely expensive, is a right, then why not food and water? Where do you draw the line? A government that intervenes so far as to say "food and water is a universal right and we can provide it" is preposterous and the result would be disastrous (and Soviet-esque). The truth is, you can't know everything about everyone. You can't assume what works for you will work for everyone, and you can't assume what should work will work. Systems are more complicated than anyone can understand from their own personal standpoint, as Penn points out. The problem with health care is that there is no one universal set problem-and-answer. We can't know what everyone needs, what will work for 350,000,000 people simultaneously. Laws can't and will never make everyone happy. So don't make them. Fair doesn't exist, because everything is completely subjective and open-ended. Affirmative action becomes just as one-sided as the racism it fights. Feminism becomes so extreme that it too is sexist. We understand what works for ourselves and sometimes what works for our closest friends and family. But no one is better at spending my money than me, and no one is seemingly worse at spending my money than the government. Look at the government. They're in mountains of debt. When they've clearly mismanaged public money to this extent, why would anyone want to give them more? Universal health care sounds so nice and benevolent. But leave it to the individual. And those willing to work for others who cannot support themselves do exist, and they will help.
One might wonder, how does this even apply to music? Easily. Turn on pop radio and 90% of it sounds the same. You can align certain songs on the Top 40 and they will progress simultaneously. Not only that, but their tones and timbres are the same too! And yet I meet very few people who love Top 40. Most people love pop, whether it's indie pop or pop punk or baroque pop or noise pop. But try and compare those 4 subgenres and you'll find some overlap in structure but monumental differences in tone, timbre, character, substance, instrumentation, etc. Some people like angsty pop. Some people like experimental instrumental pop. Some people like ambient pop. The problem with the music industry is it sets itself up on something that is, in their eyes, seemingly universal. It's not, and they were doomed to fail! The Internet opens up individualism and democratization in music and now whole new genres are popping up all the time. It's stupid to be pretentious about music taste; everyone likes something different. Your taste is not better than my taste, and vice versa. And I certainly don't want to hear music that's manufactured to try to satisfy as many peoples' tastes as possible. You end up alienating everyone. But hey, if you do like Top 40, that's cool too.
JUST LEAVE IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
My Personal Struggle With Protest Music
First off, I want to state that I am both a political person and a musical person. My interest in music stretches back to age 5, and my interest in politics goes back to age 14. Musically, I started with piano, then moved onto writing songs, and finally singing - all within a span of about 3 years. Politically, I began as a socialist, both socially liberal and anti-capitalist, before taking up in interest in the art of business as well as discovering the evils of government and the failures of communism. Thus at age 17 I began to transition to libertarianism, and I have since inched closer and closer to what is called anarcho-capitalism. It is, I believe, the only fair and natural system, both liberal and logical - no corporations, no taxes, no privileges, and equal rights for all. Currently, however, I am a minarchist, as I think local governments can properly protect life, liberty, and property of citizens through public courts, defense, and security.
So, considering all of this, why have I only written one or two political songs? I have a lot of personal frustration with the government and related to politics, and my songs are almost always personal. One would think that I would write political songs often. And yet every time I sit down to write one, nothing comes out.
Throughout this semester, I've thought long and hard about this. I've noticed that I don't own too much political music; rather, I tend to listen to music that is either about love or is some sort of storytelling, perhaps fantastical or surreal. Finally, in realizing this, I've begun to understand why I don't write much protest music myself.
I consider myself a rationalist, hence my political beliefs, as I don't think socialism can be attained without a large authoritarian government. I don't think it complies with human nature. Music, on the other hand, has a history in the romantic. It's art. It has a life of its own. Why do you think box office revenues go up during recessions? People need an escape. I need an escape sometimes. I don't write music for social commentary. I write music because I get lost in it. Everything else fades away, and I don't have to consider the evils of the world for a little while. It's as if Hollywood has trained us to ignore the real world and live in fantasy. I realize now just how much a slave to the system I am.
So, considering all of this, why have I only written one or two political songs? I have a lot of personal frustration with the government and related to politics, and my songs are almost always personal. One would think that I would write political songs often. And yet every time I sit down to write one, nothing comes out.
Throughout this semester, I've thought long and hard about this. I've noticed that I don't own too much political music; rather, I tend to listen to music that is either about love or is some sort of storytelling, perhaps fantastical or surreal. Finally, in realizing this, I've begun to understand why I don't write much protest music myself.
I consider myself a rationalist, hence my political beliefs, as I don't think socialism can be attained without a large authoritarian government. I don't think it complies with human nature. Music, on the other hand, has a history in the romantic. It's art. It has a life of its own. Why do you think box office revenues go up during recessions? People need an escape. I need an escape sometimes. I don't write music for social commentary. I write music because I get lost in it. Everything else fades away, and I don't have to consider the evils of the world for a little while. It's as if Hollywood has trained us to ignore the real world and live in fantasy. I realize now just how much a slave to the system I am.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The Power Struggle
Lately, I've been venting more and more about my frustration with the government, and with these frustrations I find myself becoming increasingly at odds with our fasco-socialist authority. I am becoming increasingly anti-government. It seems like everyday I find myself dumbfounded yet again by something coming out of our administration, whether it's the bail out of a big business, an unapproved war against Gadhafi in Libya, the federal shutdown of a medical marijuana plant in Montana (didn't Holder say he wasn't going to do that anymore), Hillary Clinton talking about how there's too much money in legalizing drugs (compared to leaving them illegal, with which factors of risk send prices through the roof, only increasing incentive for drug lords to sell them or acquire them in any (violent) way?), the president meeting with top CEOs of major corporations, the torture of Bradley Manning for spreading truth, or the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.
My point is, these are not the designated powers of the elected government. The government shouldn't be up on this throne; the government is supposed to be comprised of the people. And yet, we know very little compared to what they know, and they can do anything they want regardless of the law. If we protest it, there are two possible outcomes: nothingness, and imprisonment. We are hardly free. And the more power government creates for itself, the less free we are. The Constitution was written and the nation was founded on very basic classical liberal principles. That is, the protection of life, liberty, and property. These were fleshed out to prevent authoritarianism, and the Bill of Rights was written. And yet, even the original amendments are argued, such as gun rights, freedom of speech, religion, and association, rights to fair trial, rights against search and seizure, etc.
What makes me angrier than anything, however, is that Obama promised change. Were we naive? Was he just so damn likable? Did we expect more of him because he wasn't a fat, old, rich, white guy? Obama has continued Bush's policies of wiretapping, unapproved wars, torture, and bailing out big business. These are typical qualities of milito-fascism. Fascism, of course, is what resulted in corporate monopolies in the medical industry. Fascism and its regulations killed competition in ways that heightened the costs of drugs, insurance, and basic care. And it was this fascism, initiated by Nixon and Ford in the 70s, which allowed Obama to justify government meddling in the health care industry. To take care of rising prices, he said. This, though opposite of fascism on the spectrum, is socialism. The idea that if we all pay more taxes, we can all have health care. Well, the people who don't have it anyway. How about we get rid of the HMO Act of 1973, and repeal the ERISA law of 1974 that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals? Why don't we open up interstate competition? Universal health care is a real nice idea, but government is not the answer. They are the reason health care is so expensive! I certainly don't trust the government to do a job people go to school for 15 years to do. Watch the health care industry turn into something like our public education system, where teachers go to college only to get paid very little and then get sacked, or where they are paid by experience regardless of quality. Who's going to want to be a doctor then? (NOTE: I realize fascism and socialism are extreme words, but I mean them not as slurs; I am abiding rather by their textbook definitions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism).)
The worst part is, the two party system is uber-powerful thanks to lobbyists and corporate interests. The government has their hand around everyone's neck, trusting no one. Wasn't this a nation built on freedom and individuality? How can I protest if I don't believe in the possibility of results? Will it ever change?
Okay, whew. Rant is over.
My point is, these are not the designated powers of the elected government. The government shouldn't be up on this throne; the government is supposed to be comprised of the people. And yet, we know very little compared to what they know, and they can do anything they want regardless of the law. If we protest it, there are two possible outcomes: nothingness, and imprisonment. We are hardly free. And the more power government creates for itself, the less free we are. The Constitution was written and the nation was founded on very basic classical liberal principles. That is, the protection of life, liberty, and property. These were fleshed out to prevent authoritarianism, and the Bill of Rights was written. And yet, even the original amendments are argued, such as gun rights, freedom of speech, religion, and association, rights to fair trial, rights against search and seizure, etc.
What makes me angrier than anything, however, is that Obama promised change. Were we naive? Was he just so damn likable? Did we expect more of him because he wasn't a fat, old, rich, white guy? Obama has continued Bush's policies of wiretapping, unapproved wars, torture, and bailing out big business. These are typical qualities of milito-fascism. Fascism, of course, is what resulted in corporate monopolies in the medical industry. Fascism and its regulations killed competition in ways that heightened the costs of drugs, insurance, and basic care. And it was this fascism, initiated by Nixon and Ford in the 70s, which allowed Obama to justify government meddling in the health care industry. To take care of rising prices, he said. This, though opposite of fascism on the spectrum, is socialism. The idea that if we all pay more taxes, we can all have health care. Well, the people who don't have it anyway. How about we get rid of the HMO Act of 1973, and repeal the ERISA law of 1974 that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals? Why don't we open up interstate competition? Universal health care is a real nice idea, but government is not the answer. They are the reason health care is so expensive! I certainly don't trust the government to do a job people go to school for 15 years to do. Watch the health care industry turn into something like our public education system, where teachers go to college only to get paid very little and then get sacked, or where they are paid by experience regardless of quality. Who's going to want to be a doctor then? (NOTE: I realize fascism and socialism are extreme words, but I mean them not as slurs; I am abiding rather by their textbook definitions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism).)
The worst part is, the two party system is uber-powerful thanks to lobbyists and corporate interests. The government has their hand around everyone's neck, trusting no one. Wasn't this a nation built on freedom and individuality? How can I protest if I don't believe in the possibility of results? Will it ever change?
Okay, whew. Rant is over.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Evolution Of Genre
Like most of our industrial achievements, the last hundred years have been the bed for almost every major development in pop music. Think about it. In 1911, there was no jazz, no rock, no hip hop, no New Wave, no punk rock, no baroque pop, no noise rock, no country, no R&B! Blues did appear at the end of 1800s as a fusion of negro spirituals and work songs and other shouts and chants. Indeed, slavery was an abomination, but if there was one huge bright side to the experience, it was the birth of the blues.
A lot of early blues was similar in structure and pattern. If one were to try and compare the house music of MSTRKRFT to Delta blues, one would find very little in common. Nevertheless, like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, non-classical music can always be traced back to the simplicity and soul of the blues.
Okay, pick a genre. Let's start off with something relatively simple. In the 1970s, the black populace gave rise to another huge music movement spurred by a larger social movement. Hip hop was born. Hip hop began with spoken word poets verbalizing in rhythm over vinyl samples of funk, disco, R&B, reggae, and soul music. Next, focus in on disco, which was influenced by funk, swing, soul, and psychedelic rock. Soul music was derived from R&B and jazz, which are both direct descendants of - you guessed it - the blues.
That's an easy one. Let's try something more abstract, such as the recent chillwave trend. Chillwave is a synthesizer-based fusion of New Wave and shoegaze. Both New Wave and shoegaze were post-punk genres, the former being more upbeat and melodic and latter being downtempo and ambient. Post-punk music was derived from punk as a more experimental version of the original movement, mixing in progressive rock and baroque pop influences. Punk rock was in essence a heavier version of rock 'n' roll, with glam, garage, and surf influences - all of which were regional variations of the original rock 'n' roll of Elvis who, as we all know, began in the blues.
Whew! That wasn't so bad. But really, why does everything stem from the blues anyway? Well, likewise nowadays everything popular is some sort of derivative of punk, whether that be indie rock or grunge or New Wave or rapcore. And the core mentality of punk rock can be carried back to the original blues movement, which was simply a means of expression for its participants. Blues is the foundation for pop music because it embodies what art is all about - expression! And like fashion, technology, or language, niches pop up in different places in different times, and every little microevolution of genre cumulates to create monumental change over time. So, nowadays, there's something for everyone. Thank god for the blues!
A lot of early blues was similar in structure and pattern. If one were to try and compare the house music of MSTRKRFT to Delta blues, one would find very little in common. Nevertheless, like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, non-classical music can always be traced back to the simplicity and soul of the blues.
Okay, pick a genre. Let's start off with something relatively simple. In the 1970s, the black populace gave rise to another huge music movement spurred by a larger social movement. Hip hop was born. Hip hop began with spoken word poets verbalizing in rhythm over vinyl samples of funk, disco, R&B, reggae, and soul music. Next, focus in on disco, which was influenced by funk, swing, soul, and psychedelic rock. Soul music was derived from R&B and jazz, which are both direct descendants of - you guessed it - the blues.
That's an easy one. Let's try something more abstract, such as the recent chillwave trend. Chillwave is a synthesizer-based fusion of New Wave and shoegaze. Both New Wave and shoegaze were post-punk genres, the former being more upbeat and melodic and latter being downtempo and ambient. Post-punk music was derived from punk as a more experimental version of the original movement, mixing in progressive rock and baroque pop influences. Punk rock was in essence a heavier version of rock 'n' roll, with glam, garage, and surf influences - all of which were regional variations of the original rock 'n' roll of Elvis who, as we all know, began in the blues.
Whew! That wasn't so bad. But really, why does everything stem from the blues anyway? Well, likewise nowadays everything popular is some sort of derivative of punk, whether that be indie rock or grunge or New Wave or rapcore. And the core mentality of punk rock can be carried back to the original blues movement, which was simply a means of expression for its participants. Blues is the foundation for pop music because it embodies what art is all about - expression! And like fashion, technology, or language, niches pop up in different places in different times, and every little microevolution of genre cumulates to create monumental change over time. So, nowadays, there's something for everyone. Thank god for the blues!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)