About 38 years ago today...

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

The Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane Single was released*. It is by many (myself included) considered the best single ever released despite the fact it didn't reach number one. So what I was wondering was, do you think this level of songwriting and originality will ever be reached again and more generally what does the future hold for music? Will there ever be another band as brilliant and as big as the Beatles that will again change music forever? So many new genres of music have been created since then, are there any yet to be created? Surely there must be a limit on the amount of great songs that can be written (there's only so many combinations of notes that can be made), will we ever 'run out' of decent music (by the looks of today's chart, have we already)? I often wonder what music is going to be like in another 38 years time. So much has happened in music in the last fifty years, what is left?
So basically this thread is about music and what you think it will be like when we are all in old folk's homes.

*I was going to wait untill Feb 17 to start the thread but I'd have probably forgotten about it by then so decided not to.

[Jemble Fred]

I think the possibility of there being another Beatles is about as slim as the possibility of there being another playwright who writes tragedies, comedies and histories as popular and well-written as Shakespeare. Their impact was of its time, and for anyone to even approach their success they would have to take over the world, Wyld Stalyns-style.

On a different tac, has anyone:

A) heard what's happened to the supposed 'Let It Be' DVD? The only release date I recall was for February 2004.

B) Any idea why they never released a 'Beatles 1' DVD, with all their music videos complete, as well as other self-contained TV appearances not used for the Anthology? That would have been ace.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

A) heard what's happened to the supposed 'Let It Be' DVD? The only release date I recall was for February 2004.

I read on some site somewhere that Apple have been working on it for 2 years, and that it is planned for release in 'fall 2005'. That was from some insider person. They abondoned the idea to release it in 2004 in about September I think.

[Bonely Child]

The circumstances that surrounded the Beatles, just in their meeting, let alone the cultural factors that helped them to flourish, were so unique that I can't see them ever being repeated. In purely musical terms though, rather than in terms of cultural impact etc., of course there will be another Beatles. Music hasn't been around for just the past few decades, it's been around for thousands of years. We've had the current selection of 12 notes, for what, about 400 years or so (I think)? Even if the current sytem of tonality were to stay in place forever, I imagine that the human race will be history long before we've exhuasted the musical possibilities of that system. Music might cyclically get better or worse, but there's no way we'll ever run out of tunes waiting to be written.

[kidsick5000]

of course there will be another Beatles.

Just not in our lifetime.  I could go into details but I'll just leave it there

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

I remember someone in Notes and Queries once asked a similar thing (about whether we'll 'run out' of tunes) and everyone pretty much answered with a no, but why is it that if you compare the music of the 60's and 70's with the music of the 90's and 00's the latest music is clearly worse. There have obviously been some great songs written recently but nothing compared to the stuff back then. Who is the modern equivilant of the Who, Hendrix, the Kinks or Beach Boys? Or am I just wrong and music now is as good as music then?

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

why is it that if you compare the music of the 60's and 70's with the music of the 90's and 00's the latest music is clearly worse

Because of all those bastard music executives who have more money than imagination and are more than happy to sacrifice the continued development of music as an artform in favour of making more money so they can shovel more coke up their noses.

[kidsick5000]

but why is it that if you compare the music of the 60's and 70's with the music of the 90's and 00's the latest music is clearly worse.

Because all your listening to is the good stuff that has stood the test of time. There was tons of unaldulterated shit then. Just as there is now but there really was a ton of it then. Plinky plink-dick a dum novelty records, songs so syrupy they pratically came out the record sleeve like a glob of mucus. The bands that did everyday music but just dressed to cater to whatever trend was on at the time.

Youre right. nothing is new.

[Jemble Fred]

You're right. But of course, the difference is, the cheesy shit back then was a million times better than the cheesy shit that fills the charts now. In fact, I probably own my fair share of titles you'd consider 'syrupy' from the sixties.

So, we've got good stuff, and shit stuff, just like in the 60s. Except that the good stuff was better then, and the bad stuff is worse now.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

Because all your listening to is the good stuff that has stood the test of time. There was tons of unaldulterated shit then. Just as there is now but there really was a ton of it then.

Of course there was shit, but the good music was far better than the good music now. I don't completely hate modern music, I love loads of current bands but it is undeniable that the best albums of the sixties and seventies are better than the albums of the nineties onwards. As Jemble says, we've now got worse good stuff and worse bad stuff. Why is that? I don't buy that it's purely because of money hungry music executives.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I remember someone in Notes and Queries once asked a similar thing (about whether we'll 'run out' of tunes) and everyone pretty much answered with a no, but why is it that if you compare the music of the 60's and 70's with the music of the 90's and 00's the latest music is clearly worse.

I don't think it is, there are loads of artists who write songs as good as The Beatles did, it's just that they're not getting heard because the most popular music these days is being made by rich producers, not artists. If The Beatles were around today they'd be struggling to get a record deal, simply because they don't fit in with what is popular now.

I do however think that bands need to make albums that are shorter but with more effort put into the songs. most bands will release an album with 3-4 good songs, then a load of filler. With The Beatles, every song was a potential single, every song mattered. These days there's too many artists and not enough songs, and by songs I mean well crafted, self-contained pieces of music. Bands like The Stone Roses and Oasis have come close with their debuts but then faded out.

But no, the Beatles were special, I don't think there will ever be a time when four musicians will mean so much to so many people.

[Jemble Fred]

Plus, Stan Lee has just created a superhero series to star Ringo Starr. Thirty five years after The Beatles split: http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/01/2605.cfm

If Chris Martin has his own Marvel comic series in forty years, I take it all back.

[23 Daves]

You're right. But of course, the difference is, the cheesy shit back then was a million times better than the cheesy shit that fills the charts now. In fact, I probably own my fair share of titles you'd consider 'syrupy' from the sixties.

Well, it can't be as bad as mine, then.  I've got some appalling generic sixties 'beat' tracks that would make your ears melt.  

A point to ponder though:  Until 1967, albums weren't really considered a serious investment by most record companies, meaning that the majority of bands released a lot of sub-standard LPs largely consisting of filler.  All they really had to do to be considered 'great' was stick out a couple of dynamite 45s every year, with perhaps some nice B-sides tagged on.  It's not quite on the same level.

These days to be considered even in the race, bands have to put out a CD-length album, several good singles to get on the airwaves, multiple B-sides to ensure the fans buy them, and tour until they drop.  Now, I realise the club circuit of the sixties could be demanding for bands and that financially many of them were worse off, but it still seems as if it was a lot easier for people to be in bands back then and hold back some of the 'groovy gravy' (ie the good music) for singles releases.  

I personally think the demands made on bands these days prohibit them from being as good.  If Brian Wilson had been in his twenties in 2004, he wouldn't have had the time to think of "Pet Sounds".  As an established member of a teen band (which, let's face it, the Beach Boys were) Capitol probably would have slapped him into place before he could even spend months in a recording studio working on the project.

My personal hope is that the constant onwards march and drop in prices of home studio technology will bring on a new revolution in the next ten years or so.  If it stops costing a lot of money to make a very advanced sounding, intricate album, and people can do it at home spending as much time as they wish, then the experiments that dominated the sixties may return to the fore.  The fat cat producers will also be forced to take a back seat.  Just a thought.  The 'home studio' we had at my last house was advanced enough to record perfectly good, critically acclaimed albums, most of which cost very little to do.  We're already well on our way.  

I try to be optimistic.

[BetaKarraTene]

[Of course there was shit, but the good music was far better than the good music now.

Nah, I don't buy that. Having been listening to some of the new Bright Eyes stuff, I'd say he was up there with the very best songwriters there have been. There's always good and bad stuff being made whatever the period.

The thing about back then was that there was relatively little music in terms of people recording anything. These days anyone can put out a CD with a small investment.

I doubt there'll be another Beatles in that the world is far too diverse to accept any one act as the best eve (this is without adding fashion into the equation).

My personal hope is that the constant onwards march and drop in prices of home studio technology will bring on a new revolution in the next ten years or so.  If it stops costing a lot of money to make a very advanced sounding, intricate album, and people can do it at home spending as much time as they wish....

I've received 3 demos in the past few weeks by bands that have recorded stuff out of their own pocket, and they all sound like they could easily be released without needing any further enhancements. Saying that though, it's all well and good for them being able to record stuff, but getting it properly distributed and getting themselves noticed is another matter.

[El Unicornio, mang]

That's another thing, home recording and the internet mean that it's pretty easy to make your own music for no cost and put it out there, but there's so many other people doing it that you end up lost in the sea of other artists.
To start selling regularly, you need to be getting at least 1000 hits per day on your website, which is extremely difficult (I get a measly 4 hits per day, and my link is up on shitloads of music sites). Touring definetly helps, but you really need record companies to fund promotion. So yes, bands can say "fuck you" to the majors and release their own stuff, but it's an uphill struggle to get noticed.

[Bonely Child]

I personally think the demands made on bands these days prohibit them from being as good.  If Brian Wilson had been in his twenties in 2004, he wouldn't have had the time to think of "Pet Sounds".  As an established member of a teen band (which, let's face it, the Beach Boys were) Capitol probably would have slapped him into place before he could even spend months in a recording studio working on the project.

Hmm, but at the same time, "Pet Sounds" was the Beach Boys' 12th album in 4 years, so that hardly indicates a record company that were willing to let him and the band rest on their laurels. At most, a band would probably put out 2 albums in that space of time now, and I'm sure you could find more than 2 albums' worth of decent original material from those 12 records. True, even early Beatles and Beach Boys albums had noticeable filler, but I think the quality of their good work, and the rate at which they produced it, was higher than that of bands today. I find it hard to believe that modern bands work any harder than the Beatles did, 62-66.

Spot on about home recording, though.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

Totally agree with what Bonely Child said up there. The Beatles also made a good few albums, just under two a year, not to mention the early touring etc and other pressures they would have to endure. Coldplay for example have two albums out, yet have been together for 2 years under the full life of the Beatles, they are clearly under little pressure now. If a band can have a very successful first album then they will now not be under a huge amount of pressure to pull out the second straight away. Bands like Keane will now pretty much be able to do what they want because of the success of their first record. Although again, as Bonely Child says, I agree with you on the whole home recording thing.

[23 Daves]

That's another thing, home recording and the internet mean that it's pretty easy to make your own music for no cost and put it out there, but there's so many other people doing it that you end up lost in the sea of other artists.
To start selling regularly, you need to be getting at least 1000 hits per day on your website, which is extremely difficult (I get a measly 4 hits per day, and my link is up on shitloads of music sites). Touring definetly helps, but you really need record companies to fund promotion. So yes, bands can say "fuck you" to the majors and release their own stuff, but it's an uphill struggle to get noticed.

Surely not as much of a struggle now as it was ten years ago, though?  

Actually (and this isn't necessarily directed at you) I do find it strange that precious few bands are able to play the record companies at their own game by coming up with imaginative promotional campaigns or even staging their own events, etc.  It seems a lot of people can come up with some reasonable enough tunes, but they're not very imaginative when it comes to the presentation.

Maybe it's because I lived for so long in North London surrounded by musicians (there were about six indie bands living on my street alone) but most of my friends managed to work the system to their own advantage and at least get some attention, including one fucking awful band I won't name who really shouldn't have got a single gig, never mind got A&R people to their gigs.  Almost all of them put it down to just being a bit upfront and pushy about the work (something I struggle to do myself) and presenting it in an attention-grabbing way.  One of them (who shall remain nameless) actually invented a manager persona due to his lack of confidence and regularly got on the phone as an eccentric character who we'll call Joshua.  He managed to get tons of gigs that way, and is presently managed for real by a major label executive.

If your work is perfectly good and lost in a sea of other material, then unfortunately you do have to think of something to make it stand out, or to give people a reason to investigate it.  It's a bit of a bind and has little to do with the music (unless you're being very art-school about things) but sadly it's not going to go away.  If it hadn't been for numerous acts of oddness and some very imaginative presentation, I doubt Baby Bird would have got much press attention in the Britpop (TM) nineties either.

As I've said, none of this necessarily applies to you, but I still think you should hang on in there.  If the music's good enough I honestly believe you'll get a small dedicated audience at least.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Oh I'll definetly keep on with it, music is too important to me for me to stop. As anyone here who makes music knows, it can be frustrating sometimes, but it's very rewarding.

You're right though, artists definetly need something to make them stand out from all the others out there. Gonna have to think of something....

[mayer]

I honestly think that Kid A and Psychocandy are better albums than Rubber Soul and The Beatles.

I reckon that It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back and dubnobasswithmyheadman are better, more groundbreaking, more original, more influential (in a good way) and more listenable than Odgen's Nut Gone Flake and Electric Ladyland.

At the same time I think that Revolver and Highway 61 Revisited are better LPs than Definitely Maybe and Is This It, but think that Loveless is better than Who's Next.

Yeah, pop music is a socio-cultural phenomenon. Yes it's about fifty years old odd (counting the starting point at Bill Haley or Elvis or whatever).

But to see pop purely as a social narrative, or as a train running out of steam is missing the point.


To make an analogy with literature or philosophy. There isn't going to be another Wordsworth or Shakespeare. But to be honest, I prefer Crichton and Houellebecq. And not just because they're alive and I'm young.


Anyone waiting for the next Hobbes, Locke, or perversely, either Sartre (the last pop philosopher) or Aristsotle (the first), is going to be bitterly disappointed.


Philosophy doesn't work like that anymore.


It is impossible to have another Kant. The conditions won't allow it.


That doesn't mean that other writers won't write more enjoyable, cogent, even better philosophy if you open your ears (and your mind) to it.



I can't stand Abbey Road. I think that Let It Be (either version) is a far more pleasurable listening experience. I find it bemusing that someone would find more worth in Abbey Road than dubnobasswithmyheadman. I'd question their taste, or their sanity.


But it is a matter of taste between those two LPs. So *shrugs*.


Yeah, Underworld wont get the Top 5 singles in the US chart, or visit the PM, or get MBEs. Fuck that, their debut is better than The Beatles' swansong, and it was released 20 odd years later.






It could be said I have a vested interest. I run a "record label". And I get a bunch of hits a day, with very little product to sell. But that, again, is missing the point. I don't want pop to be fantastic to benefit my record label in 2005. I have a record label in 2005, because pop is still fantastic,

[Gazeuse]

I'd disagree that bands have a harder time work-rate wise now. A quick glance at The Pink Floyd's schedule in the sixties shows them criss-crossing the country one week, over in Holland and Germany for the next etc etc... This was standard back then, with the occasional couple of days in the studio chucked in. All for the privilage of £20 per week and a life-long struggle with lawyers to get back a cut of what they really made. No wonder so many of them gave up, went mad or turned to pills and powders to keep themselves going (Which is why so many of them are dropping like flies now!!!)

I'd also say that although many people have access to recording equipment, they wont necessarily have the talent. There is some beautiful music out there hidden amongst the beautifully recorded dross. I've been jumped on before by suggesting that you need talent to write good music...People seem to think that it's un-egalitarian to suggest this may be so, but what is so egalitarian about recording facilities being available to people who can afford a computer and the other bits and pieces that are needed???

Wilson and The Beatles were all really talented and burned to make music. In the Beatles case, they were also aided by a genius producer and orchestrator. At that time there was a great demand for the stuff they were producing so the record companies got behind them and paid for and promoted their music.

Nowadays, record companies are after the quick buck and aren't so inclined to take chances.

So, to answer thw question, yes, there is plenty of music around which rivals the Beatles etc... in flair and quality. However, there is a great deal less chance that you'll get to know about it.

[chand]

Hmm, but at the same time, "Pet Sounds" was the Beach Boys' 12th album in 4 years, so that hardly indicates a record company that were willing to let him and the band rest on their laurels. At most, a band would probably put out 2 albums in that space of time now, and I'm sure you could find more than 2 albums' worth of decent original material from those 12 records.

Well, I've said before on here that there are plenty of smaller artists about who make lots of albums quickly, but in terms of the mainstream the only bands who do it are ones like Hear'Say who had to release two records fast in order to make the most of their time in the spotlight. Not sure what the reasons are why big bands aren't more prolific, but it's not necessarily due to a lack ot talent.

It doesn't upset me that much, I like a lot of bands so I'm prepared to wait 2 years for an album if it's gonna mean more quality. If I only listened to Tool then their ridiculously protracted gaps between albums would annoy, but few artists who pump out a lot of product can keep it all top-quality. I'd like to think artists are being allowed to make as many albums as they want, whether that's 3 a year (in the case of, say MF DOOM, who cranks out albums regularly as well as appearing on a ridiculous number of other people's records), or one every two or three years. But I don't know how true that is.

Like I say though, being prolific isn't always a virtue (I should know, I speak as someone who's made 13 albums in the last 3 years).

[Pinball]

I know nothing about the music biz, but I suspect the problem a band would have in becoming a "new Beatles" nowadays is simply volume. There is just so much current competition and historical back catalogue.

Let's assume "pop music" started in the 50s. That's five decades of pop music that current bands have to compete against to be considered "the best since the Beatles" - surely an unachievable task for even the best folks! Contrast that with the Beatles. Thay had, what, a decade of pop music to compete against? It was thus relatively easy for them to be a scene setter.

Just some drunken thoughts ;-)