John Maus, Art as Politics, and The Predicament of Change

[Eugenia]

I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore, as I believe it ran its course, but tonight I came across on two very interesting documentaries:
http://vimeo.com/35015678 (6 mins)
http://vimeo.com/34608191 (81 mins)
Please watch them if you have the time, they pretty much talk about everything we talked about here: democratization of the arts, the falling industries, technology etc.

[AppTrans]

[AppTrans]

[quote="Eugenia"] >today is a revival of some sort

Yes and no. Indeed, most popular music today has its roots to older popular music. But the good artists progress these genres, they don't just imitate them. For example, chillwave is a mix of synthpop, shoegaze, hip-hop, and ambient electronic music. There's nothing like this in the '80s, even if all these genres separately were made popular in the '80s. This IS progress!
[quote]

Nothing like this in the 80s? Try A.R. Kane from the mid to late 80s - a veritable mix of genres.
Blending, mashing, imitating was being done in the 80s, with DJs, underground synth wizards, neo psych bands.

[Eugenia]

Every era has some underground geniuses that transcend their generation, but that doesn't mean that they become influential-enough, or they manage to create a new genre. Washed Out managed that, A.R. Kane didn't, that's a key difference. Plus, I don't find A.R. Kane's music to be super-close to what I like today in chillwave/electronic (at least compared to the best modern pieces). Clams Casino comes to mind. Still Corners too.

[AppTrans]

I'm simply challenging your statement: chillwave is a mix of synthpop, shoegaze, hip-hop, and ambient electronic music. There's nothing like this in the '80s, even if all these genres separately were made popular in the '80s. Sounds baseless to me; genre mixing did occur in the 80s in some shape or form, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I stand by my comment.

Now you twist my post into who's created a "new" genre or who's done it quasi-successfully or influentially. You're comparing Washed Out with A.R. Kane, which wasn't really my point...and I thought that wasn't necessary to do in such conversations...
To say that Washed Out created an influential new genre reeks of delusion to me; that music most likely means nothing to the layperson/casual music listener. Go ask an everyday Joe. In the subjective realm, chillwave music might only matter to a small proportion of modern cultural enthusiasts. Kudos to them for finding their pop saviors. I could care less.
So, does A.R. Kane's music have to pass your version of a pop culture anthropology test to be influential or innovative? How do you know they didn't influence anyone or any band thereafter? I need some facts.

You always seem to have something contrary to offer, so I'll ask you to take note of the Creed picture. They made a big impact and were a force to be reckoned with back in the late 90s. They were grossly influential, no question about it. They had a genre that they pretty much owned (or more or less created): post grunge. Since we're comparing bands and figuring out who means more than others in the spectrum of artistic merit, where do they stand for you? I need your advice before I fall for their brand of angst n' ennnnergrrrrreeeeeee!

[AppTrans]

It's almost certain that I'm going to be corrected...again

[Eugenia]

>genre mixing did occur in the 80s in some shape or form, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

I do acknowledge this, of course! What I don't acknowledge is that the kind of mixing they did back then sounded like the stuff we have today. That was my original point: that we progressed into new forms, using these older ones. We are ahead of the '80s mixers and mashers.

>How do you know they didn't influence anyone or any band thereafter?

He could definitely have, but I have never heard any artist that I personally like to mention him.

>You always seem to have something contrary to offer

It's true that I'm a bit of a contrarian by nature, and I apologize for that. But I always try to get a good debate out of any discussion and have all the angles analyzed. I don't troll. It's true that I have strong opinions, and I defend them when I have to (as you do, as I've noticed). I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but I often come out as one (I thought it would be appropriate to upload an avatar to highlight that fact ).

>where do they stand for you?

Creed? They suck nasty hairy balls. Influential or not, I don't listen to either them, or the bands they supposedly influenced. To me, they don't exist anymore. I stopped listening to alt-rock a few years ago.

>chillwave music might only matter to a small proportion of modern cultural enthusiasts

It does to a few of us. But so it happens that it is influential to the kind of artists who actually push music forward, and who try to find new ways to create music that gets under your skin (if you have the right ear). I don't expect Jack White or Coldplay or Bieber to progress ANYTHING in music and discover new genres. But most artists I consider fresh and capable, so it happens that they do listen to chillwave, or at least forms of it. Some make fun of the genre, some others don't want to call it chillwave, even if they make such kind of music (e.g. Neon Indian).

I would have to link to Enhues, a bedroom artist who in my opinion makes some of the best non-discovered music online today. To me as a listener, this is more influential (as it drives me further away from mainstream music) than most Creed-like cr@p, or even than the majority of indie music.

[AppTrans]

Acceptable and understood! Off the subject (and I'm sure you're taken) your avatar is pretty. Don't be blushing, cuz i aint no catch! --------->