has all the great music already been created?

shoot ur shot knows what's up. it really is funny hearing people complain about how there is nothing new and original anymore, while some of the most vital, interesting, and innovative music is being performed a few miles from the computer they're tying on. it's there, it always has been and always will be; the problem is, you're not there.

people need to broaden their myopic views on what music is, even rock 'n' roll. i completely disagree with doctor doom's statement above: pop music may be limited to the same 4/4 time signature and the same three or four chord progressions, but rock doesn't necessarily have to abide by those widely accepted rules of harmony. there are still many different ways to compose music with a steady backbeat, and even more to compose music free of those constraints. you're not gonna hear it on the radio, and you're not gonna read about it in rolling stone or spin, but if you dig down deep enough, you'll find a well of mostly untapped – and underheard – musical ideas.

so my answer is definitely, no, all the great music hasn't been created yet. there will be some great new music created shortly, whether it's folk, metal, improv, or pop, and i'm eager to hear it.

So what this thread is all about is nothing more than I've been saying for ages…..MOST NEW MUSIC TODAY IS SHITE

Problem is that the musical landscape is always littered with sound-alike/cookie cutter acts and of late there is an increased trend towards style over subtance acts. Whats lacking is the "influenced by" acts.

Style of substance is where the image is created first and the songs are written as an after thought. Think Ashlee Simpson, Kings of Leon, Bravery, All American Rejects..

There is the Warped Tour/Take Action "punk", emo and "metal", which is "thriving" on it's abliltiy to spew out an endless supply of cookie cutter screaming guy and cookie monster bands.

Since the record industry has become so album oriented, there are more acts which are coming out with first albums without getting a chance to fully develope their songwriting skills, resulting in way to much filler between the gems. Maximo Park is good example of this, they show potential but the album could have easily been pared down to another EP.

It's been great this year to be able to see The Pixies, Gang of Four and Slickee Boys. Acts that created an orginial sound, verses those newer acts that set out to sound like a specific act from the past. i.e Interpol, Kasabian, Kaiser Chiefs..

I have no problem with artists that wear their influences on the sleeve as long what they create stands apart from the orginial. Being able to write and arrange great songs is what matters most to me. These are the acts that can get easily lost in the vast waste land of pro-tooled, band wagon jumping acts, etc.

These are artists still creating great music…

Baltimore's Myracle Brah take a healty dose of influence from the classic power pop of the 60's and adds in some 70s rock/punk attitude. Just striaght up great catchy rock songwriting, not unlike Guided by Voices.

There is no doubt, that The Sugarplastic hasen't been inspired by The Beatles, XTC, etc. But they took those influences and others and have put out my favorite album of the year. Problem is that it could be overly quirky and clever for it's own good.


Eugene Edwards'sinfluences are clearily Rockpile, Squeeze and Elvis Costello. But, he takes them and creates a fantastic collection of solid pop songs. Kosmette loaded his record on her iPod on my recommendation and listened to and enjoyed it for several weeks without knowing who he was.

De Novo Dahl, The Magic Numbers, and The Delagdos (RIP), have each taken cues from a various pop sources and created thier own signatures sounds.

So don't give up hope, there is still great new music out there!

Originally posted by snailhook:
shoot ur shot knows what's up. it really is funny hearing people complain about how there is nothing new and original anymore, while some of the most vital, interesting, and innovative music is being performed a few miles from the computer they're tying on. it's there, it always has been and always will be; the problem is, you're not there.

people need to broaden their myopic views on what music is, even rock 'n' roll. i completely disagree with doctor doom's statement above: pop music may be limited to the same 4/4 time signature and the same three or four chord progressions, but rock doesn't necessarily have to abide by those widely accepted rules of harmony. there are still many different ways to compose music with a steady backbeat, and even more to compose music free of those constraints. you're not gonna hear it on the radio, and you're not gonna read about it in rolling stone or spin, but if you dig down deep enough, you'll find a well of mostly untapped – and underheard – musical ideas.

I agree with this 100%.

There's tons of great, innovative, new music out there from all over the world.

I think all of the great music HAS been created. But there are still plenty of good ways to resynthesize and repackage it so that we will enjoy it for years to come.

I don't want to be challenged by music, I want to be comforted. I want to listen to the Libertines because they remind me of the Clash, and that's comforting. Someone else may find the Libertines too challenging, and opt for the comfort of Clay Aiken.

Bottom line: I think most people would agree with me. Even those of us who like our music with an edge would agree that we prefer the familiar to the unfamiliar.

Originally posted by Xavier Bush, Power Forward:
I think all of the great music HAS been created. But there are still plenty of good ways to resynthesize and repackage it so that we will enjoy it for years to come.

So what your saying is new music can never be GREAT because all music created before it was GREAT. Enjoy your armchair and watching bitchy people get judged by pompous business tychoons… Me I'll still be out there listening to GREAT new music

I would like to think I put myself out there and try to see as much music as possible. And yet, the very best thing I heard last year was the DVD by the Screamers, a band that was never recorded and existed for a few years in the late 70's. It's not that I don't WANT to like a lot of more current bands. There are some great ones that do make some good records. But compared to the musical renaissance of the late 70's, there just aren't as many original ideas. I would never say that all current music sucks…of course there are some interesting things out there, but when one knows what came before today's hot new cool bands, it makes them all seem kind of irrelevant.

it has now…
http://music.myspace.com/thedarkness

Yes, but all of the bands you mention above, some of them even great, are ALL DERIVATIVE.

Of course there will continue to be great music created, forever and ever. But I took the question to be referring to new genres of music. I don't think any of the "new" genres that have sprung up in the last 20 years have been great.

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:

Originally posted by Xavier Bush, Power Forward:
I think all of the great music HAS been created. But there are still plenty of good ways to resynthesize and repackage it so that we will enjoy it for years to come.

So what your saying is new music can never be GREAT because all music created before it was GREAT. Enjoy your armchair and watching bitchy people get judged by pompous business tychoons… Me I'll still be out there listening to GREAT new music

So it's been downhill the minute the first human pounded two rocks together?

No, at that point there was still great music to be invented. At the point we're at now, music has jumped the shark. Sure, they can still produce great music. And they can still produce music that is innovative and original. But a combination of both? Nah. Not unless your ears can tolerate bands like Need New Body. And most people's can't. Even people who claim to be music dweebs.

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
So it's been downhill the minute the first human pounded two rocks together?

Well I'll download Needs New Body and let you know… although based on what Allmusic says their sound is derived from several sources…

and "jumped the shark" has "jumped the shark"

and besides great new music can always been created because there always going to be new tools and techniques to create and record music with.

I think all of the great music HAS been created.

which could also be said about film, novels, narrative in general. structurally there's not much differnce between songs by slayer and autechre; there's a beginning, middle and end, crescendo's and breakdowns, sometimes there're lyrics , sometimes not. the difference is mostly in styling.
I think wat may have prom,pted this thread tho, is the fact that there's a lot of homogeneity and recycling - ie. Libertines to Clash - going on in (pop) music. But it's always been this way.

Not unless your ears can tolerate bands like Need New Body. And most people's can't. Even people who claim to be music dweebs.

need new body are not even that inaccessible. i book a hell of a lot more challenging bands than them. in fact, some of their material is pretty damn catchy. NNB have plenty of disparate influences and combine them in a way that is fresh. whether it's your style or not, it is hard to question their musical ability.

xavier/rhett, you do have a valid point in that the majority of people don't want to be challenged or confronted and really do just want to be comforted with the familiar. after being involved in the avant-garde/extreme music scene for years, both attending and promoting shows, i have come to realize that most of this stuff, despite how beautiful or transcendent i find it, is simply not appealing to most people weaned on pop/rock convention. i don't expect the masses to appreciate free jazz, abrasive noise, or bludgeoning sludge-metal. on the other hand, i don't understand why artists like jack rose and laura cantrell aren't selling out the 9:30 club and DAR.

aside from debating what does and does not appeal to the masses, what isn't debateable is that there are no new sounds and textures and forms being created. i guess if you want to be truly accurate, you can say that the frontier of alien sounds was reached when stockhausen and xenakis and their peers in the '50s discovered and pioneered electronic music. the use of extreme volume has already been explored by blue cheer, motorhead, and every death metal band. still, invention is possible by mixing all sorts of instruments, lyrics, rhythms, melodies, and styles, and the possibilities are endless.

this argument may pertain to pop, but music encompasses such a wide range of cultures and approaches, that it is ignorant to say that there is nowhere to go from here. i find great music from the 1800s, the 1920s, the 2000s, and every year in between, and we don't even know 99% of what's out there.

Pop music has pretty much been derivative since the dawn of time. And make no mistake, whatver nuanced labels y'all put on it, indie, punk, brit-pop, goth, what have you – it's all just pop. Nothing wrong with it, but let's be honest.

Nothing in human creation is ever totally "new." If it was, we wouldn't recognize it or like it.

I love pop music.

<img src="http://www.tportal.hr/2005/02/11/0713007.19.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by Doctor Doom:

Nothing in human creation is ever totally "new." If it was, we wouldn't recognize it or like it.

He's right. Remember "New" Coke? It was a massive failure.

"New Coke" was the most brilliant guerilla marketing technique in the history of modern marketing.

Coke is fighting a losing battle to Pepsi, which has been gaining in popularity as a result of a successful advertising campaign (remember the Paula Abdul commercials?). Consequently, Coke decides to "retire" Coca'cola Classic, and introduce "New Coke." They make a big deal of this - ads saying how this is going to revolutionize Coke and reinvigorate the product line.

But here is the thing - Coke didn't need to plan to follow through with "New Coke" if it failed. Here's the scenario:

Coke makes enough product to accomodate the first few shipments of "New Coke." At the same time, they monitor customer reaction. Everybody feels that they have to try "New Coke," just from a curiousity standpoint. So the first few shipments sell without a problem. Coke claims "we're selling so fast that we can't keep it in stock." But the reality is that they just didn't make enough product, because they want to guage reaction. When the public starts saying that "New Coke" sucks, they realize that their original product is better.

So what does Coke do? Launches a new ad campaign, about three months or so later after "lackluster sales" (which is really resulting from limited product being shipped) saying that they are listening to the consumer, and bringing back the original Coca'cola (which really, was the plan all along). Now, Coke as a company is a hero - they listen to the consumer and respect their opinion. In addition, they've dominated headlines and stolen the spotlight back from Pepsi. "New Coke" is pulled off the shelves, and Coca'cola Classic returns. To massive, massive sales of appreciative consumers.

Absolutely the most brilliant move in marketing ever.

need new body are corny

i don't get why cramming 50 different genres in a 7 minute song seems like such a good idea to so many quirky 20something music enthusiasts that form bands. transcending genres is fine, deconstructing pop music cool but so many bands do it so tastelessly and without giving it much thought at all… i swear the mothers of invention are responsible for some of the worst underground music ever.