|
|
quote:Originally posted by Will 'it work' Wright:
I was also interested in finding out what others thought to any cycle in political content in 'pop' music becoming more overt due to social concerns.( who will mention teh war first?) High accounts of agression/rioting vs solar flare activity. (hippies, punks, ravers,?)
Now that's something that's always worth discussing..
much as the sunspot idea appeals to me, it's pretty dubious at best, but it is interesting to look at pop music as a series of overlapping cycles, going a bit like;
1. cool, exciting scene/musical form A develops 'underground' opposing the hegemony of whatever currently makes up the mainstream
2.cool, exciting scene/musical form A gathers momentum over a number of years until..
3.cool, exciting scene/musical form A breaks the mainstream, leading to a year or two when it's proponants become big stars and it's fans rejoice (ie, punk in '77, grunge/alt-rock in '91).
4. Inevitably, exciting scene/musical form A becomes established in the mainstream and inevitably loses it's initial energy and invention, becoming boring.
5.At about this point, exciting scene/musical form B starts to develop in opposition to the new dominance of scene/form A and the whole thing starts again...
...except that, um, on second thoughts that's probably total bullshit, but I've spent so long writing it I'm not going to just delete it..
I should point out that in the scheme I've just developed, there are generally lots of these cycles going on at the same time in the wild and wonderful world of music, some of them completely seperated from each other and some completely mixed up with each other.
And also that definitions of where one cycle ends and the next begins, and which cycles are important or good, are wholly subjective and are generally just ways of justifying what you think is good, but it does seem to me that just about all kinds of musical innovation can be placed somehow over this
'cycle' template..
I'm talking out of my arse again, aren't I? |
|
|