The End of Music Like the End of History

[CivoLee]

From Wikipedia:

The end of history is a political and philosophical concept that supposes that a particular political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.

I feel like a lot of posters on this and other music forums (I may actually repost this in those places to get some different opinions) treat the music of the 20th century, especially rock music, in this way. I've also heard some people refer to music post-1990 as the beginning of a period similar to the Classical and Romantic Eras of classical music, where refinement of the innovation of the 1950-80s has become the order of the day.

I think I'd agree more with the latter viewpoint than the former. Take, for example, the group Greta Van Fleet and the band they get compared to (read: excused of ripping off) the most, Led Zeppelin. When I first heard "Safari Song", I thought it was a Zeppelin song I've never heard. I got the album that song was on, From the Fires, and thought it was entertaining enough, but at the end of the day nothing I hadn't heard before. I've since revised my stance on that group: GVF aren't just emulating LZ, they're improving upon them. A case in point, the song "Misty Mountain Hop". Starts off with a cool guitar riff, and then John Paul Jones comes in with his boogie-woogie piano part and it just cornys everything up. I don't 100% fault them; they were after all a transitional band in the end, helping the transition from the rock 'n' roll aesthetic to the rock one but not completely jettisoning it. It's things like this that prevent me from really calling myself a Zeppelin fan. But I don't think Greta Van Fleet would do something like this, nor would Rival Sons, the Pretty Reckless or any of the other "throwback rock" groups of today. That's because they have the benefit of hindsight on their side, taking that which worked and throwing out the parts that didn't. And they have the benefits of modern production to give their music the power it deserves without the limitations of old microphones.

I know the record industry's shareholders would love to keep everyone in their Spotified echo chambers of catalog and disposable artists for the rest of time, but I don't think that'll be the case, any more than Francis Fukuyama was right that the end of the Cold War would be the political End of History. People will eventually tire of purely electronic music the same way that people tired of purely electric music. I don't think this means that rock will rise again to its 60s-80s heights, but something new will come along that pushes what we currently understand as popular music to the fringes. I can't predict it, anymore than musicians and composers in the early 20th century could have predicted rock, hip hop or electronic music. That's because the tools to create those kinds of music-electric guitars and basses, synthesizers and samplers-were either in their embryonic phase or didn't exist at all then. It'll take a breakthrough in musical instruments or production, but it will happen, because the world is always changing.

Of course, I could be just thinking out loud (in a sense) into the wind and rock will remain in its Stairway to Teen Spirit purgatory and pop will be locked in an ouroboros of teen idols burning out in 10 years or less forever because that's how the overlords want it.

Thanks if you read this far. Please leave your thoughts below.

[Ceylon]

I don't exactly subscribe to Fukuyama's ideas, but I think music today faces the problem of atemporality (see Bruce Sterling) where where everything you make is gonna be compared to everything that came before, because the internet gives us this kind of hindsight. Even with guitar music you can now hear everything from the 1930s to the 2020s at the stroke of a keyboard. It's bound to mess up evolution.

On the other hand, it opens the stage for a creative recycling of ideas and elements in a new way. Some might find it hampers creativity, whereas other may see it as a wider palette to play with. Take Beck for example, as someone who was able to take a lot of classical stuff (from Appalachian country ballads to hip hop) and paraphrase it into something completely new.

[budda12ax7]

Holy,shit.....I was just reading that book.paper today

[bluemonday]

From Wikipedia:

The end of history is a political and philosophical concept that supposes that a particular political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.

I feel like a lot of posters on this and other music forums (I may actually repost this in those places to get some different opinions) treat the music of the 20th century, especially rock music, in this way. I've also heard some people refer to music post-1990 as the beginning of a period similar to the Classical and Romantic Eras of classical music, where refinement of the innovation of the 1950-80s has become the order of the day.

I think I'd agree more with the latter viewpoint than the former. Take, for example, the group Greta Van Fleet and the band they get compared to (read: excused of ripping off) the most, Led Zeppelin. When I first heard "Safari Song", I thought it was a Zeppelin song I've never heard. I got the album that song was on, From the Fires, and thought it was entertaining enough, but at the end of the day nothing I hadn't heard before. I've since revised my stance on that group: GVF aren't just emulating LZ, they're improving upon them. A case in point, the song "Misty Mountain Hop". Starts off with a cool guitar riff, and then John Paul Jones comes in with his boogie-woogie piano part and it just cornys everything up. I don't 100% fault them; they were after all a transitional band in the end, helping the transition from the rock 'n' roll aesthetic to the rock one but not completely jettisoning it. It's things like this that prevent me from really calling myself a Zeppelin fan. But I don't think Greta Van Fleet would do something like this, nor would Rival Sons, the Pretty Reckless or any of the other "throwback rock" groups of today. That's because they have the benefit of hindsight on their side, taking that which worked and throwing out the parts that didn't. And they have the benefits of modern production to give their music the power it deserves without the limitations of old microphones.

I know the record industry's shareholders would love to keep everyone in their Spotified echo chambers of catalog and disposable artists for the rest of time, but I don't think that'll be the case, any more than Francis Fukuyama was right that the end of the Cold War would be the political End of History. People will eventually tire of purely electronic music the same way that people tired of purely electric music. I don't think this means that rock will rise again to its 60s-80s heights, but something new will come along that pushes what we currently understand as popular music to the fringes. I can't predict it, anymore than musicians and composers in the early 20th century could have predicted rock, hip hop or electronic music. That's because the tools to create those kinds of music-electric guitars and basses, synthesizers and samplers-were either in their embryonic phase or didn't exist at all then. It'll take a breakthrough in musical instruments or production, but it will happen, because the world is always changing.

Of course, I could be just thinking out loud (in a sense) into the wind and rock will remain in its Stairway to Teen Spirit purgatory and pop will be locked in an ouroboros of teen idols burning out in 10 years or less forever because that's how the overlords want it.

Thanks if you read this far. Please leave your thoughts below.

Normally in art the period following the classical hasn't traditional been seen as one of refinement, but one of decadence. Now I understand that many recent historians have challenged this view (which I believe gained currency in the 16th century!). So if I can stretch the analogy, I do prefer classical to Helenistic and Renaissance to Baroque. BUT I can appreciate it all on it's own terms. To me that is the benefit of hindsight and of living in a post modern/post pop world. I love Spotify. I would love to see some try algorithm predict my taste! It is hard for me to see anything new under the sun coming though.

[seenoevil II]

I think we're in a moment where we construct identities as artists in a kind of "player maker" pastiche. The past 100 years are our palate and we mix and match to taste. The music that results from this isn't so much music as an abstraction of it. So often a band is described in genre terms or decade terms, or if your audience is a musician, gear terms. Often, not very much is happening compositionally.

Some really cool stuff can happen with this. Repurposed anesthetics of the past like Vapor Wave are undeniably appealing. But ultimately, it's as empty as the liminal spaces it scores.

Yes, time marches on and progress in the arts never cease. However, I do think every moment is unique and in this moment, the kids are not alright. Just as easily as the atomic bomb could end life on earth, modern media consumption technology could end artistic progression.

Another thread in this tapestry is pop punk and emo. It's hard to think of a fitting analogy in history to compare it to. But PPE have broken from the canon of modern guitar music into a parallel but separate universe and taken most of the guitar music consuming populace with them.

It's such a weird thing to navigate. It's almost like a sexual orientation in that it's invisible from the outside, but portends complete incompatibility. There are these bands look alright, but you cannot share a bill with them. It just won't work. The difference between what I make and what they make would be imperceptible to an outsider and yet it's completely insurmountable.

I don't really have time for GVF. I don't really have time for zeppelin. But if there were a clone of a band I loved, I wouldn't care for them either. I remember when millennials finally realized that Talking Heads were good and not lame and we were buried in an avalanche of afrobeat tinged polyrythms from every indie band that had jumped the shark. Some of it was catchy sure, but I just didn't care. It's about more than the music. It's the fact the music happened. Made by who, and when and how. It's the same reason AI music is futile. Like AI generated faces, they never existed, it never happened.

In this way, maybe popunk emo is the better art. Maybe the only way we ought to sing in this age is to scream. At least they aren't afraid of there feelings.

[s_mcsleazy]

so part of me is going to be careful when i bring this up but i feel like rock music in general is maybe in a place where the fans are hurting it more than they realise so the genre can't really evolve or grow. there are still young folk who want to make this music, but i often see a lot of mythologizing of the old gods while the new gods are dismissed as "just ________ for gen z" which turns a lot of young folk off music they might like.

i also think the lack of "rock" musicians to change and play the game is also hurting the genre. not wanting to use tiktok (which is where most new music breaks through with gen z) a lack of new gateway bands (usually because so few people are willing to be those gateway bands because that's not respectable) relying on an old business model of recording an album every 3 or so years (honestly, i feel like releasing a 3-4 song EP every year and doing a different version of some of those songs for an album would be a better plan) it's better in an age of algorithms because it can keep you in the public eye.

granted, there's also the rock establishment/media which is a huge problem. they know most the articles that get clicks are going to be from artists that are more established, rather than make the effort to establish new bands, they'd rather just talk about the old shit. i mean loudwire is the biggest site in rock/metal atm and look at this front page. newest band/artist on that front page is at least 20 years old.


the truth is, genre relies on new blood entering the system. for that you need gateway bands in places where those new fans can find them, delivering it in a manner they like and for there to be good resources to dig deeper. right now, i only see rock bands doing one of those...... the resources.

[cestlamort]

I think it is more like Benjamin's angel of history, looking back in horror over piled up decades of often crappy AOR commercialism (or in the case of GVT, extremely competent – and cynical – cosplay) under the guise of art/progress/innovation/good times/etc.

[roydisco]

It's probably worth thinking of rock music as 'western popular music, ~1950-2000'.

There was a series of cultural/economic/technological factors which led to the codification of rock music, much as a combination of cheap instruments led to big band jazz and the Musicians Union strike then fractured that into crooners and small-combo bebop.

The shift to digital distribution has potentially made even small combos untenable as anything above a hobby (for the most part); along with a technology shift to electronic stuff which means a band isn't necessary; meaning that the 'trad' 4 piece isn't as solidly needed - different instruments can be pulled in as the band leader sees fit.

Also there was an awful lot of Cold War soft power stuff going on with the funding of rock music, which just isn't there any more! South Korea is doing a lot of this currently; I would love to see the effects of this along with general demographic changes.

[bessieboporbach]

It's probably worth thinking of rock music as 'western popular music, ~1950-2000'.

There is a temptation, particularly in a guitar-oriented space like this one, to see rock as a greater and more all-encompassing commercial and cultural force than it was. But the charts simply do not bear that out.

During periods where rock was mostly consumed by teenagers it might have been fair to say that pop was rock and vice versa. There are little pockets of time since the '50s when this was so -- 1956-7, 1963-mid '70s, the '87-'92 or whatever heyday of glam/hair metal, and then finally the "alternative" gold rush of the '90s.

But aside from those pockets, rock was just one stream of many and seldom the biggest. Until the '90s, adult-oriented vocal pop, folk, Nashville, various types of R&B (including "smooth jazz") and dance music (including teen-oriented vocal pop), and occasionally instrumentals and novelties of various kinds were absolutely clobbering rock on the charts and in sales numbers, even though the massive size of the industry meant that many rock bands were still selling millions of records.

What changed after the '90s? Well, after a brief last gasp around 2001-3 or so, rock more or less disappeared from the charts, the line formerly dividing adult-oriented and teen-oriented vocal pop has more or less disappeared, and R&B/hip-hop with its vast and untapped musical resources has suffused all that remains.

Seems to me like rock is pretty much dead as a current commercial force, and god knows I don't mourn it. There is so much great and new music happening now that there's no need to build on rock's limited and maybe even exhausted formal parameters. The absence of really good new rock on the charts doesn't make Television or the Ventures or the Verve (to name 3 of my favorites) any less wonderful.

And I can think of no better illustration of how rock is going through a decadent or pastiche phase than the insistence in the metal community that virtually every band now represents its own distinct subgenre that needs to be named and anthologized, in a kind of insecure parody of the subgenre proliferation that jazz went through between about 1927 and 1972. But, as far as the guitar hobby goes, we have to hand it to the metal guys because (along with the country & church band folks) they are bankrolling the whole operation.

It's telling that over the last 5 years or so, jazz acts like Sons of Kemet, Ezra Collective, Nubya Garcia and Moses Boyd have probably gotten more press than any new rock bands. Jazz! A genre people have been calling "dead" for 60 years! I'm not especially enthused by any of these acts (except Boyd) but it's strong testimony to the resources provided by non-rock musics in the 21st century.

[postboredom]

I think the whole 'rock is dead' or 'guitar music is dead' is a little flawed.

I think the outlook on pop music or electronic music is unnecessary.
EDM and POP has its place. A large amount of people want to hear that.

I dont agree with the idea that spotify feeds everyone disposable music. "Spotified echo chambers of catalog and disposable artists for the rest of time'

Its a great way to find new music. If you look for it, guitar music is still there, and so is rock music.
Its all i listen to, and i find great new music to listen to every year.

Rock music and guitar centered music wont die, and it will always be popular. Just dont let pop music or edm bother you.

Its not worth getting philosophical about it.


I do agree, bands that try to emulate genres from different decades, such as greta, is interesting , but the music wont have the same longevity.

I think music is turning into a personal thing. theres' so many genres, sub genres, and music tastes out there.
Do we need huge rock bands anymore? i dont think so.
Do we need rock to be the most important genre? i don think so.

Personally i take pride in finding small bands that write great songs, and who consistantly put out great music. THeres tons of blue collar bands who write and tour, consistantly.

Pinegrove, to me is the most amazing band ever. I think they write the most amazing things. they have 5 back to back perfect albums.
I would rank their music higher than a lot of rock greats from yesteryear. and i think thats fair.

i love simon and garfunkel, but i'll never compare their song writing to A wilhelm scream . its not worth it.

sorry, i probably didn't interpret your post right lol.

[seenoevil II]

Its not worth getting philosophical about it.

au contraire mon frère (ou ma sœur ou aucun des deux)

Getting thinky about this stuff is one of my favorite pastimes.

I agree that guitar music isn't going anywhere. Although I think "Rock" has had its day. Perhaps a fitting analog is Jazz. The Duke and The Count aren't filling dance halls anymore, but a bunch of smelly weirdos with crazy ideas are still skittering around the shadows playing excellent music for other smelly weirdos.

[s_mcsleazy]

Its not worth getting philosophical about it.

au contraire mon frère (ou ma sœur ou aucun des deux)

Getting thinky about this stuff is one of my favorite pastimes.

I agree that guitar music isn't going anywhere. Although I think "Rock" has had its day. Perhaps a fitting analog is Jazz. The Duke and The Count aren't filling dance halls anymore, but a bunch of smelly weirdos with crazy ideas are still skittering around the shadows playing excellent music for other smelly weirdos.

yeah. i feel like "rock" has gone the way of jazz in that most young people now consider it music for old people and so much of much of it has became niche music. like you don't hear it on the top 40, it's more the kinda thing you "seek out"

[JSett]

Anyone that thinks rock/guitar music is over needs to get themselves into their local dive venues and discover the scene that is likely thriving. Pre-covid I was seeing 100+ bands a year at 20-200 cap venues often full of teenagers and early-20's students singing along to every word, moshing in the pit and spilling beer all over each other. The UK has a thriving independent emo-indie-punk-insertgenrehere scene and it also attracts the US, OZ, EU bands as well. I've watched several bands go from playing to 20 people in a room in Guildford to playing to 2000+ people on a festival stage in the last 6 years (which is great to experience with them).

I think there'll always be a small market for sweaty angry teenagers singing sweaty angry songs to sweaty angry fans.

[ElephantDNA]

For me -- the problem with stagnation or lack of creativity in rock music actually relates to the death of labels. Don't get me wrong - I'm no defender or major labels or anything like that. But they had the budget and clout to change the pop culture narrative to the "next big thing." And indie labels, though they did not micromanage bands in the same way, still could change the narrative of the underground scene depending on what they were promoting.

Without any type of touchstone like this, and the complete death of the guitar in modern pop music, bands have a tendency to retreat into their own record collection rather than attempt something new.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it - all rock music is derivative in some sense. But the upside of the "bedroom music" revolution is that everyone has access to things like recording and distribution. The downside is that there is zero narrative, trends, or a cohesive scene for rock anymore. It's just everyone doing their own thing -- which is great in a lot of ways but does not encourage creativity.

"I did it in my bedroom but it sounds like black sabbath," or "I did it in my bedroom but it sounds like MBV" is still very cool - if the songs are good those styles can easily support more derivations of it since it's a sound that a lot of people like. But since the goal now is not to get on a label but to get on a spotify playlist, it makes sense to be derivative and just be a little samey with the old stuff you like. There's no rewards for doing something different at this point unfortunately.