How can we make rock appeal to younger listeners?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
479
Role
  1. Private
The criteria is 1. how much the content is generated off a computer (excellent example is dubstep), 2. how much effort the creator put into the material and 3. what the overall impression comes out to be.

Its interesting how I'm answering questions but you guys spit out the answers.

You can use Billboard or you can use YouTube.
 

Geno

Est. Contributor
Messages
806
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Carer
Hmm interesting.

Balto91 said:
1. how much the content is generated off a computer (excellent example is dubstep)

So no matter how much work the artist puts in from sound mastering, beat placement, tonality checking through keyboard device (Eurobeat artists especially) voice mastering, creating harmonies, and synthesizing the proper instruments...means it's bad.

Okay, so this would place most rock/metal music as crap. This doesn't seem too good of a first one.

2. how much effort the creator put into the material

How does one measure this?

3. what the overall impression comes out to be.

Or in other words, purely subjective by the listener. So I guess that means if it's enjoyed by the masses overall, it's good. As the overall impression for them is a good one.

This doesn't seem like great criteria supporting your assertions.

You can use Billboard or you can use YouTube.

This is simply contradictory to your assertions.
 
Messages
479
Role
  1. Private
Wow, I didn't even think that was a word. Rockism.

Now onto Genos comment, people who create rock music spend LOTS of time creating the music, computers are only part of the process for mastering and editing. Otherwise its all produced by humans.

One measures the effort the creator puts into the song by the lyrical content as well as how good the song is put together. Its really in all good judgment.
 

MsClara

Est. Contributor
Messages
952
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Sissy
  4. Carer
Wow, I didn't even think that was a word. Rockism.

It's a word, and you have a bad case of it. Why can't you just accept that there's no way in which rock is objectively better than any other kind of music, just enjoy what you like and let other people enjoy what they like? Why should it matter if you were the last person on Earth who wanted to listen to rock music, so long as you can?
 

DeftLeppard

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,113
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Babyfur
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Carer
All of my music is produced on my computer, but I tend to plink around on my Keytar to get ideas. My work now spans several genres from rockabilly to new wave. I try to keep my music styled after songs from the 70's and 80's using riffs and drum beats from that era. Just because all my work is computer generated doesn't mean it sucks. If I had the option of recording with a live band instead of using guitar pro, I would. But my biggest problem is finding other musical Furries in my area to perform with.
 

Rikachan

Est. Contributor
Messages
65
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
...people who create rock music spend LOTS of time creating the music, computers are only part of the process for mastering and editing. Otherwise its all produced by humans.

The implication here is that with electronic music, humans are less involved in the creation of the songs than with rock music.

It's actually sorta the other way around. Electronic music is more "human" than, in this case, rock music. The reason why, is because to produce a rock song, the musicians play their instruments, which are recorded, then there's a little production (effects, mixing) and it's done. With electronic music, every single element has to be created from scratch by the musician.

Let's take the melody of a song. A rock band would just have either the singer sing it, or the guitarist play it as lead guitar. Done. What an electronic musician would do here, would be to take a waveform, use an LFO on the range of a Bandpassfilter, use an ADSR envelope on the frequency of the LFO to slow it down as time goes by, another envelope on another Waveform so it starts with the first one, but fades out quicker, and then automate the the pitch of both waveforms throughout the song by hand, to give the transition between notes a slide effect.

Electronic elements give you full control over every little intricacy of an element. With a guitar, you can use some effects, change the treble, mids and bass a little, and that's about it. When an electronic artist uses an element, it's like inventing a new instrument on the fly, every single time.

One measures the effort the creator puts into the song by the lyrical content as well as how good the song is put together. Its really in all good judgment.

That might just be me, but I always saw lyrics as an extra-musical element. I mean, if you took a Talking Heads song and replaced the lyrics with something completely different, then, sure, some of the charm of the song would be gone ('cause David Byrne's lyrics are awesome!). But the song would be the same. It would be the same harmonic progression, same production, same elements, same arrangement.

Changing the latin lyrics of Mozart's Requiem to something trivial in english or whatever wouldn't really change anything about the music, wouldn't you say?

And if it's about how well a song is put together, then, well, the style of music is irrelevant. Let's say you have a rock song using a C-G-C-D chord progression, and you have an electronic song using a C#7M-Cm-Fm-Cm-A# chord progression. The latter would be the better one, right?
 

LilWizardAnnie

Est. Contributor
Messages
34
Role
  1. Sissy
  2. Other
IMHO, Electronic music is the great equalizer between people who don't have natural talent and people who do. The "affinity" for music is one of the things that used to keep people in awe of what a skilled musician could do because an instrument or singing took years to craft and even then natural talent plus honed skill can do it. Now, one needs theory and a bit of time.
 
Messages
253
Role
  1. Private
Maybe I need to confess a little bit here, it will help me. Honest

I'm sad to admit it but I seem to remember being a bit like this, Headbanger to the core until I grew up and realised, I was sounding like a total dick.

I'm ashamed to say I even remember saying 'trance is crap, its all done by synths and computers'. Luckily, I had an epiphany, I learnt that it takes more than a dude smacking a plank to make music. I learnt that creating music was a skill measured by how people felt about the sound not by how it was produced and although my taste in music isn't as wide as others here, I hope that I'm a lot more tolerant.

'Respect to the man in the ice cream van!' Weekend - Scooter
 
Messages
479
Role
  1. Private
My brother just made a song that sounds like a human singing when its really just a computer. A electronic song using the progression you described would sound more dramatic than that of a happier melody in the rock progression.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Geno

Est. Contributor
Messages
806
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Carer
Balto91 said:
Its really in all good judgment.

We can honestly spend hours getting into a match who has the better judgement, but there's really no point in that.

You've made small value judgments about what you think about non-rock music, which remains to be seen how that's going to help your aim to make rock more popular. In fact, it only seems to have brought up more questions.

The only aesthetics argument you've managed to make in all of this, is that: it must be purely human made unless for sound mastering (no drum machines, industrial noise, the like), it must be "serious" in nature (no jokes, parody, must deliver messages about society), the lyrics have to be "poetic" with that serious tone on current issues (no "Dr. Seuss Rhymes"), it must be popular/trendy too, it has to be "humble" with hours and hour of work put behind it before being popular, it must seem like they work hard.

Well with this vague criteria, it would seem you just argued against most of the music you like.

Take it away, Beavis:

608.jpg


"Especially Meat Loaf. He sucks!"


Unless you have something more specific, I'm not sure if there's much to discuss beyond such draconian standards of music/art. Reminds me when Varg of Burzum decided that all foreign instruments and styles were bad to use for his nationalist music, instead focusing more on "folk" when he abandoned black metal for a short period:

Not allowed to have a guitar in his cell, and proclaiming all rock and metal-based music to be culturally alien and non-Aryan in origin, he chose to continue Burzum in a keyboard-based, neoclassical ambient vein....

Whatever floats your boat, then.
 
Last edited:

MsClara

Est. Contributor
Messages
952
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Sissy
  4. Carer
My brother just made a song that sounds like a human singing when its really just a computer. A electronic song using the progression you described would sound more dramatic than that of a happier melody in the rock progression.

Also ignoring my question... Seriously, why does loving rock have to go with hating on other types of music? Why can't you just accept that there's no way in which rock is objectively better than any other kind of music, just enjoy what you like and let other people enjoy what they like? Why should it matter if you were the last person on Earth who wanted to listen to rock music, so long as you can?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HoganBunny

Legendary Bun
Est. Contributor
Messages
5,155
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
  3. Little
I've removed a number of posts that break the rules by insulting other members.

Insult are not acceptable on ADISC. Ever.

If a user is insulting people, derailing a thread, or behaving inappropriate, there is a report button located in the lower left corner of each post. Use it. Don't respond with more insults.
 

Nadia

Est. Contributor
Messages
546
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
I would like to sincerely apologize to Balto91 and the ADISC community as a whole. My responses to some of the posts were not acceptable and I take full responsibilities in my actions. I am very sorry that I took this thread to seriously and said some very mean things, I do want to say that I did not mean what I said and I was just angry at the users content, but I hope my apology is taken seriously, because if I had known how far my posts would go, I would have never posted them. I am truly sorry. Sorry for going off-topic.
 

Oateson

Est. Contributor
Messages
101
Role
  1. Private
Very late to the discussion here, but I'll throw in my two cents for what it's worth.


First up, I don't tolerate genre-bashing. Musical tastes are unique to the individual, and as a collective entity, offer an insight into many characteristics of that person. So be chill if someone doesn't like what you like. There is no need to hate. As society develops, so to will the influences on youth culture, which will inevitably pervade into contemporary music and what's popular.

Secondly, there needs to be a clear distinction between "what's popular" and what you hear often. Keep in mind radio programs and music TV channels cater to a certain audience, or a handful of audiences. There are certain formulaic bands that easily get airplay because they're familiar-sounding, but they sound "fresh". Such bands get signed to major record labels which have a particular sway over the music industry, as you could intuitively deduce.

One good recent example is the latest album from Daft Punk - who I enjoy - which I personally felt was more of a hype-machine than actually delivering a top-shelf album. Here you have two guys, one of the biggest names in dance music history, they can collaborate with virtually anyone, and they produce an album that was nice, but not mind-blowing like it was advertised, but it's getting rave reviews. Why? They manage their image well.

And image is what sells. If you think of the likes of Daft Punk, Lady Gaga, Bjork - huge musical acts - immediately you think about their image. Their eccentricities and offbeat fashion - their gimmicks, essentially. If you can get your audience to associate you with an image, to be able to connect to you, you've got it made. That's what gets your music heard.

So as youth culture has changed over the years, so to have band images; images which stem from different influences, and evolve into different styles of music. Although, I agree there are some original artists, but they are very few and far between. Aphex Twin in a notable example who single-handedly redefined electronic music. Now it's hard to listen to an electronic, or electronic-based act today without hearing something Aphex Twin did years before.

It's nice to go back and hear an artist's influences. I think a person who labels themselves as being "into music" would do themselves a favour in doing so. There is so much to discover when you chronologically see how a modern-day band came to be. They are a collection of all the bands before them, and the bands before those bands. It's like a wall of graffiti, where over the years the first illustration has been subsumed into a larger mosaic of different images. A collective effort that has evolved over the years through each new generation.

Musical styles are very contemporary and resonate with the audience at the time it was produced. Whilst it may still be good music, it has much less resonance today with the same age-group. For instance, punk rock of the 1970s developed out of a rebellious, anti-establishment generation who wanted "no bullshit" music. While society has [mostly] moved on from that, punk rock still exists in various forms, including the very washed out, anthemic "post-punk" (1980s-Present) to more poppy "new wave" (primarily the 1980s, and early 1990s), and more modern "Do It Yourself" alternative rock. In fact, some of my earliest memories of enjoying music was to new wave hits, so it doesn't surprise me that today I enjoy some punk music.

So I guess in a sense, how can we make rock appeal to younger listeners? Take the artists they listen to today and draw a line back to where that music came from. The journey of musical evolution (and revolution!) is just as interesting as the music itself. And you never know, you could discover some artists you initially ignored because they were outside your generation.
 
Last edited:

Rikachan

Est. Contributor
Messages
65
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
Aphex Twin in a notable example who single-handedly redefined electronic music. Now it's hard to listen to an electronic, or electronic-based act today without hearing something Aphex Twin did years before.

I agree with your entire post, so I'm just gonna nitpick on this. =P Aphex Twin wouldn't have done what he did without Autechre, Brian Eno (there'd be no SAW without him), B12 and co.

I wanna comment on what you said about image though, too. This is something that is rarely ever mentioned, which is crazy because of how important it is. You described it perfectly, and emerging artists would be wise to take note of this. Image can be, and very often is, the only difference between someone who is popular, and someone who is not. Essentially, it's about extra-musical associations. It's about not only giving people music, but also giving them certain feelings to go along with it. The feeling that they belong to a certain group because they listen to your music. Or the feeling that they are smarter/wiser/cooler than others. Image is perpetuated by everything from your album cover art, the way you behave at performances, the style of your music videos, to how close you are to your fans. Creating a good image is actually a tricky thing to do, since it's mostly based on psychology. For example, an artist who is close enough to his fans to answer emails from them her/himself might actually thereby harm his image, since people associate unapproachability with a high social status. It's a difficult thing to do right, and it will most likely feel restrictive, since you will have to work to uphold that image, but it can improve the experience people get out of your art.
 

Oateson

Est. Contributor
Messages
101
Role
  1. Private
I agree with your entire post, so I'm just gonna nitpick on this. =P Aphex Twin wouldn't have done what he did without Autechre, Brian Eno (there'd be no SAW without him), B12 and co.

Brian Eno, possibly, but not Autechre, or most other electronic artists for that matter. Autechre didn't have their first release (as "Lego Feet") until 1991. But consider for a moment that Richard was composing since he was a teenager. His first SAW album, supposedly, was made in this period of his life. If the title is anything to go by, SAW 85-92, and having been born in 1971, at the very earliest this would place him between 14-21 years old.

Impressive feat for a teenager, and especially so since Brian Eno, the supposed godfather of ambient music and minimalist composition, was 26 when he released his first album. Keep in mind, Aphex Twin released a lot more music under different monikers and collaborative efforts around that time too. I don't think the true extent of his work could ever be fully realised until he himself says otherwise.

Furthermore, this established Aphex Twin as an artist well before most of the Warp Records artist roster (past and present). There are few major electronic artists that could have actually inspired Aphex Twin: Brian Eno as you mentioned, and most likely Kraftwerk as well. In a similar vein, Boards of Canada also made recordings as youngsters (purportedly releasing an album in 1987), but they never had an official release until 1995.

Nevertheless, as much as I like both musicians, I'd have to say Aphex Twin has had a stronger impact than Brian Eno in modern music. Aphex Twin is much more of a contemporary to modern artists than Eno, and so modern influences are more biased toward Aphex Twin. Brian Eno is still around and still releasing great music, but his cultural importance has dissipated somewhat.

I wanna comment on what you said about image though, too. This is something that is rarely ever mentioned, which is crazy because of how important it is. You described it perfectly, and emerging artists would be wise to take note of this. Image can be, and very often is, the only difference between someone who is popular, and someone who is not. Essentially, it's about extra-musical associations. It's about not only giving people music, but also giving them certain feelings to go along with it. The feeling that they belong to a certain group because they listen to your music. Or the feeling that they are smarter/wiser/cooler than others. Image is perpetuated by everything from your album cover art, the way you behave at performances, the style of your music videos, to how close you are to your fans. Creating a good image is actually a tricky thing to do, since it's mostly based on psychology. For example, an artist who is close enough to his fans to answer emails from them her/himself might actually thereby harm his image, since people associate unapproachability with a high social status. It's a difficult thing to do right, and it will most likely feel restrictive, since you will have to work to uphold that image, but it can improve the experience people get out of your art.

All you have to do is look at the successful artist pages on Facebook. The one thing they all do is interact with fans, but never anything more than a comment here and a reply there. Plus consistent, but not overly frequent updates.

Being laconic only adds to the mystery and intrigue of musicians. Too much talk, and it kills that vibe. Too little, and people become disinterested. As you said, the right balance is required.
 
Messages
253
Role
  1. Private
I would like to apologize for any comments I made that overstepped ADISC community rules.

I responded to some inflammatory arguments with more inflammatory comments and this was unacceptable.
I should know better and I apologize.

In future I will use the report button then step away from the argument.
 

Rikachan

Est. Contributor
Messages
65
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
Brian Eno, possibly, but not Autechre, or most other electronic artists for that matter. Autechre didn't have their first release (as "Lego Feet") until 1991. But consider for a moment that Richard was composing since he was a teenager. His first SAW album, supposedly, was made in this period of his life. If the title is anything to go by, SAW 85-92, and having been born in 1971, at the very earliest this would place him between 14-21 years old.

Impressive feat for a teenager, and especially so since Brian Eno, the supposed godfather of ambient music and minimalist composition, was 26 when he released his first album. Keep in mind, Aphex Twin released a lot more music under different monikers and collaborative efforts around that time too. I don't think the true extent of his work could ever be fully realised until he himself says otherwise.

Yeah, but it doesn't really matter how old he was. It's impressive, for certain. But this is about how revolutionary his music was, not how impressive of a musician he is.

Furthermore, this established Aphex Twin as an artist well before most of the Warp Records artist roster (past and present). There are few major electronic artists that could have actually inspired Aphex Twin: Brian Eno as you mentioned, and most likely Kraftwerk as well. In a similar vein, Boards of Canada also made recordings as youngsters (purportedly releasing an album in 1987), but they never had an official release until 1995.

Point is, early Aphex was still rather traditional. It was weird, for sure, but by the time he had really started doing what is now considered the typical IDM sounds, Autechre had already released Tri Repetae and co.

The way I see it, Both Autechre and him started off with this quirky mixture of electronic ambient, techno, unusually syncopatic beats and weird elements. Then Aphex's style become more varied, while Autechre started honing in on that one crazy style, using stochastic methods. By the time he released the Richard D. James album, he truly was the one guy who summed up and perfected what most people now think of as IDM. But without Autechre's material before that, and that of other Warp-related artists, he wouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.

Nevertheless, as much as I like both musicians, I'd have to say Aphex Twin has had a stronger impact than Brian Eno in modern music. Aphex Twin is much more of a contemporary to modern artists than Eno, and so modern influences are more biased toward Aphex Twin. Brian Eno is still around and still releasing great music, but his cultural importance has dissipated somewhat.

Oh, I agree entirely. Eno's current status is based on his achievements from way earlier. He will do some gimmicky stuff every once in a while, the kinda things that make people unfamiliar with music go "Ohhh!" (like his musings on how randomness will play a big role in the future of music, or some App he made), but that's it.
 

dampatnight

Est. Contributor
Messages
572
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
Wait, when did rock die? I certainly never noticed. Styles change, of course, and with the diversified musical landscape available today many talented artists went down a rabbit hole which is hard to find and follow. Especially since it might not be exactly easy listening. I have a fairly easy time to get into rock/blues/metal stuff, but that doesn't mean there are no pop, electronic, jazz and other song structures I enjoy.
If todays mainstream was still 90s grunge I'd probably cry and turn off the radio by now, despite the fact that I love some of the stuff released back then. (I still cry and turn off todays radio, but that's another problem)

A quick example from the top of my head would be Ed Harrisons Neotokyo Soundtrack (describes itself as IDM, I wouldn't know). Released in 2009 and available as free FLAC download for years. It really grabbed me from the start. Does good music loose it's legitimation when its crafted electronically? In my opinion it rather adds another interesting way to create sounds and arrangements that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

I'm quite aware that I come a few pages late to this discussion, but I just had to chime in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top