Music - limited innovation since 2010's?
Discussion
Is it just me or has there not really been many/any truly exciting movements/genres/innovations since around 2010?
60's had rock n roll, motown, hendrix
70's disco, hard rock and the beginnings of heavy metal, punk
80's hip hop emerging, early house, post-punk, new wave
90's jungle, rave culture, grunge, hip hop golden era, brit pop
00's indie, dubstep, grime
10's.........drill is about the only thing I can think of, and although it seems pretty influential amongst the yoof it doesn't seem very innovative to my ears.
This is only my own potted history based on personal tastes and what is coming to mind currently.
Don't get me wrong there has been plenty of great music released since 2010, but there doesn't seem to be the big movements like we have had previously.
Is this a result of the on-demand streaming world we find ourselves in?
Am I just getting old and out of the loop?
60's had rock n roll, motown, hendrix
70's disco, hard rock and the beginnings of heavy metal, punk
80's hip hop emerging, early house, post-punk, new wave
90's jungle, rave culture, grunge, hip hop golden era, brit pop
00's indie, dubstep, grime
10's.........drill is about the only thing I can think of, and although it seems pretty influential amongst the yoof it doesn't seem very innovative to my ears.
This is only my own potted history based on personal tastes and what is coming to mind currently.
Don't get me wrong there has been plenty of great music released since 2010, but there doesn't seem to be the big movements like we have had previously.
Is this a result of the on-demand streaming world we find ourselves in?
Am I just getting old and out of the loop?
Yes, I think you're right. We're in the streaming era now, so things are more divergent than ever - people can find music to suit whatever taste they want so it is more fragmented.
The last 10-15 years have seen the decline of the album as a relevant format and the rise instead of singles/playlists.
So much new music is a rehash of something that's gone before - ideas, styles, sounds, samples etc. Mainstream pop is written to maximise streaming potential, probably shorter, catchier tracks and trying to go viral on social media, particularly TikTok.
Trends are cyclical - We've seen guitar music/rock music come and go over the years but this time I think it is done in the mainstream and will now be seen as an archaic genre.
The last 10-15 years have seen the decline of the album as a relevant format and the rise instead of singles/playlists.
So much new music is a rehash of something that's gone before - ideas, styles, sounds, samples etc. Mainstream pop is written to maximise streaming potential, probably shorter, catchier tracks and trying to go viral on social media, particularly TikTok.
Trends are cyclical - We've seen guitar music/rock music come and go over the years but this time I think it is done in the mainstream and will now be seen as an archaic genre.
All those recent genres except drill had been invented by end of the 70s but were innovated later. I think that’s just how it always is until we invent or bring in new musical instruments.
However, even new music that falls squarely into existing genres is very dateable with high accuracy due to its influences - there is very little new music I would confuse for even 10 years older music.
Although I don’t enjoy current mainstream music, non mainstream is the most exciting and varied it’s ever been. For a tenner a month I can listen to all of it, and the bandcamp app is even free.
Same variety and innovation with live music albeit heavily biased towards London and Manchester. But even my small city does have some niche stuff.
However, even new music that falls squarely into existing genres is very dateable with high accuracy due to its influences - there is very little new music I would confuse for even 10 years older music.
Although I don’t enjoy current mainstream music, non mainstream is the most exciting and varied it’s ever been. For a tenner a month I can listen to all of it, and the bandcamp app is even free.
Same variety and innovation with live music albeit heavily biased towards London and Manchester. But even my small city does have some niche stuff.
Edited by Grrbang on Sunday 21st January 09:15
Edited by Grrbang on Sunday 21st January 09:17
Social Media / Streaming may well be a factor but is not, I would argue, the primary cause. That would be (and get the sixth form debating society at the ready)...... Sociology!
There is no such thing as true original thought. All creativity is inspired by the creativity of others; blues inspired rock which inspired pop which inspired electronic music and so on (simplistic I know but you get the gist). In many ways, Social Media and Streaming is no different to the rise of FM radio, enabling more people to hear more music which stimulates others to do the same. So the abundant access to different music that we have now should be spawning all manner of new sub-genres. But it isn’t.
I think that to work out why, we need to first define what is musical innovation. I’d suggest that this is the emergence of a distinct genre or sub-genre.
Depending on what you read, and there is some variation in thinking on this (and excluding classical) there are just three root musical genres; Blues, Gospel and Jazz. The first round of innovation was the emergence from these of Rock and Roll, Soul, then Rock, Disco, Funk, Pop and so on.
I believe strongly that Electronic music is a genre in its own right, sitting alongside Blues, Gospel and Jazz rather than a sub-genre and the last ‘true’ genre to evolve. But unlike those and other genres, the emergence of Electronic Music was stimulated by technology. Other genres were stimulated by Sociology.
If you go back to any decade up to the 80s, you find music was being used as a means to deal with or escape from poverty or boredom, comment against the prevailing ideology or the frustrations of youth. Sometimes, a group of kids just thought it would be cool to start a band, write and sing about getting laid. A lot of experimentation took place some of which sounded good and from all of this emerged new sub-genres that moved music forward. In short, a lot of kids from working-class families with little opportunity but a mutual love of a certain type of music.
From the early to mid 90s, society changed. Kids started to have less and less to be angry about. They had much more things to do, much of which was more interesting than learning to play an instrument. Life opportunities increased. Everyone started to go to university and get degrees.... and ‘proper jobs’. Even the age-old pursuit of getting one’s leg over became exceptionally easy – just download an app and off you f
k. Literally. Not really the basis of a heart-rending song.
It’s no coincidence that the majority of true new music that’s emerged since then has been dominated by black artists because, sadly, the lives of black kids has, on average, been less good than white kids. So, instead of white kids singing angry punk and rock songs, you have angry black kids doing the same via hiphop and the like. But that’s changing too.
If we were to level any accusation of blame to digital, we can say that it’s been ‘too’ successful. Up to the mid 90s, both in the US and UK, what songs we heard were what were played on a limited number of radio stations and the odd TV programme. Radio then became exceptionally fractured with stations being set up that focused upon singular genres. Similarly, MTV became any number of music channels. Instead of listening to Radio 1 where you’d here all manner of bands and music types over the course of a day, you’d find a station that played your type of music and stuck with that, denying yourself the possibility of hearing something you wouldn’t normally listen to but actually quite like. I’m 57 (I know, but yes, it can possibly be true
) and have a very broad appreciation of music. The first five bands on my current in-car playlist are: Simple Minds, Bicep, Blossoms, Kiss and Dua Lipa. My kids have a much more singular range of musical appreciation which, I believe, supresses the sort of creative ignition that lead to the formation of bands like Simple Minds and Kiss.
Where digital has been damaging is in lessening the earning ability of artists. A single top-ten single in the 80s would set you up for life, or at the very least, ease most of the financial pressure that would otherwise be faced. Ultravox’s Vienna, which only reached number 2, earned the band what in today’s money would be around £7.5m. the same quantity of singles, streamed, would have earned them around £3k (in today’s money also). So the risk versus reward of dedicating your formative years to getting a band up and running no longer stacks up. When you look at a lot of acts that have broken through over the past 25 years, most of them are from reasonably wealthy backgrounds and families willing to invest in their ambitions – the very antithesis to what rock was all about. ‘Money for Nothing’ would have had less of an edge if Mark Knopfler’s Dad was a hedge fund manager.
And..... finally..... (well done if you’re still here), there is the way music is made. You don’t need to learn to play to make a hit song. As part of my work, I produce and edit videos. I have not a single ounce of musical ability yet I can hop onto Garage Band, play around with a few loops and beats and create a bit of music that fits to the videos I make. Kids are doing the same; essentially ‘drawing’ music rather than writing it. This is all very well but creativity and innovation is limited by the software and the loops and beats made by others. This is like baking the same cake as everyone else, using the same ingredients but mixed together in different ways. You end up with some interesting varieties of cake but it’s all essentially the same cake.
So, in summary.... Making music has become less important, less necessary and (music in general) less influential in kids’ lives. It’s financially less attractive and the opportunity for creative innovation has lessened in favour of a more easy route to making music.
It’s a working hypothesis. Review welcome.
There is no such thing as true original thought. All creativity is inspired by the creativity of others; blues inspired rock which inspired pop which inspired electronic music and so on (simplistic I know but you get the gist). In many ways, Social Media and Streaming is no different to the rise of FM radio, enabling more people to hear more music which stimulates others to do the same. So the abundant access to different music that we have now should be spawning all manner of new sub-genres. But it isn’t.
I think that to work out why, we need to first define what is musical innovation. I’d suggest that this is the emergence of a distinct genre or sub-genre.
Depending on what you read, and there is some variation in thinking on this (and excluding classical) there are just three root musical genres; Blues, Gospel and Jazz. The first round of innovation was the emergence from these of Rock and Roll, Soul, then Rock, Disco, Funk, Pop and so on.
I believe strongly that Electronic music is a genre in its own right, sitting alongside Blues, Gospel and Jazz rather than a sub-genre and the last ‘true’ genre to evolve. But unlike those and other genres, the emergence of Electronic Music was stimulated by technology. Other genres were stimulated by Sociology.
If you go back to any decade up to the 80s, you find music was being used as a means to deal with or escape from poverty or boredom, comment against the prevailing ideology or the frustrations of youth. Sometimes, a group of kids just thought it would be cool to start a band, write and sing about getting laid. A lot of experimentation took place some of which sounded good and from all of this emerged new sub-genres that moved music forward. In short, a lot of kids from working-class families with little opportunity but a mutual love of a certain type of music.
From the early to mid 90s, society changed. Kids started to have less and less to be angry about. They had much more things to do, much of which was more interesting than learning to play an instrument. Life opportunities increased. Everyone started to go to university and get degrees.... and ‘proper jobs’. Even the age-old pursuit of getting one’s leg over became exceptionally easy – just download an app and off you f
k. Literally. Not really the basis of a heart-rending song. It’s no coincidence that the majority of true new music that’s emerged since then has been dominated by black artists because, sadly, the lives of black kids has, on average, been less good than white kids. So, instead of white kids singing angry punk and rock songs, you have angry black kids doing the same via hiphop and the like. But that’s changing too.
If we were to level any accusation of blame to digital, we can say that it’s been ‘too’ successful. Up to the mid 90s, both in the US and UK, what songs we heard were what were played on a limited number of radio stations and the odd TV programme. Radio then became exceptionally fractured with stations being set up that focused upon singular genres. Similarly, MTV became any number of music channels. Instead of listening to Radio 1 where you’d here all manner of bands and music types over the course of a day, you’d find a station that played your type of music and stuck with that, denying yourself the possibility of hearing something you wouldn’t normally listen to but actually quite like. I’m 57 (I know, but yes, it can possibly be true
) and have a very broad appreciation of music. The first five bands on my current in-car playlist are: Simple Minds, Bicep, Blossoms, Kiss and Dua Lipa. My kids have a much more singular range of musical appreciation which, I believe, supresses the sort of creative ignition that lead to the formation of bands like Simple Minds and Kiss.Where digital has been damaging is in lessening the earning ability of artists. A single top-ten single in the 80s would set you up for life, or at the very least, ease most of the financial pressure that would otherwise be faced. Ultravox’s Vienna, which only reached number 2, earned the band what in today’s money would be around £7.5m. the same quantity of singles, streamed, would have earned them around £3k (in today’s money also). So the risk versus reward of dedicating your formative years to getting a band up and running no longer stacks up. When you look at a lot of acts that have broken through over the past 25 years, most of them are from reasonably wealthy backgrounds and families willing to invest in their ambitions – the very antithesis to what rock was all about. ‘Money for Nothing’ would have had less of an edge if Mark Knopfler’s Dad was a hedge fund manager.
And..... finally..... (well done if you’re still here), there is the way music is made. You don’t need to learn to play to make a hit song. As part of my work, I produce and edit videos. I have not a single ounce of musical ability yet I can hop onto Garage Band, play around with a few loops and beats and create a bit of music that fits to the videos I make. Kids are doing the same; essentially ‘drawing’ music rather than writing it. This is all very well but creativity and innovation is limited by the software and the loops and beats made by others. This is like baking the same cake as everyone else, using the same ingredients but mixed together in different ways. You end up with some interesting varieties of cake but it’s all essentially the same cake.
So, in summary.... Making music has become less important, less necessary and (music in general) less influential in kids’ lives. It’s financially less attractive and the opportunity for creative innovation has lessened in favour of a more easy route to making music.
It’s a working hypothesis. Review welcome.
Hub said:
Yes, I think you're right. We're in the streaming era now, so things are more divergent than ever - people can find music to suit whatever taste they want so it is more fragmented.
The last 10-15 years have seen the decline of the album as a relevant format and the rise instead of singles/playlists.
So much new music is a rehash of something that's gone before - ideas, styles, sounds, samples etc. Mainstream pop is written to maximise streaming potential, probably shorter, catchier tracks and trying to go viral on social media, particularly TikTok.
Trends are cyclical - We've seen guitar music/rock music come and go over the years but this time I think it is done in the mainstream and will now be seen as an archaic genre.
I agree with what you are saying, and it is interesting that this seemed to have happened since the streaming era, rather than the digital era.The last 10-15 years have seen the decline of the album as a relevant format and the rise instead of singles/playlists.
So much new music is a rehash of something that's gone before - ideas, styles, sounds, samples etc. Mainstream pop is written to maximise streaming potential, probably shorter, catchier tracks and trying to go viral on social media, particularly TikTok.
Trends are cyclical - We've seen guitar music/rock music come and go over the years but this time I think it is done in the mainstream and will now be seen as an archaic genre.
In the 90's/00's I suspect internet forums functioned as "zines" where you'd get a gathering of people with similar tastes, sharing music, discussing etc, so they still had a "movement" feel about them.
Forums have declined massively but I guess these communities still exist to cater for every niche within the likes of reddit.
What makes you think guitar music has had its day? I often hear catchy riffs e.g. Money for nothing picked up on Instagram (i'm not on the tiktoks).
nuyorican said:
Agree.
In fact, I think the exact time can be put at about 2007 / 2008. Just about the time when social media was taking off in fact.
I mentioned this on another unrelated thread. The death of subculture. Due to social media, everything is discovered and is over before it's begun. Scenes, music styles, fashions and subcultures can't grow organically. Everyone dresses the same, listens to the same music, goes to the same bars, same holidays, protests about the same social-media validated issues, Social Justice, Just Stop Oil, Palestine good, Isreal bad etc etc.
Social media fosters a very conformist and kind of authoritarian atmosphere. You don't stand out, you copy and imitate what the person is doing with the most likes. Look at Youtube for example. A good video gets made and instantly there are reams of copies, even down to the clickbaity thumbnail. Do otherwise and risk obscurity at best, cancellation at worst. New, original music is not good for the algorhythm. There was a time when old music was seen as fuddy-duddy. Not anymore, we'll just see more old acts dug up and paraded via AI / Hologram. Abba, Elvis etc...
This might sound like a 'it were better in my day' moan. It really isn't. I mean, it WAS better in my day, the mid nineties. I think the rave scene, changing youth culture was the biggest since the sixties, but that's not what I'm talking about. There was a definite turn for the worst in the late noughties. Not just for music and fashion, but a lot of other things too. Social media is a cancer.
Agree and I look forward to the day when society swings back away from social media in the same way drinking/smoking has done in the last decade or so.In fact, I think the exact time can be put at about 2007 / 2008. Just about the time when social media was taking off in fact.
I mentioned this on another unrelated thread. The death of subculture. Due to social media, everything is discovered and is over before it's begun. Scenes, music styles, fashions and subcultures can't grow organically. Everyone dresses the same, listens to the same music, goes to the same bars, same holidays, protests about the same social-media validated issues, Social Justice, Just Stop Oil, Palestine good, Isreal bad etc etc.
Social media fosters a very conformist and kind of authoritarian atmosphere. You don't stand out, you copy and imitate what the person is doing with the most likes. Look at Youtube for example. A good video gets made and instantly there are reams of copies, even down to the clickbaity thumbnail. Do otherwise and risk obscurity at best, cancellation at worst. New, original music is not good for the algorhythm. There was a time when old music was seen as fuddy-duddy. Not anymore, we'll just see more old acts dug up and paraded via AI / Hologram. Abba, Elvis etc...
This might sound like a 'it were better in my day' moan. It really isn't. I mean, it WAS better in my day, the mid nineties. I think the rave scene, changing youth culture was the biggest since the sixties, but that's not what I'm talking about. There was a definite turn for the worst in the late noughties. Not just for music and fashion, but a lot of other things too. Social media is a cancer.
Edited by nuyorican on Sunday 21st January 10:46
StevieBee said:
Snip
I enjoyed that, thank you. Concerning the earning ability of artists, your example is striking but maybe not apples and apples. As the number of times a song can be streamed now is factors higher than traditional single sales. "Back in the day" Candle in the wind sold 4.9 million singles, however Wet Leg (just a pop sensation which came to mind first) have over 100 million streams on Spotify. I don't doubt you are still correct that earnings from music sales is much lower now though.
You are right, it's the oppressed/angry/disenfranchised/disadvantaged kids who normally do the innovating, but then has there always been some rich kids/parents who try to jump on the bandwagon to make a buck?
Your last point on technology and not needing to play an instrument is interesting, because grime, maybe the biggest music genre to come out of the UK since britpop was famously driven by inner city kids on computers with rudimental software. In that sense it is empowering, and removes barriers to entry. Ones imagination is the only thing limiting what is possible with digital surely?
Maybe it isn't that there aren't new distinctive genres being formed, it's just that there is so much music out there that all the gaps between genres and sub-genres are being filled so it's harder than ever to tell where one genre ends and another begins. If there wasn't so much bridging all the gaps, it would be clearer to say "ah that's a new genre"?
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff