The Defining Sound of this Decade is ... Undefined.

The Defining Sound of this Decade is … Undefined.

Posted on 26. Aug, 2009 by refe in MUSIC INDUSTRY

Throughout the history of rock and roll certain bands or sounds have emerged every decade or so that have defined an era of music. Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana – each one of these acts challenged the mainstream or uniquely tapped into the pulse of their generation. It’s now 2009 – who is our defining act? What is this decade’s sound?

Over the past forty-eight hours this conversation has come up twice for me, with two separate groups of people. No one could point to a single band or new sound that feels like it could be our Elvis, or our Kurt Cobain. There isn’t any one act that stands out from the crowd enough to consider definitive. No one sound that we can truly call alternative.

That may not mean much to members of my generation. By the time most of us were old enough to develop our own musical tastes Kurt Cobain was already dead. We’ve never known anything but a world where bands come and go and leave little more than a faint impression on the cultural consciousness.

I was born nearly 20 years after For What It’s Worth was recorded by Buffalo Springfield. What I know of the cultural and political unrest of the Vietnam era comes from history books and Hollywood. Yet, every time I hear those unmistakeable first few notes I feel like somehow I get it. Maybe it’s because I’ve seen Forrest Gump half a dozen times. Or perhaps it’s because Stephen Stills so artfully captured the tension and uncertainty of the late sixties when he wrote that song. Even someone as far removed from that time as myself is transported there.

Where is the song that captures where the world was at on Sept. 11th, 2001? Or the deep divides over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or simply the rise of technology and the socialization of the internet and business? Who knows? If those songs exist they don’t seem to have made the kind of mark they should have made.

Hardly any of the bands that were on the radio when I was in school are still active today. And if they are very few people care. Third Eye Blind came out with their first new record in six years this month. It was so under my radar that I didn’t think to include it on that week’s list of new releases. Coldplay, Radiohead – these bands are more recent and certainly sell a lot of records, but will we really sit our grandkids down and say, “It really was ‘all yellow.’”

So has music gotten worse? Or, from a different angle, has culture itself been diluted?

There are certainly those who would answer a resounding ‘yes!’ to both those questions. Yet, I have the privilege of hearing talented artists making great music every day. Most of these artists will never reach the level of exposure that ensured Nirvana’s place in music history, but the artistry is there.

As for culture, I’m not sure it’s been diluted. I would instead argue that an individual artist’s ability to influence culture has been hindered by a compartmentalization of the market.

It is so much easier to record music these days, and so much cheaper to distribute it. New voices are springing up everywhere, faster than anyone can pay attention. Instead of seeking to fill arenas and speak to entire generations like artists of the 60’s and 70’s, most musicians are carving out niches. They find a modest base of fans who have found some connection to the music they play and they speak to them.

So as the world becomes more globalized, the influence of an individual artist or band is becoming increasingly compartmentalized. This isn’t a bad thing – in fact, the idea that bands are feeling less pressure to fit into the mainstream mold is very encouraging. Yet it’s interesting that this has left us for the first time at the end of a decade with nothing to hold up as our anthem.

What do you think – is this important? Does it worry you, or do you not really care? I want to hear your opinions.

Share it if you like it:

Tags: bands, kurt cobain, legends, music, rock, social media

19 Responses to “The Defining Sound of this Decade is … Undefined.”

Janet Hansen

26. Aug, 2009

This post is an incredibly astute observation about what is going on in our society on many levels. It’s true that music defines eras.That the first decade of the 21st century has no cultural identity whatsoever is remarkable.

Perhaps it’s remarkable in there is an oversaturation in music. With a 25-year career in the music biz I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s been frustrating actually, that mediocrity is the flagship in contemporary music due in part to reality TV shows such as American Idol. What is spectacular about hearing remakes of cover tunes? Not much.

There has been a gust of creativity out of the Northwest with Death Cab For Cutie, The Shins, and Fleet Foxes. Nashville has pumped out a few good things, that have become so overexposed and cliche that they may or may not be relevant to music history.

The music industry overall has crumbled during this decade with little to no infrastructure to support what is exceptional and real…and then the collapse of the media contributed to an even further demise in finding the dark horses, over and above Hollywood pin-up types.

The frontrunner in the music industry is technology and what it takes away from the music experience. Cover tunes like Somewhere Over The Rainbow, Georgia On My Mind, etc. take top spots in digital charts due to familiarity. But nothing is really as good as the original.

Since 9/11 many things in this country have changed. Our view of ourselves as Americans, our security on our own soil as well as within our economic system has hushed creativity to the point, I have noticed one recurring anthem. Amazing Grace is a hymn that’s had a great deal of relevance over these past eight years.

To that end a new genre has emerged as a frontrunner. Americana music is a crossover musical style that allows people to hold on to their roots and traditional values, whatever those values may be. Americana represents the left and right wings of American politics. It represents the rednecks and the hippies; the liberals and the conservatives; it separates the “haves” from the “have nots.”

All this amounts to an idea that the first decade of the 21st century belongs to the unsung heroes. That’s more than likely how it shall be remembered. When the headlines read “The Music Industry is Playing Taps” there is much to conclude from such a statement.

Janet Hansen
Scout66.com
- refe
  
  26. Aug, 2009
  
  The first decade of the 21st century belongs to the unsung heroes.
  
  I think you’re right. Our ‘alternative’ is the sea of independent music that has been given the opportunity to flourish because of technology. To put it all in a positive light, maybe our anthem is really a mosaic of different voices and artists that together set this decade apart from the ones before it.
  
  By the way, I enjoyed being called ‘astute.’ You are welcome to comment anytime.
Rick

26. Aug, 2009

In response to the question you’ve raised with this sentence:

“Where is the song that captures where the world was at on Sept. 11th, 2001?”

I have an odd response.

The night of the attack, as I was driving home from an empty street Chicago at around 1 a.m., a song came on the radio that drove a knife of emotional reaction through my heart. It matched the day so completely I was stunned!

Are you ready?

Simon and Garfunkel’s ‘Bridge Over Troubled Waters’.

It took me more than three miles more of driving before I stopped weeping. A song from the troubled sixties wrapped perfectly around a newer time of trouble.
Rick

26. Aug, 2009

I just love Janet’s response to this terrific post!

Two thumbs up to you both.
Peter Holmes

26. Aug, 2009

Well, there are some fairly recent bands that speak to the cultural moment. Whether one agrees with their politics or not, Rage Against the Machine comes to mind.

But your point is well taken.

Could it be linked to the narcissism of the age? ‘It’s all about me, after all.’

Perhaps a corollary is that the radical evolution of music we enjoyed through the 20th century is either slowing, or has ended.

There are no new genres, only hybrids of existing genres. And the past is being plundered.
- refe
  
  26. Aug, 2009
  
  ‘Speaking to the cultural moment’ is only half of the equation. The other half is influence and longevity.
  
  The last two paragraphs of your comment are depressing, but I’m afraid you might be right. I don’t think anyone expected that a radical evolution of technology would bring with it a stalling of musical progress. It should be easier to innovate!
Eugenia

26. Aug, 2009

Refe, thank you for putting this article together so well-written. I wrote something similar on my blog as few weeks ago as you know, but all the responses I got were pretty much “why didn’t you include my favorite band in your list of influential bands”, instead of actually discussing the problem. Pissed me off so much I closed down that thread.

Anyways, I too feel that this decade has been sterile. There are a number of a good bands, but they all feel derivative. Either there is nothing to innovate anymore (meaning, that there are no other new genres that would sound good to the human ear), or there is such over-saturation and cultural+business decay that no band can “make” it so big as to influence the whole decade (e.g. like Nirvana did in the early ’90s).

I mean, indie/folk rock is popular these days, but it’s only popular in the US (not as much in Europe). To really call something influential, it has to take the whole world by storm as US/UK bands did in the 60s-90s.

The only band that I find really fresh (and only with their latest album), is the Cloud Cult. When I listen the music of their latest album I feel that this is the music people will listen in 10 or 20 years from now. And that’s the only band I feel like that for. But then again, most people never heard of these guys.
Eugenia

27. Aug, 2009

One more thing: I *just* previewed Muse’s new album on iTunes. It sounded to me like Queen. Then, I searched online, and others have noticed the exact same thing. A reviewer even made fun of the fact.

So I am asking you: if Muse, which are categorized by critics as “progressive rock” (emphasis on progressive), release albums that sound exactly like a specific 70s and 80s band, what chance do others artists have to deliver something original?

Disappointing.
Janet Hansen

27. Aug, 2009

In this conversation, it’s clear there are two kinds of emerging artists…those who know music and it’s history; the others haven’t a clue. The listening audience is a multitude of levels of knowledge.

Here’s a really good example. I went to YouTube the other day to listen to Crosby, Stills & Nash “Teach Your Children.”
The comments were amazing…one listener thought CSN had ripped off Fleet Fox in what they were doing. An obviously older viewer set that person straight.

So we can definitely point to a lack of music education in this country for a bit of what is going on.
- refe
  
  27. Aug, 2009
  
  Fitting that the song should be “Teach Your Children!”
Eugenia's Rants and Thoughts » Blog Archive » Is Rock all said and done? Part II

27. Aug, 2009

[...] wrote an article here, published a response from an industry veteran here, and that same veteran wrote an article of his [...]
Twitter Trackbacks for The Defining Sound of this Decade is ... Undefined. | creative deconstruction [creativedeconstruction.com] on Topsy.com

28. Aug, 2009

[...] link is being shared on Twitter right now. @refeup, an influential author, said The defining music of [...]
Peter Holmes

28. Aug, 2009

It’s been said that History = Culture = Destiny.

With this in mind, the comment about “Teach Your Children” and the Muse/Queen connection are telling.

As mentioned previously, the past is being plundered and in some cases rewritten. For example, Amy Winehouse rewrote the words to Ray Charles’ music and made a bundle doing so.

It’s not a leap to say that when history is erased, progression will likely stall, or die.

And music isn’t the only industry where this is happening. The advertising agency business is suffering the same fate.
Rick Aushey

28. Aug, 2009

To the trained eye, it might sound imperfect.
Sounds are for ears!
Exactly my points.
Oh yea, I was talking about:
Meanningful Randomness.
paniq

28. Aug, 2009

I would like to offer “paniq” as the defining sound of this decade. Once you had a pinch of his music, you will have no choice except agreeing with me.
Globalism

30. Aug, 2009

It’s pretty rare that I comment on posts, but reckon it’s about time to start getting a little more involved in conversations – this one prompted me to add my contribution.

Born at the beginning of the 70’s, I lived through the very tail-end of punk, plus all the great music that came with the 80’s and 90’s. I also immersed myself in stuff from the 60’s and 50’s, and am self-taught in popular music history.

Living in the UK throughout, British (and American) music was one of the things that kept me going in a country that I otherwise despaired of. Like so, so many others, I spent most of my youth obsessively following and absorbing all I could of the greats – be it The Beatles, Miles, Bowie, Ella Fitzgerald, Massive Attack or Sonic Youth – along with all the other great tunes that ended up under the radar too, the sounds of the Great Unheard that would jump out like diamonds from a moment on the John Peel show or in some obscure magazine review.

A few years on from Napster, I finally made a clean break from my past and roots, and moved to Tokyo. This had a number of effects on the music that had always mattered so much to me. Firstly, I started listening to non-Western music to a much greater degree than I ever had, resulting in the borders between musics breaking down rapidly. Secondly, I bought my first iPod, which arguably had as much or more impact on the issues discussed above than did Napster. If P2P slayed the distribution model, storage space and playlist creation did pretty much the same for the format model. Both of these things were general cultural shifts anyway, and may well have affected me whether I’d been living in Japan or not

We are living through (mostly peaceful) revolutionary times on a global scale, for the first time in the history of our species, where all that once was certain and immovable is now swept away or on very shaky ground. Music and the industry that developed over the twentieth century around it is just one of the many aspects of our lives where all the certainties of the past are now being totally redefined.

To add a couple of points that tie in with Refe’s post above, I think that there have been several great songs in the post 9/11 era that relate to the issues, but they’ve appeared in a time where we don’t all just listen to one radio station or read one newspaper any more. They’re spread all over the place. Have a listen to the online jukebox at http://peace.fm/music/peace-jukebox for a handful of post-9/11 ‘protest music’ tracks.

Finally, as the decade draws to a close, I’d agree with the above that there are no decade-defining music acts for the 00’s as there were for the previous four. However, there’s also more great music (including that of the past and the present) than there ever has been before and an infinite variety of ways to get it past your ears. The global adoption of the internet has been such a game-changer in every aspect of our lives that no-one’s really sure what it all means yet.

Sites like this, with the search for new ways forward for musicians, listeners and the business around it all, are a great start for trying to figure out what to make of it all and how to build for music in this new world.

Keep up the good work, Refe!
jim caroompas

07. Sep, 2009

Thanks for all these great posts. I have to agree that there has been no defining sound for this decade, and it really is amazing to consider all the immense changes taking place in our times — the record industry just 10 years ago, though clearly in trouble, seemed a permanent fixture. Now it’s just teetering on the brink of extinction. Meanwhile, people can make CDs in their bedrooms, living rooms and garages. With no centralized distribution or marketing model, most of this music is going unheralded, but at least it’s out there. In years past, most music just got played, not recorded. Everything finds its own level, and it’s just a matter of time before we morph into the next model, the next sound, the next phase. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying the chaos and anarchy of it all.
Fritz Gerlich

15. Oct, 2009

The whole ’sounds of a decade’ thing is marketing crap. Most people in the 90’s did not listen to Nirvana, just as in the 80’s they did not listen to Michael Jackson, or Led Zeppelin in the 70’s; maybe the exception to the rule might be the Beatles, but even they had limited appeal. Also, most bands/performers in the 90’s did not sound like Nirvana, or Jackson in the 80’s, or Zep in the 70’s, or the Beatles in the 60’s. There has always been a huge, diverse amount of music being produced.

What has changed is the music industry no long controls the media so they cannot ram music fads down our throats and make us think ‘this’ is the next big thing. The only thing that’s changed is that we know more now and are better connected.
- refe
  
  15. Oct, 2009
  
  I think you may be taking an overly cynical view of things, but you do make a good point. Without the top-down taste-forcing of mainstream radio the market has been freed up to make their own choices about what music they want to listen to. That has certainly effected the prominance and longevity of different acts and styles.