I feel bad for the “heard it first” crowd. The internet is expanding quicker than the universe. Indie music, which seemed to be the most genre open to odd arrangements and instrumentation since electronic music hit it big has now been consumed by big business. I find more cooler music on commercials now than I do on Musicbanter. The ability to say you heard it months ago is dying. Yesterday is the new “months ago.”
I read once that it’s impossible to remain counter-culture for long because capitalism will find a way to market that culture and make a buck. Not to mention, with the internet allowing everyone to build their portfolio in any capacity they want (advertising, directing, creating music) people who normally wouldn’t have the experience years ago are now proven sensations. Youtube & the Internet have taken the old boys network out behind the woodshed and murdered it painfully.
In a similar comment, I remember some fairly successful mogul (Jay-Z maybe) saying whats wrong with the record industry is that people who had one great find never get fired. That he personally had been told “You can’t fire him, he discovered Motley Crue!” The nerve of some people.
I mention all of this because its leading to one great and final “enough” from the youth of the world that’s going to essentially erase time. The Clash was once called “The only band that matters.” It was predicated upon them living on the cutting edge. But today, that edge is moving so fast that the distance between “Heard it yesterday” meaning current, and “heard it yesterday” meaning forever ago is impossible to distinguish. Hipsters, be forewarned, trying to be ironic about hearing something yesterday is going to land really poorly.
For me, this is all great news. “Heard it first” was always a really poor indicator of music or people who listened to it. It implied you were an amazing scout with a sharp ear for new music; that your judgment was to be higher than those who heard it second or fourteenth. But now you can’t help but trip over some ******* with a rebec backed up with a three-piece brass set walking down to the subway or walking by a television set. If music were dimensions, the days or width would be dead or dying. It’s time to move on to height.
Depth in music is not new. People have been trying to write up the Beatles like they would Shakespeare for too long. It’s not inherently bad, we all start somewhere, but Literature and its critique have evolved as they have because of the type of medium that Literature is. Music, by virtue of its difference, must follow its own path. But it seems only plausible for music that’s old, presumably because we’ve sat with it for a while. Literature needs to allow for time to determine its value to some degree because it is, to steal a line from Christopher Hitchens, “the vehicle by which we deal with questions of ethics and morality.” (paraphrase). Literature is not inventing by refining. It is the Aristotelian Mirror to our human condition. And this differs from music in two very large ways: Music does not give us the same reflection or philosophy nearly as well if at all, and music consistently tries to reinvent the wheel.
You’ve no doubt seen someone try to write something where the words represent the action. Poems about leaves falling throw words all over the page. Shell Silverstein was a master at this sort of thing. But his longevity is not determined by his groundbreaking presentation. And that presentation doesn’t make for good literature. But when music attempts the same concept, that’s what separates the wheat from the chafe. One of the reasons the “heard it first crowd” also held some sway is because they had the potential to bring you not new music, but new sound. Music is like food at times because the same old ingredients you know in parts can be mixed to create new flavors you couldn’t imagine. Do you remember the first time you heard a sound or style that you’d never heard before? There’s a moment there where something ancient and familiar reappears before you, like this sound you’ve never heard before seems somehow natural and refreshing. It is on this ground that music, even in the rapid-paced world of technology, has a future and a contribution to make.
Music going forward should yield a deeper discussion. Without concern about what comes next, we can worry about what will influence “next”; what “next” will reflect of the past. I think it’s best if our discussions of music become richer, that our discussions concern themselves with layers. Depth, arrangement, and scope seem familiar to those who’ve spent time in the more established genres; Classical and Jazz fans probably routinely talk in these terms, but those forms never worried about “next” in the first place. The existed as new at a time when technology only allowed them to be heard places other than in the club live. Today it allows us to auto-tune the news.
As I look around my usual music outlets whether it be friends of forums, I sense a great lull in the conversation. Music, as I’ve said, hasn’t really slowed, so why the conversation? Sloth is natural in a time of transition. No one is looking to commit to things that are on a dead-end. Beta Max, the Mini Disc Player, Google+ -investing in those products was a waste of time for everyone involved. It’s natural to wonder what’s next when the old norms have been worn out and dried up. But I think when the dust clears, technology finally removes “first” from the musical lexicon, we’ll discover that the path forward isn’t “forward” but in fact, its “down.”