Aux-In

Alright, I fired off my last post in haste without fleshing out more concrete ideas. To be a bit more diplomatic, I read an interview years ago in Rolling Stone where Corgan was talking about similar concepts, but at that point, he was still in denial about the changes in the music industry; he was going on about no one caring about rockstars anymore and things to that affect. After watching the whole thing, it seems that he is now at an acceptance stage, so I can give him props for what he's saying in the video.

I'm going to go over some of his points in more detail. Corgan was going back and forth between political and musical ideologies, but that's because he was thinking on the fly and trying to draw analogies between those two worlds, not that he meant anything political by what he was saying.

I am paraphrasing him and not directly quoting him, but I'm going to put his ideas in quotes so that it's easier to separate his talking points from mine:

This is in reference to electronic music, and he's absolutely correct. I base this off my experience and I'm only bringing it up because Corgan did. I am finding better music in this area in the past 10 years than rock has been able to produce. This has crossovers to rap and pop as well, as a lot of that (the beats) is produced electronically. An entire generation has grown up with computers and that's what is being used to produce music, and will be going forward. I'm not going to sit around a wait for rock to become interesting again without knowing how long that's going to take. That's not to say that an artist doesn't need to know how to play instruments or understand music theory, but we're past the point where it's a new technique and we can simply discount anything produced electronically as "not real music." It's still very early in this transition from a long-term historical perspective.

Would anyone disagree with this statement? And that's coming from Corgan, someone who was in the thick of all that hype when it was going on. I'm in agreement with him on this -- I have seen no new rockstars of that caliber. Where are all the frontmen? This is in contrast to, say, Skrillex, Kanye, or even Taylor Swift, all of whom have rockstar-like status in electronically-produced genres that have seen growth over the past two decades, at least.

Somewhat hard to know what he means by this as he mentions areas outside of music, but there are a lot of retro ideas that get recycled. Too much of that, then it comes as the expense of originality, creativity and progression. Rock is too cutesy at the moment and indie is the new mainstream, which makes it harder to find some diversity in the genre. Another example: the whole retro vinyl thing.

I sense that he'd love to be at the top again, but he realizes the change in the music scene, and it isn't going to be the type of music he's producing. This is a matter-of-fact statement, and as long as he's producing the music he want to, who cares if it sells is what his point is.

I think he's drawing from the Cobain worship that he remembers. However, there are artists right now, it's just that they are also in rap, electronic, etc., places that previously weren't looked to in the same kind of way. That's changing/has changed, though. He knows this, too, if one can infer to what his points are.

Complacency in not wanting to seek out music that is different from what you're used to.

Where are the young rockers with good music and rock-star attitudes? Answer: they're making things other than rock music.

I disagree that there is or will be a rise of a system like this that rivals that of the political spectrum. However, I think it's true that we are going to get diversions where people have no allegiance to either the indie or mainstream scenes. Ergo, scenes will not matter like they did in the past. That's currently true for me.

Absolutely. Make the kind of music you want to make, and don't worry about bowing to either the indie or mainstream labels. That's what rock used to do in the past and that kind of subversion is something that's missing is what I think he's saying.

He takes issue with the indie class because...

(paraphrasing)
I'm not into indie, but it seems like he's saying the indie class is protective of their acts, and if you keep everything in the underground, then all that will be left at the top/mainstream is the kind of dreck that we've had the past 10 years -- that's what people who aren't music nerds are going to listen to and buy. And it's like he said, it's painful to watch.

__________________
Reviews l YouTube Playlist: Another Dimension

"All over a bowl of bitter beans."

Oriphiel

I don't think his idea of "retromania" is as severe as you guys are assuming (the idea that taking joy in old things stifles creativity, etc.). In the video, he mentions that it's incredibly important for the hypothetical teenage savior of rock and roll to "find Joy Divison", etc. It's clear that he thinks being influenced by the past is not only important, but crucial. After all, two of the artists that he mentioned as legends were both deeply rooted in "retro" music, with John Lennon being a huge fan of old rock stars like Chuck Berry, and Kurt Cobain being influenced by artists like Terry Jacks. His mention of "retromania" was simply his way of saying that he was frustrated by the way people put figures like John and Kurt up on a pedestal, without giving anyone else a chance to take their place, which created a world that refused to let new rock heroes come into existence.

Also, his mention of cutesy "'80s movies" wasn't bashing retro movies, he was just using it as an example. They used to be original and meaningful, but now, after years of seeing them countless times, people see them as "cute and cuddly". Due to repetition, they've become benign, hence "those images lose their power." It's fine to love retro movies, and you could even argue that it's essential to learn from old movies if you have an interest in cinema, but... well, it's just like what he said about John, Kurt, and Marley. People become far too obsessed with them, and never let anyone rise up to take their place. People get too caught up with praising the past, and they develop a "everything sucks nowadays" mentality. Instead of taking that love of retro movies and becoming a director/actor/screenwriter/etc. that creates the kind of movies that they want to watch, people would rather give up before they begin, and the people that do enter the film industry usually just play it safe (creating yet another boring Adam Sandler comedy, because they'll get a return for their investment). It's the same for the music industry. Everyone complains that rock is dead, but when someone actually rises up and tries to bring it back, everyone bashes them by saying "**** off, you're not John Lennon, you'll never be as good/inspired as him". And so, once again, the only ones that stick around are the ones that play it safe. The true pioneers have moved on to other genres, where they'll actually be appreciated and remembered.

Oddly enough, this also happened in the martial art world. The last generation had Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Chuck Norris, Sammo Hung, etc. Who do we have now? Only a few people manage to break through, and they usually don't last for very long. It's not because suddenly all of the good martial artists just disappeared. It's because the world of martial art flicks went in the same direction that rock and roll did.

__________________
----------------------
|---Mic's Albums---|
----------------------
-----------------------------
|---Deafbox Industries---|
-----------------------------

Neapolitan

I wasn't trying to make it sound severe. I at least tried to point out referencing "old things" or ideas is a part of creative process. I believe it's something you can not get away from, only because knowledge is rooted in the past. The future is only speculation.

Billy Corgan's point of retromania wasn't about using it in the creative process. That point is mine, trying to explain it - just to be clear. I think in the context he meant it, it relates more to being stagnant in the choices of artist most people listen to. That might not have anything to do with everyone in society making one mass decision, it's more to do with personal choice, and what period someone grows up with, or wants to explore, or maybe a small niche group caught up in revivalism.

I am a little bit foggy on the whole Curt Kobain examples Billy Corgan brings up in the video, because at one point in the interview he's admonish hero-worship of someone who passed away and in the next breathe making him the bench-mark that today's 20-something haven't measured up to. A good example of someone doing the latter is the character of John Milner in American Graffiti:

You could paraphrase Billy Corgan in saying practically the same thing "I don't like the last 10 years of Rock and Roll, it's been going down hill ever since Curt Kobain died."

Maybe "retromania" has more of a specific meaning that Simon Reynolds intends it to have. (I watched his video, and I don't entirely agree with some of the things he says, and on specifics. I have to comment later.)

Keen On... Simon Reynolds: Retromania: Pop Culture's Addicti

__________________