Music Banter - 1983-2000 Vs 2000-2017

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)

- - 1983-2000 Vs 2000-2017 (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/89374-1983-2000-vs-2000-2017-a.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1843179)

Maybe he could've afforded a boat to fish with using the money he spent trying to float on that idea.

It's certainly relevant but I wouldn't say that it's central. Plus, that wasn't exactly being applied here.

No, it wasn't, but it's all over his writings. He says it's central.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1843190)

Well I'm cautiously making the case that it has reached a point where it has become passé and maybe unnecessary to challenge the status quo.

What is the current status quo?

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1843180)

if you're talking about religion here

I share your hatred for Organized Religion, The Church, where it has power

but the religions themselves are all actually born out of rebellion against a hierarchy for example Christianity in response to the Roman Empire

I see anarchism and refusing to be an apologist for Islam to be very related.

he's come a long way from the leather and Iron Maiden covers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mondo Bungle (Post 1843186)

I dunno, if you ask me he's been releasing a hugely varied body of albums/projects over the course of both periods

I feel like the degree to which he's prolific and diverse makes him almost a cliche for post-modernism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1843194)

What is the current status quo?

This could be argued (and feel free) but for what I'm saying (which isn't what Fisher said) the current status quo is the sum of western music's artistic evolution up to the year 2000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1843202)

I feel like the degree to which he's prolific and diverse makes him almost a cliche for post-modernism.

it's definitely influential on my own pretentiousness

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1843197)

sometimes I find bands in 1978 or whatever that do something in punk I haven't really heard, or that I didn't expect from the scene

so it's hard for me to say that I know enough about music, or that anyone ever could know enough to make things chronological

does this idea make sense I'm just floating it

Absolutely makes sense and Fisher makes a very similar point that we are way too linear in the way we think about history. "We" being most people...

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1843204)

I see anarchism and refusing to be an apologist for Imperialism to be very related

and blaming the thing that gives these people the same kind of hope that Christians had in the face of the Roman Empire as being hilariously ironic

Why don't you hate both?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1843203)

This could be argued (and feel free) but for what I'm saying (which isn't what Fisher said) the current status quo is the sum of western music's artistic evolution up to the year 2000.

Do you think that makes it too ambiguous to directly challenge?

It might not be so much a decline in innovation, but a dissipation of what people are being innovative in the face of. Not to mention that people can more easily discover a niche that their ideas fit into with the change in the spread of information. Before people could invent punk on opposite ends of the world and never know about each other. The way music distribution and listening is evolving, it's becoming easier to find your audience, which becomes more informed on similar artists to your sound as it grows. It goes the other way you influencing your contemporaries. Maybe that can contribute to creating prejudices of genre conventions in musicians where they simply would have been ignorant of them before. Two way street it looks like.

Also I'll be honest that I did not expect this thread to be so fruitful. Good stuff.