A discussion about 'regressive music'
 

Certain musical styles will never die out. They'll always be there generally, but they evolve, as everything does. However, within every genre fans will view a certain era, scene or approach as being the purest, and greatest exponent of that genre. What then of bands in the year 2009, who deliberately, and often totally unashamedly, attempt to replicate this? They will always have an audience, albeit a largely ageing one. This applies to so many different genres I don't want to be specific - goth, hip-hop, punk and it's various styles. But I'm interested in what people think about these bands, is it harmless nostalgia, if they're happy to play it and people are happy to listen to it, why fuss about it? Or, does it signal regression in music and the miserable death of originality?
(We can discuss various examples people want to name, but I think this discussion should rest more on the 'wider' picture.)

I'd never heard this term before, and I'm going to swipe it.

Nostalgia is fine. It's when people treat it as something else that the problems start. 99% of music discussed here could be described as being nostalgic in some way or another.

it doesn't mean anything

Copyright of This Is Not Here

Hmmm, I disagree, every band has it's influences and some are more blatant than others, but I'm talking about groups who knowlingly reproduce, say, hip hop as it was in 1989, to the extent that they're more of a cover group than a group in their own right. That sounds horrible I know, but alot of these bands are the first to admit thats what they're doing.

Yeah, fair point. Being influenced by the past (which is, as you say, pretty much inevitable) doesn't necessarily lead to being nostalgic for it. If anything though, I'd say nostalgia is probably more prevalent among music fans that it is music makers. Unless you happen to be a member of Orange Goblin, of course.

I I see it in all the rockabilly bands, the "swing" bands, the "exotica" bands that came out over the past decade.
It is cool if you bring something new to it, or just of you do it well, since people just wanna hear music.

but it is not for me. I am not big on nostalgia acts, nor on re-tread stuff.

What Rob said.


But I'd like to point out that musical genres don't have some kind of linear progression. You could go back to 70's punk and take it in a different direction than where it went if you'd like.

How could it be harmful to create music that's still being enjoyed? Artistic progress will never stop, and what's it to us if it slows down a little? Regressing does not eliminate what progress has brought, and we can't miss what it hasn't. With postmodernism, regress has come to be an understood part of progress. Who knows what's coming next. I say let people enjoy what they enjoy, and not worry about the "progress of music," or art at all for that matter.

Honestly I get sick of people talking about this. People aren't allowed to play music just to have fun playing music? They can't write within a certain style because that's what they ENJOY?

What are you suggesting here, some sort of alternative musical reality? A little far fetched really isn't it? I guess we're discussing the history of music here, it did follow a linear progression, all history does, despite what MIGHT have happened.

No ones said they can't. This is a discussion, not an attempt at slagging off nostalgic acts. I guess this issue comes down to the conflict between music as entertainment and music as an artform, and for many this compromises the latter.

I understand what you're getting at (although I wouldn't say it's an either/or issue of artform vs. entertainment). Sometimes it frustrates me when re-treads are packaged and portrayed as being cutting edge ("post punk revival" anyone?), but ultimately I think people worry about this kind of thing so much because they're still obsessively searching for the 'new' or 'avant-garde' which I'm not sure holds much meaning anymore (at least in rock music). I've stopped caring about that so much as some of my favorite music is rooted very much in tradition (jazz, Sufi singers, R&B- not the polished kind).

I think he meant that even now you could go back to 70's punk and create an alternate branch from it. Like, instead of innovating from the latest innovation, innovate from past innovations in new ways.

I have some mates in a ska-punk band. Lovely fellas. I hate ska-punk. I don't think it was ever a genre that needed to happen, let alone continue to happen, unchanged, for 25-odd years now. However, I had a really good time seeing them live. So, that doesn't really bother me. I think it's only annoying when you get something that's deeply conservative that's thrust into the eyes and ears of the record-buying public over something that's slightly more interesting - Keane over, say, I Am Kloot or somesuch.

For myself personally, if these bands play well, and write decent tunes, it acts as some consolation for the fact that they're not trying anything new. I may enjoy their gig, but the fact remains the ability to write decent tunes is not enough in music for me anymore. Theres loads of decent tunes out there, and they're actually easier to accomplish then I true innovation with your sound. Maybe I ask alot, but I require of bands to write decent tunes and play them in a way I've not come across before - or else the magic and unexpectedness of music would die out for me. So for regressive acts, I may enjoy their gig if they pull it off well, hell- i may even tap my feet. But would I ever take them more seriously or buy their music? Not a chance.

I just wish people would learn some lessons from captain beefheart instead of simply ripping him off.

everything is regressive.

Urrrrrrrrghhh!!! Do elaborate!