Are the first few years of a musical genre the best?

[soundsweird]

Purely a matter of taste, but I can think of a few genres where I'm not really interested in hearing recordings made decades after the invention of the genre.

Big band and swing music: despite the improvements in recording quality and equivalent musicianship, I don't want to hear anything recorded after the genre's heyday. There's a radio station here that has a weekly Big Band show, and somebody decided that listeners would rather hear modern stereo recordings rather than those made in the 30's and 40's. No thanks.

Blues music is a bit different. I divide it into two separate genres, acoustic and electric, but once again I mainly want to hear the "originators" of each.

How about Psych? Same thing for me, late 60's (and The Dukes of Stratosphear, because it's XTC).

Prog? Well, I lean towards the old stuff, but I hear something every once in awhile that pushes the envelope in new and different directions while maintaining good songwriting technique. I suspect any thread length will be due to arguments about this genre...

[Dana5140]

I am not sure there is much of an argument or discussion to be made here. You do start out by saying

Purely a matter of taste,

, so this kind of positions this as a personal feeling kind of thing. And having particular likes and dislikes is really up to the individual.

[Rarebird]

How would you consider jazz?
My dad might have agreed with that. Perhaps not the first years, but after 1930 it didn't really interested him.
On the other hand, I like Dave Brubeck and GoGo Penguin (and several others and they have quite some years between them.
And where to go with classical?

[Quantum Cat]

I think you have a point as IMO often a lot of the vitality (and originality) of a given genre occurs during the first years or decades. The glaring example in my mind is Jazz which IMO evolved to a pinnacle with Byrd, Coltrane, Davis, Coleman, Dolphy, Monk, Mingus, Tatum, Powell, Blakey, Peterson etc. etc. So many giants roughly contemporaneous we will never see its like again.

That is not to say there are no incredible, even innovative players around today, but the jazz scene is a mere echo of what it once was. From another perspective, genres evolve (or devolve) and the taste and knowledge of the audience comes into play. An early jazz fan of the Dixieland era may have contempt for Bee-Bop as I have contempt for the smooth, masterbatory jazz as exemplified by the likes of Kenny G.

[bigbassdrum]

How would you consider jazz?

Trad vs. Rad

[Trane]

Are the first few years of a musical genre the best?

I would suggest that for subgenres, instead of genres

If you're going to list Classical, Jazz, Blues, Folk, Rock, Rap & Techno, I would say no

But if you start at subgenres like the different forms of Bop jazz, Prog, acid/Psych rock, JR/F, Trip Hop, Post Rock, Modal Jazz, Folk Rock, Wyrd Folk, Zeuhl, Canterbury, RIO, (etc... ) ... Then I'd say yes.

[Poisoned Youth]

The question covers so much musical space that I would be inclined to say no, or perhaps “case by case”.

That said, I firmly believe that society is trapped in a creative rut in many areas (especially music), in which the evolution has been very slow and on a micro scale, imo. In that respect, there are a lot of musical styles that have been played out…and others that have been run over, decomposed, and otherwise running on vapors.

[IncogNeato]

Are the first few years of a musical genre the best?

Not inherently, I don't believe.

[Rarebird]

Even if it's about subgenres, my answer would still be no, even though there might be instances where it could bu true. And how many sub-genres, or sub-sub-genres would there be?
Is metal a sub-genre of rock, or is it a sub-genre of hardrock, which is a subgenre of rock, or is it a subgenre of prog-rock, which is another sub-genre of rock? And how many sub-genres of metal are there?

[TheH]

Really new things (if such things exist in music still) are much more exiting as they are fresh and original. After some time you kinda get "used" to it.

I felt that when I discovered Prog and RIO etc., later you have all that "oh that sounds like this and that" moments.

In hindsight I would say that a lot of the early stuff I was so exited about when they where new (to me) is rather lame.

Still I love some of my early "finds" more than I would like them if I discovered them in a different order.
(E.G. I will tell Broadsword as my favourite JT album because it was my first one, most likely it would be just no. 5 or 6 if I started differently with them)

first years are just more original not really better (so I'm not a big fan of Proto Prog..)

[progmatist]

The first few years of rock and roll were cheesy and corny. Compared to the 1960s when rock music became serious.

[Trane]

The first few years of rock and roll were cheesy and corny. Compared to the 1960s when rock music became serious.

That's post-1966, I think you mean.
Because early 60's was not really any better than the 50's - even surf music was rather corny.
Bands dressing up with similar suits & 25 minutes sets in a 5 or 6 band line-up tours, no thanks.

RnR/rockabilly is not necessarily a proud ancestor of psych-garage rock.
50's RnR meant to me as Chuck Berry & Bo Diddley as the cream of the crop and a few more semi-clowns.

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

I agree that this is more about subgenres than about genres.

Subgenres tend to start when a few new talents, full of new but somehow-similar ideas (which may essentially be interesting new combinations of old ideas), emerge. They possess a huge cultural energy (for some meanings of the words "huge" and "cultural"), and amass followings (for some meaning of "amass"). These followings mostly consist of younger punters; the older ones mostly find the new stuff not to their taste -- it doesn't remind them of the stuff they loved when it was new and they were young.

Others emerge who riff on the ideas that the original talents brought to the table. Some of these may actually better than the firsties -- indeed, they often are: this brings in a period of consolidation, when the ideas are baked into their fullest artistic expression.

Eventually, though, and with rare exceptions, the energy of the originals and the consolidators fades, and the new artists are less consolidative and more imitative; and the subgenre enters a stage of decadence. In the meanwhile, new talents have emerged with new ideas that most fans of the now-decadent subgenre don't really care for, because it doesn't remind them of...

(Note that those "rare exceptions" can sometimes be among the founders of the new subgenres. King Crimson in the 1980s comes to mind.)

This is true not only in music, but in writing and painting -- and probably in every other form of public art. I follow science fiction and fantasy fairly closely, and have observed (some personally, some through study of the genres' history) the rise and decline into decadence of a number of subgenres, from pulp SF and Lovecraftian horror; through Campbellian "golden age" SF and the Unknown school of fantasy; the "social" science fiction of the '50s and the rise of Tolkien; the "New Wave" and mythological fantasy of the '60s and '70s; Stephen King, Dean Koontz and their imitators, cyberpunk, steampunk, the New Weird, urban fantasy, splatterpunk horror, transrealism, solarpunk, hopepunk ... sometimes I get tired of the "punk" convention for naming new subgenres! ... afro- and african-futurism, silkpunk, the New Wave of British Space Opera, and on and on, and now we have things that don't have names yet.

And most of these -- everything from cyber and steampunk backwards -- have pretty much reached the "decadent" stage. Which isn't to say that there isn't good stuff to be written and read in those subgenres: Romanticism was very much the decadant stage of a long phase of classical music, and it gave us amazing talents from Beethoven to Wagner. Meanwhile, the Nationalists were rising; and after them the serialists/twelve-toners; and after them the minimalists -- I'm sure I've missed a few in there ... Subgenres rise and fall faster and faster as distribution improves and audiences financially capable of turning to art for pleasure grow.

Okay, I'll stop pontificating now.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

I"ll go with no as well. But I suppose its all what you want to get out of the music you listen to.

[Zeuhlmate]

How many bands does a genre consist of?

[abc123]

The purist bone-flute-based genre tens of thousands of years ago was never the same once they started bringing ivory flute into it.

[GuitarGeek]

One of the most celebrated composera, Johann Sebastian Bach, came right at the end of the Baroque era. If I remember correctly from what my 10th grade music literature teacher told us, Bach was, during his day, considered "old fashioned", as he was sticking to a style of music that was, at least in theory, already considered passe in some quarters (and in fact, I believe Bach's death is usually cited as making the end of the Baroque era). Today, he's the one composer from that era people who aren't particularly familiar with baroque music can name.

Same thing with jazz. I don't think anyone's gonna deny the greatness of records like Mingus Ah Um, Kind Of Blue, Sunday At THe Village Vanguard, Impressions, or the first few Pat Metheny Group records, all of which came decades after the genesis of jazz.

As for big band music, I have to admit, I really only Duke Ellington, and most of the Ellington records I have are from the mid 50's on. In fact, some of my favourite Ellington recordings are things he did during the last decade of his life.

[Trane]

How many bands does a genre consist of?

One is enough : Magma (Zeuhl)

Same thing with jazz. I don't think anyone's gonna deny the greatness of records like Mingus Ah Um, Kind Of Blue, Sunday At THe Village Vanguard, Impressions, or the first few Pat Metheny Group records, all of which came decades after the genesis of jazz.

1959 is the start of something new in jazz: the records you cite do not qualify as "bop music", but more like the start of Modal Jazz (or New Thing)

As for Metheny, he's somewhere in JR/F and ambient-y ECM jazz, which was something rather new at the time.


IMHO, of course.

[Munster]

I think it all boils down to the listener’s perspective. I watched quite a bit of the BBC’s offering from Glastonbury at the weekend and there was next to nothing that excited me or which I considered novel among the many rock acts that appeared. And yet there were big crowds of young people enjoying the music and, presumably, believing that what they were seeing were bands at the cutting edge of popular music.*

Nothing changes, though. When I think back to the late ’60s and early ’70s, which I consider the golden age of rock, the bands I liked and thought were at the cutting edge – Cream, Led Zeppelin, the Stones etc – drew heavily from the blues, which had been about for decades. I did not know this; for me it was all new and shiny and awesome. I reckon the same still holds true today for anyone hearing a musical genre (or any sub-genre) for the first time.

*I am talking here of the less familiar bands on the smaller stages scattered around the Glastonbury festival and not the “headliners” on the main Pyramid Stage. If these tired and cliched “headliners” - the Foo Fighters, Guns n’ Roses, a 77-year-old Debbie Harry and a 76-year-old Elton John - are the best representatives there are of today’s popular music scene then it really is in a sorry state.

[bigbassdrum]

One problem is defining when a new genre is ... established??
Someone does something 'unique' .. it seems that you now need a second someone to do something similar, then a third ..
Then it needs to be called out or recognized .. a fan/critic/other musician needs to appreciate it, then a second fan, then a third ...

As opposed to a one-hit wonder
or
"I'm the first to hit a pan with a spoon!!"
"Well good for you. Nobody cares"

[progmatist]

One of the most celebrated composera, Johann Sebastian Bach, came right at the end of the Baroque era. If I remember correctly from what my 10th grade music literature teacher told us, Bach was, during his day, considered "old fashioned", as he was sticking to a style of music that was, at least in theory, already considered passe in some quarters (and in fact, I believe Bach's death is usually cited as making the end of the Baroque era). Today, he's the one composer from that era people who aren't particularly familiar with baroque music can name.

Same thing with jazz. I don't think anyone's gonna deny the greatness of records like Mingus Ah Um, Kind Of Blue, Sunday At THe Village Vanguard, Impressions, or the first few Pat Metheny Group records, all of which came decades after the genesis of jazz.

As for big band music, I have to admit, I really only Duke Ellington, and most of the Ellington records I have are from the mid 50's on. In fact, some of my favourite Ellington recordings are things he did during the last decade of his life.

Bach's death in 1750 is widely considered the demarcation point. When the Baroque era ended, and the Classical era began.

[Dana5140]

If these tired and cliched “headliners” - the Foo Fighters, Guns n’ Roses, a 77-year-old Debbie Harry and a 76-year-old Elton John - are the best representatives there are of today’s popular music scene then it really is in a sorry state.

This is the idea of the entire Marvel movie world- keep giving the people what they are comfortable with. It is a sad state of affairs- I have no problem with Harry or John still playing, but not to the detriment of newer and more creative acts. I love Yes, not sure I would go see them now, since they are not the Yes I know best.

[Scrotum Scissor]

How many bands does a genre consist of?

Between 12 and 37.

Hm. Genres aren't -static- as template entities. They're always culturally and temporally organic, including discourse.

Interestingly, an acclaimed thesis paper on evolutions of the terminology ("genre" in regard to modern pop music) itself was indeed actually provided by musicologist and progressive rock musician Franco Fabbri (of Italy's esteemed Stormy Six) in 1980: https://www.tagg.org/others/ffabbri81a.html

First of all, there's a question of boundaries and etymologies as to who's defining. For example; In a broad perspective, "avant-garde pop/rock" essentially commenced with The Beach Boys and The Beatles, took off with Zap/Mothers and radical psychedelia and arguably culminated somewhere in time along the most determined abstractions of style in progressive rock development. And these carried on until literally unrecognizable lectures succeeded each other in overdoing a previous - check Fantômas, The Flying Luttenbachers, Orthrelm et al.

And then, basically, "rock" as a constitutional genre of paradigmatic quill let go of fine life. There's naught of the latter left if it doesn't grow.

Typically, certain micro-genres saw a return of sorts due to equally cryptical micro-fascination; Zeuhl or acid psych are perhaps the best known examples with progressive rock audiences today - but believe it or not, there have been resurgences in as seemingly unfashionable latitudes as Oi!, speed metal and casio-pop.

[per anporth]

I think it all boils down to the listener’s perspective. I watched quite a bit of the BBC’s offering from Glastonbury at the weekend and there was next to nothing that excited me or which I considered novel among the many rock acts that appeared. And yet there were big crowds of young people enjoying the music and, presumably, believing that what they were seeing were bands at the cutting edge of popular music.*

Nothing changes, though. When I think back to the late ’60s and early ’70s, which I consider the golden age of rock, the bands I liked and thought were at the cutting edge – Cream, Led Zeppelin, the Stones etc – drew heavily from the blues, which had been about for decades. I did not know this; for me it was all new and shiny and awesome. I reckon the same still holds true today for anyone hearing a musical genre (or any sub-genre) for the first time.

*I am talking here of the less familiar bands on the smaller stages scattered around the Glastonbury festival and not the “headliners” on the main Pyramid Stage. If these tired and cliched “headliners” - the Foo Fighters, Guns n’ Roses, a 77-year-old Debbie Harry and a 76-year-old Elton John - are the best representatives there are of today’s popular music scene then it really is in a sorry state.

I thought it was a slightly odd Glastonbury, Munster - certainly, the main stages seemed very dull. But then, I saw some wonderful sets - Ezra Collective were joyously uplifting, The Comet is Coming were intense & challenging, & Young Fathers played one of the most memorable sets I've ever seen. I'm looking forward to catching up with Jockstrap & Black Country, New Road, & Run Logan Run over the next few days, each of whom looked very intriguing from dipping into individual songs.

Obviously, Rick Astley doing the Smiths put all other arguments to bed

(edit - I realise none of the acts I mentioned would count as "rock" - in fact, I realise on rereading that I fully concur with you - pretty much all of the guitar rock offerings I watched were uninspiring at best, & dismal at worst)

[GuitarGeek]

As for Metheny, he's somewhere in JR/F and ambient-y ECM jazz, which was something rather new at the time.


IMHO, of course.

I'm assuming "JR/F" is jazz rock/fusion. While Metheny has a few things that be called "fusion" (e.g. The Roots Of Coincidence), I think in general he's a straight jazz guitarist, not fusion. I consider to be sort of a modern continuation of what players like Wes Montgomery, Jim Hall, Tal Farlow, Joe Pass, etc were doing in the 50's and 60's.