future of music

[imthefoolonthehill]

It appears to me that music has changed from generally happy to generally depressing stuff...

two questions: Does music appear to be shifting towards a negative outlook?

Do you think it will ever be happier? Or will they in general get more negative?

Actually... three questions.

How much does the style of music reflect the style of the generation, and vise versa?

[Munro]

There is quite a lot of "happy" music around right now, even in rock. There are The Strokes, The Hives, The White Stripes - all write entertaining, poisitve and sometimes weird music about the joys and foibles of youth (thinking of childhood experiences in Jack White's lyrics, there is a constant presence there), and then you have all that manufactured stuff which is designed to make people happy and, probably, want to have sex.

They say that rock'n'roll is back, after an era of "grunge" when Keith Richards said "they've got the rock but they've forgotten the roll". I don't think I've heard a more joyous, cheery song than "Hey Ya" by Outkast, most recently, man, it made me wanna dance and sing.

There is a lot of depressing music out there today. This, as you asked in your question, I think reflects strongly the attitude of a generation. However I'd say that there aren't any more melancholy tunes drifting through popular culture than there were when rhythm and blues, and then jazz emerged throughout the 1920s and 30s - these were genres of music that were mournful and depressing by style, and yeh, probably an African-American musical expression of their collective feelings at the time. Go put on "Summertime" and mope, and see if it makes sense.

[crisaor]

Music has become depressing? I hadn't noticed...
There's always been all kinds of music out there, the only thing that changes is your exposure to its genres and bands. If you're looking for "up" music, Munro mentioned some great examples there.

[psycojones]

good topic. my opinion, two things come to mind. one, times are very strange in the world right now. we have terrorism, leaders lying more than ever, or maybe we are just begining to understand the scope in which they have been lying to us over the centuries. media becoming the most watched show on the planet and the only stories they share with the viewing public is fear, because they know that is what sells. i know i am missing much more, but you get the idea. music mimics what they (the musician) are feeling and what society is feeling in general, and at that time. perhaps it would be fair to say that the world is in uncertian times right now with all that has happened in the last couple of years. again only in general, and in some cases. saying that music takes the role of depressing lyrics, and tone, to which we pick up on.
if it is not that perhaps it is the person buying the music and what he is feeling at hte time. for students, this is peek time for depression, and suicide. maybe this time of the year promote depressing, crappy music.

[Dyrwen]

Some of the most "hardcore" or "metal" bands I listen to with names like "Every Time I Die" and "Between the Buried and Me" have very happy lyrics at times.

The people themselves are happy, so the music follows it. It just sounds unhappy when they're screaming it. My teachers have heard my music in class and are like: they sound angry, sad.. etc. When the music itself has taken on a more abstract form.

In general, sad music is always easier to write about because of the reflection involved. When you're happy, you don't need to reflect, because you're happy right then and there. But sadness tends to be a sort of time when you look back analyzing your life, sadnesses, etc and ends up with much more material to write about.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Your last paragraph was insightful, Dyrwen. Thankyou.

It still seems clear to me that angry and depressing (though often very enjoyable) music is more prevelant today than it was 30-40 years ago... (I'm a young 'un, but I sometimes listen to the oldies stations...)

Anyway... I wonder if it is because more and more artists are writing this stuff, or if it is because there is more of a market for it?

Let me know what you think... if you think it is a mixture of both, then tell me which is the LEADING cause.

:-)

[Koa]

I am quite surprised to see this cos I've enver thought of nowadays music to be depressive...On the contrary! One of the reasons why I'm not much into recent stuff is that it doesn't strike me possibly cos it's not depressive enough (I can't stand happy music). And I assume we're talking of good music, not of pop idols crap.

So I really don't know what to say about why music appears so depressive nowadays... It seems really the opposite to me. Now I'm still obsessed by The Cure and I find all that beautifully horrible sadness in their early 80s albums... or in Disintegration. I am a big fan of the music of the 80s and when I mention that to some people they think I'm an idiot cos it was such a void time, but besides the poppy stuff, I find so much depth in stuff like Joy Division (another band which is supposed to lead you to suicide ;)), even if that's more late 70s I guess... Or my beloved Depeche Mode (the album Black Celebration is seen by some as a sort of reflection of the cold war)... or even The Smiths.

So I really wonder how it can be said that music of 20-30 years ago was happier, cos I can't think of many examples... I'm thinking of stuff I appear to see on MTV, ok that's mostly crap but have you seen the latest video of Madonna? Both the song and the video are so damn happy that they make sick... and all the damn hip-hop that's so popular now, well I don't listen to it and if I do I moslty can't get any word, but it doesnt seem to me to be about world terrorism or broken hearts...:rolleyes:

[crisaor]

Originally posted by Koa
I am a big fan of the music of the 80s and when I mention that to some people they think I'm an idiot cos it was such a void time, but besides the poppy stuff, I find so much depth in stuff like Joy Division (another band which is supposed to lead you to suicide ;)), even if that's more late 70s I guess... Or my beloved Depeche Mode (the album Black Celebration is seen by some as a sort of reflection of the cold war)... or even The Smiths.
Some people always see the bad side when talking about music periods, if it doesn't suit their tastes. The 70's sucked because of Disco music (nevermind bands like Zeppelin or Floyd), the 80s sucked because all of the synthesizers bands (putting bands like Depeche Mode or the Cure in the same bag with others, and disregarding Queen in their finest hour), in the late 90s it was the teen pop time (ignoring Oasis, Radiohead, and others), and in these last years (2000+) it's the "retro rock thing", which has "no original value" and "it's been seen before" (The Strokes can't be ignored in my opinion). Don't worry Koa, your music taste is fine.

Originally posted by Koa
So I really wonder how it can be said that music of 20-30 years ago was happier, cos I can't think of many examples... I'm thinking of stuff I appear to see on MTV, ok that's mostly crap but have you seen the latest video of Madonna? Both the song and the video are so damn happy that they make sick... and all the damn hip-hop that's so popular now, well I don't listen to it and if I do I moslty can't get any word, but it doesnt seem to me to be about world terrorism or broken hearts...:rolleyes:
I don't think music was happier before, what I think is that society was happier before, or at least, not as miserable as it is today (openly I mean). One of the world's new characteristics is that many values or traditions have been lost, or replaced, or reviewed, and things that before were kept in the dark, now arise into the public light. There is still plenty of happy music around, for those who like it.

[imthefoolonthehill]

hmm... I like today's music... but it is depressing...

maybe its just because in idaho... we have two choices for modern music... one is that fluffy pop crap... and the other is alternative rock.... very depressing... but good.

[Koa]

Originally posted by crisaor


I don't think music was happier before, what I think is that society was happier before, or at least, not as miserable as it is today (openly I mean). One of the world's new characteristics is that many values or traditions have been lost, or replaced, or reviewed, and things that before were kept in the dark, now arise into the public light. There is still plenty of happy music around, for those who like it. [/B]

I don't agree. Every era had its depressive sides. The loss of values thing is something I'm not too convinced about, but I guess I can accept this view when I see girls of 13 dressed up like they were 30 (and consequentely making me look like a teenager :rolleyes: )... Surely on a general scale the world is more frustrated now, but there were troubles even 20-30 years ago... Vietnam, cold war, just to quote the first things that coem to mind, didnt' they affect the music too???
I consider this era much more full of 'divertissement', of fake happiness just to forget how miserable life can be...

[atiguhya padma]

Sometimes people are happier when times are worse. Today, affluence in the western world may create a great deal of unhappiness. Regarding music, I often feel that unhappy music is more profound, more meaningful. It makes us feel good, because we naturally like to compare ourselves with others, and when we are doing better, we feel good, in general. So listening to some singer lament about his love life, or how shallow his or her life is, that tends to make us feel good. Songwriters know this psychological pattern in us, and play to the gallery. As do poets a lot of the time. IMHO of course.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by imthefoolonthehill
It appears to me that music has changed from generally happy to generally depressing stuff...

I don't really see it like that. I think today's music is more ear-friendly. Lots of happy stuffs as the theme, even broken-heart songs are not as sad as the old ones (IMO). I think today many people, especially youths, prefer to listen to cheerfull stuffs. Though the music is hard but I think in terms of tehcnics, it aint "heavy". So does the lyric. Some bands are exceptional of course. And I don't really think bands with depressing lyrics really sold these days :rolleyes:


Does music appear to be shifting towards a negative outlook?

U mean in terms of quality or the theme of the lyrics?
If you mean the lyrics, well like I wrote above, I don't see it that way. Please compare to the old bands esp from the 70's or 80's. Please name a band whose music is dominated by pessimistic words and opinion (radiohead is an exception of course)..

How much does the style of music reflect the style of the generation, and vise versa? [/QUOTE]
Many bands or singers today wrote music about being fun, party, hedonism, and stuffs like that. Of course they depict what's going on in today's world, especially related to teens.

[subterranean]

This thread topic remind me of to this song by the WHO

"The music must change
For we're chewing a bone
We soared like the sparrow hawk flied
Then we dropped like a stone
Like the tide and the waves
Growing slowly in range
Crushing mountains as old as the Earth
So the music must change"

I suppose every generation has its own music, but I still think some generations have better music than others :)

[Koa]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Regarding music, I often feel that unhappy music is more profound, more meaningful. It makes us feel good, because we naturally like to compare ourselves with others, and when we are doing better, we feel good, in general. So listening to some singer lament about his love life, or how shallow his or her life is, that tends to make us feel good. Songwriters know this psychological pattern in us, and play to the gallery. As do poets a lot of the time. IMHO of course.

I dont see it that way... Listening to depressive music doenst make me feel happier, on the contrary!!! Instead, I sympathise, I understand...and most of all, I feel LESS LONELY: hey, this songwriter felt this too, I'm not the only one! It's human!
I'm listening to the cure far too much lately, and I'm not relieved...

I strongly feel that poets/songwriters/authors are there to give us the words to share our feelings and try to overcome for a few moments the terrible loneliness that is a charateristic of mankind... So in the music I like I find my feelings, even if they were'nt written with the same idea in mind, I interpret those words and make them mine. That's what music/poetry is about for me.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by subterranean
Please name a band whose music is dominated by pessimistic words and opinion (radiohead is an exception of course)..
Bob Dylan
Coldplay (not the words, but the music)
Leonard Cohen
Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds
Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Pink Floyd
Rage Against the Machine
Tindersticks

There's more than that, obviously.

[atiguhya padma]

Manic Street Preachers
Death in Vegas
The Clinic
Sneaker Pimps
Rob Dougan
Godspeed You Black Emperor
Goldfrapp
Primal Scream

to name but a few.

[Koa]

Yeah I was thinking about that too...
well it seems to me the Travis and Coldplay are depressive wannabes... (I won't state my opinion about the results cos I'd make lots of enemies :D)... and Evanescence too.

Then...I guess they don't count in nowadays mainstream, but it seems to me that The Cure are more or less still going... (same for DM but they're last album was too sickeningly happy for my liking!)

[subterranean]

Cris and AP, I was refering to bands in the late 90's till present of course, since Fool stated that today's music theme is more depressing that it used too.

[crisaor]

Sub, excepting Dylan, Cohen, Nick Cave and Pink Floyd (less than half the list), all of the bands I mentioned began in the '90s.

[Munro]

hey a/p, that's some good taste you got there! (obscure too :) ).

I really like the song 'Lovely Head' by Goldfrapp.

and 'Hands around my throat' by Death in Vegas. Those are all I've heard, but those bands have a cult following in Oz.

[Dina12]

See I'd argue that music seems more depressing because the 'real' music has more exposure. And by 'real' music I mean 'good' music which deals with greater depths of emotion. If you were to look at 'pop' music it all stills seems relatively happy but tis the days of folk and alternative rock and as such the music scene may seem less 'let me see your peacock' and more 'then who the hell was I?'. Ture art will always deal with sadness, perhaps more than happiness because true happiness is so hard to communicate yet sadness touches us all. Finally, people with real taste and real talent and being recognised by the masses.

[Revolte]

See I'd argue that music seems more depressing because the 'real' music has more exposure. And by 'real' music I mean 'good' music which deals with greater depths of emotion. If you were to look at 'pop' music it all stills seems relatively happy but tis the days of folk and alternative rock and as such the music scene may seem less 'let me see your peacock' and more 'then who the hell was I?'. Ture art will always deal with sadness, perhaps more than happiness because true happiness is so hard to communicate yet sadness touches us all. Finally, people with real taste and real talent and being recognised by the masses.

I have to argue that. I'm a performer, some of the time, and I play folk at local punk venues. And even in that scene with relative sentiments, the genre is severely underrated. Especially mixed genres like folk-punk.

The mainstream still focuses on half assed versions of what's played by the artists who can't afford large studios and can't get signed because they don't appeal to, crap.

I've known and met some of the met amazing artists out there.

Just take a listen to the amount of pure soul radiating from my friends voice (she's the girl, and no I'm not plugging myself): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds2GAxP4U8Q


Lucky cuss is an amazing band themselves, I'll admit they have a greater chance then some of the other bands I've been close friends with.

for example, these guys are absolutely brilliant live, and yet they broke up because of their incorporation of more instruments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw5EB3iV_w8&feature=relmfu (also, they played five different shows that night, one after another, this one was their last of the night I think. They were pretty tired when I caught up with them lol, good stuff.)


And then you have other amazing artists, some of which are part of the riot-folk collective, who travel all around the states, with whatever money they can get their hands on, who will never be heard on your everyday radio station or even places like pandora. Despite the fact they are well known, and very talented.




And then you have a prime example with Against Me. (worth noting it was originally just Tom Gable with an acoustic guitar, and some added stuff here and there)

Here is them when they still played a lot of unplugged and were signed to Planet X (or shortly before, considering it's a demo): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQdviL_SCMA

Here is them somewhere between transition (may have still been on planet x at this time, but I'm not sure and if so not long before getting signed to a major label: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ScFU0UxKWA&feature=related


And here is them now, a few years after being on a major label: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RUeMCZL3Q&feature=related


As much as I loved them, before their last album, they are still a good example of what mainstream music does to the art. It's all about selling, not heart. It's a business up there. And it's funny how around the same time that album came out Tom was still recording acoustic music with pro-anarchist sentiments, and was interviewed about the last song up there and seemed to be forcing his "changed view" out of his lips.

Now Tom is far from stupid. Planet X is an anarchist label (though not all of the music is anarcho) formed by the guys and girls in Ghost Mice, who are a tad (maybe not too much) older. In "I Was A Teenage Anarchist" he is suggesting the philosophy is a sort of rebellious faze. And how he read all the right books and so on. Assuming that's true, which is a possibility, he is well aware of the majority of well thought out anarchists being older, even historically. Sure when Emma Goldman was too old to keep fallowing every countries revolution she calmed down, but was still an anarchist and feminist.

The mainstream doesn't always play bad music, and maybe not all of it is BS, but the majority is still a lie.

[Darcy88]

I have to argue that. I'm a performer, some of the time, and I play folk at local punk venues. And even in that scene with relative sentiments, the genre is severely underrated. Especially mixed genres like folk-punk.

The mainstream still focuses on half assed versions of what's played by the artists who can't afford large studios and can't get signed because they don't appeal to, crap.

I've known and met some of the met amazing artists out there.

Just take a listen to the amount of pure soul radiating from my friends voice (she's the girl, and no I'm not plugging myself): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds2GAxP4U8Q


Lucky cuss is an amazing band themselves, I'll admit they have a greater chance then some of the other bands I've been close friends with.

for example, these guys are absolutely brilliant live, and yet they broke up because of their incorporation of more instruments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw5EB3iV_w8&feature=relmfu (also, they played five different shows that night, one after another, this one was their last of the night I think. They were pretty tired when I caught up with them lol, good stuff.)


And then you have other amazing artists, some of which are part of the riot-folk collective, who travel all around the states, with whatever money they can get their hands on, who will never be heard on your everyday radio station or even places like pandora. Despite the fact they are well known, and very talented.




And then you have a prime example with Against Me. (worth noting it was originally just Tom Gable with an acoustic guitar, and some added stuff here and there)

Here is them when they still played a lot of unplugged and were signed to Planet X (or shortly before, considering it's a demo): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQdviL_SCMA

Here is them somewhere between transition (may have still been on planet x at this time, but I'm not sure and if so not long before getting signed to a major label: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ScFU0UxKWA&feature=related


And here is them now, a few years after being on a major label: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RUeMCZL3Q&feature=related


As much as I loved them, before their last album, they are still a good example of what mainstream music does to the art. It's all about selling, not heart. It's a business up there. And it's funny how around the same time that album came out Tom was still recording acoustic music with pro-anarchist sentiments, and was interviewed about the last song up there and seemed to be forcing his "changed view" out of his lips.

Now Tom is far from stupid. Planet X is an anarchist label (though not all of the music is anarcho) formed by the guys and girls in Ghost Mice, who are a tad (maybe not too much) older. In "I Was A Teenage Anarchist" he is suggesting the philosophy is a sort of rebellious faze. And how he read all the right books and so on. Assuming that's true, which is a possibility, he is well aware of the majority of well thought out anarchists being older, even historically. Sure when Emma Goldman was too old to keep fallowing every countries revolution she calmed down, but was still an anarchist and feminist.

The mainstream doesn't always play bad music, and maybe not all of it is BS, but the majority is still a lie.

All right, first I gotta thank you for sharing that Lucky Cuss/Lily-Pad Cupcakes song. So much soul in it. I left a short comment on the youtube page.

I did not know there is such a thing as "folk-punk." This is what I think my music is. I have trouble labelling my music but those two genres are what seem closest to it. Determining genre is often a difficult task.

Part of me wants a record deal and part of me does not care and would be happy just travelling around playing small shows in cafes and other venues. Being on MTV is not what I am interested in. I just want to connect with people.

Thanks for sharing those videos and explaining much of today's current music scene. I found this post to be very informative.

[Dina12]

I have to argue that. I'm a performer, some of the time, and I play folk at local punk venues. And even in that scene with relative sentiments, the genre is severely underrated. Especially mixed genres like folk-punk.

The mainstream still focuses on half assed versions of what's played by the artists who can't afford large studios and can't get signed because they don't appeal to, crap.

I've known and met some of the met amazing artists out there.

Just take a listen to the amount of pure soul radiating from my friends voice (she's the girl, and no I'm not plugging myself): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds2GAxP4U8Q


Lucky cuss is an amazing band themselves, I'll admit they have a greater chance then some of the other bands I've been close friends with.

for example, these guys are absolutely brilliant live, and yet they broke up because of their incorporation of more instruments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw5EB3iV_w8&feature=relmfu (also, they played five different shows that night, one after another, this one was their last of the night I think. They were pretty tired when I caught up with them lol, good stuff.)


And then you have other amazing artists, some of which are part of the riot-folk collective, who travel all around the states, with whatever money they can get their hands on, who will never be heard on your everyday radio station or even places like pandora. Despite the fact they are well known, and very talented.




And then you have a prime example with Against Me. (worth noting it was originally just Tom Gable with an acoustic guitar, and some added stuff here and there)

Here is them when they still played a lot of unplugged and were signed to Planet X (or shortly before, considering it's a demo): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQdviL_SCMA

Here is them somewhere between transition (may have still been on planet x at this time, but I'm not sure and if so not long before getting signed to a major label: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ScFU0UxKWA&feature=related


And here is them now, a few years after being on a major label: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RUeMCZL3Q&feature=related


As much as I loved them, before their last album, they are still a good example of what mainstream music does to the art. It's all about selling, not heart. It's a business up there. And it's funny how around the same time that album came out Tom was still recording acoustic music with pro-anarchist sentiments, and was interviewed about the last song up there and seemed to be forcing his "changed view" out of his lips.

Now Tom is far from stupid. Planet X is an anarchist label (though not all of the music is anarcho) formed by the guys and girls in Ghost Mice, who are a tad (maybe not too much) older. In "I Was A Teenage Anarchist" he is suggesting the philosophy is a sort of rebellious faze. And how he read all the right books and so on. Assuming that's true, which is a possibility, he is well aware of the majority of well thought out anarchists being older, even historically. Sure when Emma Goldman was too old to keep fallowing every countries revolution she calmed down, but was still an anarchist and feminist.

The mainstream doesn't always play bad music, and maybe not all of it is BS, but the majority is still a lie.


Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there, it is impossible to go mainstream without changing your sound, although of course there are some bands that just come up with the 'right' sound first off but that's awfully rare and often they're not much good. I've seen so many bands change their tune literally when signed. It awfully disapointing when the boy and bear album came out, it was just so toned down, still nice, a couple of good tracks but nothing comparing to mexican mavis, that was awfully promising. But that's the wave they chose to ride and I suppose that's the way with most things really, afterall it is capatalism that drives art. That said though, I have seen bands improve dramatically after being signed so perhaps change can be made in the right direction.

On the note of teenage anarchist, I'd argue that it was more in reference to that little phases that everyone goes through in teenagehood, many people will go through a couple extremist phases, I remember I had one insane friend who went around for a month claiming that she wanted to be a minimalist. I went through about five philosphical 'epiphanies' by picking out bits and pieces that others had written and taking them to be my own thinking. What can I say? teenagers! Point being, that most people grow out of it and are satisfied in themselves and feel absolutely no need to change the world because it changes by itslef anyway.

[Revolte]

On the note of teenage anarchist, I'd argue that it was more in reference to that little phases that everyone goes through in teenagehood, many people will go through a couple extremist phases, I remember I had one insane friend who went around for a month claiming that she wanted to be a minimalist. I went through about five philosphical 'epiphanies' by picking out bits and pieces that others had written and taking them to be my own thinking. What can I say? teenagers! Point being, that most people grow out of it and are satisfied in themselves and feel absolutely no need to change the world because it changes by itslef anyway.

A faze doesn't fit his personal history, and present. I'd hardly call anarchism extremist, but there are plenty of kids who adopt the label and join in radical movements out of aimless spite. But that's true for most schools of thought.

And most people really don't grow out of it. Not everyone is committed, but a lot are. Chomsky, Goldman and Zinn are a few good examples. Alan Moore (V for Vendetta or whatever outlet he felt like changing the name for, and watchmen) is an anarchist as well.

It's just that anarchism, like other political/social philosophies is complex, and when that happens people like to sum it up into a short and inaccurate explanation, and when that happens the youth will jump right in without knowing what it is they are actually standing for. But the powers and anarchists are almost opposite, so there have long been anarchists involved in radical direct action. Take Libya's uprising for example, it isn't an anarchist revolution, but there are plenty of anarchists involved. Taking down power is attractive to those of us who think we should have it over ourselves. Sometimes angsty kids get caught up in the mix.


But with Gabel it's not so easy to say he was just going through a two decade long faze. I would be open to the idea, if I didn't think he is full of crap.

These songs, for example. Maybe not directly anarcho, certainly shout anarchist sentiments.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zKE-LfdM5E

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS03fFlHnE

I'd also like to note the difference of heart in the lyrical writing and even in the general style of music. His, more honest, solo stuff not only hits the mark on what he has been doing for so long, but just feels so much more right. That's my opinion though, can't do much with that in debate, but I still think you can notice a difference in effort.

Now let's give Tom a break, and take a look at AFI.

Early AFI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOMAhGzMclM


when AFI got really big (and continued down this musical road), however I will say this is a very important song, but it's what becomes after and this was the start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yzu-4kJg6g


They went from being a really good punk band, to jumping on the emo band wagon.


Beasty Boys started as a hardcore punk band, but had success with hip hop so they went with that instead (thank god for that, they were an awful punk band). And that super famous song "No Sleep Till Brookland" is actually a cover of "No Sleep Till Belfast" by another punk band Stiff Little Fingers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4HRD01Qy5w

[Dina12]

the youth will jump right in without knowing what it is they are actually standing for.

Who ever knows what they're standing for anyway? Perhaps that's why we all change so much, blind faith in something that we know means something that is beyond our grasp anyway, it's hard to hold. Particularly in regards to one's own abilties. Maybe it's easier to be what everyone says we ought to be. Either way, whether they're better know or were better before at least they were better at some point.

[Dina12]

In regards to AFI, it's quite a remarkable change, ineed awfully emo. Oh the days!
But I suppose to a certain extent their influences would have simply changed, I suppose it's impossible to say that no band changes. I remember back in the early days of the hungry kids of hungary I thought they were great, granted I changed too but so did their sound. Perhaps they just became more aware of mainstream music as it became more aware of them? Also I've often noticed the way that artists adopt the sound of musicians they play with often. For example: now you're probably going to hate this but bare with me,
King Charles being the example and mumford and sons being the influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzsUcRBEKI&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xqm0DrR0Oo
Now I assume your familiar with mumford and sons because they're awfully popular but if you're not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugEqvwQiJZo&feature=related

[Darcy88]

I dabbled in Anarchism when I was a teenager. Now and for the last 8 or so years of my life I laugh at Anarchists, I buy the mainstream propaganda and look upon Anarchists as foolish hippies who undermine the integrity of the economy and the security of the state.

Getting used to the idea of the state and then coming to actually love it is a journey many so-called Anarchists make. Nowadays if you do direct action they will just label you a terrorist and have you disappeared anyway. I never did a whole lot of direct action, only a few minor pranks when I was like 12-14 years old, but I remember what it was like to hate the state and blame it for everything. I think a lot of Anarchists need to place some blame on themselves, take some responsibility for themselves. Yes, the state screws a lot of people over, but Anarchism seems in its rhetoric to blame the state for every evil, every ill, and I find this to be a rather silly attitude to hold.

I still like Chomsky and really like Zinn, but I no longer look upon their works as gospels. Well, some parts of some Zinn is gospel, but with Chomsky I no longer feel like I must believe and support all he says and has said. I disagree with much of what he's written actually.

In my opinion it is an error to position oneself on either extreme. Being a wing-nut is not healthy, not part of following what is good and true.

Anarchic music is always good though. That anarchic feeling you get from listening to the Sex Pistols or Black Flag or Pennywise is a pure expression of human passion that energizes and inflames one's spirit if one is open enough to fully and deeply experience it. This spirit is alive in all music, from classical to metal to rap to alternative. Music explodes preconceived notions, opens one's mind in a way that narcotics cannot, lifts and inflames one's spirit. Dancing, moshing, just lying motionless in bed with one's headphones in and sailing across the ocean of sound puts one in a state of freedom, doesn't matter what the external political situation. In the end, if a piece of music exists mostly as an expression of the musician's politics then that piece of music will likely be soon forgotten. Rage Against the Machine is such an amazing band not just because of their message but because of their hard-charging riffs and vocals and song-writing. If Rage Against the Machine's songs were all about love and nature and not about politics at all they would still be one of the greatest bands of the last 25 years.

Music is about freedom. That's really what it comes down to in my mind.