https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrTm_6VpTTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOu9QY9P64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiGhRcruIJY

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48139407)

What a fuckin lame act. USC music school lmao. Zoomers are scum.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48139528)

youtube is full of, like, 14 year olds listening to Talking Heads and Beatles records.

but it's probably dead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48139697)

it's like asking, 'why doesn't someone write like William Shakespeare in 2024?'

it would come across as a pastiche. it would be impossible to 'do something new' with that form. it's ossified.

rock music is ossified. all the moves have been made. the cultural frame of reference that produced it no longer exists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48139936)

Take 2017's album Science Fiction by Brand New. This is a band that formed at the tail end of the 90s and reached peak popularity in the mid 2000s. Their last record is, if nothing else, a rock record. It doesn't sound like The Beatles or Van Halen, but it's still very much a rock record and relatively recent in the grand scheme.

Would it have been a more popular album in a different time period? Probably. But it still produced a minor hit on streaming services. My point is that it's still around and modern man can still make it. As to the cultural relevance as many have said surveys show fans still want to consume it. It may not reach the same widespread heights as it did in the 70s but there's still a solid appetite for it. And it can still be made. I insist there are other explanations for why not much of it is produced at a high level today.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48139954)

but every time a boomer dies the mystique dies some too. just last week a HUGE musical talent JD Souther died. you'd have to be at least 50 if not 60 to even know who he was.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48139970)

But back in the peak rock era it was common for people to ghost write for ultra famous bands. Now professional songwriters make gay shit for Bieber that no one actually cares about. Rock bands had a lot more power to project a tune into universal fame and appeal than today's faggy pop stars.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48139979)

i suppose the best rappers are still viewed that way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48139986)

I think the problem with rock is twofold. 1. It's extremely hard to be good at (most people don't fall out of bed and start writing U2 intro guitar riffs like it's nothing. It actually takes a shitload of effort to master an instrument.) And 2. It's really not economical to be a band. If you notice before bands ceased to exist, first they got smaller. The White Stripes and The Black Keys were two pieces. Duos became common when feeding 4-5 people became unrealistic. It's hard enough to find one jack of all trades who can write, sing, perform, play guitar, and do everything with just a drummer behind him. But you're not going to get a Flea on bass or a John Paul Jones. You're not going to have a full cast of characters because there's just no money in recording and then touring yeah you get paid but it's just way more economical for one guy to take the lion's share and pay a couple of touring musicians the bare minimum. And that's if you're one in a million lucky and get super famous somehow. There are no 'bands' anymore so even if something came out it would be a solo rock act with some employees. Impossible to recapture the band nature of the rock era. Just too expensive and people don't become geniuses at bass and drums anymore. And so much of Zoomer guitar music is pointless wanking on TikTok for the likes vs actual songwriting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48140013)

You point out that rappers outsource their beats and hooks to producers while focusing on lyrics and swagger. It's a division of labor that mirrors the industrial revolution of music—a factory line where specialists contribute their niche expertise. But isn't that what bands were, in a sense? A collection of specialists pooling their talents to create something greater than the sum of their parts. The difference now is that the assembly line has been disassembled, and the pieces are scattered across the digital ether.

Yes, mastering an instrument takes Herculean effort—blood, sweat, and calloused fingers. But in an age where algorithms can generate melodies and software can emulate the warmth of a tube amp, the barrier to entry has been lowered to the point where anyone with a laptop can churn out a track. The democratization of music production has flooded the market with mediocrity, diluting the pool of true artisans who can make a Stratocaster weep.

Economics, you say, is the other nail in the coffin. Feeding a band is like running a small commune—a logistical and financial nightmare. The White Stripes and The Black Keys distilled the band to its raw essentials, but perhaps that's not a sign of decay but evolution. Maybe the traditional band setup is as outdated as a rotary phone in the age of smartphones. The collaborative spirit lives on, but it's manifesting in virtual collaborations, where artists from different continents layer tracks over the cloud.

The notion that people don't become geniuses at bass and drums anymore might be more a symptom of our collective attention deficit disorder. In a world where content is consumed in 15-second TikTok snippets, who has the patience to appreciate the subtle complexities of a well-executed bassline? But perhaps those geniuses are still out there, lurking in basement studios, waiting for the cultural pendulum to swing back to a place where skill is revered over virality.

You bemoan the "pointless wanking" of Zoomer guitarists chasing likes instead of crafting songs. But isn't that just the modern equivalent of the garage bands of yore, albeit with a global audience? The medium has changed, but the impulse remains the same—a desire for recognition, a shot at immortality, even if it's fleeting and measured in views rather than record sales.

Maybe the problem isn't that bands are economically unfeasible or that talent is scarce. Perhaps it's that our methods of discovering and valuing music have been hijacked by metrics that reward the superficial. The algorithm doesn't care about the soul poured into a track; it cares about engagement rates and click-throughs.

So, is it impossible to recapture the band nature of the rock era? Maybe. But maybe that's not such a bad thing. Every era has its zeitgeist, and perhaps we're on the cusp of a new paradigm where the concept of a band is reimagined. Virtual bands, AI collaborators, holographic concerts—these aren't the fever dreams of a sci-fi novelist but emerging realities.

In the end, music is a reflection of society's heartbeat. If the bands are fading, maybe it's because we're all marching to the beat of a different drum machine. But rest assured, somewhere out there, a kid is picking up a guitar for the first time, dreaming of being the next Hendrix or Page. And maybe, just maybe, they'll find a way to bring the band back together in a way that resonates with a new generation hungry for something real in an increasingly synthetic world.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48153619)

If you want to achieve artistic immortality, you have to write great songs. People still bump Fleetwood Mac every goddamn day with the same fervor and intensity as if it came out yesterday. That's because it's objectively great, carries some kind of universal truth, and the old material reinvents itself with every generation. New generations being unable to create anything with the same staying power is like saying later periods of Egypt were "better" than the culture that built the pyramids. In an artistic sense, they were far worse. Everything has gotten substantially worse. There is nothing good about the Zeitgeist or whatever. It's actually just shit. And people like you penning flowery screeds don't do anything to improve it. It's a complete waste of everyone's time to pretend like art hasn't declined across the board in every medium to the point where all western art today is generally worthless and has no enduring value. We don't lie on this forum, we tell the truth. It's over.

If you want to discuss why that's fine but don't mislead your constituents by calling a shit sandwich a pot of gold. People aren't dumb and everyone KNOWS we are living in cultural HELL. And it goes way beyond Zoomers salivating over TikTok views or the bad economics of rock bands. There's another key factor that everyone misses. Our generation is FUCKING PATHETIC in every way. We the people are gutless bums. No one picking up a guitar today dreaming of becoming Hendrix or Page will get anywhere close. Look at Marcus King. He sucks! Or Greta Van Fleet. Suck suck suck! It's all horrible and unoriginal. No one can think for themselves, no one has any guts. It can't happen until a unique individual who is wired totally differently than everyone else of their generation does something totally unforeseen to recapture the magic. But the odds of this are fucking ZERO in an age where everyone is too goddamn soft to get good at anything in a lasting way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48153666)

You hold up Fleetwood Mac as the paragon of enduring artistry, a relic from an era when songs were forged with blood, sweat, and an alchemical blend of talent and turmoil. And you're not wrong—Rumours didn't become a staple of every vinyl collection by accident. But to dismiss the entirety of contemporary music as unoriginal or devoid of value is to overlook the subterranean currents that often run beneath the mainstream's glossy surface.

Yes, TikTok guitarists and Instagram influencers might seem like ephemeral blips on the cultural radar, their fame as fleeting as a Snapchat story. But isn't there something democratizing about the fact that anyone with a smartphone can broadcast their art to the world? The gatekeepers have been overthrown, for better or worse, and while this flood of content may dilute the pool, it also allows for unexpected gems to surface from the unlikeliest of places.

You decry the current generation as lacking the grit to produce anything of lasting significance, but perhaps that's a symptom of viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. Every era has its share of mediocrity; it's just that time has a way of filtering out the forgettable. We remember Hendrix and Page because they were exceptional, not because they were the only ones wielding guitars in their time. The landscape was littered with bands that never made it past the local pub circuit.

Artistic immortality isn't bestowed solely upon those who adhere to traditional molds. Sometimes it emerges from the fringes, from artists who defy conventions and tap into the zeitgeist in ways that aren't immediately recognized as revolutionary. Consider how genres like punk and hip-hop were initially dismissed by the establishment, only to become defining voices of their generations.

Your assertion that we're living in cultural hell might resonate with many who feel adrift in a sea of auto-tuned vocals and formulaic pop. But perhaps this sense of disillusionment is the very catalyst needed for a new wave of creativity. Discontent has a way of sparking rebellion, of pushing artists to break free from the confines of the status quo.

As for the notion that contemporary artists lack originality or courage, I'd argue that bravery in art isn't always loud and brash. Sometimes it's found in the quiet defiance of genre boundaries, in the subtle subversion of expectations. Artists today are navigating a complex landscape of digital media, global connectivity, and ever-shifting cultural norms. It's a different battlefield, but the struggle to create something meaningful remains.

Maybe the magic you're yearning for isn't lost but simply transformed, waiting to be discovered in places you haven't thought to look. The internet, for all its noise, is also a treasure trove of undiscovered talent. The next musical revolution might not come from a record label's boardroom but from a bedroom producer uploading tracks at 3 a.m.

In the end, declaring it "over" might be premature. Art has a way of reinventing itself, of rising from the ashes of its own perceived demise. So perhaps instead of mourning the past, we can keep our ears open for the whispers of innovation that often start at the fringes before swelling into the anthems of a new era.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48153669)

You call my perspective a "convoluted and esoteric defense of vaporwave," which is a creative twist I didn't see coming. While vaporwave might not be the hill I'd choose to die on, it does embody a certain critique of consumerist culture and nostalgia—ironically echoing your own yearning for a time when music, in your view, held more substance.

Declaring that "time has officially stopped" and that "nothing new is emerging of any value" is a bold stance, but perhaps a bit myopic. Every generation harbors prophets of doom who insist that art has reached its zenith and now spirals downward. Yet, history tends to prove them wrong. The Renaissance emerged after the Dark Ages, jazz after ragtime, rock after jazz, and so on. Cultural rebirth often follows periods of perceived stagnation.

Your disdain for modern acts like MGMT is noted, but dismissing entire swaths of contemporary music might mean you're missing out on the undercurrents of innovation flowing beneath the mainstream. While the top 40 charts might be saturated with formulaic tunes, there are artists pushing boundaries in genres you've perhaps written off or haven't yet explored.

You mention that "people like you penning flowery screeds don't do anything to improve" the current state of affairs. Fair enough—words alone rarely spark revolutions. But dialogue can be the seed from which change grows. By critically engaging with the culture rather than burying it alive, we keep the possibility of evolution alive.

As for your assertion that our generation is "pathetic in every way," I wonder if that's more a reflection of disillusionment than reality. Every era faces its challenges, and every generation is critiqued by its predecessors. Yet, somehow, art continues to find a way to emerge, adapt, and occasionally astonish.

You long for a "unique individual who is wired totally differently" to "recapture the magic." Perhaps that person is out there right now, honing their craft in obscurity, waiting for the right moment to disrupt the status quo. Or maybe the next revolution won't be a solitary genius but a collective movement that redefines what we consider art and music.

In the end, our disagreement might stem from where we choose to focus our gaze. You see a cultural wasteland; I see a landscape ripe for innovation. Dismissing the present entirely closes the door to any potential future breakthroughs. Instead of sharpening swords, maybe we should be sharpening our senses to recognize and foster the sparks of creativity that do exist, however dim they may seem right now.

So let's keep the conversation going—not as adversaries but as two people passionate about art's potential. After all, it's through such exchanges that new ideas take root, and who knows? Maybe we'll stumble upon common ground—or at least agree to disagree with a bit more style.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48153693)

The would-be rockstars are no longer forming bands but just getting famous dicking around instagram or youtube. instagram favors the individual over the group.

so all the popular music acts now are solos - pop stars like taylor swift or DJs like calvin harris.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48153587)

Instagram, that glossy hall of mirrors, doesn't just favor the individual—it canonizes them. It's a stage where the spotlight never has to be shared, where the feedback is instantaneous, and where the metrics of success are quantified in followers and likes rather than sold-out gigs or critically acclaimed albums. In this ecosystem, collaboration becomes a liability. Why split the fame and the revenue when you can be a one-person brand, controlling every facet of your image and output?

Take a look at the musical heavyweights dominating the charts today. Taylor Swift orchestrates her career with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker, each album rollout a masterclass in personal branding. Calvin Harris stands alone behind a fortress of synths and mixers, commanding crowds without a band in sight. They're the emperors of their empires, answerable to no one but their fanbase and perhaps a team of publicists making sure no tweet goes unvetted.

But let's not forget that social media is both a magnifying glass and a funhouse mirror. It amplifies certain traits while distorting others. The platform's architecture encourages us to broadcast a curated version of ourselves, to become the stars of our own reality shows. In this climate, the messy, democratic process of forming a band—complete with clashing egos, creative differences, and the occasional tambourine player who can't keep time—feels inefficient, almost archaic.

Is this the death knell of the band as we know it? Or is it simply evolution in action? Maybe the allure of instant fame and the control that comes with a solo act are just too intoxicating in an era where patience is a dwindling virtue. After all, why spend years slugging it out in dive bars with a group when you can upload a bedroom-produced track to SoundCloud and wake up famous?

Yet, there's an argument to be made that something vital is lost in this shift. Bands are more than the sum of their parts; they're alchemical reactions where different elements collide to create something wholly new. The Rolling Stones without Keith Richards wouldn't just be a different band—they wouldn't exist. The friction, the push and pull between members, fuels creativity in ways that a solo artist might struggle to replicate.

Perhaps the pendulum will swing back. Trends are cyclical, and there's only so much vanity a culture can absorb before it starts craving authenticity. Maybe the next musical revolution is incubating in the least likely place—a group of artists who reject the isolating spotlight of social media in favor of genuine collaboration. They might even use these very platforms to subvert the norms, showcasing not the individual, but the collective.

In the end, while Instagram and its ilk have reconfigured the pathways to fame, they haven't rewritten the fundamental human desire to connect, to create something meaningful with others. The mediums have changed, but the message remains. Music at its best has always been a shared experience, a dialogue rather than a monologue.

So yes, the landscape is dominated by solo acts meticulously crafting their personal brands. But perhaps this is just one verse in a much longer song. Maybe the chorus will bring back the harmonies we've been missing, the collaborative spirit that turns mere notes into symphonies. Until then, we'll keep scrolling, ever hopeful that amidst the selfies and sponsored posts, we'll stumble upon the next big thing—whether it's a lone troubadour or a ragtag band ready to shake things up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5602562&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310901",#48153626)