There's always a place for nostalgia: old blokes playing Acker Bilk at summer fetes, those 'Back to '88' Raves, things like that. They're fine so long as they're taken for what they are. Then there's band like Witchcraft who go all out simply to replicate a by-gone era for a modern young audience that seems to want contemporary music simply to replicate what they perceive as a kind of Golden era. For these people I suspect that nostalgia isn't just a comfy stroll through a certain yesteryear (that most of them would've never actually experienced) but a corrective to what they perceive as the cultural ills of their own time. It's that same mindset that I think makes bands such as Monster Magnet so appealing to certain people: a kind of unconscious desire for music to get back to a time when bands did things supposedly 'properly'.

ok, sorry..
almost everything is regressive.

Is this this attitude that in the big scary 21st century true originality cannot be accomplished? This kinda annoys me, it smacks of a lack of persistence and downright laziness.

no i dont believe that because if we cant move forward then we may as well be dead! i dont believe that at all....

im just simply pointing out that most things are regressive.. the drum..the heartbeat in the womb..we all seek where we were in history all the time.. its not my fault, its human nature... ive no real proof of this but it is fact and facts cant be argued with so therefore i lay my hat on my home and call it a bridge to cross the torrent with......

I always think the important thing is the tunes. I don't like Witchcraft or Monster Magnet, but then I don't like the bands they're copying. This song, meanwhile, is very obviously copying a style and an era, but it's a cracker.
This one, as well, I couldn't abide it at first, but it is a fucking blinder, regardless of how obvious a Motown rip-off it is.

Ultimatum - the avant-garde will never happen to rock again. Let it go and get on with enjoying it.

This thread kind of made me think about something I was talking about with a friend a while ago regarding some essays he was reading on what makes human beings happy. We concluded that the very essence of happiness for a person is something as simple as being able to survive, and having to look forward to another day of existence in the hope that your day is improved by a whole enviroment which allows you to, say, rest an arm on a table, having storage space for essential things like food, an ashtray to put your cigarette ash in etc.

It's all very unoriginal and essentially primitive, and nothing that has not been thought or written about many times before. I apply the same thing when it comes to music as well, my only hope is that a chord I've listened to many times previously sounds slightly different than before and brings some sort of variation to pre-existing songs, or at least a personal approach to it that I can immediately identify with the person who has written the song. I also like music that pushes the boundaries when those boundaries offer the chances to be pushed for reasons that seem logical, rather than being an act of harsh disintegration of no-consequence to what's coming next.

I'm not sure what I mean with all this, I'm just masturabating the brain.

Maybe what I'm trying to say there is that I'm aware that too much music out there has pushed those boundaries the way it seemed logical to push them already, so I'd rather enjoy what I already have, and create a space at the back of my mind where I secretly hope that not everything has been done the way it should be done or has been bettered.

Ok, another thing that came up in my mind is the whole thing about fashion. Some people like their jeans cut a certain way, but essentially the change they see in what they wear is a slight variation on something that is very similar to what countless others are wearing, with some different decorations to a tried and tested formula at the basis.

More masturbation from me: Another thing that I concluded about music discussion is the fact that it's hard to make it flow endlessely without incurring the wrath of mental stasis, simply because a lot of it takes place outside a music-making enviroment, where it is created, and therefore a place that stimulates any ideas which might eventually give it one more kick up the arse. There's only so much that can be said about it on, say, a forum, the pub, or a blanc sheet of paper. Not to suggest interesting things aren't written about it, it's just that over-reading or writing without disciplined listening seems kind of pointless, at one point.

One more thing about nostalgia: I can't relate to it at all, since its very essence prevents anyone from striving for better things. This is not to say that by constantly seeking out for 'new' sounds you won't also often end up back in time. I don't think nostalgia has a meaningful use in this time and age, though, since you can always listen to, and appreciate, old records while you have your feet firmly on the ground in the present world.

is there even an avant-garde anymore?

why do people always think that artisitry is synonymous with breaking new stylistic ground? i think this is erroneous and bogus line of thought

That's something I was thinking while reading this thread. And anyway, who the fuck sits down playing music purely to break new ground? I mean, some of the stuff I heard on grime records I find genuinely new, then again I strongly doubt it's been created with that in mind. Also, what is the point of innovation when it comes to rock music? How is it even possible to be seriously innovative in band with a guitar, a bass, a drum, and a singer?

Exactly. But I think there are a lot of people who do that. I think that's the worst way to go about progress. I think the greatest artistic innovations will be stumbled upon when they become emotional needs.

It's not just "rock" that's regressive - a fair amount of current so-called "experimental" stuff is regressive too. Pardon me for digging up this old corpse, but personally, I'd label No Neck Blues Band as regressive, in that they quite explictly reference a lot of older avant-garde shit (AMM, Airway, Zoviet France etc etc). This is not to say that they are bad - far from it - but I honestly see them as almost harking back to a time of "purer" music (whatever the hell that is)...

When something becomes an 'emotional need' doesn't that show total desperation that your music be original? Not only are sitting down trying to be original, but you're willing it with all your soul to validate your efforts, surely?

The NNCK/ AMM connection is the tools of rock - NNCK are by no means avant-garde, but they are fucking awesome. I'm more interested in a band being awesome than I am them being avant.


Agreed. My point was more that there was a historical moment at which rock could've been argued to be avant-garde, in the purist sense - perhaps this was the beginning, perhaps it was Napalm Death (yes, I'm aware of Sore Throat et al), but I'm pretty confident rock has lost its ability to be beyond the zeitgeist. I'm happy to come across as a prick because I'm also happy to be right.

Classical music is where the real art is and maybe some jazz.

No, I don't think it even implies effort. An emotional need simply finds an outlet. What I mean is, when anyone needs an outlet, it should to be expressed in a way that comes naturally. For the most part, that involves embracing existing methods that move the person. Occasionally that natural outlet is innovative and new--especially in creative people. But they don't have to plan it, or even get it wrong once. It's natural.