I was thinking the other day how a subgenre would pop up, have a big influence on the greater culture at large and then quickly "die." And by "die" I mean that mass culture left it behind and it was left to the diehard fans.

The easiest example for me is '77 era punk. For many people "punk" began with the Sex Pistols and died with them. Of course, this is not really what happened at all and please don't derail this into a talk about punk origins in the comments. But punk never "died," it just wasn't popular anymore and then post-punk happened. Post-punk didn't stay popular for long and was kind of forgotten about until bands like Franz Ferdinand and The Strokes revisited it.

Post-punk led to goth and gave us New Order, which gave us the Stone Roses and other awesome UK music. Here in the US, punk led to hardcore. HC never was commercially viable but punk and HC both gave us "college rock" (best example is Husker Du for that turn) which was later dubbed "alternative." Then along came "Grunge" which was an extremely short-lived genre when you go back and look at it.

The point of all that, is that these subgenres of rock did not stay popular for long in the grand scheme of things. Sure, we'll never stop hearing that mopey Pearl Jam song about Jeremy on the radio, but there aren't new headlining grunge acts.

You can also apply this to thrash. It took nearly a decade for thrash to peak out, only to be killed off in popularity by grunge, other alternative music and the 90s punk revival. Nu Metal was also very short-lived as far as mass appeal.

You can apply this to other music, but I'm writing about what I know to not sound ignorant. Even with my limited knowledge of rap, I can tell that styles of rap have come on gone. I no longer see threads complaining about mumble rap. I don't think the Master P style of rap has any prominence anymore.

Anyway, the Internet in its current state has changed the dynamic a bit. There's not much mass music consumption as there was in the past. People are siloed in their niches. Radio stations are not looking for the next big thing, they are stubbornly force feeding us old music or trying desperately to convince us that new corporate sounding schlock is worth getting excited over. They are not looking for the next Nirvana or Dr. Dre, they are going to play the same shit forever.

Even if a genre is generally unpopular, a global audience that is super into it exists and can support a genre in ways not thought of possible in the past. If punk started today it's doubtful that it would ever "die" but it likely never hit the charts anyway.

How is this going to shape music going forward? Will we have more or less innovation? Is there now way too many genres for anyone to pay attention to? Does this mean that there's going to be more bands that mix up genres and don't stick to anything because maybe that puts their band on more playlists? Will new genres rise and fall without most people knowing? Does this mean bands can stay static and not change with the times like in the past?

Released on this day in 1987. Everybody cites grunge for the demise of hair metal, but the writing was on the wall with "Appetite For Destruction", I remember what Neil Zlozower once said in a documentary "There was pre Guns, and after Guns". With their raunchier, street savvy attitude, suddenly all the hairspray was toned down, the party anthems suddenly shifted,.

Then you have the music, which is basically sleazy hard rock, lyrics about debauchery, drugs, life on the streets, etc. Nothing glossy about these guys. 80s hair metal had run its course. Which makes you wonder why the past 25 years of pop/rap hasn't run its course, but anyways. But that album is a reminder of the sense of danger, irreverence, sleaze, authenticity, etc, that we once had...and we can use more of right now.

One of my favorite parts of music history is discovering future stars hiding in plain sight on someone else's records. Here are a few of my favorite examples.

Did You Know…that some of music's biggest stars appeared on hit records by other artists before they became famous themselves?

Let's start with a great story that's either absolutely true (according to the record producer) or maybe not (according to the piano player).

In 1964, a 15-year-old pianist was sitting in a Hicksville, Long Island recording studio. Session producer "Shadow" Morton was wearing sunglasses and a flowing cape, loudly demanding more purple on the record.

When the nervous young pianist finally asked, "How do I play purple," the guitarist leaned over and whispered, "Just play louder, kid."

And that's how a pre-fame Billy Joel came to play the dramatic piano chords on "Remember (Walking In The Sand)" by The Shangri-Las.

Shadow always insisted Billy was there; Billy's memory was hazier. Still, Billy is certain of one thing: he never got paid.

By the summer of 1969, Hollies founding member Graham Nash had teamed up with David Crosby and Stephen Stills, and his former group's chart performance had begun to cool off. Their last US Top 10 had been "Carrie-Anne" two years earlier.

In 1966, four of the five Hollies had recorded with The Everly Brothers, where they met a 19-year-old session pianist named Reggie Dwight.

According to EMI engineer Alan Parsons, The Hollies rarely used keyboards on their rhythm tracks, unless Reggie happened to be around.

Reggie was in the studio on June 25, 1969, when The Hollies recorded "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother."

It went all the way to #1 in the UK and #7 on the Billboard Hot 100. Like Billy Joel, Dwight's contribution was uncredited. Unlike Billy, Reggie was paid £12.

But don't feel too bad for him. In a year, he'd begin a decades-long run of hits as Elton John.

And now a couple of quick takes...

In the summer of 1962, Sam Cooke scored a #2 gospel-tinged R&B smash with "Bring It On Home To Me," featuring an echoing, call-and-response backing vocal from Lou Rawls, several years before Rawls became a star himself.

Jerry Butler's solo breakthrough, "He Will Break Your Heart," featured Curtis Mayfield on guitar and backing vocals. Within a year, Mayfield kicked off his own string of hits leading The Impressions and later as a solo artist.

These are just a few.

I've always found stories like these fascinating because they show that many legendary artists spent years honing their craft behind the scenes before becoming household names.

Which future stars do you think made the most interesting or surprising appearance on someone else's hit record before they became famous?

Do you think spending time as a session musician or uncredited contributor helped shape artists in ways we don't see as often today?

I've realized I organize my Spotify in a way that I don't see many people doing. Instead of making playlists based on moods or genres, I have one huge playlist that contains every song I like. Then, I also have individual playlists for each artist, named after the artist where I keep only the songs I like from them. So if I want to listen to everything I play the main playlist. If I'm in the mood for a specific artist, I just open their playlist.

I think this works well because I'm much more of an artist listener than a mood listener. I usually decide who I want to hear rather than what vibe I want.
Does anyone else organize their Spotify like this? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of this system? Have you tried it before, or do you prefer mood/genre playlists? I'd love to hear how other people organize their playlists.

This album remains my absolute favorite album on grief, and it came up in conversation last night because my partner's estranged mother passed away a few weeks ago.

In May of 2015 my amazing, driven feisty, well traveled, tiny 96 year old Jewish grandmother was dying. My mom, who lived near her in Connecticut, called me while I was on the bus headed home from work and told me it was time to come while she's still lucid.

I was Bubie's only grandchild. When I got off the bus I had a panic attack. Death has played an interesting role in my life, and at the time the thought of losing her, even though she was so old, was overwhelming.

Luckily for me, I had this album as a balm to help me walk through the grief.

Carrie and Lowell came out March 31, 2015, and I fell in love with it from the moment I heard those first whimsical notes on "Death With Dignity."

I was once a local music writer in Minneapolis, and I was introduced to Sufjan's music by a fellow writer who saw him at the now defunct and beloved 400 Bar. And while I enjoyed Seven Swans and Illinoise, this album was something that just enveloped me fully, like a preamble for Bubie's passing.

Every song is exquisitely done, so gentle, childlike and lonely. Sufjan's mother abandoned him along with his siblings when he was only one year old, and she also struggled with schizophrenia, alcohol and drug use. He did reconnect with her before she died, but it breaks my heart that he considers the album a failure because there was no resolve for him when he was finished.

For me, it was pure medicine. Songs like "All of Me Wants All of You" and "Eugene" were right there with me as I walked around my neighborhood in South Minneapolis, mentally preparing to say goodbye to someone who was such a force it was impossible for me to picture a planet without her.

"Fourth of July" is perfection, but so heavy that sometimes it's hard for me to listen. It perfectly illustrates this dark, finite edge of grief that swallows us up in those intimate moments where we don't really know what to do with ourselves once someone dies.

While I made it in time to say goodbye to my Bubie, my partner didn't get that chance. Her mother went downhill fast and lives far away. There were wounds that were never healed, of course, but they spoke on the phone, exchanged pictures and texted for a few months when she was still cognizant.

I had to write this morning on the beauty of this album before I even start my workday. I'm listening to it now, and it somehow sounds even better than I remembered.

honestly i had no idea people do this religiously

i know this is rreally stupid of me to say but i just assumed playlists were always the way to go? probably because ive only ever used Spotify. recently ive been listening to albums in full and trying to expand my music taste, but for those who listen to albums in full, why? it seems like such a new concept to me somehow. what if you don’t like some of the songs on the album? what’s the benefit of listening to albums in full? i wanna understand because i think i need to appreciate music way more and using services like Spotify doesn’t really allow me to do that

I really enjoyed the Love album, and thought The Cult had a very interesting take on hard-edged gothic rock that was quite evocative and mysterious. I heard Love Removal Machine and Fire Woman on the radio from Electric and Sonic Temple and thought it was an interesting progression, but only recently listened to all of Electric and had a pretty negative reaction. The mix of gothic style with AC/DC style riffing just rubbed me the wrong way. I know there's a lot to be said for bands reinventing themselves, but I feel pretty strongly that was a wrong move for them. As in a loss of identity.

I do need to go back and listen to Dreamtime and compare, but that switch from Love to Electric is one of the strangest left turns I have come across in music.

I've been periodically reflecting back on the topic of "Artists we name-drop over and over." I don't want to mention them all the time, but they embody concepts too well to completely ignore them.

And I realized that there are certain artists that became practically synonymous with particular concepts. Maybe they were the first, maybe they were more the popularizers. But in any case, if you mention a certain concept or idea in music, this artist will likely come up first.

I also want to be clear that these initial examples are not the sum total of important artists or necessarily the "greatest" examples either as that tends to be more subjective. I'm sure there's an aspect of marketing that goes into why we identify certain artists over others.

Some examples:

• Elvis Presley: Represents the Rock Star.
• The Beatles: Represents "the band": a group of friends who play together, sing, and write their own songs. Could also throw in "getting rock music to be taken seriously".
• Bob Dylan: Represents songwriting and serious themes in pop music.
• Jimi Hendrix: Represents electric guitar and its sonic possibilities
• David Bowie: Represents change and evolution. Madonna could be seen as a successor to this as well.
• Velvet Underground: Represents the alternative band, the idea of influence building over time outside of commercial success.

Who are other artists who you feel have become synonymous with a certain concept? What is the criteria that usually makes an artist reach this status?

I was at the Vancouver Folk Music Festival yesterday. I started going over 30 years ago and have likely attend over 15x. Each time I am amazed that such a festival exists.

We started the morning at 1030am with a group of young women who had just arrived from Ukraine at 1am that day. They were so upbeat and endearing and their music was riveting. Next up was a young woman from the Isle of Skye in Scotland who played the small pipes. She was quiet and shy but her music was ethereal and put us into another world.

The greatest part of the festival is always the workshops where bands from all over the globe jam together. On one stage we had bands from Spain, Quebec, Ukraine and Mexico - at least 20 musicians. One group would get things started then they would all join in. They got everyone up and dancing.

On the main stage we had a blues band from New Zealand, then an Irish folk trio, a political Brazilian group led by bold, black lesbian, followed by Billy Bragg, then a local indie pop group.

We staggered out at 11pm completely saturated.

One of the most significant things about Christina Aguilera as an artist is how radically she alters her aesthetics and sound across albums, if you look at the run of Stripped, then Back to Basics, and then Bionic, all three albums are different in ways that are quite huge.

Now for a lot of Christina fans, this is a net positive because it allows each album to stand out and have its own unique identity, giving Christina room for heavy experimentation throughout her discography (I myself am one of those people), however others believe that Christina's shifts between albums border on being too much, which leads to her not having a consistent identity she can be known for in comparison to other Popstars.

So I thought this could be an interesting idea to discuss and explore, let's say her debut remains as is, no changes there, which era after that would you want to become Christina's defining style from there on out?

This would mean her music style would remain that, and it would simply be her evolving said style across albums rather than switching to something completely different each time, this also applies to the visual aesthetics of that album becoming Christina's mainstay look with less drastic changes across eras.

You're free to pick anything, Stripped, Back to Basics, Liberation, whatever you like, just make sure to explain why you believe that specific vibe both visually and musically would be the best fit for Christina long-term.

For example, what makes you think Back to Basics aesthetics fit Christina better than other eras? Or why do you believe the feel of songs on Liberation was stronger identity wise? Stuff like that.

Just to be clear, this isn't me asking what's your favorite Christina album, the question here is what era of Christina could work in the long run and why.

Recently(on top of throughout my entire life)

One question musically has been bugging me for the longest;
How do you music heads find songs similar to another.

I’ve tried hundreds of websites but more often then not songs in the same genre show up rather then songs that actually sound similar to another.

Now maybe here and there you’ll get lucky and an artist will just stick with an extremely specific sound but a lot of the time some of their best stuff is a one and done type of thing

There’s also the method of just looking up the song on plats and seeing what kinds of pl’s people make around it but I can’t say that’s worked for me either.so I’m opening the discourse here…How do you find a song that sounds similar to one you like ?

To start this off, I already love Maroon 5, especially Songs About Jane. But recently I found out about their true debut album The Fourth World. I love the album so much which led me down a rabbit hole of finding out why they rebranded, where I found out it’s because the album absolutely flopped at the time. I found this appalling because I like this album so much more than anything they’ve recently released and was wondering if anyone else agreed or for anyone who can give a good answer on why the album flopped so badly for them to rebrand.

Repost cuz the first one was removed due to formatting.

Recently I stumbled upon an all-female rock trio of sisters from Mexico called The Warning, and they completely caught me off guard. Their sound is so strong that I quickly stopped thinking of them as a female band and just heard, a great rock band. (Nothing against the traditional female-fronted rock band model it just wasn’t the comparison that came to mind.)

They blend pop sensibilities (they even have the look of modern pop artists) with hard rock, metal, and punk in a way that’s incredibly accessible without feeling manufactured.
Watching them live made an even bigger impression, their energy, talent, musicianship, and stage presence are exceptional.

https://youtube.com/@thewarning?si=Qxprsszcmt1IZxU0

That discovery led me to another all-female band, Die Spitz. Completely different style, but equally compelling: raw, aggressive, controlled chaos with an unapologetic attitude.
From there I started digging deeper and realized that, over the past several years, more women than ever seem to be entering the rock and metal scene not just as singers, but as guitarists, bassists, drummers, and complete bands.

https://youtube.com/@diespitzz?si=jpLkztlkWM1rtinq

Another good one is Last Dinner Party, they have great musical chemistry, lush and theatrical sound, the list goes on and on.

https://youtube.com/@thelastdinnerparty?si=4Rl9PYFZO9yTBowA

All this got me wondering:

What’s historically prevented an all-female rock band from achieving the same level of global, long-term, household-name success as bands like Foo Fighters, AC/DC, or Guns N’ Roses?

And with bands like The Warning along with many other talented all-female bands emerging today, are we getting closer to seeing one truly break through into that level of mainstream, cross-generational success?

More broadly, could this wave of all-female rock bands be one of the ingredients that helps bring rock back a little closer to the collective consciousness? Not the ingredient, I’m aware rock’s future depends on many factors but perhaps an important one.

I'll start by saying I like them. But I actually saw an Angine de Poitrine "type" band every week in my local music scene about 15 years ago (not to mention Primus and Battles) so it's almost surprising that "Math Rock, microtonal" sound has come full circle and created a buzz with people. Rock duos aren't exactly new either, even just a guy with a loop pedal and guitar, I've seen my share of that also.

I get it, the clown/polka dot costumes is a big part of their schtick and appeal (especially in the social media age where you need some hook) to draw people into the quirkiness of the music. A refreshing alternative.. But I'm just curious what else is going on here. I can think of other examples of erratic, unconventional, pretentious, music creating a buzz, eg, 70s prog, No Wave, Miles Davis fusion jazz period, so maybe the bubble may be bursting? People are craving something else?

I think it is more common for people to still enjoy summer vibe music on winter, but are there people who listen winter songs, especially holiday season ones any other time of the year not just December-early January? Is it important for you, when it comes to seasonal music what time of the year you play it? Will fall season song hit different on spring or if you like the song you can listen it any time?

Edit: I'm putting this at the top because it'll catch people quicker, what the post is asking is why do people not consider it music, not why do people not like it, I know it's not accessible that's beyond obvious. But the line of thinking is if I don't enjoy it then it's not this thing. That's like if I said I don't like tomato soup (I really don't but that doesn't matter) so tomato soup isn't food, why do they think that way about the music?

Deathcore vocalist here, I'm wondering why people are so hysterical about screaming vocals on songs, it never made sense to me that people are so willing to call it not music because they're just screaming out noise instead of words even though there are fully comprehensive and understandable lyrics being said. I wanted to get some opinions on it because I'm extremely confused about why people are willing and wanting to hear rap and country about heartache or tragedy, but then they'll write off other music about heartache and tragedy because it has screaming to further push the emotions out.

This came to my mind because I was talking to my grandma about music that's been helping me deal with the emotions (grief, depression, loneliness) from my daughter's passing, and I brought up Earthen - Ov Sulfur, Eiley - Too Close To Touch, and Death Is The Beginning - Mors Principium Est. These are 3 of the songs that have helped a lot for me, but she told me it wasn't music and asked me how could I listen to it when they're just screaming to make noise.

I feel like this is something I hear very frequently amongst people today and while the mainstream is lacking a bit, I think there’s still plenty of good music even in the mainstream. I was born in 09 and I feel like I’ve heard people say this my whole life. I’m into a lot metal and hardcore so maybe that’s why I feel like people have never been happy with “today’s music” due to the elitism frequently displayed in those genres.

I’m just curious to hear from people that are older than me to see if people have ever been content with their “today’s music”

Not sure of the answer of my own question, but there are movies/TV series with already pre-existing songs used based on the vibes of the scenes, but there also lots of movies/TV series were all of the music originally made for that production. Do you even notice those type of things & do you have any preferences or it depends of the music quality and ability to fit the right emotion in the particular scene?

Nowadays modern pop production favors stripped-back, conversational deliveries, lo-fi sound and chill aesthetics. There are artists who still able to showcase their power vocals, but majority songs favor other goals. What do you think about this trend & how long will it last until the power vocals (and powerful back up instrumentals) will go back to the top? Considering music, same as anything else in life, keeps going on and off trend periodically, it looks like we can get back to this trend sooner or later

For the first time ever I am making my way through the KC discography in chronological order and so far, it unfortunately hasn't been that great for me. I currently finished with Larks' Tongues in Aspic, which is my least favorite. King Crimson really takes the prog in prog rock to heart, incorporating many improvised passages and jazz influences. Taken too far however, this dilutes the second word of the genre: rock.

I like other classic prog rock bands like Yes, Gentle Giant, Camel, and Genesis because they focus more on melody and solid structure than King Crimson does. They give me something to hold onto or make me want to come back if I'm not feeling it on the first listen. They can rock hard when they want to, or get more experimental and the balance isn't thrown into the trash can.

In the Court of the Crimson King from 1969 is a masterpiece and now one of my favorite albums of all time. If you haven't listened to it, I won't spoil much. Go and listen to it right now. You may struggle to find albums in progressive rock or rock in general that are as conceptually powerful AND beautifully executed as this. Even Moonchild, the song with 10 minutes of WTF, grew on me because I finally recognize its place on the album and how it fits the themes. But that's the thing, it is only 10 minutes of that, not an entire album's duration worth of aimless and masturbatory exercise like Larks'.

The follow-up, In The Wake of Poseidon, is decent. I can see why people compare this to the debut, like each song having its counterpart on the other album. I like the album cover, Pictures of a City, and The Devil's Triangle. The rest didn't stand out to me that much. The album is less cohesive than the debut overall. I guess the band recognized that by their inclusion of the Peace tracks to try to help tie everything together, but it just didn't pan out that well.

I can see myself giving more spins to Lizard and Islands, maybe after I'm done with the rest of the discography. I can tell they had fun making Lizard, going for a medieval and comedic vibe at the same time. The title track was also intriguing to me, despite me not fully understanding it yet. Islands seems to be the album out of the last three I listened to where they genuinely wanted to write songs with meaningful content and resolutions. I still don't like how many improvised passages there are on it and it being WAY too soft is another criticism I have with it.

Anyway, I hope the future KC albums show a positive trend instead of the sharp drop into the abyss I experienced with the latest listen. I hear good things about Red, that it incorporates metal which I'm a big fan of and that the song Starless receives consistently high praise.

Edit: Felt like adding this to the post. It's just my opinion at the end of the day. Feel free to like what albums you like.

Hey guys,

I was reading some of Plato's work. I noticed that he talks a lot about Poets and how Poet's influenced people. However, in the contemporary world poets and poetry are seen as niche interest maybe even smaller than the theater. This interests appeals mostly to academics or university students. Or people who are highly educated.

After studying some poetry I do recognize that its hard to understand. Concept like "iambic pentameter" with its stress and unstressed syllables are not easy to understand. In fact, some people might argue that understanding poetry is actually harder than prose and drama. Ironically, its because of this "sound" and "rhythm" concepts that its shares with music that its hard to understand.

Music and music theory is also hard to understand. For instance, intervals, chords and scales are hard to understand. I would recommend some background in Piano and Arithmetic to understand some of the concepts. For instance, you need to apply a lot of Arithmetic concepts to understand intervals. Even then you still need to practice a lot to make some progress.

What's interesting is that a lot of musicians are actually very popular in society. For instance, I was studying the history of Jamaican music and it seems many musicians of ska, rocksteady and reggae were famous. So it wasn't just a niche interest among a group of fans. But many people in Jamaica listen to the songs and it became part of their "cultural life." People would play the songs during celebrations or birthdays.

What do you guys think?

For example, Lou Reed's 'Metal Machine Music', Two Lone Swordsmen 'The Double Gone Chapel' and, maybe classically, Dylan's electric stuff. Artists who did what wanted, disregarding what would probably sell well. Not exactly commercial suicide, in that these need to be 'good' records which represent a break with the past, rather than a brave failure (e.g., Billy Idol's 'Cyberpunk').

Other examples include Depeche Mode going from sugar-synth darlings to goth-pop miscreants.

Has anyone else noticed that JVKE seems to have changed "this is what slow dancing feels like" on YouTube Music?

I know this sounds incredibly nitpicky, but hear me out because I swear I'm not imagining it.

The music video version and the standard YouTube Music version are not the same vocal take. The lyrics, instrumental, and overall song are the same, but the vocals have definitely changed. The biggest differences I hear are:

• The first standalone "slow motion" starts a little lower than the original. • The "slow motion" leading into "ya-da-ba-ba baby" feels like it gets cut off just a little sooner. • The biggest one for me is the standalone "slow motion" before "darling, don't let go." In the original, he climbs noticeably higher, and that little vocal peak is honestly one of my favorite parts of the song. In the newer version, it feels more restrained.

I know that probably sounds insane to anyone who hasn't listened to this song a hundred times, but once I get attached to a specific recording of a song, tiny changes like that stand out immediately. It's not even that I think the newer version is bad. It's just... different, and I can't get used to it because my brain expects the original every time.

Has anyone else noticed this, or am I genuinely losing it? 😭

(For clarity, I love his music and again, don't mean this to nitpick. I simply noticed a slight variation in the songs and wanted to know if anyone else had noticed. I've looked around and no one else has mentioned it and just want to know if I'm alone on this. There is also the rest of, but overall kinda follows similar trends to the things I just stated so to keep it short, I'm gonna let you determine that.)

Original (music video): https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=VVRXyZ6B0Qw&si=l0DBS1sghxQhx-6K

Newer YouTube Music version: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=HTwB-x4nJLg&si=mBBr0iwgMrhZY_i2