[List]?

First post, please be patient!

Spotify :- https://open.spotify.com/track/4DfHQvIAZmSmqcZbuO80sZ?si=LsTFFhvnTomtwFuRlUAnRg

Youtube :-

https://youtu.be/77rRP_Sk3JI?feature=shared

Disclaimer - Please keep the discussion related to the song and not her as a person.

Disclaimer 2 - I don't know anything in regards music production, chords, instruments etc + I am mainly a pop fan.

Background - For some further context, recently I have been finding and listening to a lot of what I call mindless pop which is mainly just simple, super fast pop/hyperpop songs.

Anyway without further a do :-

The song is quite literally the epitome of everything that is pop, there is no denying that.

1. It's a short song and is very cheery as well in terms of mood too.

A little thing about me, but my preferred lenght of songs is very short, songs that go beyond the usual 4 mins are not really my cup of tea. So, this song is perfect to stimulate my head with!

2. Lyrically it's not anything amazing or show stopping or gag worthy, but the song hooks me in during the prechorus right after the second verse.

[Pre-Chorus] "Mom brought me into the world Sister taught me how to girl Best friend coached me how to text The boy toy that I'm dating next Girls who helped show me the way They're why I'm an It girl today"

Honestly I could end the entire post here, the joy this one lyric brought out from me was unbelievable!!!! (I seriously spent 30 mins just listening to this one pre-chorus, it's not even funny)

3. The song then ends off with a piano at the end. The melody (?) Flows the same way as the chorus, but it is slower and in a way sort of brings me back to my senses after listening to the stimulating song and it adds a night soft fluff to the song.

Conclusion :-

While this song is certainly not showing up in my top 500 favourite songs, it does manage to do the bare minimum to hook me on to a song. To further add, I was very much indifferent to the song until 1 day ago when the song came up on my tik tok of someone supporting her and used the second prechorus as the background sound.

While, the song does have a place in my heart, it's likely gonna be in my playlist for a few days, before I discard it from my playlist, until I remember months later "Oh hey I liked that song". It will lose it's Luster, but I will forever cherish it's golden days at the moment.

On a more technical note, the song does showcases my current need for at least 1 fast mindless pop song that can stimulate my mind to a new high at the moment.

Edit - Comment that inspired me to make this post

https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/s/WGfpK5yCyx

I've always been interested in the way genres (and their communities) work differently from one another. I want to discuss ways in which musicians in different genres use other people's music. Specifically when something is borrowed explicitly and significantly, not just being strongly influenced by something.

In rock and pop music, the most prevalent usage of others' music is by doing covers. Covers can either be as identical to the original as possible or be so different that it might only share words with the original.

In jazz they play standards. They'll keep the same chord progressions and melody but improvise solos. (simplifying of course)

In EDM, there's remixes, where one artist will just make their own version of another song in a new style.

To me, these are all basically the same idea: one artist reworking another artist's work in their own way - as close or far from the original as they care to be. The differences are interesting though. Jazz standards are more or less the origin of jazz itself. Only over time did it become more and more common to write and release your own jazz compositions. You could make a similar argument for rock, as it came from blues, but to me feels more separate from that origin. Nowadays, rock covers are mostly a novelty. EDM remixes on the other hand are essential, and there are many noteworthy artists (mostly DJs) that have nary a fully original track!

How do you see things? Are there other interesting similarities/differences?

--

Other examples of borrowing music:

• rap music using samples, specifically not sampling other rap music

• any of the many sample-based genres, like plunderphonics

• traditional folk music is all "covers" in a sense

• another jazz example is "quoting" one song while playing another

I'm very curious to hear more examples as I'm sure there are some really cool ones out there.

Im a big Nirvana fan (who isnt) and Ive always known In Utero wasnt considered as good as Nevermind or as successful/popular. I recently listened to others bands 2nd album (considering Grohl joined with nevermind) Weezers "Pinkerton" , The Killers "Sam's Town" , and the Strokes "Room on Fire" and think their fucking incredible. Im shocked to read that critics kinda shit on both of them back in the day and they werent considered major hits??? All sound like their versions "In Utero" where their more of the good stuff of the previous album but more raw if that makes any sense. Or maybe Im reading too much into it?

This post isn’t really about music itself but more about the subreddit so I hope this allowed. If it isn’t I completely understand

I haven’t been on this subreddit for long and I’m mostly a lurker but I’ve quickly become a huge fan of this subreddit. It offers intelligent conversation about music which is my life blood. On this subreddit you can find many discussions and opinionated posts about music with nuanced views and have long discussions about them.

But I can’t help but notice an annoying amount of posts that get thrown here with titles along the lines of “Why is pop music so bad?” and “Why isn’t rock music as good as it used to be?”. Though these are posts about music I’ve observed many others and I find these posts to be obstructive and downright lazy. These posts offer no intelligent or nuanced discussion about music and just take up space in my opinion. There isn’t really a lot to say to theses posts besides simply telling them that music is subjective and if they don’t like a certain type of music they should simply stop listening to it. These posts are always extremely close minded and are never actually posted with the intention of hearing a differing viewpoint.

If anyone else feels similarly or differently please let me know because I would love to hear what the community thinks. :)

I think there are dead genres and I'm not talking about that rock cliche. Rock is alive, it only doesn't have audience.

For me, a dead genre is not open for new pieces and has no interest of most of the population. Music is always adapting and developing new genres, so I'm pretty sure there are many of them left behind.

I consider classical music dead. No one creates them and I can't see someone making these genres not be seen as a joke. Just imagine someone creating a symphony, I'm pretty sure you'd not take it seriously. And most importantly: would a long instrumental piece made with "boring" Instruments be well accepted by society nowadays? No.

edit: thanks for all the responses, I really wasn't aware of existence of this new classical music, that for me is still kinda dead as just a few people are aware of. For me my own ignorance is a proof of that

A small talk i found that they did in a small bar in the early days of the band (2001), in which they express their perceptions about what would come next, that business they were getting to know, etc.

It's interesting how from the beginning they considered the business model very deeply and how they prepared for what was to come.

Also considering that they were very young, but actes like they had known this "world" for a long time, two true businessmen.

What is your opinion about this way of seeing their band? More like a job, business, than something purely artistic and for fun? Although, as they said, the love of music is one of the reasons they wanted the "business" to prosper, so they could continue making what they love.

https://youtu.be/34eoIGNCZeQ?si=f1fW6enMcAjQXHBj

so i've been listening to zappa for a while now and realised ''bobby brown goes down'' has some quite... well... interesting lyrics. and i started wondering ''people were quite conservatist and religious at the time, how did they react to this?'' it could also be that frank zappa wasn't simply famous anymore and that little media cared about it. in that case i would ask what his fanbase tought of the songs lyrics. i know that zappa has always been relativly controversial, but i wanted to ask specifically about this topic.

so my question mostly goes out to those alive in 1979, and ask what people and the mainstream media thought of the song and its lyrics.

If I were to rank it it will probably be

1. Horrorcore- the more extreme gore versions of this have metal-like vocals, some implement industrial elements. Horrorcore typically has brutal lyrics too.

2. Industrial hip hop- can get very experimental and distorted due to the industrial fusion. Some mix in punk too. Clipping. Uniquely has incorporate actual noise in some of their songs. Their the only ihh group I know that actually utilize noise. The common feature of this genre is the distorted beats and futuristic soundscapes. Could be argued to be number one

3. Memphis rap - very lofi and raw production that some people have trouble getting into . Beats are very evil, subject matter is very dark and the music seems very off.

4. Grime - electronic beats, extremely energetic and super fast rapping. The hard versions of this can be pretty aggressive for hip hop

5. Hardcore hip hop- can be argued to be ahead of grime or a tie. Not sure, lots of underground variations are pretty hard, most of the boom bap stuff . The lines and beats hit you very hard. Even some of the more mainstream artists have pretty aggressive songs by hip hop standards.

6. “Trap metal” - I wasn’t sure where to rank this since some of it could just be trap music that is slightly more aggressive or it can almost border on industrial hip hop or Horrorcore.

I’m not sure where I would add crunk. I also thought about adding crunkcore and rap rock too but they are typically more on the rock side of things, crunkcore sometimes can be pop as well weirdly enough.

For those of you who were classic rock fans in the 60s and 70s, did you stay up to date with the new bands and styles that were developing.

For example, If you were a les Zeppelin fan in 1970, did you then become and a Bon Jovi and Motley Crue fan in the 1980s, and then did you like grunge and pop punk when they became popular. Or at some point was the music too far removed from what you had grown up with for you to take an interest in it.

Any answers would be appreciated.

Hopefully that title makes at least a little bit of sense!

Since I'm obsessed with the early days of hip-hop, I'd be most interested to hear recordings from the earliest days of the genre around 1973-1978. I think it'd be fascinating to see how developed the genre was during its early days, was the stuff being played in 1973 really something we'd recognize as hip-hop today? When did people really start rapping, and what did the very earliest raps sound like?

On a related note, I think my second choice would be live recordings of reggae soundsystems in 1960's Jamaica, mostly because I'd like to know how similar the emceeing was to early hip-hop emceeing. Was it as big of an influence as many people claim?

But on the other hand, since my question is pretty broad, I think we can all agree it would be fascinating to hear what music sounded like in 10,000 BC! Or a little bit later, like ancient Egypt, Rome, Sumeria, Mayan or Native American music, anything like that.

So, what recordings would you most like to hear? Which do you think would be the most historically valuable to study? Was music in the 20th century western world generally pretty well-recorded, or are there more blind spots than we realize? What are the most recent music scenes to be under-recorded, is there anything more recent than early hip-hop?

The songs from Frozen suck to begin with, but letting a whiny, talentless pop-punk band cover them? That’s a form of music that only exists to torture enemies. Is there a worse genre than whiny pop-punk (in the form of Blink 182, Good Charlotte, All Time Low, and Simple Plan)?

And don’t give me the “music is subjective” nonsense. Save that and tell it to Nickelback haters. Because Nickelback covering overplayed radio pop hits would be much better than whiny, pop-punk covers of the excruciating songs from Frozen.

P.S. If you think whiny pop-punk bands are better than music acts that combine synthwave and thrash metal, you have the worst taste in music, bar none.

I wasn't alive at the time hidden tracks were used and important, but streaming services should make an option for artists to put a hidden song and the end of every album , like if you don't skip any song while listening to it theres is a 50% probability to listen to the hidden track , obviously it shouldn't appear in the official tracklist ( like with cds etc back then )

I never lived it but it could be a great feature to make the streaming of albums more interesting, a long term gift to fans of that artist and add a little haunt for that song in every listening, also giving more creative space to the artists

I noticed a post where everyone said that they never knew the words to certain songs and would make up a lot of things. For instance, I heard one person say that he used to think FOB said in "Sugar We're Going Down" the following: "Tell mommy I'm watching you change from the closet wishing to be the freak shit in your dreams"; but the actual lyrics are "Don't mind me, I'm watching you two from the closet wishing to be the friction in your jeans". Then I started to realize that this is the case for most songs in this general genre in the 2000s-2010s. A more indie band I used to listen to was Relient K. And pretty much every song in MMHMM album has lyrics that I don't really understand (for instance, "Who I am Hates Who I've Been", especially toward the end of the second verse).

Do you think this was intentional? To make us focus on the actual melody and harmony more than the words?

I think when it comes to music Tyla has a range of great producers working with her. The amapiano singer's massive hit song "Water" blew up last year and continues to be an airplay hit. She followed up with promotional singles "On and on", "Truth or dare" and "Butterflies". Truth or dare took off and became her second hit and was quickly given a music video and released officially. It preceeded the album which was released with singles that are quite boring and lackluster. An example is "Art". The song is coffee shop music and nothing special. Other songs of hers weren't anything interesting either. The song with Tems was boring and even the song with Becky G "On my Body" was bland. Travis's part on the Water remix was also very forgettable. Anyway.

My final verdict: The album will be successful, its been preceeded by two hit singles. I think maybe a song off the album might become a sleeperhit but who knows? I still think and this is of course my opinion, it has a lot of boring filler songs. Maybe I wanted another "water" but this album doesn't include that.

I'm purely talking about, when can you say that you've heard a song? If you hear it from the next room, through a closed door, on an awful Bluetooth speaker...have you really heard the song? Sort of like those YouTube videos of "listening to music at a party from the bathroom", example here. Or how, certain times in the shower, the acoustics are in such a way that you literally can't hear a certain part/frequency of a song.

At some point, when it comes to low quality, the song would arguably be distorted/far enough from its original version that you haven't really heard the song. Maybe you missed the bass line entirely, or you couldn't even hear the vocals.

But most of us are never really getting close to the original studio quality of a song anyway. (This gets into another topic of artists specifically mixing for low-quality speakers, e.g. the everyday car).

Is there a line that you personally draw as to what "quality" of sound constitutes a "listen" of a song, versus not truly hearing it?

Let's get this out of the way: I personally think music is subjective. And I believe many of the commenters in this subreddit have come to the same conclusion, though with different nuances.

But every so often, when many of our discussions end up leading into the "Music is subjective" corner, it ends up frustrating people. Either because they disagree with the idea, or they feel it just shuts down discussion. And while I stand by my initial statement, I can understand the frustration: It's hard to deal with a different paradigm of thinking, when you're used to certain works as "obviously superior" to each other, or certain artists as "obviously more talented".

The way I've approached the "music is subjective": Every time we judge a piece of music or art, we have a set of priorities that we personally consider valuable. But not everyone is going to weigh a piece of music in the same way or use the same criteria. Every criteria point you potentially raise, another person could object to its importance. And that's sort of the beauty of it. We at least know each other's viewpoints. We can consider those and understand them, even if we don't agree. Not everyone cares how many genres an artist delves into, or how many instruments they play. But another person could in fact care about those things.

Common objections:

Some people are frustrated by the idea, because to them it equates to "all music is equally valuable". I don't think this is quite the same idea; music is so different that they're not going be equal or the same (but not inherently superior/inferior either). I don't think anyone is obligated to like anything or everything, or think that "all music is good". But the main thing is more to recognize what you care about in the music.

Or the frustration comes from "I can't say music is bad anymore!" But it all depends on how much you want your opinion to be carried. Some will find resonance in your viewpoint, others may reject it.

I think there's a lot of potential in discussions once you start from subjectivity. There can be a variety of criteria: it can be "whether you personally like it", whether a large amount of people like it (though with their own criteria), whether it fits the criteria you've set out for it. Some ideas are valid, but they don't have to fit in every single scenario. Some viewpoints arise from highly opinionated individuals, others arise from values that emerge from a community, both being subjective.

Anyway, I'm still trying to develop my ideas because it's a tricky balance.

Overall question:
But for those who feel that music is subjective, where do we go from here? How do we create fruitful conversations?

Yo! I’ve been collecting CDs since 09 and I have accumulated 400+ albums and have been using iTunes to catalog and rip all of them to play when I do my things throughout the day, but I have recently gotten sick of iTunes it was better some years ago on the Mac but now I’m on windows, and recently it’s gotten really laggy. It struggles scrolling through the albums and takes a bit before it starts playing the music and since I just lost all my playlists (big sad) I was thinking about jumping ship to maybe a different application that’ll preform better and that’s still getting support, or at least give me a dark mode.. the only alternatives I know of are Musicbee but I’ve heard it’s glitchy and unreliable and Cider but I don’t use Apple Music. So I was wondering what you guys use?

This is something I've been wondering about for a while now.

One example I've often wondered about is Kanye, where people often give his music high praises, but say some of the "cringe" lyrics take away from it, in the case of My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy or The Life of Pablo for example. I've heard the same said for stuff like Weezer, Lil Wayne... that other aspects of the music are okay, but the "cringe" lyrics "ruin it".

Now, to me, so called cringe lines from any of these artists have never been a problem. I don't really see it as cringe, more that they have a humorous element in their music. Now, you could argue that people who criticise these artists just don't enjoy their particular type of humour, but I feel like it's more complicated than that. I don't think it's simply about the humour not being funny enough, but more about how it "takes the listener out of the experience", the inclusion of humour being the problem in and of itself, regardless of its quality. Often, in videos, reviewers will even be sort of smiling as they're talking about the line their criticising, and saying stuff like "while funny, it takes away from the song", but expressing that they did enjoy the humour to some extent.

Might be I'm misremembering some of the nuances, but in general, I feel that there is a culture of skepticism towards humorous lyrics in music that isn't overtly comedy music (like Weird Al, who people aren't as quick to describe as cringe) that I don't feel I quite understand, since I feel like these types of lyrics are a natural thing to include in any type of music, since it's just a part of our everyday life anyway, and not just some niche thing that we reserve for explicitly "humorous" occasions.

Is there something I'm missing?

Yes the libertines could have been so much more if drugs hadn't consumed Pete Doherty but they seem to actually be functioning a lot better recently. When it was originally released in 2015 I thought the Anthems... album was too little too late. But giving it a relisten recently I actually think it's aged a lot better than I thought. It's a different album from the more punky early stuff but it's not a bad album. From the tracks they've released so far the new one All quiet on the western front sounds like they've really progressed as musicians. Shiver and Night of the hunter are particularly good. I wasn't too impressed with Run Run Run but Oh Shit was better. The length they've left between albums though has made it a lot harder for them to build up a decent discography. They need to get a move on.

I have been curious about this for a while and only bothered to ask about it now. Is sheet music for bands like Queen or Imagine Dragons written in a similar format to orchestra scores, with each instrument getting a staff or set of staves (like this)? If not, how do they write out their songs?

If this info helps, my musical experience consists of band in middle school and marching band in high school. I have been playing piano for 12 years, and I am continuing to practice and learn new songs in the present.

When Laufey, first showed up on the scene, I LOVED her. The music the instruments the vocals it was all so beautiful and I sent her songs to many people. I also fought for venue tickets like the rest of us Laufey fans but now I feel like all of her music is so predictable. It's all about sleeping with older men, being naive, having a little cuss word here and there to get the audience excited. As a gen z I was so excited to find some good music for women that didn't have to do with boys cause honestly so tired of the girls screaming "Juliet marry me" (nothing against swift). I thought we finally had some good classy stuff. Then goddess came out and again it was about sleeping with a man and ending it with an F bomb. I want some good pop jazz but add some diverse topics. I still think she's great but would love more music that doesn't have to do about boys and cussing. Just to leave you with this thought, why do we girls always have to be the victim of heartbreaks? It’s so very basic. Are we not more? We are ambitious and smart and have so many more things we're into. If it's about time more women get in this industry could we at least sing about what makes us, us and leave the sleeping with random dudes that broke our hearts to a minimum? Your thoughts?

No band has ever profoundly effected me as much as King Crimson has these past 2 years. I've never fell in love with a band to the point thatd I'd memorize the members names and obsess over their deeply complex history.

Anyway, whats your favorite era of King Crimson? Mine is currently the Double Trio, even though Red is definitely my favorite album. The live capabilities of the 90s King Crimson were honestly unmatched, and I never even got to see them live! Im so glad KCCC exists. I could also rant about my pipe dream of One More Red Nightmare and Starless being played by the Double Trio (I really wish they did that), but I can live with the things they did bring back, 21st Century Schizoid Man and The Talking Drum.

When you think of punk, you probably think of somthing fairly aggressive. It could be as chill as swingin utters, or as meth induced as choking victim. Or it could be almost metal.

But if punk can be soft like social distortion…couldn’t it be even softer? I think “shoegaze” and a lot of post rock is punk too. It’s like you took punk and slowed it down and reverbed it. Mentally as well as physically.

But the punk is still there. I can hear it. It’s the same type of person and idea. I think it’s important to see “punk” in more places than the most obvious bands, because it’s a widely influential movement that is still alive. Nothing can really replace it.

This is coming from Gen Z’er to other Gen Z’s, or for whoever's music consumption has been impacted by the rise of the Internet, Tik Tok, and Streaming.

I’m 17 and I've essentially spent all of my teenage years with Tik Tok. I had so much to say about this but I feel everyone in the comments have touched the universal points.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/comments/1bksq2l/did_tik_tok_ruin_music/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

(this post was originally made to be a comment lol)

but what about how it affected myself and my life along with others in my generation's music discovery. I grew up with my mothers and grandparents music during my childhood, And when I got to hear new music it was just the radio friendly pop n’ country. I was like “no thanks, I’ll just stick to my Daft Punk and Isley Brothers.”

After I received my first smartphone in middle school, l downloaded Tik Tok. I remember through the app coming across artists such as Tyler the Creator and Mac Demarco. It was like I just found where all the NEW cool music was at. This caused me to get heavy into discovering music. It was like Tik Tok opened Pandora's box of music for 12 year old me.

After this I went digging on spotify, I at least listened to 2-3 albums I never heard before that point every. single. day. No matter if I was at school or doing whatever I was continually growing my music library non stop. My love for music caused me to spend my lawn mowing money on a turntable and later a boombox I found at goodwill. I started twiddling on my grandma's piano, trying to find songs I liked through just hearing them. This got me to pick up Piano and Guitar, learning primarily by ear along with some lessons (I hated lessons)

As I entered High School I started to have trouble finding new music just through Spotify, so I started to dig through Bandcamp, blogs, magazines, and the $1 - $10 used record bins to find new music. I also picked up my first job at the radio station located next to my school, I'm still working there atm lol. I also picked up Bass, Stand up bass, production/drum pads, and even the mandoline during this time. Now I'm at the end of my highschool career getting ready to head for college to pursue and study Musical History, Journalism, and Radio Broadcasting.

And why did all of this happen? Cus my Ipad kid brainrotted ass heard music on Tik Tok.

This was a bit personal, in recent times I've only heard people speaking on the negative impacts of TikTok, along with the internet and social media as a whole. Its a fact that it can seriously effect your health if used wrong, but if used to your benefit can be a worlds difference, literally.

Edit 3/24/24 - thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciated reading the different opinions to my question. You guys have definitely given me some stuff to think about which was very helpful.

====================================

I couldn't decide if this subreddit or the ELI5 subreddit was a better place to ask this question. To get to the point, how do you personally decide if a song or album is 'good' to you personally?

I listen to a lot of music obviously but I find that I can't really articulate what makes a song good or not to me other than 'it sounds good to me.' Literally. For instance, I'm a native English speaker but I like to listen to foreign music sometimes even though I don't understand a word of it just because it sounds good on a superficial level. Friends will sometimes ask me how can I listen to music when I don't even know what they're saying. Likewise, I might enjoy a song but someone can point out it has really shallow, nonsensical lyrics, and I won't really notice without it being spelled out for me.

I find music to be an art form that is hardest to talk about for me. For films and books, I can tell when it is done poorly and make a case why. Even if I don't agree, I can read a movie review for something and understand what the critic is talking about. With music, most of it sounds competent to me. And if I don't like something it's usually because it's just not my style rather than an issue of quality. Unless it's something just poorly made like Rebecca Black's 'Friday,' I usually can't gauge the quality of most music.

SEE DISCLAIMER

Hello, my name is Weston! I'm 14 years old and into sound engineering. I've been listening to a lot of old music lately (mostly from the 20s, 30s and 40s), and I've noticed that the quality of the remasters are almost always subpar, due to these 3 factors:

-Bad EQ / Extreme Noise Reduction -Mp3 Distortion -Mono sound

I recently came across a remastered collection of recordings made by Ruth Etting throughout the 1920s and 30s. The Legend of Ruth Etting - Ten Cents a Dance

This particular remaster is bad in the sense that some sort of gate has been applied to the high ends, and the crackle is awful. The 300-500 hz range seems to be boosted higher than everything else. I'm not really sure, but I'm fairly certain that the recording was exported at a low mp3 bitrate, which is causing the recording to sound very distorted and phasey.

Sweetheart Vaudeville - Ten Cents a Dance

This remaster of the same song is better in my opinion, because there is no weird mp3 stuff going on, and the equalization is improved in most areas. One thing that really bugs me, however, about this particular remaster is that the clarity from the high ends doesn't quite come through. The song sounds flat and dull because the audio engineer has minimized the highs so much.

One factor that is important to take into consideration when remastering is the amount of noise in a recording, which is usually high static (or crackle, in this case). However, on well-preserved discs, even from all the way back in the mid 20s and throughout 1948, keeping the highs in isn't usually took much of a problem.

This particular version of Ten Cents a Dance was extremely popular during its time, and so the fact that many copies were made of the master recording should mean that there is a higher chance of obtaining a well-preserved disc.

So, in this case, I'm not exactly sure why both remasters came out flawed.

On the other hand, I've really enjoyed this collection of recordings made by Annette Hanshaw, whose career spanned during the same years as Ruth Etting's. Volume 6 1929

This collection, I feel, has done a great job of minimizing unfavorable frequency ranges and keeping the recordings clear sounding, while also comprimising between clarity and noise in the high sections. Also, I can detect very little, if any at all, mp3 distortion. I also feel that the recording sounds less mono than the others, as if there are two different tracks playing in each ear.

Remasters similar to this could combat all these issues by:

-Passing through chorus plugin with 0 variation, or remastering recordings that have used multiplr styluses to pick up sound (I think is how that works) -Using .wav / .flac or a higher mp3 bitrate -High shelfing high frequencies instead of low passing

Why don't we do this?

DISCLAIMER: By the way, this is a genuine question. I'm not saying I think I'm right or have the solution, I'm sure there's a genuine reason why engineers do this

IMO John Coltrane's A Love Supreme is just as influential to various subgenres of rock as any classic rock album. I think the best example of this would be with The Stooges. Iggy Pop claimed John Coltrane was the musician he has listened to the most, and how the simple three note bassline on "A Love Supreme" that anchored Coltrane's emotional explorations with the Saxophone influenced the sound of their albums, especially on "Fun House" Of course, all three of The Stooges' classic albums were huge influences on punk, post-punk, grunge, and various other less classifiable rock bands.

Miles Davis' work with Gil Evans on albums like Sketches of Spain, Miles Ahead, & Porgy and Bess were also very influential and later day Talk Talk albums (Spirit of Eden, Laughing Stock) according to frontman Mark Hollis. Of course, these were both considered some of the earliest "Post-Rock" albums.

Additionally, Charles Mingus was cited as a crucial influence on the sound of early King Crimson, as his fusing of jazz with classical techniques was highly inspirational to a young Robert Fripp. Of course, King Crimson paved the way for the prog rock movement.

Ornette Coleman was another direct influence on a fairly sizable amount of alt-rock bands, ranging from Television to Sonic Youth to Helmet. But perhaps the most crucial connection is to the very first "alternative rock" band The Velvet Underground. Lou Reed claimed that the songs "European Son" and "I heard her call my name" were more direct attempts to transfer the style of Ornette Coleman to the guitar.

Ultimately, I think most rock and rock-related music made post-1966 owes something to the jazz musicians of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Obviously not all rock bands since then have pulled directly from jazz, and certain movements (like Pop Punk and Britpop) are generally very far removed from any kind of jazz influence. But I think part of the reason why jazz generally fell from popularity by the 1980s was because it no longer had a monopoly on musical experimentation and diversity due to the effect it had on rock musicians during the 70s. Who here agrees or has a different take?

Hey guys,

I know this might be "obvious" to some of you. However, I still can't figure this out.

From learning about music theory/ear training and harmony all the teachers make it clear keyboards are fundamental.

Moreover, I've seen some composers for films and television they'll write most of their songs on keyboards. For instance, on the behind the scenes of Nighmare before Chrismas there's footage of Danny Elfman playing Keyboards and talking about the soundtrack. He doesn't outright say he writes the songs on keyboards but at least you get an idea he uses them.

Meanwhile, the standard punk band is guitar, bass and drums. Think Blink 182 when they were starting out. Most of their imitators and followers also use guitar, bass and drums.

The standard post punk will be lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass and drums. Think Mission of Burma.

But we go further think about Reggae-Rock like Sublime they don't have a keyboardist either.

The only time I hear Keyboards in special occasions like in Sum 41's With Me. Where they'll a ballad style song.

I'm just wondering why some don't have a "designated keyboardist."

First of all this isn't your typical "they make noise that hurt feel, I am ascared " . I am no stranger to discordant, grating and disconcerting music and have sought it out enthusiastically over the years. Melt Banana, Atari Teenage Riot, all manner of industrial, speed/horror/clowncore are things that I love and listen to all the time. I usually genuinely enjoy what the group Pigface brilliantly called Easy Listening for Difficult F***s.

So let me tell you, when people cringed at my musical taste (well "sub-taste" if you will, my tastes range pretty far into a lot of non-overlapping areas) and told me I would LOVE the Death Grips I believed them. But I just can't. I WANT TO, but there's one thing holding me back.

I just can't get into them on account of the vocals. It's yelling, but it isn't angry or passionate. It doesn't inspire feelings or draw me into the music. It's like they are restrained to one key on a keyboard or a drum machine with a stuck button and they only make that one sound. I don't find it intimidating or provocative, or inspiring just, well... annoying.

What the vocals are SAYING is genuinely provocative and interesting, but they are presented in a way that makes you want to tell them to go lay down like a dog that won't shut up because the pizza guy is here.

It may seem I am here to just complain or throw shade, but I genuinely like a huge chunk of the presentation and general 'vibe' and wonder if anyone who is a fan now couldn't get into them at first and what they listened to in their discography to ease into it.

Also, I know a lit of fans like to be weird and give dadaist sort of responses because they think it adds to the mystique or something. I could do that too. I could have just as easily copy pasted the torque specifications for the transfer case of a 1993 Honda Accord here and congratulated myself on a job well done like an art student Criss Angel. MINDFREAK.

Ok, fine, but you see how that isn't helpful, right? If you could respond to the here and now and not what's going on in your head for irredeemable punk rock points, I'd really appreciate it.

This is something that boggles me.

Today i was listening to "Illusions" from the album "Temple of Boom" from Cypress Hill and i was just casually browsing the comment section when i saw a comment saying that it was "one of the most underrated hiphop song of all time" and was offended by the fact that "Cypress Hill never gets mentionned when talking about the greats".... like what??

The song itself have more than 10 millions of views when only counting official uploads on youtube, Temple of Boom went platinium by selling more than 1 millions copies, Cypress Hill is a group known worldwide that is literally filing entire stadiums when touring, what would you freakin need more than that? Its completely delusional..

There is also this trend of throwing the word "genius" everywhere, but that is another topic