This post was inspired by a comment made on another post (about the Velvet Underground) about how The Who appear to be losing some of their prestige as innovators of rock music lately. I had the thought that it might be due to poptimism and the general decline of critics interested in talking about 'rock history' the way they used to. If you go back 20 years many critics wrote a lot about The Who as almost required listening to understand rock music, and there has been a backlash against that school of thought.

Some of their contemporaries (fellow 'rock dinosaurs') have their reputation protected by being seen as foundational to heavy metal, like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. Others have their reputation protected because they are seen as marginal at most to the concept of classic rock, like The Kinks, whose music is either seen as proto-punk or just as its own thing. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones had too much cultural impact to ignore, whatever genre you categorise them as; they are bigger than the 'classic rock' label itself. Then we have bands like the Velvet Underground and Pink Floyd who are definitely seen as art rock innovators (besides also being put into other categories, such as prog rock in Pink Floyd's case). The main reason I still hold The Who in high regard is because I primarily see them as an art rock group and I think there's a good case for that.

Anybody who's done some reading about the history of the band will know what I mean. When Chris Stamp and Kit Lambert decided to manage The High Numbers, they were originally intending to make a documentary about a rock band, but then they had the idea of managing them almost as an art project. Kit Lambert in particular promoted the band this way because as the son of a classical composer he wanted to get revenge on the arts establishment for snubbing his father by getting a rock band to be taken seriously. He literally told Pete Townshend to be pretentious, and it's that confrontational approach that makes me see the early Who as a punk-adjacent art rock band more than what they actually sounded like.

It's backed up by what they sounded like as well though. They weren't the first artists to use guitar feedback, but if you listen to their early recordings, especially the live ones, you notice just how extensively they experimented with it. Again, people who've read about the band will know how it was inspired by the art of Gustav Metzger and how it was supposed simulate the sounds of war. This sounds like Townshend typically talking up the concepts behind his own work, but it checks out when you listen to it.

Kit Lambert's idea of them as the first pop art band checks out as well. The Who Sell Out is more conceptually pop art than the banana album. I'm not saying it's better, it just fits the brief of music meant to represent the postmodern ideas of pop art even more than a record that came out of Andy Warhol's Factory! They were a pop art group before then as well though, both visually and sonically, as you can see a kind of ironic self-awareness and commentary on pop culture itself.

The Who are sometimes credited for inventing rock opera, but there is some debate to be had there. I won't get into that debate, but I will say that they really were pushing the idea of composing rock music along operatic lines, even though in my opinion Tommy doesn't live up to its ambitions. Whatever you think of it, it's artistically ambitious.

With Tommy and after Tommy, The Who started to become more what we associate with classic rock: the concepts become more pompous than subversive and they come into their own as a stadium-filling hard rock band (one of the best if you like that kind of thing though). Quadrophenia however is an accomplished example of a rock opera, far moreso than Tommy. My favourite album of theirs from the 70s is The Who by Numbers though because I'm someone who cares more about songwriting than anything else.

TLDR: The Who were more than an archetypal classic rock band, even though due to their musicianship they were definitely that. Until 1969, and to an extent afterwards, they were as credible an art rock group as the Velvet Underground.

After listening to that song over and over for years, I always found myself listening to the central park live version more than the studio recording.

While it is an excellent recording and I like the more peaceful sound of it, however the 3rd verse (Sail on silver girl) always kind of ruined it for me, it really sounds a bit to over the top with the added instrumentation whereas in the live performance they play the last line cliche a little diffenrent and the instrumentation fits much better with the previous verses.

Let me know what you think!

Hey guys, For instance, in The Strokes video. The Strokes themselves would be considered an Alternative Band, while Guided by Voices would be an Indie band.

Some of the members of The Strokes like Nick Valensi have said that initially they wanted to become, "Indie successful", similarly to GBV. But eventually they aimed to become even more popular.

The definitions I've come up with, note take history into account as well as popularity:

Alternative bands: Are somewhat popular bands like The Strokes, and other which have signed to a subsidiary of a major label or a major label. Yet most their influences come from the punk, post punk, new wave communities.

Normies know them when they were at the height of their popularity like the Strokes in the 2000's, but they haven't been following up with their careers.

I think the Pixies would be another Alternative band since they are signed to BMG which has distribution from Universal.

Indie Bands: These are bands that are signed to an Independent label but have been critically succesful and influential. Some bands would be GBV, Pavement, Animal Collective. Music fans know them and buy their records. They are always on Pitchfork Media, "Best of list."

Conclusion: I think it is clear to define who is Indie and who isn't. However, it is harder to define who is Alternative and who is Mainstream. Its clear to me that to most normies they are aware of The Strokes, but they see them as Alternative.

I think Alternative could also be an "honorary" term bestow upon certain bands that come from certain genres that normies see as punk/alt or not going along mainstream. For instance, I think Paramore would be consider mainstream but also somewhat alternative since they have pop punk influence and aesthetic.

While Yeah Yeah Yeahs would be primarily an Indie band: based on their sound, their record labels and aspirations as a band.

While I enjoy the classic Beatles albums as much as the next person, it's recently occurred to me that I've never really dug into any of The Beatles' solo careers. Of course, I've heard the big hits that still get played on the radio, "Imagine" and "Band on the Run" and "Maybe I'm Amazed" and "My Sweet Lord." (I don't think I've ever heard a Ringo song on classic rock radio, especially now that eighties hair metal and nineties alt rock apparently count as classic rock.) With Christmas seemingly coming earlier and earlier every year, I'm sure it won't be long until McCartney and Lennon's big Christmas songs are almost unavoidable on the radio and in public places.

Are you a fan of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison or Ringo Starr's solo careers? Do you feel like any of them were able to recapture The Beatles' magic across an entire album? Which one would you say is most worthy of a deep dive?

As a follow-up question, do you think that John, George or Ringo would have been better served by starting a new band (maybe a supergroup) rather than going alone as a solo artist? If so, who would have been interesting collaborators?

I’ve been listening to them a lot recently and I just thought about this question. Their first self titled album was amazing with songs like waterfall and I wanna be adored. The album came out in 1989 and their last album came out in 1994.

Oasis explicitly said that the stone roses inspired them and I genuinely do believe that given the time they would have been bigger than oasis, blur etc.

I’m from the same city as them (manchester) and sometimes you see the drummer alen wren sat a bus stop with 4 cans of beers. Like what happened to them?

They are just a mainstream popularity fest now. Their nominations just include the same 5 artists again and again. Taylor Swift, Beyonce and Billie Eilish being nominated again and again is not interesting at all. I have been seeing some of the nominated artists since forever (Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Beyonce) and it's just not interesting to me at all. We all know these are established and acclaimed artists. I don't need to watch their networking fest all the time.

Other categories like rap album or alternative are super random and just formality at this point. You can tell the Academy is not interested in listening to music outside of the select few big names from 5-10 years ago. They have no idea where the current pulse in these genre is and the nominations are just them winging it.

The performances are boring. I can't name you a single iconic performance from the last few years. The wins are always rage baits. Some big name artist will inevitably be snubbed. Twitter stans will become mad and talk about the Grammys for a one whole day and then the same thing will repeat next year.

All in all it's just a big networking circle for celebrities. Maybe it's because I am completely divorced from the mainstream pop and standom landscape but I really don't get it.

Also why are The Beatles nominated??? (I know they have a song out but like... a whole nom? Why?)

Edit: So I've had a change of perspective: I guess my problem largely centers around the top categories/pop categories and the rap categories (where the noms are bad). When it comes to categories like folk, jazz, alternative, americana etc. I think there's some really good music being recognized there. I just wish some of these artists and albums would get recognized in the general categories too which are dominated by pop musicians.

Edit: Stop with the Beatles glazing. That song sucks ass. Stan behaviour whether it comes from teenage pop fans or 50 year old men with dentures or rabid sports fans is embarrassing on the same level. Do better. Be normal.

This sub is no better from stan twitter. The difference is that the pop stans here are pop stans from 1960s instead of 2020s.

Go and nominate Beethoven and Tchaikovsky since everyone loves glazing has been artists so much. "But the classics!" I don't give a fuck. The entire point of my post is that I am tired of seeing the same old artists and their stans being annoying, how the Grammys are out of touch because they are not on the cultural pulse. I gave an example of rap music because it's blatantly evident there that they don't get the genre. Giving Eminem and Kanye West nominations when their albums were either critically panned or mid because the only rap music you've ever heard is from 10 years ago is embarrassing. Especially when there were solid releases this year from Lupe Fiasco, Vince Staples, Schoolboy Q and the likes.

But... but... "The Beatles are revolutionary." "Kanye West changed modern music." "Taylor Swift is the biggest star in the world."

STOP. Just stop.

I think many people here are familiar with the artists categorized in this genre: Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Parliament-Funkadelic, Curtis Mayfield, Sly And The Family Stone, Earth Wind And Fire, Prince and so on. Some of the most acclaimed artists and albums of all time among this group.

But I haven't seen much discussion on the genre/categorization itself. According to Wikipedia, it's been described as:

"A type of African-American music that uses a progressive approach, particularly in the context of the soul and funk genres. It developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s through the recordings of innovative black musicians who pushed the structural and stylistic boundaries of those genres. Among their influences were musical forms that arose from rhythm and blues music's transformation into rock, such as Motown, progressive rock, psychedelic soul, and jazz fusion."

I came across this piece called "Black Prog: Soul, Funk, Intellect and the Progressive Side of Black Music of the 1970s" by Jay Keister. I could see how a lot of Black artists into the 70s were really focused on pushing the artform musically and lyrically. Making album length statements on social issues, using fantasy to reflect real life concerns. Some intersections with Afrofuturism. The piece also discusses some of the stereotypes associated with Progressive Rock: white, European, cold. And how Black artists carved out their own ways of being musically progressive while merging different influences together.

What are your thoughts on this overall genre/categorization? Do you feel it's meaningful, or does it feel like a bunch of disparate artists lumped together?

Honestly I noticed a pattern recently with the Grammys to give Record of the year to Funk-pop disco singles. Eg. The funk-pop song About Damn Time (2022 Record of the year) and the disco pop rock song Flowers (2023 Record of the year). Out of all the songs nominated Espresso of course is a disco synth pop funk song..hmm..yeah so it's most likely gonna win. Unless they change their mind and give it to a different song. I mean they seem to be in a funk-pop mood and Espresso is pretty deservering of it but it fails one criteria of the other songs.. it never hit number one in the US, overshadowed by Kendrick Drake beef..so that definitely raises some questions. Final verdict? I think it'll still win anyway, it was a global hit like the others and like the others has made substantial influence already in pop culture so soon. Sabrina I swear I'm not try a Jinx you but you deserve it.

I went to buy the latest Eminem album a couple of weeks ago and saw the digital album was MP3 only, so didn't end up purchasing it. Thought this was strange, but a one-off, but then I realized A LOT of artists only have MP3 versions of their digital albums.

Why is this? For your average Joe is it just better because it takes up less space?

If I'm purchasing a digital album, I want it in a lossless codec, like FLAC. If I want to put it on my phone, then I'll convert a copy to a lossy format like OPUS, which is just straight up better than MP3.

Do you see this changing? I'd love to support artists more by buying their music, but being able to at least get a full lossless format seems like something that should be included.

I have seen no one else complain about this online. Am I being overdramatic?

I wanted to do this discussion because I think Chicago is a band that suffers from the perception of them as a soft-rock act because of how popular they became in the 80s that their earlier work tends to be overshadowed by the hits that came way after their prime, and the loss of arguably the most important guy in the band, Terry Kath in 1978. Or maybe that was just me.

I was a kid in the 80s and I remember seeing the video for Chicago's You're the Inspiration in 1984 and for the longest time, that's who I thought Chicago was. Kinda schmaltzy. soft-rock Peter Cetera ballads. Didn't help that the song was a big hit and the album, Chicago 17, went on to be their best selling, going 6x platinum (and UK gold). So that perception kinda stuck for me, and Peter Cetera continued on doing ballads.

It's interesting because their career with Terry Kath was also really successful. They put out 11 albums between 1969 and Terry's death in 1978, with one being a live album and one being a greatest hits, but that's still a ton of original studio material and every single one went at least platinum (though they didn't get too much traction in the UK).

But for whatever reason, I didn't equate that with the Chicago i saw later on MTV. It was almost like they were entirely different bands. And they arguably were. It was a totally different thing after Terry Kath passed. And I feel like the one overshadowed the other, at least for me it did.

It wasn't until years later that a friend from college kinda sat me down and played some of the earlier stuff and I was like "This is Chicago?!" I knew songs like Saturday in the Park and 25 or 6 to 4, from the radio, but never really connected them with the Chicago I was familiar with, and then there's a further divide between those more accessible songs from the radio and the ones where they really stretch things out. And one of the things I think is special about them, is how much of that stuff there is.

Now there were other "rock with horns" bands like The Electric Flag with Buddy Miles and Mike Bloomfield, or Blood Sweat and Tears (it's interesting they all formed in 1967) but Chicago always felt a little different to me. At once jazzier, but also rockier, and often times weirder. There were nods to r&b and funk sure, but also classical, country, noise, prog, and they had a guitarist who Jimi Hendrix himself admired.

According James Pankow, trombonist and on of their main songwriters, they did a set at the Whiskey A Go-Go when they were starting out, opening for Albert King and later on in their dressing room, Jimi Hendrix comes up to them and says "You guys have a horn section that sounds like one set of lungs and a guitar player who’s better than me. You wanna go on the road?" And so they toured with Hendrix for a while.

On their first album from 1969 Terry Kath started things off with a song called Introduction which he felt would be a great way to see everything the band does. There's horns and guitar and odd time changes and a little jazzy interlude, and it rocks. They also do a fantastic version of Steve Winwood's I'm a Man. I also really like this performance of Colour My World/Make Me Smile (reprise) closing their 1970 Tanglewood concert a year later. Starts with a nice mellow jazzier tune with a flute solo that ends with this raucous reprise of the chorus from Make Me Smile.

Moving to Chicago 3 (not to gloss over Chicago 2 which is amazing), they have punchy, jazzy songs like the opener Sing a Mean Tune Kid with Peter Cetera on vocals to the more frenetic Free to the experimental Free Country. There's also some classical stuff on there Canon, some spoken word, again, more noisy stuff as in the case of the song Progress? and then there's a cool song about having an hour long shower A Hard Risin' Morning Without Breakfast, with a whole suite following it about the day, and then coming back and going back in that shower lol. It's great stuff. All on a platinum selling "pop" rock album.

And they continued to mix songs with great hooks and pop sensibilities like Saturday in the Park with songs for folks looking for something a bit extra. A Hit by Varese that starts off that album is one of their more proggy sounding songs i feel like. Especially the keyboards. Just prog with horns.

I think up to about Chicago VII you still get that healthy dose of the unusual or unexpected, like Devil's Sweet, is a 10 minute long jazz/fusion number, along with the more accessible songs that would be at home on a Steely Dan record like Call on Me.

Though the later albums with Kath are still nice, they don't have quite so many adventurous offerings and fire as the earlier albums. Like This Time from the last Chicago album with Kath, Chicago XI from 1977, is a nice tune and the albums is fine but on the whole, it doesn't grab me as the earlier stuff does.

Anyway, I don't think people think of Chicago when they think of "out there" boundary pushing bands, such as those you would maybe think of in the prog or avant garde world, and I think as a band, especially their earlier stuff, would fit right in if you are looking for different music along those lines.

i've found a phenomenon that the tiktok app has repeatedly ruined good composers and musical artists. tiktok has found so many of my favourite artists and ruined them for me by either associating them with trends or cringey meme or thirst trap content. does this happen to anybody else ?

News: https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/11/music-piracy-keeps-rising/

I always assumed music piracy was dying out with all the streaming services we have now. But apparently it's actually going up in 2024, with billions of visits to piracy sites.

It also turns out that it's just because people are trying to avoid paying, although that's a big part of it especially with the recent price hikes, it's more on because of more problems with how streaming services are set up that's pushing people back to piracy.

Talk about whatever you want here, music related or not! Go ahead and ask for recommendations, make personal list (AOTY, Best [X] Albums of All Time, etc.)

Most of the usual subreddit rules for comments won't be enforced here, apart from two: No self-promotion and Don't be a dick.

I've been to many concerts, and I've seen a bunch of 'weird' stuff. From performers crowd-surfing in inflatable rafts to flash mobs in the audience. I've seen elaborate stage props like giant inflatable animals and unexpected guest appearances that left everyone in shock. What are some of the weirdest things you have ever seen at a concert?

Once, at a rock concert (it was a small concert, around 50 people maybe?), the lead singer brought out a magician who performed tricks right in the middle of the set, i think it was the weirdest thing I've ever saw on my life.

A friend also told me that he went to a concert that a band used holograms to project images of mythical creatures that seemed to interact with the musicians, nowadays this is more common during EDM sets, but back in the days these were some mind blowing things. What are some of the weirdest things you have ever seen at a concert? It can be anything that you found 'weird'. like, a concert where a group of acrobats performed aerial stunts above the audience, or anything else.

I wanted to share my experience with this album and I was curious if others shared my feeling.

When this album came out 20 years ago, practically everyone I knew owned a copy. If I walked by another kid in middle school with a CD player, there was a high chance that this album was in it. It was often the CD playing in friends' parents' minivans, or at least in the CD case. That's not to mention the fact that American Idiot, Holiday, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, and Wake Me Up When September Ends were constantly played on the radio. Simply put, it was inescapable for me.

To this day those hits I mentioned have greater staying power than many of their contemporaries, and I'd argue practically anything that came after it. Obviously there have been other Rock songs since 2004 which have achieved major mainstream success. On an album level though, I personally cannot think of anything since American Idiot which has even come close.

Again, I'm just sharing an anecdotal experience. To me, this album marks the last time that Rock music was the dominant genre in the mainstream, with dwindling popularity since. If there is a different album you think more accurately fits this description I'd love to hear it!

Why did they add the retake in Midnight Voyage by The Mamas and The Papas?

About the 1 minute 30 second mark, they have this audio of the band doing a retake for a specific note. Does anyone know why it was included in the final product?

Here is the link to the song: https://youtu.be/b-PmnVPOUaA?feature=shared

My guess is that it was to either show it was the first recording they did of the song, or that the song was not edited too harshly to cut out their retakes?

Or maybe it was to trick listeners into thinking this?

The more I read about The Velvet Underground, the more it blows my mind curiosities about the band, and the musical techniques they pioneered before the creation of the genres they helped implement. Like when I was happy to find out that Bowie and The Yardbirds found out about their existence a year before the Banana album was released. Not to mention the countless bands that exist for their influence. Even The Rolling Stones were influenced by them to make Stray Cat Blues (Heroin's guitar intro evolved into Stray Cat Blues).

All of this in just their first two albums. So if each song was a genre that led to the creation of several more genres, creating a musical pyramid. Of all the genres he helped create, krautrock is my favorite. Because it is also influenced by other artists such as James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, Stockhausen, Zappa, Pink Floyd, Miles Davies, The Beatles (my favorite) and The Beach Boys, who represent the best of music. Experimentation pure.

It's not that they are underrated, it's that praise for them will never be enough.

Dub has clearly changed a lot over the past 50 years. There's a strong case that it could use some form of internal classification or genealogical system. Ska has waves, feminism has waves, why shouldn't dub also have waves? To be clear, all the earlier waves still exist. New sounds don't displace older sounds but are layered on top of them. Plenty of producers are still making first, second, and third wave dub today but would be seen as more or less traditional.

FIRST WAVE: Roots reggae's weirder, more intense twin. Centered on Jamaica and runs from the first Perry and Tubby dubplates around 1968 until the early 1980s when reggae/dub began to drop off. More-or-less analog with a heavy dose of electroacoustic and musique concrète studio trickery. Basically what most people immediately think of when they think dub.

SECOND WAVE: Dub goes electronic and British. Centered on Britain’s working-class Afro-Caribbean community during the 1980s who appropriated the latest in synthesizers and studio equipment to evolve the dub sound. Some of the most important second wave figures include Mad Professor, Jah Shaka, and Adrian Sherwood. In communication with and often importing records from Jamaica even while reggae/dub was being dethroned by dancehall as the most popular music in the islands. Prince Jammy, Sly & Robbie, and Scientist are/were practitioners back home, where Wayne Smith’s Casio MT-40 assisted "Under Me Sleng Teng" kicked it off.

THIRD WAVE: Kicked off internationally during the early 1990s. Still recognizably dub but was greatly influenced by the electronic dance sounds of the age, especially jungle, hip-hop, techno, illbent, and industrial. Includes and extends beyond steppas dub. Some third wave exemplars are Alpha & Omega, Meat Beat Manifesto, Gaudi, Bill Laswell, Mark Iration/Iration Steppas, Fishmans, music pressed on the South London Digi Dub imprint, and some later Adrian Sherwood projects (e.g. 2 Badcard). Would also throw in French novo dub groups like High Tone and Zenzile. To me, the best examples of third wave dub can be found in Kevin Martin AKA The Bug's Macro Dub Infections compilations from the mid 1990s.

FOURTH WAVE: Also international and stretches from the late 2000s to the present. Dub more as a cultural signifier and studio approach. Metabolizes diverse sounds like experimental hip-hop, juke, post-dubstep UK bass music, chiptune, contemporary dancehall, and even ambient in addition to dub. The fourth wave is championed by labels like Bokeh Version, Jahtari, and Riddim Chango. It's produced by artists like Equiknoxx, Jay Glass Dubs, and SEEKERSINTERNATIONAL. It's mainly hipster music (no shade).

I'll fully admit that my system isn't perfect, so please offer your criticism below! Finally, I doubt I'm the first person to see a need for this. Have any music writers or academics beat me to the punch?

I think the popular explanation is that it was all recorded back in the 60s and 70s, when pristine studio audio quality just wasn't there yet. However, comparing JB's tracks to his contemporaries of the same era show just how much lower the audio fidelity is in James Brown's tracks.

For example, listen to Spinning Wheel, by Blood, Sweat, and Tears, recorded in October of 1968.

Great tune! Sounds amazing.

Now listen to James Brown's single, Give it Up Or Turnit Loose, recorded the same month.

The recording quality is so much worse! Why?

His earlier work has the same trend. In 1965, James Brown recorded Papa's Got a Brand New Bag. One of his best tunes ever.

However, the same year, Marvin Gaye recorded and released I'll Be Doggone in the Motown house in Detroit. The funk brothers were playing in a freaking basement with a dirt floor! Why does the audio quality sound so much better?

I'm so fucking bad at being consistent. It's November of 2024, we're hours away from the most important election ever in the U.S. and I'm fucking terrified. So much is scary right now and people are treating it like a stupid high school football rivalry with no stakes. I hate it here but we're not gonna talk about that. I thought I'd make myself feel a little better by listening to music I like and the first band that came to mind was Bring Me The Horizon. I've had a long history with this band. I've known about them for about as long as I've known about music in general. Growing up, I'd occasionally hear my brother grinding OG Call of Duty and blasting "Off The Heezay" from his bedroom as soon as he got home from school. My sister also had a Bring Me phase around 2013-2015 and that's what really pushed me to like them. No matter how much their style changes, they blend it perfectly with elements from their earlier work and newer sounds like hyperpop. Now, I haven't done a review in 2 years since covered the pretty awful sophomore album by 3OH!3. However, I'm gonna try and do this again with Bring Me and start from the very beginning, with their first EP.. Usually i'd do a full album but this EP is the foundation for one of the most important bands of the last two decades and so I feel it's important to cover. I do also have to say something that might piss off the most elitist deathcore fans though. I am a fan of deathcore and I love even some of the more intense offerings the genre has but this EP is just, how do I say it? Noise. It's just noise. They were young and barely knew how to play their instruments at the time so at it's core, it's just a noisy, strange piece of early 2000's emo internet culture. I bought it on vinyl when they re-released it in like 2016 and only listened to it a few times but yeah, it's really nothing to write home about quality wise. Okay, I'm gonna stop yapping and listen to this fuckin thing.

TRACK 1 - "Re: They Have No Reflections"

Okay, first song and it starts exactly how you would expect early deathcore to sound. It starts immediately with what I call "panic chords/noises" (if you regularly listen to hardcore or any sort of modern metal, you know exactly what I'm talking about) and then it just goes nuts. My biggest complaint you'll see for this whole record is just that all of the instruments sound like they're not supposed to go together. They all sound off time and at times it's painful. I love that one of the first lyrics anyone ever really heard from Bring Me is "I've been dragging the lake for dead kids". If that's not early 2000's edgelord deathcore, I don't know what is. Oli's vocals on this song are fairly good considering he was just absolutely shredding his vocal cords for years by not using proper techniques and not taking care of his voice. A big reason why they kind of shifted away from this sound around 2015 was because they wanted to make more melodic stuff and he also fucked up his voice for a long time. I absolutely love his low growls. They don;t have much effort put into them and somehow they still don't sound awful. I never really could understand most of the lyrics when I listened the first thousand times but now I hear they name dropped the band in this song. Overall, despite it's many flaws, it's still a solid opener to their first ever release.

TRACK 2 - "Who Wants Flowers When You're Dead? Nobody."

This one has a sick 4 count at the beginning with the cymbals and this is a song I still play pretty regularly because I think this is one of their best early tracks. The instrumental and lyrics are a little more worked out and coherent. You can actually tell what they were trying to do with this one and I doubt they ever will but it would be so fucking cool if they revisited some of their older songs with this one in the mix. The lyrics sound like an edgy poem the emo kid would read in English class to try and scare all his bullies (and I fuckin love it considering i was that kid when I was a REALLY big fan of them). This has one of the best breakdowns of all early deathcore but no one ever talks about it much. If you listened to their latest album, the second track "YOUtopia" actually has a lyric that references this song which is really cool. It's always nice to see bands acknowledge their older material even if it doesn't necessarily hold up all that well. This song however is a perfect example of 2000's deathcore music. It's heavy, it's loud, and it scared a whole lot of moms (mine included).

TRACK 3 - "Rawwwrr!"

It starts like an AI deathcore song again. Just rawrs and panic noises. I have a little history with this specific song. When I got the vinyl release of this EP back in 2016, I hyperfixated on it for a few months and my mom fucking HATED hearing this mess every single morning after she woke me up for school. Mom, I'm so sorry. I now hear what you hear. I can't believe this song was my favorite back then because today it just sounds like noise. Maybe all the Christians I went to school with were on to something. This song sounds like having contractions and just screaming in pain in a very wide empty room. It's really just kinda meh. I don't really have much to say on this one which is shocking considering that it was my top Bring Me song once upon a time. I was one edgy fat kid.

TRACK 4 - "Traitors Never Play Hangman"

They did it! They did the thing! They name dropped the EP. It's becoming more obvious that this project should probably just be a forgotten time capsule. I've probably said it about a thousand times now but it's really just noise outside of a solid second track and a fairly decent opener. They didn't have their sound figured out yet so I can't dog on them too much but fuck man, it's pretty bad. This is the main song that people talk about when they bring up early Bring Me but it's arguably the worst of their early material. The fact this made it on their hits compilation and A Lot Like Vegas didn't is CRIMINAL.

Overall, even though I really wanted to like it, it's just meh. I'd give it a very generous 2.5/5.

People of reddit, translating a song involves balancing meaning, rhythm, and emotional depth. One challenge is capturing cultural context, as a direct translation often falls flat. Translators must also adapt syllable counts and stress patterns to fit the music, rephrasing as needed for the melody.

Some translations prioritise literal accuracy, emotional resonance, sometimes creatively reinterpreting phrases to suit audiences. Great examples are “La Vie en Rose,” where versions focus on the mood of love (translation) rather than the literal “life in pink.” (original) in a more modern context the Bollywood hit "Aaj Ki Raat" from Stree 2 (original) and 2 translations to english where it appears the lyrics are the focus.

What do you think are the most intriguing challenges and creative liberties involved in translating a song from one language to another? How do you feel the translation impacts the original song's essence?

Earlier this year, there were a lot of discussions and backlash towards the band Pestilence regarding their use of Ai for the artwork of their album "Levels of Perception". The band later changed the artwork and released a statement.

However, less than two weeks ago, the band released a new single "Sui-Cide" in which the artwork seems to have been made using Ai tools.

https://open.spotify.com/album/7Ls3uhR96oTDKqoIu4Lyux?si=lpuJo4znTZ2ptWLpBbkmPw

What are you guys thoughts on this? Am I the only that thinks it's wrong?

What are your thoughts on this love it or hate it genre?

Like many people, I stayed away from it (with the exception of Pink Floyd, which some people don't consider real prog) because of the constant discourse about it as pretentious, self-indulgent music. As the reason why punk had to happen.

But in my twenties, several friends introduced me to the music of big-name prog acts and I've enjoyed it ever since. I wouldn't necessarily call myself a huge prog fan, but I certainly appreciate the sheer creativity of the genre at its best and think that much of the criticism is quite lazy. For one, the genre is incredibly diverse, combining rock with influences from seemingly every possible style.

It's also become clear to me that punk didn't kill prog. For one, prog figureheads like Yes, Genesis, Peter Gabriel and the members of Asia enjoyed their greatest popularity and commercial success in the eighties. So did Rush. One of the bestselling albums of the punk era was a Pink Floyd rock opera; prog-adjacent acts like ELO and the Alan Parsons Project were big hitmakers in that era.

When I was in high school, 25+ years after the genre's supposed death, prog-influenced/adjacent bands like Radiohead, Tool, Muse, The Mars Volta and Coheed and Cambria were very popular, very trendy, or both.

Are you a prog fan? Do you think that the popularity of prog on YouTube and other social media sites has helped change the discourse around the genre?

Each week a WHYBLT? thread will be posted, where we can talk about what music we’ve been listening to. The recommended format is as follows.

Band/Album Name: A description of the band/album and what you find enjoyable/interesting/terrible/whatever about them/it. Try to really show what they’re about, what their sound is like, what artists they are influenced by/have influenced or some other means of describing their music.

Artist Name – Song Name If you’d like to give a short description of the song then feel free

PLEASE INCLUDE YOUTUBE, SOUNDCLOUD, SPOTIFY, ETC LINKS! Recommendations for similar artists are preferable too.

This thread is meant to encourage sharing of music and promote discussion about artists. Any post that just puts up a youtube link or says “I've been listening to Radiohead; they are my favorite band.” will be removed. Make an effort to really talk about what you’ve been listening to. Self-promotion is also not allowed.

Today, we lost legendary record producer, composer, and artist Quincy Jones. Probably best known for his collaborations with Michael Jackson: the three albums Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad. His innovative sound, blending elements of pop, funk, and R&B, revolutionized the music industry and set new standards for production quality. Beyond his work with Jackson, Jones produced and arranged for a large span of different artists, including Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles (a childhood friend), and Frank Sinatra. His album Back on the Block (1989) won 7 Grammys and showcased his musical versatility through various genres such as funk, soul, and R&B.

Over his career, Quincy Jones has won 28 Grammy Awards out of 80 nominations, along with Emmy, Tony, and Oscar nominations. In addition to his musical accomplishments, Jones has made significant contributions as a cultural activist, using his influence to promote social causes. He co-produced We Are the World in 1985 to raise funds for African famine relief and founded the Quincy Jones Listen Up Foundation, which supports children’s education worldwide.

His career spanned over six decades. Jones began his journey in music as a trumpet player, eventually studying at the prestigious Berklee College of Music in Boston. By the early 1950s, he was touring Europe with jazz bands and working alongside legends like Lionel Hampton and Dizzy Gillespie.

In the 1960s, Jones became the first Black vice president at Mercury Records, marking a significant step in breaking racial barriers in the music industry. Around this time, he also started composing for film and television, contributing memorable scores to movies like The Pawnbroker (1964) and In the Heat of the Night (1967). His work in Hollywood helped diversify film scoring and opened doors for Black composers in mainstream media.

In 1971, Jones became the first African American to be the musical director and conductor of the Academy Awards. In 1995, he was the first African American to receive the academy's Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. He is tied with sound designer Willie D. Burton as the second most Oscar-nominated Black person, with seven nominations each. In 2013, Jones was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in the Ahmet Ertegun Award category.

Some fun facts about Jones:

• Quincy spoke multiple languages, including French and Italian, from his years spent living and working in Europe. He moved to Paris in the 1950s to study with Nadia Boulanger, a renowned classical composer.
• A 14 year old Jones introduced himself to a 16 year old Ray Charles after watching him play at a club.
• Quincy Jones convinced NBC to take on Will Smith's new sitcom Fresh Prince of Bel-Air in 1990.
• At 27, Quincy suffered a brain aneurysm and was given a slim chance of survival. Doctors advised him to stop playing the trumpet due to the strain it would place on his brain, which led him to focus more on composing and producing.

What are your thoughts on the legend? What is your favorite Jones produced music?

I know this is a little stupid to ask, but is heavy metal a right wing kinda music? And what I mean by this, I'm asking if I'm a minority in heavy metal, being a leftist... most of my friends who listen to it are rightists and there are lots of artists who, surprisingly, are consertive nowadays, so I'm pretty lost. I know that lots and lots of older lyrics are clearly "revolutionary" (idk what word to use, but what I mean is "not conservative" alr? Sorry, English is not my main language), take War Pigs for example, but wtf??? Again, sorry for my bad English and forgive me for my stupidity ☝️ thank you for your time

I live in Canada, and Canadian music is... Well it's American music. We have bands that are mainly popular here and not well known in the states for sure, but even still, the music they play is American music stylistically. Like the tragically hip could have been from idk like Iowa and I doubt their music would sound much different. Drake could have been from Atlanta and his music wouldn't be much different.

Like I can't name a single genre that is uniquely Canadian (edit: except for Nova Scotian folk music). This is of course a problem for Canadian culture in general, because culturally everywhere except Quebec is essentially a part of America. But still, like, Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver have pretty good music scenes, and some smaller cities like Calgary and Halifax are getting up there with a few major acts in the past twenty years, but nothing distinctive. Nothing too Canadian. Canadian music just sounds American.

Oddly though, when American genres get exported to other parts of the globe, they usually get localized very quickly. American R'n'B from the fifties very quickly localized when it reached Jamaica creating ska and reggae which are very distinctively Jamaican. Heavy metal got to Scandinavia in the 80s and almost immediately got localized, with the earliest band I know of that made waves being Sweden's finest, Bathory, in 1983. Funk and American easy listening radio reached Japan and quickly became city pop in the 80s. Psychedelia reached Nigeria and quickly became afrobeat. Techno reached Germany and very quickly localized into a distinctive style. I could go on for quite a while.
It even happens within America. Hip Hop reached the south and very quickly became very noticeably distinctive from the rest of the country. Even individual cities have VERY distinctive sounds, like Memphis hip hop or Detroit techno.

So why don't certain places ever create distinctive music styles? I know obviously with Canada the proximity to the states and lack of a language barrier isn't doing us any favors, but Jamaica is also very close to the states and also speaks English (well patwa technically, but most Jamaicans can understand lyrics in American music). In Latin America, the countries which speak the exact same language with minimal differences often have their own distinctive styles of music. Cuban music, Dominican music, Mexican music, Colombian music, Peruvian music, and Argentine music all sound distinctly different. Sure they influence eachother but usually artists keep their distinctive local flair, or if they don't the style quickly develops a local variation. Not so much for Canada. I think Australia and New Zealand also have a similar situation to Canada.

Further on the language issue, the UK has some very distinctively British genres. Like UK drill, which came from an American style of music and again very quickly localized. When dubstep jumped from the UK to the States, American dubstep very quickly localized into an American style, which was a stylistic jump so large that occurred in such a short period of time it's actually baffling when you really get into it. No language barrier, plenty of Americans visit Britain and vice versa. So why didn't that happen in Canada? Why didn't Canadian dubstep ever distinguish itself from American dubstep? Why didn't Canadian rock distinguish itself in the 60s? Why can I tell when a metal band is Swedish or Norwegian when there is essentially no language barrier (most Norwegians and Swedes speak English). And are there any other regions of the world that seem to lack any distinctive musical identity? Are there any other regions that for some reason very quickly distinguish themselves, potentially even individual towns.

Edit: I realized after writing this post that I'm kinda asking why Canada doesn't have any distinctive style of music (excluding Nova Scotia, whose music is definitely quite distinctive, and maybe Quebec). But if you feel like your home country is in a similar position, it would be interesting to hear about that.

Neon Nightmare is a pseudo-anonymous doom metal project that materialized earlier this year, signing to 20 Buck Spin, one of the bigger labels in the metal underground. Their debut album Faded Dream was released a couple of days ago and it's already created a buzz around the community for distinctively sounding like a blatant Type O Negative clone.

For those who don't know Type O Negative, the band was known for their depressive/manic yet satirically humorous brand of doom metal that would toggle between slow, heavy, brooding riffs and soft, acoustic, melodic passages, all laden in green aesthetics and crude album artwork. Their frontman and songwriter Peter Steele was known for his immense stature and distinct voice which was projected with unique nuances in his singing, including rolling his R's, drawing out vowels, and singing higher passages with his naturally low baritone-bass voice.

I was a huge fan of Type O Negative in high school, and knew most of their albums by heart. After listening to Neon Nightmare's debut album, my own feelings towards it agree with the criticism of it being way too much of a derivative and blatant copy.

Looking at the similarities, Neon Nightmare chose blue as their color to TON's green, as every album in Type O's catalog was green. Not only that, but the style in which the album artwork is present is identical to TON's.

As for the more important aspects of the homage, the music is staggeringly identical in style, from the vocal delivery down to the composition and tones themselves. For example, comparing the verse into chorus to "Be My Druidess" to Neon Nightmare's "She's Drowning", you can pick up on the similarities immediately down to the beat and even the tempo.

It seems GenZ in recent years has rediscovered TON, as the band and their music has been resurfaced on social media post-pandemic, so perhaps this project was an opportunistic way to cash in on the reinvigorated interest in their music. In any case, it seems like another polarizing experiment in which you either love it because it sounds like your favorite band, or hate it because it could come off like a deliberate rip off of another band's image and sound. The music isn't bad by any means, but due to the similarities that they don't necessary admit to but also don't hide, the project itself comes off as a novelty which doesn't compel an objective listener to revisit it.

It brings up an interesting discussion on music going forward. This isn't an isolated incident in recent years, especially in rock and metal. Will more bands jump on the wagon of trying to appeal to certain audiences by copying the blueprints of popular bands before them, or will this idea be rejected by listeners and force musicians into trying to push the envelope in discovering new sounds and ways to formulate their own unique style?

I recently stumbled across the Spin Alternative Record Guide and was curious to see what artists were recommended. I was already familiar with many of the artists in the book but it was nevertheless helpful to have the artists collected together in a more narrative sense.

Context on the book:

The record guide recommended artists in genres ranging from: punk, post-punk, new wave, indie, hip hop, electronic, noise, reggae, alternative country, disco, college rock, heavy metal, krautrock, synthpop, grunge, avant-garde jazz, and worldbeat.

They were certainly aware of the confusion over what constituted being alternative: They noted that an artist like Tori Amos drew influence from Kate Bush (who was in the guide) and Joni Mitchell (who was not. Although I'd say alternative artists seem to really respect her nowadays). Or they asked: What's the difference between Jimi Hendrix and Lenny Kravitz being inspired by Hendrix?

They partly defined their definition as "built on a neurotic discomfort over massified culture". That while older artists relied engaging massive audiences, artists defined as alternative shied away from the masses and didn't care about their impact.

Wikipedia noted that most classic rock artists were excluded from the guide, even ones who were influential on alternative music: The Beatles, the Beach Boys, Cream, Peter Gabriel, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, Van Halen and Frank Zappa.

Meanwhile, Lou Reed, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, David Bowie, AC/DC, and Iggy Pop made it in.

Initial thoughts:

From the outset, I knew that alternative wasn't a single sound that could be nailed down. But it still felt rather bizarre to see names like Abba, Madonna and Prince (two of the biggest stars of the 80s and of all time). At the same time, I could kind of see the logic in that Madonna and Prince did challenge norms, both musically and culturally.

There was a fascinating inclusiveness and highlighting of many different types of artists of all kinds of genres. At the same time, it did make the exclusions seem more noticeable. I assume part of the reason was that the guide was a response to Rolling Stone's Album Guide and trying to avoid the artists that Rolling Stone already valued.

On the one hand, calling every single artist "alternative" would seem to dilute the term. And then you're asking "What are you even alternative to?". On the other hand, the boundaries can feel so confusing. Some artists, if you say their name, would seem to be the antithesis of alternative in a popularity sense but nevertheless have qualities that could be "alternative-coded":

The Beatles are the most famous band of all time so on the one hand, it would sound strange to call them alternative. But they introduced a lot of forward-thinking innovations into the mainstream just as Bowie would do in the 70s (who is frequently claimed as alternative despite being a very popular music icon himself).

The Beach Boys are now considered major influences on indie music with a lot of respect towards their musical innovations in the studio especially with albums like Pet Sounds . Punk bands like the Ramones also cited influence from them, and Pet Sounds is jokingly mentioned as "the first emo album".

Bruce Springsteen is a name often considered synonymous with "Mainstream rock". But before Born In The USA, he could be considered more of a cult artist. In the late-70s, he was often hanging around and/or drawing influence from punk and new wave musicians like Patti Smith, The Clash, Suicide, Graham Parker, and Elvis Costello. Nebraska is frequently cited as a touchpoint for indie artists. You could also think of Tom Petty, a fellow Heartland rocker who was lumped in with New Wave early in his career.

Recently I was recently reading Steven Hyden's There Was Nothing You Could Do: Bruce Springsteen’s “Born In The U.S.A.” and the End of the Heartland. Prior to BITUSA, Springsteen had contradictory tendencies of desiring fame and success but also shying away. Darkness On The Edge Of Town specifically steered away from having pop singles that could overshadow the album. Hyden also talked about how Springsteen was an artist that aspired to unite audiences and found loneliness and alienation to be crushing. But that later "Alt-Heartland" artists like R.E.M. sought a community of fellow outsiders and bohemians. So that perhaps speaks to one interpretation of alternative thinking.

Speaking of R.E.M.: One could also detect retro elements in R.E.M. and The Smiths in their influence from The Byrds and jangle-pop but they each became icons for alternative and indie rock. I also thought of The Smithereens; a power pop band from New Jersey who were also very influenced by 60s rock and The Who. But because of the times, they noted how they were categorized as "alternative rock".

U2 (who is included in SPIN's guide) is a band that has been on both sides of this divide; For a while, they've also been considered synonymous with mainstream rock and being "the biggest band in the world". But they had roots in punk and post-punk, while also exploring different influences across their career especially in the 90s.

I thought of u/Salty_Pancakes often mentioning the ways in which the Grateful Dead were very much alternative in ethos: creating an alternate ecosystem and community, drawing from a variety of boundary-pushing musical influences ranging from free jazz to Stockhausen to noise in their wide mix of genres. They were also inspirational on a variety of later punk artists. But because of their association with hippie culture (counterculture but not often considered "alternative"), they don't get recognized in that manner.

Final thoughts and guiding questions:

Reading the guide made me think and rethink a lot of my dormant questions about what defines the boundaries of what is considered alternative or not.

Is it a matter of sound? Popularity and Commercial success? Perceived coolness and rebelliousness? Cultural connotations? And there's the constant question of "Alternative to what?"

I'm not someone who is strictly "Genre labels are meaningless" nor am I strict on genre labels of saying "This is or isn't X!" and determining a strict line. The point of this topic isn't to come to a strict answer. I don't think there is one.

But it's nevertheless intriguing to discuss how these boundaries are negotiated and evolve in every era.

One could argue that you can identify "alternative" qualities for almost any artist. But it's not necessarily the sum total of an artist's identity.

What is the current opinion people have on the finish band HIM?

I'm on the edge with this band myself, some of there stuff is quite good but a lot of it sounds boring to me. I like there song Sleepe walking past hope ( https://youtu.be/wAXUtE_HLi0?si=03ao5IKxAnbQiiaG) and Venus Doom (https://youtu.be/j66xGFFtoBQ?si=Rm1o6AkeZ3QHOgF5), some others are ok but not to my taste. What are your thoughts on the band?