|
||||||||
Do we lack variety in music today? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
I think most of us decide based on "Do I like the sound of this?" or an instant emotional reaction. We're less likely to asking "Does this push the envelope?" upon initial listening. We may decide that about some things later, or let music journalists decide for us. Also I don't consider something genre defying or genre-blending or 'game-changing' to necessarily be more enjoyable for a listener. It entirely depends what they like; what they are open to; whether they are tiring of the music they listen to and want something brand new. One man's innovation is another's fixing something that wasn't broken. I would say though, that what sets the serious music fan apart from the casual listener is that they will delve deeper for more, understanding the constraints of the charts and radio play-listing. You want more of a good thing and not to just stop with choosing what you enjoy from the tracks which are ubiquitous. People put all sorts of constraints on their music buying which interferes with their ability to select the music they can own. Over the years I've encountered people who only buy 7" singles, only LPs, only music available on CD. Buying only from what the charts contain or what mainstream radio play-lists comprise of is a similar scenario. . Also can serious music fans accept that there may well be great music out there that they simply don't appreciate? (Bushmills is a good whiskey irrespective of one being a whiskey drinker) |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
|
Quote:
Yes, I would expect a 'serious' music listener to delve deeper. That may be to find out more about the artist etc. I would also hope that a 'serious' music fan would give music a chance.
That might be ridiculous to some people but it works for me. I'll qualify it a little. I have quite a big collection, probably o.c.d. by any sensible standards. Amongst this I have a reasonable handful of rock/punk and new wave albums: something I tended to listen to more in the past than I do now. So, since I only tend to crave spinning this music once in a blue moon (I think it's about two years since I played The Scream by Siouxsie and the Banshees and that would be the most recent attempt to listen to anything from those genres) I can't justify spending time listening out for, or spending money on it. Quote:
I would hope that they would give a piece a few listens before dismissing it. But I find that this consumerist notion of searching for something you like to be a little at odds with this. It might be with all these options to consume that listeners just keep picking music types they already like. Variety in that context is of little import.
Another thing the more adventurous listeners on here generally do is to seek out new music. I buy considerably more reissued older music than new releases. The present is a great time for the unearthing of lesser-known gems from previous decades. I think some believe that lesser-known must equal lower quality but that's not how it works. There are so many different ways to be collecting music but if you are seriously keen, whatever your preferences, you will always be digging. Quote:
Also can serious music fans accept that there may well be great music out there that they simply don't appreciate? (Bushmills is a good whiskey irrespective of one being a whiskey drinker)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,795
|
Quote:
I am watching a documentary on Top of the Pops in 1979, and can not believe how diverse that year was. Rock, punk, ska, reggae plus adding lots of pop songs and ballads as well.
36 years later, we seem to be lacking variety. You've got the identikit club acts like David Guetta, Clean Bandit. Balladeers like Sam Smith. Teen pop like Ariana Grande and Miley Cyprus oh and the obligatory rap credit like Pitbull. Why have we become so less diverse musically? |
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
Sorry, I don't get what this sentence is referring to.
Both are right? No, I don't agree at all with that. Those who only follow the charts are missing out on most contemporary music so therefore are at best casual listeners. I can see why people would not want to be seen dead following the charts because of how much guff is contained therein but if they would reject music purely because it had hit the chart or because people had heard of it then that would be hopelessly elitist foolishness. i dont agree. everybody is different and most dont want to, have an interest in, or care to 'seek out ' more uncommon tracks. if people get their enjoyment from commercial music then why not? so what if some of us treat it more casually? who says we dont count if we dont take an active interest in 'non chart' material? Quote:
Not inextricably linked to 'chart music', inextricably linked to the popular genres of the time, examples of which will chart while others don't. Much of this non-charting/ more obscure music will fit within the same musical genres of the better selling (charting) records. Trends in music fix it to a particular era regardless of how it goes on to sell. yep... pretty much what i said... the question is how much 'non chart' music help fix defined eras?...
. |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
[quote=unique;77433026]is that a serious question? if you are in a room with the curtain closed, or lying in your bed with your eyes closed, you can't see what is outside the room. do you think nothing happens outside the room? this is the perfect example of small minded thinking literally most people, if not everyone on the entire planet Quote:
All the great, truely great, movementswere not invisible to the oldies. [/quote that's just generalising and therefore wrong that's an opinion, and not a fact similarly there were plenty of people in the world unaware of those things and/or didn't like those things. old people in particular may not be particularly interested that may be your opinion, but perhaps at your age, what the youth are into is probably completely bypassing you, especially if you are sticking to looking at the charts and main telly and radio channels for your window into the world, and don't bother seeking anything out throughout the world there are millions of things going on that you won't know about, but you could if you looked ill not rise to this bait. ill address salient points. |
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Glasgow / Cambridge
Posts: 3,984
|
Quote:
everybody is different and most dont want to, have an interest in, or care to 'seek out ' more uncommon tracks. if people get their enjoyment from commercial music then why not? so what if some of us treat it more casually? who says we dont count if we dont take an active interest in 'non chart' material?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Glasgow / Cambridge
Posts: 3,984
|
Quote:
Music that has to searched out most often but not always gets lost when the history of popular music gets written.
There was a book a couple of years back that addressed the 'new americana' that became 'popular' in the noughties. Acts like My Morning Jacket, Devendra Banhart, Joanna Newsom, etc. Not exactly household names but evidently something the author felt was worth exploring. Quote:
Yes, I would expect a 'serious' music listener to delve deeper. That may be to find out more about the artist etc. I would also hope that a 'serious' music fan would give music a chance. I would hope that they would give a piece a few listens before dismissing it. But I find that this consumerist notion of searching for something you like to be a little at odds with this. It might be with all these options to consume that listeners just keep picking music types they already like. Variety in that context is of little import.
I find places like Pitchfork, Stereogum, DrownedinSound very rarely promote just one form of music, and their end of year lists reflect that. If you take a look at their reader's end of year list, you'll also find a wide variety of acts within each top ten, i think. Furthermore, many of these sites have columns written by more specialist music journalists who focus on metal, ambient, hip hop etc, which provides a way forward if you do wish to explore a genre in more detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
|
Quote:
then what you are saying is that people who get their musical enjoyment at a more 'less deep' position are inferior to 'true' music fans who are actvely seeking out everything available.
i dont agree. Of course someone's appreciation and knowledge of music is stunted if they only concern themselves with the contents of a chart! To suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. People do that when they are young. Some stop paying attention to the pop charts as they grow because they lose interest in following music. Most others will cease to place much relevance on it as a source of what to buy. They'll simply buy the music they like. Quote:
everybody is different and most dont want to, have an interest in, or care to 'seek out ' more uncommon tracks. if people get their enjoyment from commercial music then why not? so what if some of us treat it more casually? who says we dont count if we dont take an active interest in 'non chart' material?
Even in the sixties and seventies (two popular decades with many) when the charts had, in my opinion, better music represented than today and with far higher frequency than now, you would find that some great singles, released both in the US and UK charted in only one of those territories. It's not the fault of other posters if you may have spent the majority of your music-listening life only tuning into the top 40 for inspiration and by default, missing most other things. No one could appreciate an artist or genre properly if they only bought hit singles. Someone can't treat music [quote] 'casually' and yet somehow manage to be genuinely knowledgeable about its complex history, its present day and the significance of artists or recordings from big genres (that they dismiss entirely) or of everything that doesn't reach some pop chart. Quote:
yep... pretty much what i said... the question is how much 'non chart' music help fix defined eras?...
Quote:
That's all fair enough. But i don't think you can be someone who just treats music as a casual pleasure and then also be someone who wishes to dissect modern music and pass judgements on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;77437520
when you stop dissecting lines from posts in order to create an argument by placing them out of context, and address the issues raised. ill reply. ill not address the fragmented and contradictory replies you make as you are clearly spoiling for an argument. ill not rise to this bait. ill address salient points. it sounds quite clear that you can't really dispute what I say with facts. this form of reply is however much better than making up nonsense like saying the beegees aren't british, so it's a great improvement I have no interest in arguing with you at all. note that you were the first in replying to my post in regards to the string of replies with yourself, and I usually avoid starting anything by replying to your post first. so I would suggest you simply don't bother replying to anything I say, and avoid any argument entirely. I note that I'm not the only person pointing out how wrong you are on the points you are making on this thread for example anyway it's very clear that there is a great variety in music today, it's just up to the individual to find what they like. if you want to be small minded and stick to what you know, you only have yourself to blame if you don't like it |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Crapville
Posts: 13,162
|
Music is awesome today
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
My bold. What I am saying is exactly what I wrote in the post. There is a very wide margin between sticking to the charts and, as you describe "actively seeking out everything available". Most music doesn't reach the top 40.
Of course someone's appreciation and knowledge of music is stunted if they only concern themselves with the contents of a chart! To suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. People do that when they are young. Some stop paying attention to the pop charts as they grow because they lose interest in following music. Most others will cease to place much relevance on it as a source of what to buy. They'll simply buy the music they like. You seem to equal 'commercial' with chart music which tends to suggest that singles that fail to chart or get play-listed aren't commercial which of course is not how things work. Even someone who would want to listen only to commercial sounds would do very well to take the blinkers off and take heed of what they are missing. Even in the sixties and seventies (two popular decades with many) when the charts had, in my opinion, better music represented than today and with far higher frequency than now, you would find that some great singles, released both in the US and UK charted in only one of those territories. It's not the fault of other posters if you may have spent the majority of your music-listening life only tuning into the top 40 for inspiration and by default, missing most other things. No one could appreciate an artist or genre properly if they only bought hit singles. Someone can't treat music 'casually' and yet somehow manage to be genuinely knowledgeable about its complex history, its present day and the significance of artists or recordings from big genres (that they dismiss entirely) or of everything that doesn't reach some pop chart. No, it's not actually close to what you said and the answer to the question you present is contained within the reply you've quoted. You can try I guess but the problem is other people will notice! today, we are spoiled as we have so many channels with cable tv and DAB and the internet, so you can hear about almost any song or at least artist, and within seconds hear the music, and in most cases hear it for free. when playing things online there are often recommendations of other tracks by other artists that fit a profile that may be of interest to the listener. it doesn't matter what type of music you like from chart based boyband pop to extreme metal, it's so simple to find stuff these services are also commonplace and free or cheap to use and the hardware to use them is also commonplace and relatively cheap, so they aren't elitist in any way, they are the opposite, which is the very idea of the business models in place, to make things easy to use and for consumers to find things easily and find what they like the biggest problem we have today is there is so much variety and choice, you don't know where to start and stop and there isn't enough time in the day to hear it all kids today don't know they've been born... etc perhaps some folk have slipped through and haven't yet discovered the wide world that's in front of them or are too stubborn to change. that's their choice however. what is hard to understand is why people don't change if they aren't happy with what they have |
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Glasgow / Cambridge
Posts: 3,984
|
Quote:
Music is awesome today
![]() The access we have to older music is also excellent. I often listen to stuff from the sixties/seventies that my father (who lived through that age) has never heard of, despite fancying himself as a bit of a muso. |
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
That's all fair enough. But i don't think you can be someone who just treats music as a casual pleasure and then also be someone who wishes to dissect modern music and pass judgements on it.
Quote:
i'll reply how I like. if you don't like it and don't want to reply, then all the better. I thought you weren't going to reply to me anyway? you said words to that effect and a few minutes later posted a reply
it sounds quite clear that you can't really dispute what I say with facts. this form of reply is however much better than making up nonsense like saying the beegees aren't british, so it's a great improvement I have no interest in arguing with you at all. note that you were the first in replying to my post in regards to the string of replies with yourself, and I usually avoid starting anything by replying to your post first. so I would suggest you simply don't bother replying to anything I say, and avoid any argument entirely. I note that I'm not the only person pointing out how wrong you are on the points you are making on this thread for example anyway it's very clear that there is a great variety in music today, it's just up to the individual to find what they like. if you want to be small minded and stick to what you know, you only have yourself to blame if you don't like it no ill not reply to bait posts... i will reply to posts made that are saying something worthy of comment. thats what i did. meanwhile i stand firmly behind the points i made, if anyone else wants to challenge them , then please be my guest. |
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
the biggest problem we have today is there is so much variety and choice, you don't know where to start and stop and there isn't enough time in the day to hear it all kids today don't know they've been born... etc perhaps some folk have slipped through and haven't yet discovered the wide world that's in front of them or are too stubborn to change. that's their choice however. what is hard to understand is why people don't change if they aren't happy with what they have im not happy with the lack of great new original genres that define an era.... not for my sake, but as a music fan for 50 plus years i think 'da kidz' are missing out on the collective excitement 'we' had 'back in the day'. how can i change that? i absolutely agree about too much choice, and i agree that outside the mainstream theres probably more variety then ever. anyway, dont reply, just agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
think we are getting bogged down abit here.... Quote:
My bold. What I am saying is exactly what I wrote in the post. There is a very wide margin between sticking to the charts and, as you describe "actively seeking out everything available". Most music doesn't reach the top 40.
for me when young, the charts were the 'first stop' shop window as the variety of music on offer was a reasonable indication to what was popular at the time. if i heard a style i liked, or an interesting act, id read the music press, talk with mates, listen to the radio and got into 'non chart' material that way. Quote:
Of course someone's appreciation and knowledge of music is stunted if they only concern themselves with the contents of a chart! To suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. People do that when they are young. Some stop paying attention to the pop charts as they grow because they lose interest in following music. Most others will cease to place much relevance on it as a source of what to buy. They'll simply buy the music they like.
yep. Quote:
You seem to equal 'commercial' with chart music which tends to suggest that singles that fail to chart or get play-listed aren't commercial which of course is not how things work. Even someone who would want to listen only to commercial sounds would do very well to take the blinkers off and take heed of what they are missing.
but not everyones the same... you talk as if they are 'missing' material is some sort of crime... Quote:
Even in the sixties and seventies (two popular decades with many) when the charts had, in my opinion, better music represented than today and with far higher frequency than now, you would find that some great singles, released both in the US and UK charted in only one of those territories.
hence my own project, the 'rare 60's classics ' thread which is coming up for its 5th aniversary.[quote] It's not the fault of other posters if you may have spent the majority of your music-listening life only tuning into the top 40 for inspiration and by default, missing most other things. No one could appreciate an artist or genre properly if they only bought hit singles. Someone can't treat music Quote:
'casually' and yet somehow manage to be genuinely knowledgeable about its complex history, its present day and the significance of artists or recordings from big genres (that they dismiss entirely) or of everything that doesn't reach some pop chart.
i didnt buy only singles, and i did seek out 'misses' and other tracks alongside albums.knowledgeable?... thats not black and white..... its not like people are or arent knowledgeable, some might have a deeper knowlege in some areas then others, whilst others have a better all round understanding. |
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
Music is awesome today
Is that the mid-Atlantic awesome or the genuinely awe-inspiring? And surely some music has always been awesome.......? |
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
pmsl... then why do you post 'bait' posts in order to facilitate and argument? Quote:
no ill not reply to bait posts... i will reply to posts made that are saying something worthy of comment. thats what i did. meanwhile i stand firmly behind the points i made, if anyone else wants to challenge them , then please be my guest. this is the problem with your posts. you make ludicrus statements that are clearly factually wrong, and you stubbornly refuse to accept and admit you are wrong, no matter how far wrong you are or how much evidence there is. that's why people can't take what you say as seriously, and why it does look like you are simply posting to argue the toss about things, especially when you don't drop the argument once you are proven wrong. you say you don't want to argue, but looking at your post history it shows that you argue constantly on the subject of variety, it's been pointed out how much more variety there is, and where you can see evidence of this in both music and television. if you don't accept that or you don't want to look for it and discover new things, it's only you that loses out. many people are discovering new great music and tv shows they love by doing a tiny bit of searching. if you took the time you spent moaning about things and used that to search you wouldn't be moaning any more, instead you might be posting to say how great something is for a change |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
now there you are, being reasonable... unlike earlier.
im not happy with the lack of great new original genres that define an era.... not for my sake, but as a music fan for 50 plus years i think 'da kidz' are missing out on the collective excitement 'we' had 'back in the day'. Quote:
how can i change that? Quote:
i absolutely agree about too much choice, and i agree that outside the mainstream theres probably more variety then ever. anyway, dont reply, just agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
inflamitory bait waffle snippedQuote:
on the subject of variety, it's been pointed out how much more variety there is, and where you can see evidence of this in both music and television. if you don't accept that or you don't want to look for it and discover new things, it's only you that loses out. many people are discovering new great music and tv shows they love by doing a tiny bit of searching. if you took the time you spent moaning about things and used that to search you wouldn't be moaning any more, instead you might be posting to say how great something is for a change
thats not my point at all. so i can only assume that you are trying yet again to credit me with saying something i didnt in order to create an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
but as has been pointed out, there is not a lack of original genres.
(and im not talking about minor sub genres, my post made it perfectly clear im talking about the great generic youth movements that we had from 1950's rock n roll to late 90's uk garage) |
|
|
|
|
|
#121 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Crapville
Posts: 13,162
|
Quote:
The kind of thing a Radio One DJ would say.
Is that the mid-Atlantic awesome or the genuinely awe-inspiring? And surely some music has always been awesome.......? |
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
I wouldn't know as I never listen to that shite and haven't since I was about 15
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Glasgow / Cambridge
Posts: 3,984
|
Anyone familiar with 'Chillwave'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillwave Always struck me as a very 'internet era' scene. Some nerd in his bedroom making songs about summer holidays he's never been on
|
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
inflamitory bait waffle snipped
thats not my point at all. so i can only assume that you are trying yet again to credit me with saying something i didnt in order to create an argument. in addition to this, if you really thought my points were "bait" then why spend so much time and effort replying to them? clearly you don't think that at all, and you are merely trying to distance yourself from doing that yourself. something you probably observe frequently at school. adults are usually wise to those techniques of deflection. you often claim others do things that you are guilty of doing yourself Quote:
where?...
Quote:
name them. Quote:
(and im not talking about minor sub genres, Quote:
my post made it perfectly clear im talking about the great generic youth movements that we had from 1950's rock n roll to late 90's uk garage) there's plenty of youth movements. but times have changed so there's a far greater variety and diversity now than every before, so more genres and sub genres for people to get involved with, so with such a variety available, people being split across them will result in less generes being so big. the thread is about variety in music remember, and there's a huge amount of variety available. if you want to know those genres and sub genres or anything else, just look for yourself. don't expect anyone else to point things out for you if you are too lazy and can't be bothered doing it for yourself. instead of spending time moaning about things, invest your time wisely to find things you like |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
Anyone familiar with 'Chillwave'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillwave Always struck me as a very 'internet era' scene. Some nerd in his bedroom making songs about summer holidays he's never been on ![]() Quite accessible, slightly euphoric music. A bit more of the Beach Boys than might be expected. |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:00.





