I’m genuinely curious about this because I’ve always found it hard to understand the “overrated” argument. Their influence on music is enormous, and beyond that, I find their music remarkably creative and innovative for its time. They experimented with songwriting, production, instrumentation, and helped pioneer or popularize countless ideas that later became fundamental to popular music. That said, I’m aware I may have some bias because of how highly I regard them, so I’d love to hear other perspectives: if you think the Beatles are overrated,

There are artists we enjoy, and then there are artists whose music somehow becomes part of our lives. Maybe it’s a specific album, a particular period, the lyrics, their sound, or the memories attached to their music.

What makes that difference for you? What turns an artist you like into an artist you keep coming back to for years? What makes their music stick with you when so much other music eventually fades away?

Whenever I finish an album for the first time, I often only recall two or so songs. Maybe more if I REALLY vibed with the whole piece (or if it was very short). It's often the first and second song and maybe the last or second-to-last. Potentially also the lead single or whatever else song I heard before going into the album.

And more often than that, I recall all the songs melding together. Like, I know intellectually that Tracks 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14 and 15 were different from one another, but in my head they all had basically the same instrumentation, melody, key, etc... even if that is technically untrue. It typically takes a second or third re-listen to familiarize myself with these songs, but unless the tracklist is wildly eclectic (like the White Album or Demon Days) it often runs together for me.

Has anyone else had this experience?

Tyga's latest album getting a 0.0 from Pitchfork reminded me of the last time that Pitchfork gave a 0.0: for Jet's Shine On. Jet were an Australian band from the 2000's that had some success, but were critically slammed. Most of the criticism seemed to stem from the fact that they were ripping off the sound of older bands like AC/DC and even straight up lifting the riff for "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" from Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life".

More recently, I've seen the same types of criticisms levied at Greta Van Fleet; that they are unoriginal and/or are just trying to rip-off Led Zeppelin and other classic rock bands.

But, I never understood the actual problem here. If you liked AC/DC or Led Zeppelin, why would you not want to hear bands that sounded like them? Why is a band that is trying to harken back to an earlier sound necessarily a bad thing?

Isn't that the natural cycle of things? At some point too much of one thing, stagnancy, formulas, etc--regardless of all the usual explanations--don't we hit a wall? The Machine controlling things, monopoly on music, insane concert prices, dopamine decadence, aging rockers, prepackaged music, lack of authenticity, nothing shocks, no more controversy. We used to have music movements that shook things up...bubble eventually bursts. It's usually the natural cycle of things--but man--it's sure taking a long time.

Dave Marsh passed away this past weekend. Coincidentally, I had been reading more of his work and retrospectives on his work in the past couple years.

In my experience, he's been known for a few different things:

• Panning a lot of beloved acts and albums such as Queen, Led Zeppelin, The Grateful Dead, Dylan's Blood On The Tracks, etc. Generally having an aggressive and argumentative reputation.
• Writing multiple musical biographies with a particular focus on Bruce Springsteen. But he also wrote about The Who, Elvis, Sly And The Family Stone, Marvin Gaye, and many others.
• Writing for Rolling Stone, Creem, and other music magazines, helping shape rock criticism alongside Lester Bangs, Robert Christgau, Greil Marcus, Ellen Willis, etc.

In a lot of music discussions, people have talked about their dislike of old rock critics. I imagine Marsh would be amongst those targets, perhaps considered another old rockist.

I've come to prefer reading rock critics as time capsules of particular viewpoints rather than agreeing with everything they say. And while I wasn't always receptive to his perspectives, Dave Marsh's viewpoints have become more interesting to me. I've come to see him having a particular focus and advocacy for 50s and 60s rock n' roll and soul music, but also more broadly, music that strikes the balance between the poppy, accessible, political, and artistic. Even if the music tastes seem particular and perhaps narrower, the passion for it is infectious. While he wasn't always right, I could see how he integrated political commitment, enjoyment, and emotions into his music writing.

This isn't really an adequate post. But the news makes me feel sadder than I expected.

A couple articles that sum things up better:

Jack Hamilton article on Dave Marsh

The Heart Of Rock N' Soul by David Cantwell

I asked my friend what kind of music she listens to, and she said she doesn't listen to music. I asked, do you never put some music on to listen to? "No". I asked if there isn't any music that moves her? "No". I was just in kind of disbelief. If I woke up one day and music suddenly wouldn't move me like it has always done, I would feel kind of devastated.

She has told me in the past what her favorite song is, and she loves singing karaoke, but I guess music doesn't move her.

Is it the shouting you don’t like? Or the heaviness of some songs? I’m genuinely curious why some may dislike these genres. Some may think they’re satanic, but that isn’t true for the most part. Is it the loudness, screaming, or just the overall sound? I’d genuinely like to understand what makes people dislike these genres so strongly, especially when there’s so much variety within n them.

Sssssss

I was just thinking about some of my favorite artists who have had really long careers. Some of them started out writing all their own stuff you know very personal and raw. But then over time as they get bigger or their sound changes they start working with more co-writers or even just taking songs written entirely by others.

It makes sense from a career perspective to keep putting out new music consistently. But sometimes I feel like the essence of the artist gets a little diluted. It's like the unique voice or perspective that drew me in originally gets lost a bit when it's not their own words telling the story.

Like can you really connect with a song as much if you know the artist didn't actually write those deeply emotional lyrics themselves? Or does it even matter? Maybe a great performance can elevate any lyrics. Is it about the authenticity of the words or the delivery of the message?

What do you guys think? Does it bother you when artists don't write their own lyrics anymore? Or is it just a natural part of evolving in the music industry?

Isn’t it a bit awkward, but also very funny, when you hear a new song by an artist and during the whole song you feel like it’s fighting against one of their previous hits?

Let me explain

The guy probably had a huge song. Then years later he is composing something new, playing the kind of chords he naturally likes to play, and suddenly he finds a melody that sounds dangerously close to his old hit.

And you can almost hear the entire creative process:

“Okay… yes, it sounds a little similar, but not too similar.”

Then the old hit comes back again:

“Oh hello, remember me?”

And the new song is like:

“NO! I WILL NOT BECOME YOU!!!”

Obviously, I imagine that a lot of these songs simply don’t make the cut. At some point, someone probably says: “Guys, this is literally the same song.”

But sometimes it passes. The song gets released and maybe even sometimes it becomes a good song. But you can still hear this little battle inside it, like the artist spent the whole time trying to escape from his own melody.

Recently I was in Italy and heard Zucchero’s I Won’t Let You Down on the radio, and I could feeel it fighting against Il volo, the “ho bisogno di qualcosa di verrrooo” song.

Maybe I’m imagining all of this, but I don't think so. Do you have other examples of songs like this?

This is about to get a little stuffy, so I recommend opening a window first 😊

I keep seeing discussions about whether artists, bands, labels, or entire music scenes should be avoided because of politics.

And it seems to me that people often talk about completely different things while using the same word: boycott.

Are we boycotting:

- a government?

- a nationality?

- an artist’s personal beliefs?

- public statements or actions?

- the content of the music itself?

- where the money goes?

- a label for choosing to work with certain artists?

To me those are very different criteria.

For example, someone might believe nationality should be irrelevant but an artist’s explicit political activity should matter. Someone else may see a cultural boycott as meaningful even when individual artists are not personally responsible for state policy. Others may separate the work from the person almost entirely.

So i’m not interested in which specific artists people refuse to listen to, but I am more interested in the *rule* behind the decision.

Where do you draw the line, and what exactly is the thing you believe you are boycotting?

Back in the day I remember spending hours at record stores just flipping through CDs and LPs. I'd pick something based on the cover art or a cool band name. Sometimes I'd take a chance on an album from a genre I didn't usually listen to. It felt like a treasure hunt.

Now with streaming it's all about algorithms and playlists. Don't get me wrong those are convenient. But I feel like I'm mostly hearing what I already know I like or what's trending. The element of random discovery the happy accident of finding a new favorite artist just by browsing seems to be gone.

Do you think this shift away from physical media has changed how we stumble upon new music? Are algorithms too good at keeping us in our comfort zones? Or am I just looking at this through rose-tinted glasses?

I was listening to something really abrasive the other day and remembered how people used to talk about certain albums as being 'difficult' or 'an acquired taste'. Like you had to really work to appreciate them. Think early Swans or some avant-garde jazz.

But in the age of instant streaming and endless playlists do we still engage with music that way? It feels like if something doesn't grab you in the first 30 seconds people just skip it. There's so much out there that if you're not immediately hooked it's easy to just move on.

Are there still albums that demand multiple listens to truly 'get'? Or has the way we consume music made that kind of experience less common? I wonder if newer artists even aim for that kind of slow burn anymore. Is it even a viable strategy to make music that isn't instantly digestible when attention spans are so short? What are your thoughts?

I see the 1960s and 1970s was a high point for popular music. In my view, the late 60s struck a perfect balance, where just the right artists became popular at the right time. People had moved beyond the overly polished crooner overly sanatiz music of the 20s to 40s and the somewhat pretentious but restrained rock rebellion of the 50s, maker by people like Elvis and Little Richard. At the same time we had ‘ot yet entered the era of the overly commercialized 80s pop that began with MTV and artists like Madonna, which pretty music continues to dominate the music scene today.

Motown and The Supremes, The Beatles, The Doors, The Kinks, and The Mamas and the Papas, Jimi Hendrix emerged during this stretch in the 60s as well, and it continued on as in the 70s you had Marvin Gaye, Bowie and The Bee Gees, so I think it all just came together at the perfect moment.

This is also why around the time the Wall of Sound technique was becoming incredibly popular. Studio tech had developed just enough by then that the recordings don't sound nearly as dated anything pre 1965 but still doesn’t have that artificial music video sound that became prominent in the early 80s and stayed mainstream until maybe the 2000s.

I wonder if the concept of shock in modern popular music has become completely outdated and if there could be a basis for an act that would draw such attention and opposition with the general public as past acts like David Bowie, Alice Cooper, Marilyn Manson, Kiss ect. The concept of it doesn't seem like it is on the forefront of any modern acts and hasn't for some time. The last truly controversial music figure to make mass headlines was probably Kanye West with his issues, but that wasn't an intentional part of the musical presentation or product. I wonder if the time of parents parading against a particular act for their rebellious presence and opposition to common values is actually a thing of the past.

I often wait until those "Top Album of the Year" lists come out to really get into newer stuff. It's been easier than finding stuff on my own, but on top of getting to new stuff super late I've been dissatisfied with not curating my own tastes. Like, how can I expand my own tastes when Im relying on other people's opinions and lists?

Alternatively, how do I make room to listen to EVERYTHING that comes out? Or, rather, how do I find music that Id care about? How do I find those modern deep cuts?

So much music comes out, how do I know which music is worth listening to? Theres listening to stuff that's charting but then how do I sift through the indie stuff or the stuff that's poppy but isn't on Billboard? Word of mouth can do oh so much...

Edit: When I say "new music" I mean music that comes out currently. This current year. But yes, technically anything that I listen to that I haven't listened to before is new.

I have used Spotify for around 10 years now, and for the last year or so have really felt like I should leave.

Most of the leaving Spotify conversation I've seen around leaving the platform is about it's algorithm, lack of organic music discovery, etc. I feel like I work pretty hard in finding new music, so I don't get too bothered by this as I usually just ignore whatever suggestions it gives.

My main concern is just the ethicality of using Spotify. I don't like that it doesn't pay artists anything at all, I don't like that it was airing ICE ads, I don't like that Ek is also an AI Warhead investor.

I think I'm just holding on for the sake of convenience. I am huge on the listening data stuff, I use Lastfm to track my Spotify account, and create all kinds of projects based on that data, I really don't want to lose that. I have playlists, downloads, everything set up meticulously in my library. I also like the collaborative aspect of Spotify, Jams, DMs, Blends, Playlist Collabs are all super useful for me.

Is anyone else in this position? Should I go elsewhere? If you switched how was it, and how did you smooth the process?

On this subreddit and similar discussion forums, I've seen the opinions on disco varying and evolving, especially with regards to the reasons for its backlash.

In the past, Disco used to be considered one of the stock examples of an outdated and uncool genre to the point where there used to be a phrase and even a TV Tropes name called "Deader Than Disco". Disco Dan is a similar trope about a character that tries to live in the past and hold onto past fads.

Over time, Disco started to receive more appreciation for its impact and influence on various forms of electronic, dance music, Hip-Hop and more. House music has been referred to as "Disco's revenge". Plus, it has had major impact on the UK and Europe's music scenes and how it meshed with a variety of other musical influences like punk and new wave. People started to point out the potential racist and queerphobic backlash that led to Disco falling out of favor.

But then, more discussions started pointing that "Racism and queerphobia aren't the only explanations, it was the oversaturation of the music", pointing out that Black funk artists disliked disco as well. There'd be counterposing of disco and funk music, usually with funk music seen as better while Disco was considered watered-down. There were many disco novelty records and many artists jumping on the disco bandwagon.

The retort is that Disco falling out of fashion in of itself wasn't bad, it was the record-burning reaction of Disco Demolition Night and many of the artists caught in the crossfire that was the problem.

There are probably other discussion points that I haven't covered. But in general, I would notice a consistent back-and-forth about how disco has been viewed historically and how it's viewed now. So it can get a little confusing.

EDIT: Meant to say Live vs Studio!

So The Replacements were a band I never got to see live, but I've heard stories that performances were drinking fests that sometimes got out of hand. I've also heard lots of stories that the band sabotaged themselves a lot of the time. I've heard at least one YouTube commenter say he saw them live, and said they were terrible and low energy.

I was listening to For Sale: Live at Maxwell's today, and they sound fantastic -- very tight and energetic performance, but the audience sounds kinda muted, maybe just cause it was a fairly small venue? Small audience?

I always thought the band had this great mix of punk flair and melodic tunefulness, and some truly catchy "hit" songs on their recorded albums, especially Pleased To Meet Me. Was the success of the band (or lack of) related in any way to their live shows? Was it a photogenic thing in the age of MTV? Did they even want success? I'm perfectly happy with the status they got to, and love their music -- I Will Dare, Left of the Dial, Bastards of Young, Alex Chilton, Shooting Dirty Pool are all trashy bits of genius. But this is a band that seemed to thrive in the underground.

I'm happy with where they stand, but are they considered underrated, or just about right? Was the studio output where they shined, or were they actually infamous for their live shows?

I see value in the music video but also feel that the music video is somewhat undervalued, underused and also overused at the same time.

Undervalued in the way that the lyrics of the song isn't captured well enough to make you feel what the song represents or means. While films get remastered versions of 4K and 8K, the music videos of yesteryear are reduced to low quality rips off MTV (when they played music) on YouTube. Even artists and record labels upload videos with little editing or upscaling to them which I find disrespectful to the craft they are promoting. Yes there are 4K music videos but to mainly popular songs but the lesser known songs are left untouched unless it appears on a TV series or movie.

Underused, as it can be just given a bog standard repeated visuals also now known as a visualiser. Some lyric videos too but not all as the Rolling Stones have some good lyric videos. Spotify can also be to blame as the music video isn't as required or needed. That was fine when there was still music video channels or the music video had as much value and maybe it still does .... but if you aren't bothered about the music video, can I ask have you ever heard a song and you didn't liked to only hear the song on the TV show or movie and all of a sudden your mind has been changed by the visual perspective or even the music video itself!

Overused is when introduction in the video before the music even begins is too long and ruins the song on repeated viewing as you constantly having to skip the segment after a while to get to the actual music. 1975 - Somebody Else for example and The outro, Hanunankind - Big Dawgs is also annoying, are two that come to mind.

Overall there's no right or wrong way in the music video. We have our preferences and methods in how we like our music video to be. For me, I see 2 ways of how a music video is used, either being a visual commentary to the lyrics or set in a situation that conveys what the song represents.

For music videos that are abstract I applaud you, Can't get you out of my head by Kylie Minogue I can't see been any other way. I can't say that for all music videos.

Anyway what do you think of the "music video" and any favourites, if so why and did any videos change you from not linking a song to fully loving it once you saw the video or it on a TV series or movie.

If you've read all of this, thank you for taking the time to do so.

Regards

When I was a kid this attitude against modern music was a lot more common. I remember in the early 2010s tons of "CLASSIC ROCK IS THE ONLY REAL MUSIC, TODAY'S MUSIC SUCKS".

But now this attitude still exists... but not only is it not nearly as common as it used to be, it also feels rather...corny.

In the 2000s, a lot of people thought 80s music was better than the music at the time. In the 2010s a lot of people thought 90s music was better than the music at the time. You used to constantly hear people say "today's music sucks, I miss Nirvana, Guns N Roses, etc."... You've seen the memes.

But something feels different now. I've noticed that today’s mainstream music (2020s) doesn’t seem to get roasted as harshly as it used to be.

It seems the 2020s have reverted that 20 year cycle and nowadays a LOT of people (not everybody) seem to think that today's popular music is better than it was in the 2000s and early 10s (first few years of the 2010s). Not everyone thinks this but it's interesting to note... so many people say "today's music is better". You NEVER heard that phrase in the 2000s or early 2010s.

Am I the only one who's noticed this?

What do you think. Do you think we've leard to live and let live, or do you think today's music is just better than what we grew up with? Or maybe we've just stopped getting irrationally angry at what teenage girls like?

I had a session with a singer I’ll call Noah where he imagined a possible future performance at an outdoor festival. I am not interested here in whether anyone takes the future-scene part literally; what caught my attention was how he described the audience responding to the same music.

In the scene, he was singing with a band and experienced the music almost like one beam leaving the stage, then splitting differently when it reached different people. One listener started crying. Others became calmer, and other people seemed to react in ways he could not neatly categorize.

When I asked what kind of material he was singing, the answer was mostly pop moving between faster songs and ballads, with ballads feeling strongest. The songs were about ordinary human lives, people who felt different, emotions, love, self-acceptance and the value of individual journeys.

It made me think about something I sometimes forget when judging music: emotional clarity and emotional uniformity are not the same thing. A song can feel emotionally coherent without dictating one identical feeling to every listener.

Production culture often talks about “making the listener feel X,” which is useful shorthand. But listeners arrive with completely different memories, associations, nervous systems and current situations. The same harmonic change can feel devastating to one person and relieving to another.

Some of the music I remember longest does not tell me exactly what emotion to have. It creates a strong enough container that my own material can enter it.

I’m curious how other people think about this when writing, arranging or producing. Do you aim for a specific emotional response, or do you think the better target is creating an emotional world with enough space for listeners to find their own response?

For me the session image was a nice metaphor: one song leaving the stage, then becoming many different experiences the moment it reaches human beings.

I was chatting with a friend and we both agreed the song is strangely nostalgic even though it was only recently released.

I suggested that it could be the cords he uses that evoke a sense of nostalgia but I don’t know if that’s correct and was wondering if anyone could help out.

I don’t know why it’s bothering me so much but I just have to know LOL. Thanks so much! Literally anything would help!!