Best Ever Albums

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

PurpleHazel — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 19:38:26 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/29/2019 23:38

Hayden wrote:

PurpleHazel wrote:

There have been no giants in jazz since the 70s on the level of Miles, Trane, Mingus, Monk, Bird, Duke etc. ....there's no artist who has reached the heights and consistency of the ones I named above (and other classic artists).

You're not wrong, but partly because people treat jazz like it's done (likewise with reggae). Doesn't mean it is. I actually think the '10's are the best decade for jazz since the '70's (early 70's at that). I've heard plenty of innovative jazz records this decade. I'd love to see a jazz musician get a huge PR campaign in the '20's.

People do treat jazz like it's done, and I don't believe that (my decade charts from the 80s onward are 2/3 jazz on average). When I said there were no giants and no artists reaching the heights and consistency, there's a criteria I was using. One of the most important qualities for a jazz musician (or it at least used to be) is having your own sound on your instrument. Monk, Miles, Trane, Bird, Coleman Hawkins and Lester Young are some particularly good examples of artists carving out a sound for themselves so distinct it's as if they owned a big slice of what their instruments were capable of. They also had overwhelming technical skill and knowledge far surpassing what was needed in their subgenres. That's why I call them giants and said what I said. Ornette Coleman, Cecil Tayor, Albert Ayler and Pharoah Sanders also have very individual sounds, but since not all free jazz musicians have the technical foundation to play all the previous styles like be-bop (though Ornette was reportedly a Charlie Parker fanatic), they don't necessarily meet the second criteria I mentioned. They're definitely giants too, but there may not be as much separation between them and later free jazz musicians. I just don't see anyone who's emerged after the seventies who meet both of these criteria to the same degree. Their sound just isn't as completely singular and dominant on their instrument. Practically all of the post-1980 mainstream jazz musicians I've heard borrow their sound from classic jazz artists, and even if they combine different artists' sounds to sound more individual, they're usually isn't much really new they bring to the table.

Regarding post-1980 free/experimental jazz artists, I'll just say I haven't heard any of them doing anything really significantly new conceptually (except maybe John Zorn if he counts) and doing anything significantly new on tenor sax, alto sax, piano and trap drums that wasn't already innovated in the 60s and 70s -- except maybe reed player Ned Rothenberg (his first album came out in 1978, but to be balanced, I'll count him as a post-1980 artist). When it comes to other instruments like trumpet, guitar and the more unconventional jazz ones, there's been more room to innovate. There have been some great jazz composers since 1980, like Henry Threadgill (emerged in the 70s, but didn't come into his own as a composer till the 80s), John Zorn and Muhal Richard Abrams (started in the late 60s, but did some of his best work in the 80s and 90s). Genres blending with electronic music/exploiting technology is where innovation is the most possible.

Hayden, hit me up with some '10s jazz recs -- can always use more. I'll rec you some of my favorite 80s and 90s jazz albums, if you haven't already heard them.

Quote:

Can't agree with this (but I do love 60's cinema). Tarantino's coming to mind. Like, I get he's not everyone's cup of tea, but he's still a giant in cinema. Hayao Miyazaki lands above Hitchcock in my book too. The Coen Brothers, Lars von Trier, Linklater, Paul Thomas Anderson, Guillermo del Toro, Fincher, Nolan, Alfonso Cuarón, Wes Anderson and Mike Leigh will all go down in the history books too. David Lynch was around before the 80's, but I'd put him in the same group. Outside of Hollywood, Michael Haneke, Asghar Farhadi, Hirokazu Koreeda, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, the Dardennes, Pedro Almodóvar and Wong Kar-Wai are massive powerhouses. Are any Hitchcock? No. But I prefer the output of most of these directors over him. As someone who found the 80's a little slim for films, cutting off cinema's 'peak' there seems a little odd anyway. There's been plenty of brilliance since.

Tarantino and Mike Leigh are interesting counterpoint examples. My favorite Lynch films are Blue Velvet and Eraserhead, which happen to fall within my cutoff, but he's a good counter-example too. Don't care for del Toro and the von Triers films since Breaking the Waves I've seen, except Melancholia. Most of the Coens' films are too derivative for me to put at the highest level. There are a handful of post-1986 films I consider to be on the same league as the older greats: Werckmeister Harmonies, Satantango, Brighter Summer Day, Spirited Away, A Separation (The Salesman too, except I didn't care for the meta play within a film element), Goodfellas (obviously made by an older director). Rushmore probably belongs on there too. Rosetta? Maybe.

I could go with other years in the 80s as cutoffs -- my reasoning for them is this: 1981 (to include Raging Bull), 1984 (after Truffaut, Fassbinder and Bergman's last films) and 1987 (after Tarkovsky's last film). Think the 80s are as strong as the subsequent decades (they're all better than the 2010s), but it was definitely a decade of transition: some of the old guard were still directing and some of the younger turks were starting to emerge.

Quote:

You're right, but I'll add my opinion that innovation's infinite. There's plenty left to do. It's just a shame nobody knows what it is until someone does it.

I think most art forms and music genres go through stages -- Traditional, Modern and Avant-garde (sometimes Modern and Avant-garde are the same) -- and after the last stage has been amply explored, there's less room for innovation. But it's still possible, and some genres haven't exhausted these stages yet, like rap and electronic music. And a new genre or distinctive new subgenre can always emerge. Not thinking through that there are some more recent movies I consider on par with the best pre-80s films shows that I might benefit tby opening my mind to recent music more (I already listen to a lot of recent jazz).

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

PurpleHazel — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 16:36:03 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/29/2019 20:36

Gowi wrote:

Few people are keen to not just hug their supposed “classics” and call it a day.

Or to not just hug the most popular contemporary artists' music.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Skinny — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:51:05 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 06/29/2019 18:51

Kool Keith Sweat wrote:

some slightly non-sequiter contributions

I've really been digging Lemonade, Honey, thank u, next, and Dedicated lately; the latter two are the best non-improvised recordings I've heard this year along with Avey Tare and Gibbs/Madlib (and I've done a decent job of keeping up with the critical darlings). Despite the increasing homogeneity of mainstream music festivals internationally and my perception that radio today is synonymous with trap-influenced beats ( 😉 ), I think these four recordings demonstrate a musical complexity on par with mainstream music from any decade. I think it's fair to say that there's not much emphasis on melody, harmony, or rhythm in today's mainstream music and that it's mostly beat music (compared to say, the '60s) but while the music leans more towards a beat with timbral compliments, the vocal cadences from each of these singers (and others) are really interesting, much more than the cadences of Madonna, Prince, MJ, or even Led Zeppelin, Zombies, Beatles, etc. It's as if these pop stars are treating the voice more as an instrument than musicians previously, and creating a rhythm or poly-rhythm with voice and beat rather than creating anything complex in just the music and then just crooning over it. And the vocal emotivity today is almost surgical, if it's not sincere. Additionally, I welcome the increasing personalization of pop output. On a single like "Umbrella," you would not have guessed Rihanna was from Trinidad; on "Work," the accent is there. Likewise, while I think Beyonce and Grande have quite a few production duds but the (perception of?) earnest immediacy on tracks like "Sorry" or "thank you, next" more than make up for it (and they have great production); meanwhile, Robyn and Jepsen appeal to '80s/'90s nostalgia in their production in exchange for a little less memoir (Jepsen also has a weird obsession with eyes). All of them write their own shit. So mainstream/pop music is different, but I personally enjoy it as much as the old for the moment.

And while there hasn't been a jazz figurehead for a few decades, I wouldn't ever expect one. Those people are figureheads because they had other people copy their forms but most importantly all of them were well distributed. It's the same thing as saying "rock is different, you have to dig deeper to find the good stuff" and it's because the people doing new things (and perhaps influencing the mainstream) are underground because the form isn't well funded anymore. The echtzeitmusik collective, wandelweiser collective, and young students of Braxton are the three groupings I see really guiding improvised music today (and of course some other individuals). And why all collectives? Because like those figureheads "progressed" from one to the other, these musicians have progressed in a post"Free Jazz"/"Ascension"/"Machine Gun" world. So, for funding purposes and the cultural movement towards collective improvisation as a legitimate collective effort, there will never be another figurehead (that's actually doing something new, Kamasi). Additionally, I think improvised music today is astonishingly more consistent than it was in the '60s and '70s but, because of that, those transcendental high highs reached then are a bit harder to achieve now. Maybe it's today's postmodern monotone. It's weird to act out. No one's violent anymore.

I think technology provides a juicy chance for paradigm shifts in any artform. The transition from analog to digital was a face transplant in music for pop production, electroacoustic, techno, and everything in between. I still don't think a lot of musicians still grasp or have explored the possibilities (e.g. despite glitching out early on, Ae is just now freeing themselves of the 40-80 min LP/CD-length release). Similar thing happened in music when tape came out. New forms/genres happen more frequently, but it's right time right place for someone or some people with a vision and opportunity to execute; whether those people become famous or the next Miles Davis is more dependent on funding and marketing than the radicality of their contribution.

wholesome content

Bandana out now

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:06:47 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/29/2019 18:06

some slightly non-sequiter contributions

I've really been digging Lemonade, Honey, thank u, next, and Dedicated lately; the latter two are the best non-improvised recordings I've heard this year along with Avey Tare and Gibbs/Madlib (and I've done a decent job of keeping up with the critical darlings). Despite the increasing homogeneity of mainstream music festivals internationally and my perception that radio today is synonymous with trap-influenced beats ( 😉 ), I think these four recordings demonstrate a musical complexity on par with mainstream music from any decade. I think it's fair to say that there's not much emphasis on melody, harmony, or rhythm in today's mainstream music and that it's mostly beat music (compared to say, the '60s) but while the music leans more towards a beat with timbral compliments, the vocal cadences from each of these singers (and others) are really interesting, much more than the cadences of Madonna, Prince, MJ, or even Led Zeppelin, Zombies, Beatles, etc. It's as if these pop stars are treating the voice more as an instrument than musicians previously, and creating a rhythm or poly-rhythm with voice and beat rather than creating anything complex in just the music and then just crooning over it. And the vocal emotivity today is almost surgical, if it's not sincere. Additionally, I welcome the increasing personalization of pop output. On a single like "Umbrella," you would not have guessed Rihanna was from Trinidad; on "Work," the accent is there. Likewise, while I think Beyonce and Grande have quite a few production duds but the (perception of?) earnest immediacy on tracks like "Sorry" or "thank you, next" more than make up for it (and they have great production); meanwhile, Robyn and Jepsen appeal to '80s/'90s nostalgia in their production in exchange for a little less memoir (Jepsen also has a weird obsession with eyes). All of them write their own shit. So mainstream/pop music is different, but I personally enjoy it as much as the old for the moment.

And while there hasn't been a jazz figurehead for a few decades, I wouldn't ever expect one. Those people are figureheads because they had other people copy their forms but most importantly all of them were well distributed. It's the same thing as saying "rock is different, you have to dig deeper to find the good stuff" and it's because the people doing new things (and perhaps influencing the mainstream) are underground because the form isn't well funded anymore. The echtzeitmusik collective, wandelweiser collective, and young students of Braxton are the three groupings I see really guiding improvised music today (and of course some other individuals). And why all collectives? Because like those figureheads "progressed" from one to the other, these musicians have progressed in a post"Free Jazz"/"Ascension"/"Machine Gun" world. So, for funding purposes and the cultural movement towards collective improvisation as a legitimate collective effort, there will never be another figurehead (that's actually doing something new, Kamasi). Additionally, I think improvised music today is astonishingly more consistent than it was in the '60s and '70s but, because of that, those transcendental high highs reached then are a bit harder to achieve now. Maybe it's today's postmodern monotone. It's weird to act out. No one's violent anymore.

I think technology provides a juicy chance for paradigm shifts in any artform. The transition from analog to digital was a face transplant in music for pop production, electroacoustic, techno, and everything in between. I still don't think a lot of musicians still grasp or have explored the possibilities (e.g. despite glitching out early on, Ae is just now freeing themselves of the 40-80 min LP/CD-length release). Similar thing happened in music when tape came out. New forms/genres happen more frequently, but it's right time right place for someone or some people with a vision and opportunity to execute; whether those people become famous or the next Miles Davis is more dependent on funding and marketing than the radicality of their contribution.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

mickilennial — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:27:01 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 06/29/2019 09:27

It’s just a byproduct of the age of the internet. As technology expands, so does the “library” of recorded music. It takes a little acumen, experience, and interest to find those special albums. This is not even accounting for the change of taste or the depth of actually caring about finding those records. Few people are keen to not just hug their supposed “classics” and call it a day.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

PurpleHazel — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 04:57:20 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/29/2019 08:57

Skinny wrote:

Bandana out now

😁

Tap wrote:

I feel like that treats genres as too much of a clearly defined thing that are real and exist and that innovation is centered around. seems like it's more connected to technology. Like this https://technosphere-magazine.hkw.de/p/5-Rainbow-Family-5Aj9nAxzG6zFRAAd9icEvH

Some older genres are so big, like classical music and jazz, that they're fairly distinct except at the edges. But I agree that a lot of popular music of the last quarter century is less clearly defined.

Quote:

Like this https://technosphere-magazine.hkw.de/p/5-Rainbow-Family-5Aj9nAxzG6zFRAAd9icEvH

The great free jazz trombonist George Lewis! Dunno how many musicians are following in his footsteps or members here are listening to his recent music, but it does sound like innovation of a type (I've heard some of his earlier experiments with electronics and interactive software in the late 70s, 80s and 90s and wasn't that impressed, but with the advances in technology maybe it's more compelling now).

TimeLion wrote:

Lots of interesting points here. I think comparisons to previous decades get confused by the fact that the music industry has changed dramatically in response to changing patterns of consumption. Album sales used to be a much bigger part of an artist’s income and conversely, album-oriented artists would be better equipped to compete commercially. So I wouldn’t look to the Top 40 for classic albums, but rather to communities like this.

Good point. There are less commercial incentives, and even creative incentives, to make album statements now. So when it comes to comparing albums, the last decade is at a disadvantage, at least on the most visible level, and you have to dig deeper.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

TimeLion — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 01:23:57 GMT

Author: TimeLion

Posted: 06/29/2019 05:23

Lots of interesting points here. I think comparisons to previous decades get confused by the fact that the music industry has changed dramatically in response to changing patterns of consumption. Album sales used to be a much bigger part of an artist’s income and conversely, album-oriented artists would be better equipped to compete commercially. So I wouldn’t look to the Top 40 for classic albums, but rather to communities like this.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Skinny — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:32:47 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 06/28/2019 20:32

Bandana out now

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Hayden — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:23:45 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 06/28/2019 20:23

PurpleHazel wrote:

Hayden, I'm not singling you out. Your post just happened to touch on on the "life cycle" theory I already was considering raising in this thread.

It's all good, that's the point of discussion.

PurpleHazel wrote:

There have been no giants in jazz since the 70s on the level of Miles, Trane, Mingus, Monk, Bird, Duke etc. Even if one came along, they'd be pretty lonely [-] there's no artist who has reached the heights and consistency of the ones I named above (and other classic artists).

PurpleHazel wrote:

I believe it's similar in film - but since the 80s there have been no giants on the level of Hitchcock, no decade with as many great art films as the 60s.

PurpleHazel wrote:

From what I've observed over the years, greatness has a relationship with innovation. And with most of the older art forms, there is very little room left for innovation. Not all great artists are innovators and not all innovators are great artists, but once there's little space left for innovation, it appears that there's little space for greatness at the highest level as well.

Rap's a new enough genre that there's still room for innovation and great new artists to emerge.

You're right, but I'll add my opinion that innovation's infinite. There's plenty left to do. It's just a shame nobody knows what it is until someone does it.

Hip-hop's not as new as it used to be, but the genre does possibly have the most doors open moving forward.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Tap — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 04:34:35 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 06/28/2019 08:34

I feel like that treats genres as too much of a clearly defined thing that are real and exist and that innovation is centered around. seems like it's more connected to technology. Like this https://technosphere-magazine.hkw.de/p/5-Rainbow-Family-5Aj9nAxzG6zFRAAd9icEvH

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

PurpleHazel — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 03:52:13 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/28/2019 07:52

Hayden wrote:

There's always the 'curse of the new' too, no matter the artform. I’ve had professors/friends/family who have mentioned they don’t consider films released past the ’70’s, paintings since the 80’s, and even novels past the ’20’s. As long as you have an open mind and are willing to dive into something, there’s always a chance it’s worth it. Scoffing at a painting/album/film/book released not in an era you particularly respect or ‘dig’ is kinda lazy.

I agree that closing your mind to anything after a certain decade is sad and lazy. That being said, I think most art forms have a "life cycle," so those professors/friends/family aren't necessarily wrong to beleive that those art forms have peaked, it's just that to write everything off after those peaks is wrong too. It's hard to call a dismissal of the 80s, 90s and 30s "the curse of the new." (Also most literature buffs would extend the fiction peak to at least Lolita in 1955. Side question: Is Infinite Jest the OK Computer of novels?)

There have been no giants in jazz since the 70s on the level of Miles, Trane, Mingus, Monk, Bird, Duke etc. Even if one came along, they'd be pretty lonely. There are loads of jazz albums after 1980 I'm very fond of, but there's no artist who has reached the heights and consistency of the ones I named above (and other classic artists).

I believe it's similar in film. I think the peak period for film is 1915 to the late 80s (like rock, most of the innovations occurred by 1970, but the innovations still needed time to be explored). There are many directors and films after then who/that are great -- and a serious film fan that didn't watch them would be masochistically depriving themselves -- but since the 80s there have been no giants on the level of Hitchcock, no decade with as many great art films as the 60s.

From what I've observed over the years, greatness has a relationship with innovation. And with most of the older art forms, there is very little room left for innovation. Not all great artists are innovators and not all innovators are great artists, but once there's little space left for innovation, it appears that there's little space for greatness at the highest level as well. Jazz is a particularly transparent example of this. Charlie Parker (with others) invented be-bop/modern jazz. Miles invented or established cool jazz, modal jazz and fusion (in his case it's really more a jazz-R&B/funk fusion than rock). Ornette Coleman established free jazz (he and Cecil Taylor were the earliest consistent practitioners). Once those subgenres had been thoroughly explored in the 60s and 70s, there was very little room left for innovation -- and, it appears -- little room left for giants and masterpiece album masterpieces.

I guess jazz and film are the most useful examples to me because I know them the best. But I see the same pattern in rock (and fiction). By 1977 every major subgenre of rock had been innovated. Since then there have been many great artists and albums, and perhaps a few artists and albums who/that are as good as the ones in the 60s and 70s, but IMHO rock peaked in the 60s and 70s, when there was still room for innovation. Since then, the biggest innovations have been fusing rock with other genres, like electronic music, but I don't consider that innovation on the same level as punk and heavy metal.

Rap's a new enough genre that there's still room for innovation and great new artists to emerge.

Does pop count as a genre? If so, it's so different than any other music genre that it can't be analyzed the same way.

Quote:

There's no reason the best this/that/whatever can't be released or created tomorrow.

I think in older music genres, film and fiction it's a lot harder to create a new "best" now. It's always possible that an artist is so prodigiously talented that he can transcend the trend, but it's usually the exception not the rule.

Daydreamer wrote:

I absolutely agree with everything said here. Gone is the era of great classic, even great bands and artist which have that larger than life aura. Times have changed, and there are always good and bad sides to each and every change. Sure you wot`t get such giants like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin and I do understand the sadness of it, but what you will get is bigger amounts of extremely diverse music.

Another pattern I've noticed across at least the popular arts is "fragmentation." Even as there is less innovation, giants and masterpieces, there are more and more subgenres or sub-subgenres and the sheer numbers of works increase. More albums are released every year (obviously, the availability of home-recording software and the internet has helped). Up until at least the disruption of the e-book, more books were being published every year. More films are released every year (I think; obviously, the availability of digital video recorders has helped).

Quote:

It's important to question the classics.

It's good to question the classics, but also to listen to them and learn the historical context in which they became classics. It's more important to question the commercially successful, especially with film.

Quote:

There are people who questioned the longevity of pen and paper because the slab was fullproof.

The "pen and paper" analogy doesn't apply to the arts. Everyone in the present would agree that paper and penicillin are superior to their predecessors. Art's more subjective, though some art forms' components can be objectively measured.

Hayden, I'm not singling you out. Your post just happened to touch on on the "life cycle" theory I already was considering raising in this thread.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

RoundTheBend — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:38:09 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 06/28/2019 03:38

baystateoftheart, you missed the opportunity to say countercountercounterpoint. 🤣

Anyway, good stuff, and yes, I think you both are right (Tap and baystateoftheart).

I think for top 1000 album type material (not because of popularity, but because my logic is if 500k "real" music lovers/critics find it great, there must be something there worth at least trying) I'll give the album a fair shake, but there's some top 100 material from a year or even decade where I totally sampled the album, but if it didn't jive or it's like Oasis or something, then I'll totally only give it a quick glance and might enjoy a song or two, but mostly I know it's garbage ahead of time... so I skip... but want to give it a chance kind of thing.

On the other end, if someone's taste I respect says, take a look at this, etc. (or sometimes it's in the above category)... I'll take the time to get to know it more, and often I'm rewarded as baystateoftheart is arguing.

Just like Illinois... I thought it a bit campy the first time I heard it, but think it's fantastic now.

Or dare I say The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust even... which I didn't like at first.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

jpajovich — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:48:02 GMT

Author: jpajovich

Posted: 06/28/2019 01:48

Fully agree with the above posters. Giving different artists and genre a chance is always worth it. I found out that I love post-rock and Kendrick just isn't my cup of tea. In each case I came out knowing more and being happier as a result.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

mickilennial — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 20:39:32 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 06/28/2019 00:39

I have always found it more rewarding to challenge my preconceptions and proving the line of "every genre has an artist/album that is worth it for you" right.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Tap — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 20:17:25 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 06/28/2019 00:17

baystateoftheart wrote:

Counterpoint: the number of subgenres I enjoy has probably doubled in the past few years, largely because I gave albums in them a fair shot even though individual songs didn’t capture my interest. Genre charts on RYM are a very useful tool for music discovery.

Yeah that's a fair point, and why I think you don't want to go too aggressive and cut off something in unfamiliar territory before it has enough time to make an impression. But I think going too far with being fair to albums can be harmful for growth as well, since there's less time to do it.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Luigii — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:00:12 GMT

Author: Luigii

Posted: 06/27/2019 23:00

baystateoftheart wrote:

If we start when I joined BEA almost four years ago, no, they aren't actually.

To illustrate, here's a sampling of what I had zero interest in listening to at that time:

- All ambient
- All experimental
- All hardcore punk
- All industrial
- All metal
- All new age
- All post-rock
- All progressive rock
- Most country
- Most jazz

I had just spent years burrowing further into what I already liked. Opening my horizons has been so rewarding.

I would vouch to this sentiment since the canon game made me expand my listening to find albums I quite love from 2000 and now denting through 2001.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

baystateoftheart — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:38:02 GMT

Author: baystateoftheart

Posted: 06/27/2019 22:38

Skinny wrote:

Countercounterpoint: Are most of those subgenres not in some way adjacent or similar to others which you already enjoyed?

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Skinny — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:00:36 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 06/27/2019 22:00

baystateoftheart wrote:

Countercounterpoint: Are most of those subgenres not in some way adjacent or similar to others which you already enjoyed?

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

baystateoftheart — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:26:45 GMT

Author: baystateoftheart

Posted: 06/27/2019 21:26

Counterpoint: the number of subgenres I enjoy has probably doubled in the past few years, largely because I gave albums in them a fair shot even though individual songs didn’t capture my interest. Genre charts on RYM are a very useful tool for music discovery.

Re: Why am I starting to sound like my parents?

Skinny — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:07:36 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 06/27/2019 19:07

Tap wrote:

It's a lot easier when you're unfair to albums and don't listen to the whole thing if you're completely not feeling it. Now sure, if you go too aggressive with it you cut off opportunities for growth, but I think there's a noticeable difference between when I dislike music but it has some kind of intrigue to it that will keep it on my mind and possibly lead to a change in thought, and when the stuff has nothing for me. There are too many albums to give them all a fair shake, I think you really have to use songs to audition the albums and find the ones that are worth the time for you. And I think once you get into an area of music that you enjoy, it's a lot easier to find more music of interest, because they likely will be a part of a network of other active musicians and you can connect the dots with collaborators and labels.

100% this. If I don't like something, or at least find it interesting, from a brief, cursory listen, I'll pick something else. Also, I know what I'm likely to enjoy based on my pre-existing tastes, so I'm not going out of my way to listen to stuff that isn't already in my wheelhouse. There's an endless amount of music out there for me to discover, so why waste time on shit that isn't gonna be for me? Hence, my charts are always dominated by variations on the same five or six subgenres. That's my jam. Find what you like, and delve deeper.