How Do You Listen To Music?

[starise]

Hey guys I don't know how this happened talking about beer and wine. Maybe I brought it up? I see you appreciate the finer things in life like a good wine or a top of the line beer.

I've been slacking at the irish sessions, but when I was more regular I could have whatever I wanted for free. I tried most all of em. Most of the micro brews would overpower a meal. I like the drink to compliment rather than command the taste if I drink while eating. I guess if you drink the occasional beer as a meal in itself some of them could almost be a meal. There is a difference among the same beer names between beer here in the states and beer in the UK. For instance, Guinness tastes better in Ireland. I don't know what they do to the stuff they export, but it doesn't taste the same. Heinekin is the stuff the Germans don't want to drink so they ship it over here. I like Blue Moon Belgian style wheat ale. It is very close to a German Pilsner and goes really well with a meal, especially sea food. Plus, they give you a slice of orange on it. That's about as sophisticated as I get when it comes to beer. And even that is very occasional.

 

 

Please don't start on cigars I might puke just reading about that. The Apothic Red is an inexpensive all rounder. 

[Rudi]

2 hours ago, starise said:

Guinness tastes better in Ireland. I don't know what they do to the stuff they export, but it doesn't taste the same.

 

Curious. I went to Ireland about 5 years ago and sampled the draft Guiness in Dublin. It was exactly the same as the stuff we buy in cans (Guiness Original).

 

So you are either drinking the so called 'draft Guiness' from cans or get some special export version.

2 hours ago, starise said:

they give you a slice of orange on it. That's about as sophisticated as I get when it comes to beer.

 

IMO, beer should not be sophisticated!

 

2 hours ago, starise said:

The Apothic Red is an inexpensive all rounder. 

 

Its £9 a bottle here. I dont usually spend that much on wine.

A nice Australian Shiraz, South African Pinotage or Spanish Rioja can usually be had for about £6.

[starise]

You probably know way more than I do about wine. I pick up info here and there. Shiraz from Austrailia? Is that Barefoot wine? I don't know what a Pinotage is or a Spanish Rioja is. I know only one thing, if I like it, I know I like it.  I'll look into those others.

 

I read some weird stuff online. Sometimes there's a grain of truth to it. I've had mild tinnitus for years. Recently I've noticed it ramping up and then leveling off again. Overall though it seems slightly worse. I've learned where it is and how to work around it, HOWEVER, I have noticed a difference. Others who have it claim it's getting worse and there's a theory out that the frequency of the earth is ramping up. More sensitive individuals can pick that up. Both level and frequency seem to be changing. In some places there is a detectable 30hz signal all the time. Not everyone can hear a tone that low. It is claimed in some places the freq. is at 40hz. The higher it gets, the more people can hear it. I seem to be getting a very high harmonic. Could be damaged pick ups in the ear drum too. Either that or I have a resonance happening. Harmonics of 40 would be 40>80>160>320>640>1280>2560>5120>10,240>20,480. This doesn't account for the resonance that can develop if we included multiple sources creating hybrid harmonics.

I believe we are picking up a lot of this spurious sound and it sometimes translates to tinnitus. Most radio transmission is in the upper frequencies, although submarines use ULF. We might be hearing a lower harmonic of those.

 

One woman claims to have found a way to use her tinnitus as a way to sense. I can tell when it changes. I haven't found a way to use that information. She somehow correlated it with people and feelings. I read that on the internet, so it has to be true  I would like for her to show me how she did what she does.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rudi]

curious...

 

This is purported to be the hearing range of people and animals.

Remarkable symmetry between Chinchillas & Horses. Who'd a thunk it?

 

[starise]

Interesting info Rudi.

 

 

 

I was playing with the new Sasquatch plug in from Boz. After some point I couldn't hear the bass any more. I felt the bass. That's about when my windows started rattling. It felt like someone put a vibrator in my chair....a chair vibrator that is.

 

That was probably less than 30hz.  I don't believe much music is mixed to be heard above 8-10khz. Most people seem to be the most sensitive to the 1.5-3khz range. Something interesting I found that talks of the human voice and the fundamentals above it. 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76463/what-is-the-meaning-of-frequency-of-a-human-voice

[symphonious7]

On 4/20/2017 at 0:23 PM, starise said:

 

Drinking from the bottle  helps the environment. Drinking directly from the bottle saves dirtying and washing a glass. You save money because you don't need to buy a glass. Not washing glasses saves precious water going to the loo drain and saves time in the kitchen. Rudi drinking from the bottle was genius. The only reason we buy glasses is there are women around. That also covers everything else, walking erect, wearing clothes, bathing etc.

 

This has to be true. I read it on the internet. 

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHA Loved this.  

 

I have a surround sound system I like to listen on, bluetooth earbuds for when I'm at work, and my car stereo.  It kind of bugs me to think most people listen to music on laptop speakers cause yeah, without the ability to get like... the biggest, clearest mixes imaginable, you're not gonna hear any bass really.  I mean even professional recordings from the 70's sometimes sound bassless on laptop speakers.  But what bugs me even more about the way people listen to music these days, (I've noticed mostly with people under 30) is that they don't even think of music as something you pay attention to.  It's always background to them.  

 

When I try to share music with my friends from work, I am expecting us to really sit and listen, I pick songs that are going somewhere, building to a climax, with great lines and instrumental sections along the way, I want them to experience this with me but it goes the same every time.  Press play.  10 seconds later "Yeah dude I dig this it's chill" and then they just start talking and I'm just like "YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD THE SONG, WE HAVEN'T REACHED ONE CHORUS, WHAT DO YOU MEAN "I LIKE IT IT'S CHILL" YOU DON'T KNOW THE SONG YET  

Man... for musicians trying to really take people on a journey, or who want to make albums that tell a story or interlude like one huge opus, people just don't have the attention spans for it anymore.  And if they're listening on laptop speakers on top of that?  Yeesh...  it's depressing lol  

[starise]

Rob, it's all good man. No need to apologize. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Hi symphonious7, sorry I haven't met you yet. I really should get around to the meet and greet area. Honestly, the reason I don't is I'm not the best at greeting folk. WELCOME!

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

I was very young back in the 70's, but I still remember it. Here's my take on that time period. People were focused around music in the same way they're focused today on portable electronic devices ,wide screen TV's and video games. Back then it was one small black and white TV. We didn't get color until later, you only picked up maybe three channels on an antennae. The picture was grainy. The channel selections were maybe 1% of what we can get now, 8 track tape players, cassette tapes and vinyl records were the iphones of the 70's. That was all we had, but we lived for it and it seemed music was more special back then. This was probably because there were less choices, even in terms of who or what we listened to.There was this big wooden thing called a home entertainment center that looked like furniture and had a record player and radio in it. The record player could change records all by itself. You stacked them on the spindle and they dropped one at a time after the last record finished playing. You could put a stack of albums on it and have music for hours. 

 

Presently the choices are multiplied many times over. If you have feeds on your handheld device you might be getting the news, a dozen notifications from your social media, a notification that your favorite artist just released a track, the weather, you name it and it can be sent to you on your handheld device. Kids 5 years old learn to access media content on the dvd  player in the car, operate the TV remote control and they even have their own small devices they can use. EVERYTHING is asking for our attention. 

By the time these people get to puberty they are usually media zombies. They have been trained to access media instead of access the world around them. This seems to make them less attentive to one thing. This would only makes sense, because this is all they've ever known. I sometimes also wonder if this makes all data less relevant. An over abundance of anything can invite boredom. 

 

Add to this the quality, or lack of it in music programming along with the methods of delivery and I think we have the perfect storm. Thoughts anyone?

[starise]

On 4/22/2017 at 11:52 AM, TapperMike said:

Audio equipment.

It's still makes me wonder why or how Bang & Olufsen have survived.

 

I remember as a kid going around to various Hi Fi stores.  B&O had mediocre sound quality compared to everything in those shops.  Yet they sold surprisingly well.   It was all about looks.  The systems looked pretty   So it's not always about price point.  

 

My Brother in law spends a lot of money on home theater systems.  He has several to choose from for watching / listening pleasure.  Often I think he keeps them around to show off how many he has. I'll never understand why one room needs four distinctly different audio systems.  He's not in the music / television production industry, he's an investment consultant. like....... Bernie Madoff

 

 

 

 

I think this points to the fact that people can be sold on something based on a perception. The placebo effect? 

[Richard Tracey]

4 hours ago, starise said:

Rob, it's all good man. No need to apologize. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Hi symphonious7, sorry I haven't met you yet. I really should get around to the meet and greet area. Honestly, the reason I don't is I'm not the best at greeting folk. WELCOME!

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

I was very young back in the 70's, but I still remember it. Here's my take on that time period. People were focused around music in the same way they're focused today on portable electronic devices ,wide screen TV's and video games. Back then it was one small black and white TV. We didn't get color until later, you only picked up maybe three channels on an antennae. The picture was grainy. The channel selections were maybe 1% of what we can get now, 8 track tape players, cassette tapes and vinyl records were the iphones of the 70's. That was all we had, but we lived for it and it seemed music was more special back then. This was probably because there were less choices, even in terms of who or what we listened to.There was this big wooden thing called a home entertainment center that looked like furniture and had a record player and radio in it. The record player could change records all by itself. You stacked them on the spindle and they dropped one at a time after the last record finished playing. You could put a stack of albums on it and have music for hours. 

 

Presently the choices are multiplied many times over. If you have feeds on your handheld device you might be getting the news, a dozen notifications from your social media, a notification that your favorite artist just released a track, the weather, you name it and it can be sent to you on your handheld device. Kids 5 years old learn to access media content on the dvd  player in the car, operate the TV remote control and they even have their own small devices they can use. EVERYTHING is asking for our attention. 

By the time these people get to puberty they are usually media zombies. They have been trained to access media instead of access the world around them. This seems to make them less attentive to one thing. This would only makes sense, because this is all they've ever known. I sometimes also wonder if this makes all data less relevant. An over abundance of anything can invite boredom. 

 

Add to this the quality, or lack of it in music programming along with the methods of delivery and I think we have the perfect storm. Thoughts anyone?

 

I remember we had one of those entertainment centres as well. Loved it and playing all the old records my parents had, before I started getting my own. My first stereo was a Kenwood with the record deck on the bottom, you pressed a button and it came out. It had the best double tape deck ever. I did so many mixes on that, cause when you paused it, it went back a mili-second and blended with the previous part to perfection.

 

I used to record the charts from the radio and it was great, all this music, music I fell in love with and still love to this day. I moved on to more expensive stereos and technology took over my life - sometimes too much.

 

I think you re right about today's youth - everything is too instant and there is so much choice (TV channels, radio channels, everything). They are born to have a short attention span, which is why most music nowadays is fluffy throwaway move on to something else kind of stuff. The Now That's What I Call albums have gone from being a must buy when they started out to having probably one song that I like. I am trying to get my daughters into decent music, but they just listen to all the shut of the day.

[symphonious7]

I wasn't born till 84, but somehow through music and old footage and interviews and my parents keeping lots of old things around, I've always felt connected to it.  I loved hearing your description of the  entertainment center and how people used to listen to records the same way that we would watch movies,  I always had this feeling that that's how it was. I would think to myself "there is no way so much attention has been put into every single second of these 70s records if it wasn't because they fully expected everyone to listen and scrutinize every detail,  and you always hear people talking about music that change their lives in that time period, I can't imagine a teenager today ever saying that a song had changed their life.   I feel like  Music used to be trying to communicate something transcendent and beautiful to the listener, it tried to push our emotions to a real place that made us feel alive and human, now everything is just trying to be "dope".   You do have your singers that seem as if they are attempting to go back to the old ways, Adele comes to mind, but in my opinion these attempts always fall short, and they appear as if they are going back to old records and trying to duplicate a feeling, rather than creating something  New and  exciting from their heart, which is why the older music tends to sound better because those people were not trying to copy something from the past, what they were doing at the time was new and exciting.   Sorry for no paragraphs, I'm using the microphone on my phone to make this post because I'm at work, no time to edit LOL  but yeah, really cool hearing about the entertainment centers and stuff, sometimes I wish I could've lived in that era instead of mine, but then I just think "with everything so sucky like this, it sure does make it easy to shine"...  then I feel motivated to take over the world and it's all good again haha

[symphonious7]

2 hours ago, RobAsh15 said:

 

 

The unfortunate reality about young (er... you are twenty years my junior) people like yourself, whom I admire, is that individuals (rarely) move populations. Likewise, synergy is a bitch. A child with an IPhone today has a virtually limitless selection of sources of stimulation available to them. The vast majority of these sources adhere, in order to remain at all relevant, to currently accepted norms with regard to the production and dissemination of content. That means that most of them cater to a shorter and shorter attention span. In order for there to be a generational change... for whole generations to be able to appreciate things which REQUIRE extended (by modern standards) contemplation, the controlling zeitgeist has to change. Younger generations will have to decide they want and appreciate forms of stimulation such as those being discussed here.

 

Which is likely to be difficult, in a world where the number of media outlets and marketers and merchandisers only increases. My TV service offers me access to more than three hundred discrete channels, and the opportunity to buy the right to view hundreds of additional channels. In addition to that, my TV service offer me access to tens of thousands of hours of free "on demand" content.

 

My radio service in my car is subscription based. More than 200 channels compete for space on my quick dial buttons, and more channels are added each year. Google not only offers access to billions of pages, with content being added exponentially, but it now offers answers to almost any question a person can conceive of in only a few seconds, if that long. YouTube has tens of millions of videos, most of them brief, which are, by and large, not being watched from beginning to end.

 

Catered content, across all platforms, increases and diversifies on almost a weekly basis.

 

If you ask me, generations unborn will never be able to return to "simpler" times, because to do so would require limiting their choices in a way that is impossible in our modern society. Without a major tectonic shift in the way societies exist and disseminate information now, I do not think we will see a resurgence of interest in anachronistic forms of entertainment.

 

 

I actually fully agree and disagree at the same time, though it's a little difficult to explain what I mean.  It's kind of like... a theory I hold onto, perhaps it's viable, perhaps not, only time will tell but it's a vision I see in my head.  My wife and I are always looking for new bands that remind us of the old classic bands, not because they sound like them, but because they have the same elements, like each song being it's own special entity, the lyrics being clear and understandable and every line impacting you, unique instrumental choices that you go "whoa I never hear any band do that!"  consistency, and an evolution from album to album that seems as if they are honing in on their sound, not getting away from it.  There are other factors involved too, but bands that have these qualities would be bands like Queen, the Who, Harry Nilsson was like that, we've also noticed that the ability to "squeeze" energy out of a track, where the rises keep making your jaw drop, were the norm for alot of these bands.  

 

When I listen to GOOD music from today, which there is alot of, like animal collective, queens of the stone age, royal bangs, clutch, to name a few, you can actually find that one or more of those old elements is always missing.  Like, QOTSA I find to be really cool, their sound is very retro and unique, even having some of the elements I mentioned like interesting instrumental choices in each song, but I don't feel like I have heard them put out their "A Day at the Races" or their "Stairway to Heaven" like, it still is not reaching the level of the greats by consistently taking me somewhere different and new that has me on the edge of my seat, it's more like there are 2 or 3 songs I LOVE, a few I really appreciate, and a couple I'm "Meh" about, and that's literally all I've found with the exception of a band called "O Terno" from brazil.  

 

Ok am I saying that DOESN'T exist somewhere?  Well no, but here's another thing, you can tell many of these early bands rode on a sort of wave of "sense of purpose" or like.. I watch interviews with older bands and often times think "whoa, there's alot more life in those eyes than I ever see now adays, this person's energy is legit just... on fire!!!"  Some of the most iconic interviews these bands were showing how they sort of lived and carried themselves in ways that were as out there as their music.  So there is a believability there, something in your mind almost feels like these people tapped into something outside our current reality, at least, it doesn't sound as crazy to say that about Led Zeppelin as it does to say that about say Weezer.  (Though weezer did tap into that reality on their first couple of albums IMO)  

 

Ok so now you have the kids right?  Their attention spans, their materialism, their now now now mentality, all this, is a formiddable opponent, a juggernaut, a giant, it seems undefeatable yes I see that.  But every now and again you run across these comments on the internet, "I don't listen to the same stuff all my friends do, I like old music like the eagles!!  It just says something! All my friends make fun of me for it..."  That minority cry is small, but THERE.  It's big enough that you can see it is not dead, perhaps even growing, I work with a girl who says more and more of her friends are getting sick of their generations society, "My generation is immature and we suck" is beginning to be a common theme said by kids.  There is growing RESTLESSNESS.  I see it, I really do.  

 

I think what happens is we have bands these kids find who have one or more of these old elements, but not all of them.  Hell maybe there is someone who's put out one album worthy of such a goal, with a totally new sound and feel and a message and every song is different but amazing etc, can they follow up on it?  Can they perform the way Mick Jagger did, can they sing the way Bowie did?  As much as I want to humbly say "I'm sure that type of awesomeness is out there" I honestly don't see it, I search for it, I see people who seem to recognize the problem and give it a real fair honest effort, but I don't see a movement worthy of the 60's happening I really don't.  

 

So IF IT DID, if the right band came along and started putting out Dark Side of the Moon worthy, sgt pepper's worthy, album after album after album.   On stage they are truly captivating, they move like no one else, sing like no one else, say what no one else is saying, over and over and over.  I think if you can rev up the engines of that remnant, make them feel like they aren't being lame by listening to their parent's music, but cool cause they found the new sound.  The new punks, the new hippies, they found their voice, you might see the halo effect slowly happen.  I relate this alot to how christianity began, I mean how were you going to get stubborn legalistic jews to believe their messiah was actually here and start a whole movement?  Well he had to be the real deal, always saying the right thing, doing the right thing, proving he was as magnificent as his message was.  

 

Because it's not about the amount of people you impact, it's about the size OF the impact.  If you get a small handful of people to have a monumental life changing reaction to you that makes them compelled to excitedly and unabashedly show everyone they know and once they have gotten people hooked the excitement grows because the next album is even BETTER, and this keeps happening, things of a lesser quality will begin to look silly by comparison, bands will begin to hear this sound and go "Whoa, why aren't we doing that???"  The feeling of "it can't be done" would turn into "But those guys are doing it!!  Why can't I???"  

 

It's like pulling back a rubber band so when it's finally released it flies so much further, God does it all the time, heck it's kind of his thing  Obviously this is coming from the perspective of a guy who feels like he sees the kingdom of heaven everywhere and talks to God 24/7 so I'm either onto something or crazy off Jesus juice but, be I wrong, be I right, I create with this hope firmly placed in my heart, that we will see the biggest musical revival the world's ever known, because the rubber band is pulled back as far as it can go...

[Just1L]

14 minutes ago, symphonious7 said:

but I don't see a movement worthy of the 60's happening I really don't.  

 

I have to say I do see it, in my mind. The quick is about 4 or 5 or 6 years ago I personally got disgusted with the internet. That's after spending a life time of loving technology. First with the atari then my first Texas Instruments computer in 1981 and never looked back. Always wanting and loving the next new thing. There are a lot of reasons to like the internet and what it does, but there are also a lot of reasons to dislike it. For me, the reasons not to like it outweigh the good. It's a "humanity" thing. The writing is on the wall of where we are headed. Automation continues to swallow jobs. There is talk of a "universal wage" (i.e. welfare) to help. The techies in charge say, 'nah' new jobs will just open up. But considering the main feature of tech is to "do more with less" I don't know what those jobs would be, neither do they. I have hope it won't be as bad as it could be but I'm not sure that's the case. And automation is just a small slice of the "trouble pie." At some point people will have to ask just how much do they want to be controlled by technology. Do we all really need chips in our bodies to open doors at the office like they currently do in some countries? The current "fad topic" of fake news has been present on the net for many, many years. It's not a new thing. It's not a good thing, yet people still flock to Facebook to read their news. Or at least to read the news that's slanted the way they want to hear it. So I'm going to stick to my theory of the day when people wake up to it all. The day people really get disgusted and realize that in the end, it's not worth it. Life is better without it. Many things need to be done. But I could see a window of 4-5 years of a sort of anti-internet/anti-tech Hippie-like movement. Especially with the rise of the legalization of pot. With hopes that people chill the f*ck out and lose their boners over technology. I know technology isn't going away, but the ways it's being used need to change. I could just chalk it up to being an old codger, but considering my love to technology throughout my lifetime, that's simply not it.

[starise]

On 4/23/2017 at 2:47 PM, Rudi said:

Beer. Until I was 40 I hardly touched lager. I was into uk style real ales. Yes the hoppy stuff. That gig we played at the Wickham Beer Festival, and they gave us flagons of beer to take home at the end (they couldnt store it) was fantastic.

 

Wow. That doesn't happen every day. If I showed up in Philadelphia with a truck load of beer and said i needed to get rid of it, I would probably be mobbed  Just put a FREE BEER sign up there. Probably should run after you do that.

 

Symphonious7 those are some great thoughts and perspectives. I get the general feeling that there isn't much air in the sails of the younger generation. What you say seems to re enforce that notion. I sometimes wonder if it's the tech as Just1L mentioned that's a real contributor to that.

 

I have Amish neighbors on both sides of me. I'll try to be brief. They don't have electricity.They live life with almost no technology.

 

I was in an Amish hardware store the other day and the intercom system was a 2" PVC pipe that came right to the cash register and ran from there all the way to the back of the store. When the clerk wanted something she would squeeze the bulb of a bike horn into the pipe and talk into it where "Amos" could hear and respond. It was kinda funny- " BEEP BEEP" we need a bag of mulch.

 

I see a lot of things living in a strongly Amish community. I notice a HUGE contrast compared to the mindset of the typical English American young person. One of my neighbors is 22 years old and married. He just moved in. I kid you not in only three weeks he has- Ran a new fence, built a horse barn, cleared his land, moved a large shed to another location, moved a very large bush. He has a day job too. He's a stone mason.

During that same amount of time a 22 year old english youth somewhere sat in front of the TV and ate Cheetos while checking his homies out on the phone.See the difference?

 

 

[Richard Tracey]

I think the difference is, getting the youth of today to hear and see what we had growing up. There are a lot more 'kids' getting into older bands and music, especially in the UK. You see them at concerts and our Top 100 albums not long ago were full of old albums, not anything new. This is because people are buying or streaming albums and they have re-entered the charts. That shows how the change is probably there and growing.

 

The problem is the record companies and the radio stations/TV stations who constantly tell us who we should listen to or like. Yes, we had that to a degree years back, but not to the extent as we see now.

 

I can see a change coming in the way we experience music and films. It has to change, or we will get to the stage where people won't do it if there is no way of making money. A hobby doesn't pay if it is your main source of income.

 

There will be deals and tie-ins coming that will make it worth your while purchasing music and films again, even if it is digital still. The uptake in vinyl has taken the music industry by surprise, so it might give them the kick up the butt they need.

[symphonious7]

7 hours ago, Just1L said:

 

I have to say I do see it, in my mind. The quick is about 4 or 5 or 6 years ago I personally got disgusted with the internet. That's after spending a life time of loving technology. First with the atari then my first Texas Instruments computer in 1981 and never looked back. Always wanting and loving the next new thing. There are a lot of reasons to like the internet and what it does, but there are also a lot of reasons to dislike it. For me, the reasons not to like it outweigh the good. It's a "humanity" thing. The writing is on the wall of where we are headed. Automation continues to swallow jobs. There is talk of a "universal wage" (i.e. welfare) to help. The techies in charge say, 'nah' new jobs will just open up. But considering the main feature of tech is to "do more with less" I don't know what those jobs would be, neither do they. I have hope it won't be as bad as it could be but I'm not sure that's the case. And automation is just a small slice of the "trouble pie." At some point people will have to ask just how much do they want to be controlled by technology. Do we all really need chips in our bodies to open doors at the office like they currently do in some countries? The current "fad topic" of fake news has been present on the net for many, many years. It's not a new thing. It's not a good thing, yet people still flock to Facebook to read their news. Or at least to read the news that's slanted the way they want to hear it. So I'm going to stick to my theory of the day when people wake up to it all. The day people really get disgusted and realize that in the end, it's not worth it. Life is better without it. Many things need to be done. But I could see a window of 4-5 years of a sort of anti-internet/anti-tech Hippie-like movement. Especially with the rise of the legalization of pot. With hopes that people chill the f*ck out and lose their boners over technology. I know technology isn't going away, but the ways it's being used need to change. I could just chalk it up to being an old codger, but considering my love to technology throughout my lifetime, that's simply not it.

I feel as if we are looking at the same thing from different angles but we're both seeing it.  It's just an inkling I have, like... this has to be building up to something, I doubt any huge revolution ever looked very possible, but the discontent is high, things are spinning out of control, perhaps in all that madness someone somewhere will snap and WHAM.  Something new is born.  Only time can tell, I don't feel like I'm necessarily capable or not capable of starting such a movement, it depends on if my character can grow enough to transcend my ego, and the cause can outweigh my fears, but in the same way that Joey Ramone did in the 70's, I have this feeling like "Well, I don't see anyone else doing it, so I've at least got to try" and that's what I do, holding onto this vision of a future I want to see, but trying to stay open to the fact that I have no crystal ball, and everything is in God's hands.  I used to think I WAS the one who'd do it, the ONLY one capable when I was younger, now that I can honestly say "Whether it's me, whether it's someone else, I just want it to happen" makes me feel like I may be a step closer to the right mindset.  

[symphonious7]

4 hours ago, Richard Tracey said:

 

I can see a change coming in the way we experience music and films. It has to change, or we will get to the stage where people won't do it if there is no way of making money. A hobby doesn't pay if it is your main source of income.

 

This.  Someone has to want the change in culture and attitude more than they want the payday that goes along with it.  

[Richard Tracey]

Who knows, it might be happening now. The backlash against the new Harry Styles song seems to be rising. People seem really pissed off about the blatant copying of other more successful songs, something that seems to be happening a lot more now.

 

For what it's worth... I actually like the song, although it is so much like so many other songs crammed together, it is a lot more interesting than I was expecting. You can clearly see he was influenced (cough!!!) by Bowie and that is coming over from all the comments I have seen.

 

Where is the originality in the mainstream? Will we ever see anyone taking a chance anymore? Does every rapper now need to sound the same? Does every female artist have to wail and sound like Mariah and Beyoncé? Does every male artist have to be a major knob? Who knows, but it seems to sell!!!!

[symphonious7]

13 hours ago, Richard Tracey said:

Who knows, it might be happening now. The backlash against the new Harry Styles song seems to be rising. People seem really pissed off about the blatant copying of other more successful songs, something that seems to be happening a lot more now.

 

For what it's worth... I actually like the song, although it is so much like so many other songs crammed together, it is a lot more interesting than I was expecting. You can clearly see he was influenced (cough!!!) by Bowie and that is coming over from all the comments I have seen.

 

Where is the originality in the mainstream? Will we ever see anyone taking a chance anymore? Does every rapper now need to sound the same? Does every female artist have to wail and sound like Mariah and Beyoncé? Does every male artist have to be a major knob? Who knows, but it seems to sell!!!!

I can't believe I forgot about this, it DOES seem to be happening in Brazil!  They've had this emergence of crazy cool bands that in my opinion ARE of the calibur the old bands were, well... one of them is and the others don't seem too far behind, I haven't even been staying on top of it there could be more at this point.  But my favorite is "O Terno", I call them "Neo 60's Psychadelic Brazitish Blues" lmao but for real, I flipped out when I first heard them, told my mom and like everyone I knew haha, it's just hard for me to keep up the excitement when I can't find much info on them and they don't sing in english.  

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder how these guys would have done if they'd been american or british.... 3rd album just got released and it's the best one yet IMO, and just like all the others I never hear a bad song, no no no.. I never hear a song that doesn't have SOME kind of amazing element and seem masterfully executed is what I should say.  It's... I think it's on the level of the greats, but how would they be doing if they sang in english and lived here?  Beats me haha gives me hope though, this IS happening on the earth right now, them vibes are going out man....

[Rudi]

20 minutes ago, RobAsh15 said:

such as those that market what constitutes much of "pop" music these days, mired down by a rampant conservatism in terms of how they try to foist the same rehashed crap on us all, year after year.

 

I tried to find a clip of David Crosby on this subject but failed, but he appears on 'Classic Albums Anthem To Beauty Grateful Dead' saying (as close as I can remember) this of music in the 60s>

 

The music business wasnt created for us. It was created to sell an endless stream of sh1t such as wHITE cHRISTMAS'. When we recorded, we felt like guerrillas running down from the mountains and sneaking our music in there, and running back again....

 

Quote

 

 

So the media tzars have reclaimed full control. It has been since the 80s at least.

[symphonious7]

34 minutes ago, RobAsh15 said:

 

 

 

These guys' stuff is fresh, no doubt. Culpa was my favorite, but all three tracks do have nuances of earlier bands and sounds. I even got whiffs of Zeppelin in there now and again. All with an overlay like it was filtered through Ska. Thanks for the tip.

 

I've seen a lot of originality coming from bands from all around the world. One of the great positives of the interweb is that it has allowed us (mostly) cloistered Americans and Brits to experience the music of many, many other cultures. Especially when it is the work of new, young, innovative bands and artists.

 

Big, complicated, convoluted cultures often develop a tendency towards inertial resistance to the new. In American politics right now, there is a huge schism between the left and the right, with both sides believing they are true devotees and adherents to the one true way. I find it funny, in light of this, to see so many institutions that one might label as being oriented towards the left, such as those that market what constitutes much of "pop" music these days, mired down by a rampant conservatism in terms of how they try to foist the same rehashed crap on us all, year after year. The very institutions and companies that are supposed to be paragons of the Avant Garde actively fight against change. This example repeats through all facets and levels of society. It's both hilarious to observe, and absurd to consider.

 

In so many of these cases, I find myself glad that America and Britain, and other large, tidally locked cultures, are NOT the whole world.

 

 

Whoa that's a point I haven't even noticed, you're right, the most "progressive" people have the music that has PROGRESSED the least haha.   And O Terno may be a hodge podge of lots of different 60's sounds, but I can never just pin them down to any really, and every song is completely different, and every song makes large statements with structure and instrumental choices that are truly their own.  That's all I'm ever really looking for in a band, mix the styles in a new way, make a large impact 90 percent of the time (even the greats have their stinkers) and keep evolving with every record.  

 

But yeah ultimately we have no idea what the musical future will hold, I just have always had this feeling I was gonna see it change in the coolest way imagineable, it's just a hunch, but I'm gonna believe in it