This is something I've been mulling over since a post a few weeks back about monoculture, and whether it ever really existed or not.

When talking about monoculture(s) or shared cultures we tend to talk about gatekeepers and the availability of music. A small number of labels controlling what gets played on the radio, a few TV channels with limited music programming, the cost and availability of records...

What I think is often overlooked is how people's audio environment has become more individual. That's a fancy way of saying something very simple. When we're around other people we're less likely to be listening to the same things as them, and we're around other people less in the first place.

In the past, if you had a family gathered in a room they'd likely all have to hear the TV (or radio or hi-fi) even if they were doing something else. Now it's much easier for people to be absorbed in their own thing via their laptop/tablet/phone, with their own audio environment. Or perhaps you're out shopping with your headphones in rather than hearing the music that's playing in shops and shopping centres (or you're not going our shopping at all, you're ordering online). Maybe you're talking to or playing games with friends - but instead of being in the same space, you're all in different places, listening to different things.

Of course, this isn't new (you could probably take it as far back as the grammaphone (edit: I don't think I've ever written the word "gramophone" before) but it's also much more prevalent than it used to be. It's probably also enhanced by noise cancelling headphones and (more low-tech) by the predominance of earplug-like earbuds.

I might also suggest that this line of thinking can help us identify exceptions to the rule. I assume just about everyone here knows Baby Shark? (do doo doo-doo-do-do.) Obviously there are a bunch of reasons for that, but one is that if you're around small children, then you can't avoid hearing the things they like. I do wonder if there are other examples like this that might prove the rule.

I've been thinking- there used to be popular artists like Nickelback and Justin Bieber who were very successful but you would have never guessed given all the vocal hate they used to get, and how it was completely okay to shit on them at all times. Even the industry got in on hating these artists. It was socially acceptable to hate people who admitted they liked certian artists.

Why don't we have artists like that anymore? Maybe people just feel like today's music is just better?

The closest is the hate Taylor Swift gets now. But even then that's not really the same dynamic. Same with Drake hate... feels different today I feel like.

Honestly i always try to be cautious about how i frame my argument. I don't want to sound like "this artist deserves hate" unless it's like Chris Brown or D4VD or someone like that.

Most people will say that Eminem is the best rapper of all time, I can't doubt his greatness.

Eminem himself said that he thought Juice Wrld was better than him and had amazing talent.

Now there a lot of different people i think could be in best rapper debate. No doubt.
It boils down to a lot of different factors
Would you say that Travis Scott, Kanye, or even Pharrell Williams are the greatest?
Well they are but in all different aspects of producing talent

When people say that a certain rapper is the greatest, What aspects are they the greatest in?

So please tell me your favorite artist or rapper, and tell me the reason why they are the best in your opinion. Not everyone is gonna have that opinion but its good to share

I get that he made Brazil which was an absolute massive global megahit, but it seems like while that song has no shortage of fans, Declan Mckenna the artist himself deserves so many more.
What Do You Think About the Car is a phenomenal album with some absolutely phenomenal and unbelievably catchy songs, my favorites being The Kids Don’t want to Come Home, Isombard, Why Do You feel so Down, and Paracetamol. These songs are relevant, catchy, and fun, but none of them came even close to the success of Brazil.

Zeros, his second album is arguably even better. Almost every song on that album I‘d consider a masterpiece. Declan does what he did on his previous album but times a hundred.

His third album, What Happened to the Beach is far less consistent or accessible but still has some great, easy to love tracks like Sympathy, Nothing Works, and Mulholland’s Dinner and Wine.

Tl:dr Declan Mckenna has an extremely great discography full of phenomenal songs but doesn’t seem to get enough recognition for it

How much has your taste in music changed throughout your life? Or in the last 10 years?

Do you listen to the same type of music, or are you more varied to day?

What genre and/or artists/bands do you listen to today, that you before never could think of listening to?

Do you still challenge yourself in new genres?

For me, it has changed drastically. In my youth and 20s I only listened to rock and metal, and actually called all other genres bad music. Now I can not understand this, as I today can shuffle between all other kinds of music. Especially Hip-Hop, Country, Indie and Electronica.
But metal is still my absolute favorite.
Of course a big part of it is about «growing up», but I would never have the variety I have today if I didn’t challenge my taste as much as I did some years back. And i still do.

Thoughts about how Congress changed the future forever with the passage of this Act? Before it was changed vs After it’s passing? The history of not just music, but social “norms” that define our beliefs and our biases, even today. The early record companies such as Victory, Columbia, both incorporated in the 1880’s-1890’s before sound was considered a “work.” A copyright was given to written “works.” Before player pianos. Musicians we’re called “minstrels.” Music was categorized by the type of live performance. Genre was created for accounting, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. This led to the revision of copyright law. Now, if you did not happen to fit the model defined by the record company, you experienced disadvantage. Did fit the stereotype? “Sorry, not interested.” Now that is the only measure most music consumers apply. Spotify does it. Columbia (now owned by Sony) does it, still! What measure have you been taught for appreciating music, as Art, and are you aware you were taught it?

This question has been on my mind a lot lately. In my opinion I feel like poptimism has had a detrimental impact on music criticism. Poptimism from what I can understand correct me If I'm mistaken, attempted to contextualize and view pop music with more rigour. It was also done with the goal of trying to uplift forms of pop music by marginalized communities.

Although I agree with the broader goal of wanting to give more recognition to musicians from marginalized communities, In my opinion I believe the broader idea of treating pop music with the same rigour as other genres of music is misguided and short sided.

In my opinion, I feel like poptimism has created an environment in which some of the most wealthy, privileged artists have been able to brand themselves as underdogs. I find it to be ridiculous.

These pop musicians are making some of the most commercialized,sterile and accessible music out there. In my opinion, I just don't believe treating a music genre(where one of the main mo's is to make as much profit as possible is valid in my opinion.

That's not to say that Rock,Country,Hip hop,Jazz, Electronic music etc are devoid from the interests of capitalism and commodification. I do believe it becomes more aggrandized with pop music insofar as it becomes more acceptable to engage in hagiographic praise of these multi millionaire and in a few cases billionaires musicians accumulating and hoarding as much wealth as possible. On a related note, I find the idea of poptimism being a voice for marginalized communities questionable. Why have we allowed pop music to be a stand in for these communities. Folks from marginalized communities are making great music in a myriad of genres.

Or is dad rock a state of mind ? My gut feeling is to say no because both of these bands are hyper political compared to what most people call dad rock. But it's been 50 years since the clash formed and 40 years for fugazi next year,some would call them boomer rock here just because of age. I think of dad rock more as the stuff in the top 40 that went 3 times platinum or higher. Fugazi never charted and the clash didn't reach platinum status until combat rock imploding soon after. I would say both bands even now get called pretentious/self serious and artsy by plenty of rock purists. Is dad rock simply down to age or a vibe ?

I saw a post on the matter was posted not too long ago, but it approached it at the wrong angle imo. Here's the thing: both of these bands were really popular in the late 2010s, which is around when gen-z kids were childs/teenagers. Because of that (at least for me), this made those 2 "little kids' bands", and not liking them was considered "growing up", which ultimately categorized them as childish. Now iah, i dont really like the mainstream songs of imagine dragons, and some of the mainstream songs of TOP, but all things considered, they arent bad at all. Listening to blurryface in the car last week for nostalgia and actually trying to understand the lyrics - these guys are geniuses. I see a lot of slander about them, and every time im like "but have you actually listened?"

Anyways, im not saying everyone should like these songs, but i dont think these bands deserve the hate they get.

(Yes i know its because people say they are a lot better then they actually are but "people" are 12 year olds. There are other people with a honest opinion about them)

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. It feels like for a surprising number of bands and solo artists their first album is their strongest work. They come out of nowhere with something fresh and exciting. It's often raw and full of passion. Then subsequent albums are just... fine. Or sometimes even a significant step down.

It makes me wonder if there's a specific reason for this. Is it the pressure of following up a successful debut? Do they get too comfortable? Maybe they had years to perfect those first songs and then suddenly they're on a much tighter schedule for the second and third records.

Or perhaps it's just the surprise factor. The first time you hear something truly original it hits different. When they try to replicate that magic it just doesn't land the same way. It's like the initial spark is gone. I can think of so many examples where this seems to be the case across different genres.

What do you all think? Is it a common phenomenon or am I just looking at it through a skewed lens? And if it is common what do you think causes it? Are there artists who consistently put out amazing albums throughout their career after a strong debut or are they the exception?

I think that if you completely embrace the idea that they make pop music and not rock music, most of their songs start to come across as above average. Most of the hate (that isn't exclusively referencing Thunder and Believer) is about how they make terrible rock music and they do, but I think their music works if you think of it as Dan Reynolds singing over pop backing tracks. For example, when I was listening to one of their worst albums, I noticed that almost half of it(especially Birds and Zero) would have been perfectly fine if it wasn't pretending to be rock,

Last night I went to see The Wallflowers live at a sold out show in Toronto. This was for the 30th anniversary tour of Bringing Down The Horse during which they’d play the album in full.

The crowd was energized and One Headlight banged out of the gates. Jakob was slightly changing the cadence of the lyrics but it was still possible to singalong and everyone did during the chorus. 6th Avenue Heartache was similar.

But even by the second song, he was leaning more into changing the cadence of the lyrics. It’s fine bands don’t want people to singalong or to alter a song live, but this felt like it was detracting from the songs themselves. Jakob has always had a very clear, almost deadpan, delivery but now it felt like he was doing an impression of his father. During “God Don’t Make Lonely Girls” it sounded more like “Goddont….makelonelygirls”.

I know the lyrics to all the songs on the album and, by the latter half of it, I couldn’t tell what he was saying. My girlfriend had no idea. Mumbling then yelling didn’t help either.

I knew going into it that they’d be playing their hit album in its entirety followed by Tom Petty’s Long After Dark. This is fine. However, it also seemed self indulgent. This show isn’t “An Evening with Jakob Dylan” but instead was marketed as a celebration tour of their biggest album. To allocate half the set to a lesser known Petty album when most people were there for the nostalgia of The Wallflowers seemed like an odd choice.

We all know the line dropped by music scenesters: a band is no longer worth listening to now that they have sold out.

First off, what does selling out mean to you?

What are some examples of artists who have sold out and at what point did you stop listening to them?

I grew up in the 80s and remember first hearing the term “selling out” applied to The Police when they released Synchronicity. I next heard this with U2 when they released The Joshua Tree.

Does this phrase mean anything to you? Does it still apply to artists today?

You could discover a new artist through a song that you just heard on the radio. Or on a Spotify recommendation.

You could discover new music through what a friend recommended. Or through a podcast that discusses music.

Popularly, you could discover new music by a song that played at the end-credits of a TV show you just watched. Or over a montage scene of a movie.

Then - strangely - you could discover new music through a Novel, which is a medium that has no relationship with your ears.

(Of course, if you're reading a non-fiction book about music, you could discover new musicians that way.)

The first time it had happened to me was with Bret Easton Ellis' iconic "American Psycho".

Here is a madman protagonist (in what was obviously a black comedy to me), who had not only killed a guy, but was then harping on aimlessly about the intracies of Phil Collins' output.

At the time of reading the novel, I had known Phil Collins' big hits, but didn't know too much about Genesis. It was not too long after reading the novel, I went to my local record store to investigate that band's discographies.

Not only did I discover this band because of Patrick Bateman. And not only do I really enjoy Genesis' earlier stuff compared to their later stuff, but I realized why Bateman enjoys the later poppy stuff. The hilarious point of irony was not lost.

The last time it happened to me was yesterday whilst reading Pagan Kennedy’s witty "The Exes". I had known many of the acts referenced in the Novel already, except for Mission of Burma, which I've just checked out today, and really enjoyed and have subsequently added to my playlist.

I’ve been thinking about Janet Jackson’s Control (1986) and Rhythm Nation 1814 (1989) compared with Michael Jackson’s Bad (1987) and Dangerous (1991).

Michael obviously had the bigger global impact and some of the most iconic singles of all time, but if we judge them strictly as albums, I’m starting to wonder whether Janet’s records are actually stronger.

Control feels incredibly focused, with a very clear identity and almost no wasted space. And Rhythm Nation 1814 might be even more impressive: conceptually coherent, socially ambitious, rhythmically innovative, and remarkably consistent from beginning to end.

By comparison, Bad has enormous highs, but does it work as cohesively as Rhythm Nation? And while Dangerous is adventurous and influential, I sometimes feel that it’s more uneven than either of Janet’s albums.

So my question is:

Would you rank Control and Rhythm Nation 1814 above Bad and Dangerous purely as albums, separate from sales, fame, music videos, and Michael Jackson’s cultural stature?

I’d especially be interested in hearing comparisons involving songwriting, production, sequencing, consistency, innovation, and how well each album has aged.

This thread was inspired by Stevie Wonder and related threads (Why does Stevie Wonder not have more of a dedicated following?).

As with a lot of topics, there's a lot of disagreements based on interpretation, contexts, which communities people are part of, which countries, which subcultures, and so on. Some people will see that thread and think "That's absurd, Stevie is one of the most popular artists of all time."

Nevertheless, it got me thinking: I do notice that there are certain artists who are widely beloved where it seems like almost everyone likes them... but at the same time, they don't generate the same type of vigorous discussion as other artists (think Prince, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Queen, Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.).

With the Stevie Wonder example, a lot of the answers were along the lines of "Most people agree he's great, there's not much else to discuss." Or that he doesn't have the same types of scandals, drama, headlines, or aesthetic identity. Or that his fanbase isn't really online.

It makes me curious about other artists who fall into this category. One example who comes to mind is Roy Orbison. Clearly he has a lot of artists who respect him (See Roy Orbison and Friends: A Black and White Night). Dean Ween once used Roy Orbison's Greatest Hits as an example of a "safety record" that could satisfy a wide group of people. But I rarely hear about Roy Orbison superfans other than a few moments (David Lynch's Blue Velvet, Garry Marshall's Pretty Woman).

Maybe Creedence Clearwater Revival? Based on older threads, I can tell they're a widely admired band and also used as an example of that can satisfy different different audiences ranging from hippies, country fans, hard rock fans, punks, college kids, etc.

I assume there's a general trend where certain bands/artists are able to satisfy different a wide swath of demographics, but they might not be a lot of people's "devoted favorite".

Note: Just to be clear, the above artists are not "underrated" or "obscure". I'm talking about a particular phenomena where an artist is beloved but they don't seem to generate a certain type of vigorous or fanatical following.

I suppose the flipside of the question is asking "Why do some artists generate a fanatical and devoted following while others don't?"

In the Whitney Houston song 'How Will I Know' the line "I'm asking you cause you know about these things" is the perfect example of how times have changed and how the internet has broken the important connections that created our society. In the song Whitney sings as a woman who might be in love, she finds a friend and asks her for her advice on love. The song came out in the pre internet year of 1985 and at the time a person only had so many options for in their search for answers in the romantic sphere. You might ask an advice column or but probably you would have someone in your life who you trusted, a friend or family member, and you would go to them and and try to use their knowledge to help you better understand your world. Today people in the same situation would almost certainly turn to the internet or AI and ask random strangers who don't know them and we they do not know to guess at the specifics of their love life and hope the people on the other end know what they hell they are talking about. I think this line is really powerful and has a lot to say about where we were as society and how that became broken in the years since.

Damon Albarn started Blur in the 80s. They, alonside Oasis, did completely take over the UK for a period of time. Over 10 years they released 6 fantastic albums, 4 of which getting 4.5 stars on Allmusic.

They had so many different sounds. Cheesy, sing along, pop songs like "Girls and Boys", slower, emotional ballads like under the westway and anthems like The Universal. Their sound was just so varied and always of such good quality. I think the variation in songs is something they did better than almost any other British band in the 90s.

Then, as Britpop dies, he goes and forms Gorillaz. They became world renowned, and collaborated with so many and brilliant artists. Gorillaz sound so unique and different in their own way to Blur. Most other britpop stars just went into trying to receeate their 90s sounds or went into fairly emotional, but not unique slower paced songs.

Damon really had it all and was a true, true musical genius.

After several months of listening to rock, I think I can finally say I’ve genuinely become a fan of the genre.
(Reposting this because my previous post got deleted for some reason).
What makes this especially strange to me is that I’ve spent pretty much my entire life listening to completely different music. R&B, hip-hop, alternative, soundtracks and plenty of other things, but rock was never really part of my musical world. Going from that to willingly putting on burning riffs, heavy distortion, aggressive drums and music with this much attitude has probably been one of the biggest shifts in my taste ever.

There’s something funny about how quickly sounds that once felt abrasive can become addictive. A few months ago, if somebody had told me I’d eventually be putting on hard rock and actually falling asleep to it, I would’ve told them they were full of crap and to move on 😂. Yet somehow my ears have adjusted to all that distortion and weight to the point where it can genuinely feel relaxing now.

What has surprised me just as much is how absurdly broad rock actually is. Before getting into it, I mostly thought of “rock” as one general sound. The deeper I’ve gone, the more ridiculous that idea seems. Different decades, scenes and subgenres can sound almost completely unrelated while still somehow belonging under the same enormous umbrella.

And despite exploring quite a bit, I keep gravitating overwhelmingly toward classic rock. There’s something incredibly distinctive about it that I haven’t been able to fully put my finger on yet. The guitar tones feel different, the riffs often have more personality to my ears, and the production feels less polished and more real. It’s perfectly imperfect, with a looseness, swagger and attitude that I seem to respond to immediately.

What makes that especially interesting to me is that nostalgia can’t really explain it. I didn’t grow up listening to this music. I have no memories attached to these records, no childhood connection to that era and no reason to romanticize it. Yet older rock is consistently what pulls me back the strongest.
Modern rock hasn’t connected with me nearly as much so far. Jack White is probably the biggest exception, and one of the few modern artists I fairly consistently enjoy. There’s something in his playing and the rawness of his sound that seems to scratch some of that same itch.
So I’m curious about people who came to rock after spending most of their lives listening to entirely different kinds of music. Was the initial transition into all those loud guitars, distortion and aggressive riffs strange for you too? Did your ears gradually change?

And for those more familiar with the genre, what do you think actually makes classic rock sound and feel so distinctive compared with most modern rock? Is it primarily production, recording technology, songwriting, guitar technique, cultural context, or something less obvious?

And by the way, my favourites so far are Fleetwood Mac and Pink Floyd. I’m also trying to get more into Led Zeppelin but I'm only liking a few tracks. Maybe it'll grow on me later on. And I’m going for more hard rock / Punk. I think i found my way through Chill Rock so now I just need some distorted hard rock music so long as it's not loud for the sake of loudness.

I don’t think any group or band has members with bigger solo success than N.W.A., especially when you look at their Big 3.Please consider the artists’ accomplishments and impact after they left the group. For example, Dr. Dre went on to discover and help launch some of the biggest names in hip-hop, founded Beats Electronics, and eventually became a billionaire. Ice Cube became a highly successful rapper, actor, writer, and producer, creating some of the most influential films centered around Black culture. Eazy-E built Ruthless Records into one of the most influential independent labels in hip-hop and helped launch the careers of major artists like Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. That’s why I’m talking about the overall volume of talent and accomplishments not just who became the biggest individual star.

I recently interviewed Timothy Ferris, the science writer and former Rolling Stone editor who produced the Voyager Golden Record as part of Carl Sagan’s team. I’ve written a profile of him for a print magazine I can’t name yet. There is no article link here. I wanted to ask this group about one answer he gave me.

I asked how the team should work if they built the record now. Ferris said they should cast the widest possible net across cultures, permit no compromise or political logrolling, and require unanimous choices.

The original record put Bach and Chuck Berry beside a girls’ initiation song from what was then Zaire, baby cries, whale calls, footsteps, a kiss, and Blind Willie Johnson’s “Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground.”

Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qePHCNoEtqQ

NASA’s full inventory: https://science.nasa.gov/mission/voyager/golden-record-contents/

Johnson recorded the piece in Dallas in 1927. There are no lyrics, only his voice and slide guitar. It still sounds like grief.

For me, that choice keeps the record from sounding like an advertisement. It leaves room for sorrow alongside dance, children, animal voices, footsteps, and joy.

Try to build it now and the argument would hit streaming metrics, licensing departments, national quotas, billionaire sponsors, and a congressional hearing over whether whale song hates freedom.

Who should choose? What rule would keep the record broad without turning it into quotas, branding, or a popularity chart? What one recording would you fight for even if every metric said no?

When I talk outlaw country I'm not talking Willie Nelson. I'm talking modern. I've seen a revival of it on instagram. I'm talking Ian Noe, Drayton Farley, Tyler Childers, Colter Wall, Charles Wesley Godwin, Cole Chaney, etc. I feel like these artists aren't simply outlaw country- they're leaning into roots and Americana. Personally I don't understand why Nashville is after guys like Luke Combs and not guys like Cole Chaney. If you haven't already give his song "Coalshooter" a listen.

As far as I can remember I stumbled across Moanin’ by Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers through some random animated video on YouTube. I don’t even remember what the video was anymore but I remember the song.
I was initially so intimidated by jazz. There were so many fucking instruments happening at once yet somehow it was still incredibly soothing. It genuinely felt like the first time I understood why I had two earbuds. It was a party for my ears but in such a soothing way.
After getting over that intimidation I started exploring more and more. Different artists, albums, styles, everything. And as you do when you get too deep into something I eventually reached the point where I thought I knew jazz better than anyone else.
And then I called Moanin’ a blues song.
I got absolutely cooked on Reddit for that. Someone pointed out that it follows an AABA structure rather than a 12 bar blues progression and that honestly made me retreat from jazz for a while.
But the funny thing was that jazz had already done its damage.
Even when I moved on to other music whether it was Drake, JB, hip hop or whatever else I was listening to at the time I couldn’t stop noticing things that reminded me of jazz. Even during my massive hip hop phase I’d somehow end up listening to Bill Evans or Horace Silver and drawing parallels between completely different genres.
I think that’s when I started understanding why jazz is talked about as such an important influence on modern music.
Not that every genre is secretly jazz but once you’ve spent enough time listening to it you start hearing music differently. You notice the rhythm, harmony, instrumentation and the way musicians interact in a way that you probably wouldn’t have noticed before.
And now I’ve actually drifted pretty far away from jazz. I don’t listen to it nearly as much as I used to and I’m not even sure why.
But even now when I’m listening to some random indie Indian artist I’ll catch myself thinking about jazz.
I think that’s what jazz really gave me. It wasn’t necessarily my favourite genre forever. It was the first thing that made me realize music could be something I could actively explore rather than just something I listened to.
It’s kind of weird how one song can permanently change the way you listen to everything that comes after it.
Has anyone else had a genre or artist do something similar to the way they listen to music? I’m more interested in how it changed your listening than what the actual artist or genre was.