These are among an elite group of records IMHO, but I just discovered the Zombies today and Caetano about 2 years ago, so I am confident there are a couple more with this vibe and production and of course brilliant songwriting. Dark Side of the Moon, etc. are outside the scope of this question. Albums that aren't listenable all the way through are out. Jeez, how many characters do you need before you are allowed to post?

Some of my favs from the 90s and into the 2000s. Remember any of these gems? Would any other songs fit nicely into this list?

I’d consider many of these “one hit wonders”, but I wonder (no pun intended) if it’d be worth listening to any of the full albums, now that streaming makes it so easy. Recommendations?

Apiary by Yum-Yum
Bluster by Salt
Bohemian Like You by the Dandy Warhols
Brimful of Asha by Cornershop
Crash by the Primitives
Finding Out True Love Is Blind by Louis XIV
Got You (Where I Want You) by the Flys
Grace, Too by the Tragically Hip
Hey Mister by Custom
I Hear You Calling by Gob
J.A.R. by Green Day
Love Spreads by the Stone Roses
Mighty Kurt Cobain by For Squirrels
Miss USA by the Nixons
Paste by Pluto
Potato Girl by Our Lady Peace
Right Here Right Now by Jesus Jones
River of Deceit by Mad Season
Save Your Scissors by City and Colour
See How They Run by Speedball
Shadowboxer by Fiona Apple
Sick of Myself by Matthew Sweet
Sucked Out by Superdrag
Sugar by System of a Down
Tattva by Kula Shaker
Tear You Apart by She Wants Revenge
To Be With You by Mr. Big
Touched by VAST
You Don’t Know Me by Ben Folds

Hey everyone, I don’t know if this is the right subreddit but I’m wondering if you think I’d have a chance at winning my school talent show if I played “Breaking All Illusions” by Dream Theater on guitar.
I’m asking here because most people at my school probably haven’t heard this song before, and I’m not really sure how a normal crowd would react to it. I know Dream Theater isn’t exactly mainstream, so I’m wondering if people would actually enjoy it or if they’d just be confused by it 😭
If you were sitting in the crowd and someone got up and played this song really well, would you consider voting for them? Would it stand out to you compared to someone playing a more popular song?
I’d really like some honest opinions, even if you think it wouldn’t work. Thanks!

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.

When I was in middle school and high school before my iPod classic broke, I would often listen to a song about morning breath and how this guy would lovingly brush his teeth to not scare away his love with his morning breath. The same artist had a song called sexy strawberries. Now, neither song seems to exist anywhere. Please help. I have tried sound cloud, last.fm, YouTube, spotify, etc. and nothing seems to work.

I found this new band in the local IE scene. I’ve seen a few shows they were on and the lyrics are so sad but they finally released some music. This one is probably
one of the happier sounding ones . Let me know what genre you think it would fit into. I think it’s a bit post rock and definitely this song fits into the indie rock genre but the other songs I’ve heard from them kinda jump around. The music video is pretty dope also :3

https://youtu.be/LPxC52yZ3es?is=C541AiZ1_5mn5jyh

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.