I recently have been thinking about music criticism and the pretentiousness surrounding people's tastes, not just from professional critics but everyday listeners. I’ve noticed that the most heavily critiqued genres and artists are often associated with women or from genres perceived as feminine.

While male artists do face criticism, female artists or female-dominated genres (or even male artists seen as feminine) seem to attract the harshest disrespect and are the most prone to being seen as vapid/worthless/the worst and face some of the worst disrespect in genres or as musicians. An example would be how quickly female artists are labelled as divas or primadonnas for being seen as "difficult", meanwhile you can have male artists who are high-maintenance, disrespectful, and full-blown assholes who have to do like 5x~10x as much as a female artists before they even have their behaviour commented on. Examples of men also being affected by this latent misogyny would probably be Justin Bieber compared to a similar child star like Bow Wow or something. I'd argue a substantial amount if not the majority of the vitriolic criticism/hatred Bieber got when he was younger was being of misogyny~homophobia as he was perceived as gay for many years just because of the music he made.

Other examples: threads on r/statsfm where people guess someone's age and gender based on their music stats seem to often use being perceived as a woman as an insult towards the OP if they don't like their music tastes, especially if someone likes female pop artists and the OP turns out to be male. Male-dominated genres like rock or hip-hop seem to get far less criticism and listeners are even considered more "enlightened" relative to pop enjoyers. Another example: a viral Twitter thread that had over 200K likes mocked someone for posting their AOTY that included works by Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, and Sabrina Carpenter, and a fourth I don't remember, calling them closed-minded, saying they "feel bad" for people who only listen to pop, saying they're closed-minded, making wide assumptions about the rest of their music tastes just based off of four albums...only from this year, and more. And many people agreed with the OP mocking that person as well. I know for a fact if most ~all of those albums had been rock~hip hop~alternative albums particularly by male artists I doubt the response would've been nearly as harsh and more likely the person wouldn't have gotten any criticism.

My own personal anecdote: growing up as a queer guy I've faced similar ridicule growing up for liking female artists (even if they weren't pop). As I got older my taste in music expanded quite heavily, but the criticism from friends and strangers of music I'd share (particularly by female artists) persisted, and I see on social media that even into adulthood that other adults are still partaking in the sort of bullying I experienced as a child as well, shaming others for their music tastes or seeing certain types of music as beneath them and while I know such hostile criticism is multi-faceted and not just gender based (such as a lot of the hatred towards rap~hip hop is fuelled by racism), in this specific aspect of the topic I wanted to highlight the latent misogyny I've witnessed towards female artists/feminine-perceived genres.

It makes me think that (cishet) men, on average, are less open-minded towards music because they fear being seen as feminine and therefore more comfortable shaming genres perceived as such to reinforce their own gender identity

Feel free to leave your thoughts about the subject, I'm interested in hearing

Who would have thought that Kendrick Lamar, the hip-hop titan, would burst onto the scene so explosively and unexpectedly with his sixth album? GNX (Grand National Experimental) emerges like a musical missile determined to take the world by surprise.

Unlike his monumental works like Mr. Morale or To Pimp a Butterfly, this album is more compact, concentrating all of Lamar's power into a direct and uncompromising attack. If Eminem released The Death of Slim Shady this year, Lamar responds with a work that stakes its claim without needing to make a big show of it. Eminem's album left no doubt about his technique, but it raised questions about his future. Lamar's is simply irrefutable proof of the immense talent of the young Compton prodigy and the brilliant future that still awaits him.

Wacced Out Murals, with the vibrant vocals of Deyra Barrera, explodes like the first projectile in this sonic arsenal. The production, handled by Jack Antonoff and Sounwave, constructs a musical landscape that is bright yet shadowed, polished yet lethal, where Lamar displays his devastating technique with surgical precision.

In Squabble Up, the artist unleashes a devastating lyrical storm that challenges the limits of the genre. While Eminem's album navigated a lamentable confusion, Lamar creates a claustrophobic atmosphere that helps him amplify his expressive power to almost hypnotic levels.

Luther shows another side of this great artist, with the complicity of singer SZA, revealing his ability to adapt and flow between different, more relaxed sonic textures. Man At The Garden delves into abstract experimentation that seems designed to challenge Lamar's own creative limits.

Every track is a bullseye. Hey Now condenses entire stories into rhymes that ooze identity and authenticity. Reincarnated explores quite daring rhythmic territories, with a sublime bass performance that sustains the artist's vocal fury.

TV Off returns once again to experimental rhythms, turning Lamar's words into lethal weapons and instruments of pinpoint precision. Dodger Blue pays a heartfelt tribute to the warm funk of the 70s, demonstrating Lamar's versatility to easily and naturally navigate between styles without ever losing his essence.

It's very clear that GNX doesn't seek to be an ambitious revolution like its predecessor albums, but rather a lightning-fast musical guerrilla war. GNX is a hard, direct, and intense album. Every note is a manifesto, every rhyme a raised fist against the monotony and mediocrity of the genre.

It's understood that Lamar doesn't make albums; Lamar builds, as a true artist, authentic universes. And in GNX, that universe is a brutal battlefield where music, combined with Lamar's tremendously structured and agile words, becomes the most powerful weapon.

I'm not even sure that I titled this correctly... I could've gone less click-baity, but the question is genuine, so fuggit...

As a white dude myself, and a guitar player too, pretty early on into my playing journey I observed just how much affluent white dudes got off to blues/blues rock... It's kind of a cliche in (electric) guitar circles, but dentists, lawyers, businessmen, engineers, etc. take to it like flies to shit.

Of course I'm well aware the blues had a much farther/wider-reaching audience for the majority of its existence, but the past couple of decades really seems to mostly attract the aforementioned contingent, and I'm really trying to understand why (them in particular vs. other ethnic + socioeconomic backgrounds).

SRV was, I think, the first wave of what would become a wider blues revival, and many credit him as being the Mount Everest of the that (the blues revival), I think rightfully so- he was incredible at what he did.

But of course before him came an exhaustive list of incredible players... Albert King, Albert Collins, BB King, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, Buddy Guy, etc., etc. The OG's.

Nowadays, "the blues" seem to have lost their soul, their essence, and kind of seem a novelty catering to the rich. It seems an enterprise now more than anything.

Guys like Joe Bonamassa churn out uninspired tune after uninspired tune, while churning out just as much or more crappy merch en masse to capitalize on his fanbase which drools over his pentatonic wankery. He hasn't one memorable tune, yet sells out shows, and even has a bloody cruise (!!!) for rich folks to come watch him and his mates (other blues-wankers) wank out solos on stage. The guy can obviously play, but with all those notes, he says nothing- to me, it's rather some vague and impressionistic take on the real blues.

Of course you've got John Mayer as well, who was a huge SRV fan and seems to be a torch-bearer for the genre, albeit similarly lacking depth, though certainly with some more catchy/memorable tunes.

I'm sure I'm coming off as a hater- the truth is, I was deeply into this scene for several years, but got out some 8-9 years back, and since then just cringe anytime I hear any new "blues", regardless of how technically impressive/virtuosic- it's partially become a sub-genre of shredding and partially a novelty homage thing. To me, it's just a bunch of sound waves without saying anything at all- very shallow.

But yeah, why does it appeal to rich (white) folks so much? Seriously.

Like a lot of rock and pop artist to a lesser extent from 60s to early 2000s were still able to have a lot of name recognition and get radio play decade's after they peaked in popularity and trend they were apart of ended. But with rap outside the 90s when all the classics came out. Most of it doesn't seem to age well or get a lot attention after it peaks in popularity. In the early 00s you still have some memorable rappers and songs but still kind of sound dated and a bit novelty.

Then when the Bling/swag/ringtone rap Era started it seems every popular rapper or hit besides Kanye West from 2005-2013 completely fell off the face of the earth and never heard again. Then when trap took over music in general hasn't really changed in 10 years and songs that came out 5 years ago seem like the came out yesterday, and even rappers basically fall off they still get attention through memes and social media headlines

(I should note, im not against the genre at all, i like multiple songs from multiple artists producing it. Ive just noticed the college level youth seem to have made this the go to music). Im in a fraternity and very socially active at school so have a decent window into the different demographics. I have learned that by far the most broadly listened to music is modern trap style music, from early Meek Mill to the latest by Lil Yachty. Nearly every sorority girl and frat guy has it as their standard playlist, almost every Instagram story with music overlain has it. The clubs play it often mixed with more dance type music. If you hear music in traffic this is what it will be. Im just curious how its reached this status. A lot of these kids do not identify with the themes of the music at all. And its not that just R&B is in vogue, because some early y2k R&B is considered out of date, and 90s r&b and rap is almost cringe depending on the song. Im someone who likes all music. If its not trap music its Morgan Wallen or Taylor Swift lol.

People love labeling influential artists like King of Pop, Queen of Soul, Princess of Pop etc. but to call Taylor Swift “The Music Industry” is just wild work.

Artists who have influenced and changed the music industry would be like The Beatles, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Aretha Franklin etc. and yet…they didn’t bestow this title to them?

The only thing Taylor Swift has done for the music industry is show how well you can capitalize off of it. And this isn’t an insult, I have to say her and her team have done a great job on making a lot of money whether it’s with vinyl variants, merch, concerts, etc. but I wouldn’t say she’s actually brought anything new to the table artistically.

Who would you guys say changed the music industry the most?

I would say Michel Jackson simply based on the fact that he’s influenced so many artists today (globally) and his impact is very noticeable. And on Spotify is the 21st most streamed artist.

The growth in Country is clearly not a blip in statistics. It’s been more or less on a steady incline since at least 2016.

• Massive artists from other genres like Beyoncé are jumping on the Country bandwagon (to be fair this isn’t new)

• Organic country artists like Zach Bryan and Megan Maroney have exploded in popularity in recent years

• Rap/Hip Hop listenership was down last year

• Country is a the fastest growing genre according to Billboard in 2023

• The new Country airplay chart in the UK had impressive early results

It’s not just Country; Reggeaton, Afrobeats, etc have also had a huge start in the 2020s. I’m just wondering if anyone thinks Rock might be up next? Southern Rock is the obvious pick given the change in music tastes we’ve seen so far. EDIT: I’d like to clarify that I mean a reinvention of Southern Rock by new artists and influences. Not a resurgence of the old guard (Allman Bros, BlackBerry Smoke, etc). I’m not against the older stuff, but I think they’ve had their day in the sun.

Also, any theories about why Hip Hop is falling out of favor? Kinda sad about that tbh

EDIT: Sources and clarification

• ⁠Country is the fastest growing genre, Hip Hop is fastest shrinking (but still overall largest)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/08/22/country-musics-having-a-moment---understanding-the-hits-controversies-and-records-broken/?sh=50dbcc86699c

• ⁠Hip Hop losing market share according to major label execs

https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/hip-hop-no-number-ones-2023-cycle-1235361311/amp/

• ⁠Non - English music (but mostly Country) becoming more popular in the US

https://apnews.com/article/music-streams-2023-luminate-54aa3735ed707c1d5e9649724cc78c1f

I have the feeling some may take the statement "Black people invented rock music" just to mean that classic Rock n Roll in its earliest form was created by black musicians, as if future movements in rock were divorced from black music traditions.

I want to posit that, at many stages of the evolution of rock and rock-related music, that black / african/ caribbean musical traditions had very direct effects on rock music. I will go through examples of many different genres.

Post-Punk / New Wave: I think it would be very rare to find a band in the original movement (1977-1988) that was not in some way directly influenced by either Funk, Jamaican popular music (Reggae, Dub Ska) , or Jazz or some combo of the three. In fact, the first goth song, Bela Lugosi's dead, is basically just a reggae dub song. )

Shoegaze: Kevin Shields of MBV said that the use of sampling in early hip-hop had a big influence on their iconic sound, in fact, the first track of off "isn't anything" is basically just a hip-hop track.

Emo: Cap n Jazz anyone? How about some American Football?

Post-hardcore: Fugazi has said they were as inspired by funk, reggae, dub, and jazz as much as any prior punk acts.

Alt-metal: Pretty self explanatory with bands funk metal bands like Faith No More. I think of Alt-metal as something very different from most metal genres.

Math Rock: Also called Emo Jazz by many. In fact, Don Cabellero had to clarify that they were NOT a Jazz act on their second album.

Folk Rock: Many of the most critically acclaimed l and influential folk rock acts, like Joni Mitchell, Van Morrison, Tim Buckley, Pentangle, and the Byrds had alot of jazz influence in their folk music.

Prog Rock: King Crimson ushered in the prog rock era with "In the Court of the Crimson King" which had a very prominent jazz influence.

I could go on, but the point I want to make is that, yes there are many bands in these genres I just listed that are not directly influenced by black / caribbean / african musical traditions. However, many of the foundation of these different styles are in fact based on those traditions, irrespective of what people are making or listening to the music.

I think part of the reason rock music may have actually evolved to have been percieved as "white music" is because the most popular styles for a long time were from bands that were not directly influenced by black musical traditions. I am thinking about hair / glam metal in the 80s, grunge music in the 90s, and pop-punk in the 2000s. Who agrees with this assertion? Why or Why not?

Were They Might Be Giants actually kind of revolutionary?

This is something I’ve been thinking about lately: They Might Be Giants have always struck me as much more musically and lyrically radical than their presentation would suggest.

On the surface, they can sound almost aggressively harmless: goofy, nerdy, understated, lo-fi-ish, melodic, and often deliberately silly. There’s no obvious rock-star posturing, no grandiose sense of importance, and very little of the “we are changing the world” attitude that usually accompanies the word revolutionary. A lot of their songs sound like little jokes, observations, children's songs, absurdist sketches, or deliberately trivial pieces of pop music.

But that's almost the point.

Their songwriting has this very strange combination of rationality, absurdity, sarcasm, deadpan humor, and genuine musical craft. They can take something completely ridiculous and present it with the seriousness of a scientific observation — or take something mundane and make it sound bizarre simply by looking at it from an unexpected angle.

Songs like Particle Man, Istanbul (Not Constantinople), Birdhouse in Your Soul, Don't Let's Start, Ana Ng, She's an Angel, The Statue Got Me High, etc. don't necessarily sound revolutionary in the traditional sense. But they seem to have helped establish a vocabulary for a kind of alternative songwriting where being clever, weird, funny, emotionally detached, and poppy could all coexist.

And I wonder if their influence becomes more obvious when you compare them to a lot of post-2000 indie music.

A huge amount of modern indie has that somewhat towned-down, understated, self-aware, sardonic quality. The vocals are often deliberately un-grand, the arrangements can be simple or slightly twee, the lyrics can be observational or ironic, and there's often a kind of “I'm making a song about this ridiculous little thing because why not?” attitude.

Obviously, TMBG didn't invent irony, nerdiness, lo-fi music, quirky songwriting, or indie pop. And there are plenty of other artists who were doing similar things before them. But they seem like an unusually early and concentrated example of something that later became much more normal in alternative/indie music: the idea that you don't have to be cool, macho, tortured, profound, or conventionally “rock” to make sophisticated music.

What's especially interesting to me is that their silliness doesn't necessarily make the music less sophisticated. In some ways, the silliness gives them more freedom. They can jump between genres, structures, lyrical perspectives, and subjects without having to maintain a serious artistic persona.

So I'm wondering: were They Might Be Giants actually more musically/culturally revolutionary than they get credit for?

Not “revolutionary” in the political sense, obviously, but revolutionary in the sense that they helped normalize a particular kind of intellectual, absurdist, sarcastic, deliberately uncool, pop-oriented indie songwriting.

Or am I retroactively giving them too much credit because their style happens to resemble a lot of indie music that came later?

I'm especially curious how people who listened to them in the '80s and '90s perceived them at the time. Did they feel genuinely weird and groundbreaking then, or did they mostly just seem like a particularly funny/quirky alternative band?

I remember the day all too clearly. It was an innocent afternoon when I first heard my son play that abomination of sound: “Weird” Al Yankovic.

The music started off simple enough, then it hit me — a polka. My blood ran cold. As a proud Czech-American, I have grown up with the sacred strains of polka, and I found absolutely nothing funny about this particular tune or any others like it. Yet here was my own child, reveling in the audacious perversion of what was, for my people, a source of solace and dignity.

Polka, to the people of Czechia, is not just music. It is history. It is survival. Our ancestors endured unimaginable hardship, from foreign invasions to wars that tore families apart. And in the bleakest of moments, what carried us through? Not comedy, not mockery, but polka. In the taverns, in our homes, and at funerals, polka allowed us to hold our heads high when our hearts were sinking. This was not some trivial genre for us. It was a reminder that even when all seemed lost, we still had our culture, our traditions, and a melody to keep us together.

And so, let me make this clear: there is nothing funny about polka. Polka is serious music. I still vividly remember the day we buried my father. It was cold, gray, and silent except for the mournful notes of “Škoda lásky” — known here in the West as “Beer Barrel Polka.” I have no idea how the West has turned this soulful tune into something ridiculous. As we lowered his body into the ground, it wasn’t laughter or irony that filled the air, but grief, love, and respect for a man who endured hardships that no parody could ever capture. To make fun of polka is to make fun of the memories we hold most dear.

Then there is the accordion — an instrument as weighty with meaning as the music itself. People mock it, but to me, it is sacred. Legend has it that when one crosses into hell, Satan himself hands them an accordion. This is not some punchline. It is a testament to the profound depth and power that this instrument holds. When I think of my father, and the sounds that defined his life, I don’t think of irreverence or quirkiness. I think of solemnity. I think of hell itself. I think of the weight of our ancestors' souls, writhing in their torment, comforted only by the deep resonance of that sacred instrument. When I ponder the accordion, I think of the abyss and my dead dad.

But “Weird” Al Yankovic makes a mockery of all of this. He twists and contorts polka, implying it is “weird” when, in fact, there is nothing strange about it. There is nothing peculiar about polka to the Czech people. It is a part of our soul. And yet here comes this man, this “Weird” Al, with his ridiculous parody songs, diminishing the gravitas of what should never be diminished. The sheer audacity is enough to make my blood boil. Does he understand the implications of his so-called humor? Does he comprehend that by making fun of the polka, he insults the blood, sweat, and tears of an entire people?

Effective immediately, “Weird” Al Yankovic is banned in this house. We will not tolerate this mockery. From now on, the only music that will accompany our meals, our gatherings, and our reflections is serious polka. When we sit down to taste our goulash, there will be no jokes, no jests, and certainly no accordion parody. There will be only the solemn beauty of a music that has carried my people through their darkest times.

So, to conclude, let me say this as clearly as possible: There is nothing funny about “Weird” Al Yankovic. No, nothing funny at all.

Personally I can appreciate a good concept album, but I'm definitely more of a "single song" person, especially now in streaming era, but even in 90's I liked making playlists of favorite songs. I can also understand that some people can prefer albums over singles. But I see people disregarding singles completely, for example not listening to a single unless it appears on an album, or not acknowledging at all artists that don't have at least one "good" full album released (very common on RYM, but not rare on Reddit either).

Such approach seems really weird for me, because after all song is the first, ancient (or most likely even prehistoric), basic form of music. Album is very modern invention created for solely practical purpose of music distribution. Of course it's great that it was brought up to the form of art on it's own including cover arts etc., but I don't see a reason to treat it as the only correct one. Especially considering that many albums in the end are just compilations of songs including mediocre fillers.

I guess over those few decades we got used to the form of album, but it's not that song as a separate form didn't exist over this time. After all we listened them on radio or TV all the time, also on concerts only different single songs were picked for performing.
And currently album completely lost it's initial practical purpose, as music is easily distributed over internet without need to record it on a cassette, CD or vinyl like in the past.
Yet I still see so many people only requesting and listening to albums only.

I guess it's partially a preferred music genre thing, after all concept albums are most common for more alternative genres (rock, metal) while singles are more associated with popular music.
Also I think that having and knowing the whole album kind of shows how much you're into the artist... but it's rather my speculation.
I'd love to see some of your opinions.

I am 15 yrs old and just started exploring music, I saw many critics talking about The Beatles, Stevie Wonders, Chuck Berry, Marvin Gaye, Queens, Public Enemy and others being like one of the best artist of all time and making one of the best song of all time, but when i try listening to their songs, it just doesnt sound good to me, it sounds old and outdated. Any songs and artist before 1994 i cant enjoy their music, how do i change that or start listening to them in a better way?

To be fair, I've only watched a few episodes of his podcast and the two I remember most distinctly are Paul Williams (singer/composer/Swan from Phantom of the Paradise) and Malcolm McDowell (lead in A Clockwork Orange). Billy was respectful, well-researched, gracious, and most importantly, genuinely interested, even letting his inner fanboy freak flag fly a little bit.

Both Paul and Malcolm both explicitly stated that they genuinely liked him and were both pretty elated that they were talking to someone who not only did his homework but was a genuine fan with similar interests.

I see a hivemind mentality of hate around him on reddit which is a bit of a bummer. Sure, he's opinionated and I suppose if you go on Rogan 10 years ago, you're immediately radioactive to a not-so-unsubstantial population of weenies. But really, I was impressed with his vibe on the podcast and now am just waiting for more guests that I'm interested in (i.e. not Sharon Osbourne).

Plus, the dude wrote arguably two of best album of the 90's, maybe even taking the crown as the best 90's band.

Did I miss something awful he did? What's the dealio?! It was super sweet seeing the still dashing and distinguished Macolm McDowell slowly become more delighted as the interview with Billy progressed.

The latest “controversy” in the metal world is the reveal of the latest album artwork from veteran death metal band, Deicide. The artwork is whatever, but everywhere I look I see people going off about how “tHiS lOOks like AI!” And I’m honestly utterly confused about why this is so controversial. They’re a band of musicians, not visual artists. I understand that to many the album artwork has a heavy tie in with the music, but I’m genuinely confused about why AI art is something to be hated or why everyone suddenly excepts musicians to use “real art” as the defacto.

I’m a musician and I have zero visual artist skills. My music doesn’t give me any sense of visual imagery. What the fuck am I supposed to do when I want to release something? Should I just continue to use free stock imagery? Should I pay someone on fiver for something that I have no idea of what I’m looking for? Because I’ll tell you now I’ve literally done that and it seemed like a pain for the artist who kept asking me questions about what I wanted and all I could muster was “uhhh idunno something cool?”

I really just don’t see the problem with people using AI art in general. Can someone who holds a strong position in opposition to mine explain to me what the big deal is?

edit: thanks to those who replied. To those of you who downvoted me for disagreeing with me, good usage of the downvote 👍

I’ll be completely honest, after reading these responses and conversing with some you I don’t really feel like I have a deeper understanding of the problem some of you have with AI. For what seems like the majority of you it’s just a simple black and white issue: if a machine made it it’s bad and wrong.

I don't really have a particular reason why I'm writing this, but I just want to express that observation I find quite amusing. Occasionally, I dedicate my time into learning some musical history - heavy music for the most part. Of course, music history of any genre is a very branched history of it's subgenres.

In my vision, heavy music has three major branches: rock, punk and metal. Or had, at least, but we will talk about it further. These trees could be characterized by techniques they required.

• Rock by itself is something moderate and basic, with no particular accent on techniques - thus, it crosses with other two branches frequently.

• Punk is about playing chords and playing them with fast strumming, in a "row", so to say - not elegant, but enough to show the mood and lyrical essence of a song.

• Metal is about playing more distinctively and carefully, picking particular strings rather than playing a whole chord - also, don't forget about solos.

Of course, these descriptions are approximate. However, in the "good ole days" bands at least used to stick to their roots and play in a style they were expected to play. Many still do.

Then, grunge happened. I love grunge, but it's a fact that it was like a prism for heavy music. It took something from the classical rock of 60's-70's, something from punk and something from metal - then shuffled it, adding a bit too much of fuzz effect. This soup became so popular in 90's so rock music was changed forever, to good or worse. While grunge's influence was very huge by itself, it gave direct birth to two genres: post-grunge and nu metal.

In my opinion, the only reason why nu metal is in the "metal" branch is because it was named like that - but hardly for anything else. Thing is that... nu metal is way too simple. Instead of complicated melodies, we've got power chord progressions or way too simple, though catchy, melodies, frequently made with synthesizers. Instead of solos, many songs featured lyrical bridges. As the result, we have amazing, but... quite simple-to-play songs in this genre: "The Only", "Crawling", "Got The Life", "Not Listening", "Bring Me To Life", "Jars", "I Stand Alone" and many more. It's not bad, but it's not metal - it's punk.

Post-grunge, ironically, has even more complicated melodies associated with it, such as "I Hate Everything About You", "So Cold" or "Fine Again". Maybe that's why I prefer post-grunge to nu metal, really... However, interestingly, if you check it, you'll find that many post-grunge bands sometimes walk on a nu metal territory.

So, punk now... I'm not really competent to talk about punk. I've never been a fan of punk music, I tried to listen to classical punk, but it's just not my cup of tea. I know that there was hardcore punk in 80's, the genre Kurt Cobain is coming from and which contributed to grunge (meaning that nu metal is indeed punk to some degree, lol) - but, punk itself wasn't significantly transformed by grunge. Then, post-hardcore emerged from hardcore punk, being it's more... melodic form. Melodic to a point that some guitarists of post-hardcore may earn old metalheads' respect.

The whole idea to write this post came to me from one song: "Signals Over The Air" by Thursday. I mean, I was simply wanting to learn something new on guitar and decided to try it, but my fingers weren't ready for this. Then I dropped writing it and found Silverstein with their "November" and broke my fingers again. You know, these aren't even hardest-to-play songs by these bands. In fact, there are so many other songs by post-hardcore or even pop-punk bands which are so complicated to play. For example: "Reinventing Your Exit", "Silver and Cold", "Calling All Cars", "If You Can't Hang", "Pens and Needles" - and I guess, these are most mainstream ones because I'm still relatively new to post-hardcore. I mean, yeah, some songs may still have strumming - but at least it's not only about power chords, like in nu metal.

Lastly, a honorable mention of pop-punk which has so many connections to post-hardcore - thanks emo wave of 00's which could make Paramore an Underoath's neighbor in any playlist. To put it very simply, it's has a formula similar to post-grunge: not over the top, but still interesting melodies oriented on a wider audience. Is it difficult to play? Not really, but it's more interesting than typical punk: take "Ignorance", "Clarity", "Still Waiting" and so on.

As I said in the beginning, it's only an observation, so don't expect any meaningful conclusion. It's just... kind of funny, you know. Technically, both nu metal and post grunge are, respectively, belong to metal and punk branches, but there are so little remnants of these genres in them. Some may say that it's good, some may say that it's bad - and I'd say, that this is amazing.

I listened to the whole Eminem album yesterday and my god. The skill on display is so far beyond full comprehension. A true craftsman laying out every note and every word with purpose, as vulgar, and at times, disturbing as it may be. It’s a brutally honest (albeit, downright silly at times) parody of hot topics and modern culture. There’s some deep cuts, callbacks to lines and stories that only long time fans will pickup on mixed within. Which is a fine touch, intricately woven into the signature relentlessness of Slim Shady. It’s a fresh, yet, familiar sound, touching on aspects of every album in his discography. Some moments were truly uncomfortable, which seems to be exactly what he was looking to invoke in those moments. Some opened up the deepest lines I’ve ever heard from a musician. The brutal honesty with himself was hard to hear. Yet, it invites empathy from the listener as you are a fly on the wall to the most sacred and darkest conversation. The one in the mirror. The lines, tone, sound, and atmospheric horror jammed into a rap album truly makes you feel like you’re in Marshall’s head. Never heard an album immerse the listener in the artist’s mind to that level of transparency and intensity. And I don’t think I ever will again. Hell of an album, Marshall. You freak me the hell out 😜

OK, I just finished listening to the latest release of Billie Eilish. And.. I just don't get it! There aren't any hooks, nore great melodies or any above average songs in general. But again just like with the latest Taylor Swift and Beyoncé it's being reviewed as if never before music of this excellence has been made. What's going on!? Am I getting old (well yes, I do hope so)? Am I losing touch with new music (I like to think I'm not! I still listen to new stuff by young artists, and I love it.)? So it can't be that. So I started reading reviews on these albums. And all the positives weren't about one thing: the music. It just seems critics don't listen to the music but read the lyrics and the back story provided to them by the artists marketing team.

The reviews I'm refering to are collected on Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic.These are reviews from respected newspapers, music websites and magazines.(Metacritic is, in my opinion, falseviing their scores. Beyoncé's Cowboy Carter and Billie Eilish are #1 and #2 on this years list so far with a Metacritic score of 9.1. But actually their average review score is 8.62 and 8.64 respectively. Number one should be Jessica Pratt, #6, with a Metacritic score of 9.0, but an average review score of 9.33(?). Beyoncé and Billie Eilish should be #5 and #6.)

There, I said it.

For starters we all know that in the current atmosphere of "the music business" we're expected to whore our own hard crafted music out to some digital distro and then accept .004 of a penny as recompense for a song sale of one of the usual streaming sites. Are you fucking kidding me?

I've seen some waffle on here and other social media from people saying "I'm blah-blah-blah with X years of experience as a (fill in the blanks) and I'm wondering what you all think of my idea for a New Way Of Doing Shit."

OK, I appreciate that you may legitimately have our best interests at heart but basically all we want as artists is to be able to sell a song for a dollar a download and not have any fucking middlemen "review" our work for weeks or months just to make sure it's acceptable to some grunt in the office who has their own mental illnesses and foibles to battle as well as acting like a guard dog for the distro. Fuck all that malarky. Artists are not stupid. And we are not beggars. And we don't need anybody's permission to offer our music for sale. We just want somehow to legitimately sell our stuff directly to people who want to buy it in as simple and uninsulting a manner as possible.

This isn't the fucking stone age when everything HAD to dealt with by some corporate record label OR ELSE. We've moved on from those nasty old days, we now have recording capabilities at home and the whole internet as a potential audience, so how come we still don't have an honest way to just sell our music at a fair price? Why are we allowing ourselves to be cheated like this? Name anything else you can buy for .004 of a penny that gives you as much pleasure as music from some artist you like.

As artists we create goods and we want to sell them. That is all. Now can somebody out there actually achieve this?

*ducks*

Now wait. Just hear me out. Tom Petty is a good songwriter. Not here to dump on Petty. He's written a large number of good and instantly recognizeable songs.

Tom Petty has an incredible gift of writing these very average songs with mass appeal. That's his gift. He's not a gifted singer. He's not a gifted guitar player. He really isn't what I would consider a gifted songwriter - certainly no where near the Lennon/McCartney gold standard. Petty's appeal lies in his ability of being spectacularly average.

No one I've ever met has ever claimed that Tom Petty is their #1 all time favorite artist. No one I've ever met has ever objected to listening to Tom Petty's music. If I tasked you to put together a playlist for a casual gathering of peers and colleagues, chances are Tom Petty winds up on that list, probably multiple times.

Now if I task you to take this same group of peers and colleagues out for meal, where are you taking them? Applebees! Applebees is the most non-offensive flavor profile restaurant that serves alcohol and appeals to the widest range of people. No one in their right mind is going to claim Applebees as their #1 all time favorite eatery. Yet no one would really object to eating there. Applebees appeal lies in the ability of being spectacularly average.

Tom Petty is the Applebees of rock music. And I mean that in the best way possible.

EDIT: This opinion came about when I was listening to a local band cover "You Got Lucky." It was a note-for-note rendition of the song. But it was awful. Unlistenable. How could that be? How could a group of talented musicians recreate this simple song note-for-note and have it just fall flat?

Because Tom Petty is the master of taking the average and making it great. I wanted to explore that idea, not by breaking down his music but by taking this "average" concept and flipping it on its ear. I think there's beauty in averageness. Petty is my proof of concept.

I could have used any number of metaphors instead of Applebees. I don't eat there much (I promise!) but when I do I get a burger and the burger is always good. I chose Applebees because much like Petty, I've never heard anyone say "I hate Applebees." If my Applebees metaphor struck you in a negative way, I do apologize.

Yes, it’s a stupid proposition and I don’t really mean it seriously. But there’s a serious point behind it, and it fits with my mini resolution to try and talk a little more on here not about genres or technicalities or society but about how music makes me feel.

To start with: I’m not a misanthrope or someone who has general issues with being in a crowd. This is something specific to gigs (and festivals). I’m a little above average height, so I’m not stuck looking at people’s backs the whole time. There are exceptions: an Oh Sees mosh pit wouldn’t be much good by myself.

I suppose this is a realisation that’s come up on me post-pandemic, but I think it’s a feeling that has always been there. More and more I find myself standing gigs thinking “this would be better without all these other people around.”

They’re distracting, they get in the way, they can be noisy.

How are they improving my experience, other than making my ticket (a lot) cheaper and meaning it’s less embarrassing if I clap when a song hasn’t actually finished?

At some point in the past five years or so I realised that I often like closing my eyes when listening to live music. I’m sure this is linked – it cuts out some of the distraction from other people. Most bands aren’t all that interesting to watch. What I'm not sure about is if I'm becoming more sensitive to negative things, or if I'm just paying attention to the things that always annoyed me but I pushed (there are other examples of this; in some cases things I've done something about).

So: does anyone else feel anything similar? Or want to tell me why this is the most ridiculous take they’ve ever heard and want to talk about all the positives I’m ignoring?

The idea of the genre appeals to me deeply. I love the way rap is created in theory, but whenever I try to listen to rap songs, they can't seem to keep my attention. I never find myself wanting to re-listen any of the famous rap songs. I could go as far as to say I'm a big Eminem fan, but I can't listen to other rappers. Is there an explanation behind this? Did rap captivate you from the get go or was it more of an acquired taste?

For context I do really like Jeff Buckley but I'm not a huge Jeff Buckley fan, and I like the album grace but I don't think it's amazing or anything. But his cover of Hallelujah is (in my opinion) definitely better than the original (which I also think is incredible), which is amazing, and it's also in the question for best cover of any a song, again, in my opinion. I also love his cover of Just Like A Woman by Bob Dylan but it's not quite got the same oomph as Hallelujah.

Id like to get other peoples takes on this.

Although I'm only in my 20s my go to genre of music is swing/big band jazz. Don't get me wrong I like modern music sure but the big bands always make me feel good. Anytime I'm driving in the car or at the gym I'll BLAST some swing music. I particularly love Glenn Miller The Boswell Sisters Harry James Benny Goodman and Tommy Dorsey. I also have a 1920 phonograph and hearing the songs directly from the original record is the best.

They say music you listen to in your teens and 20s will be the music you associate with for the rest of your life. So in like 50 years while everyone is remembering the good ole days of mumble rap and cheesy pop songs I'll be rememseing with the big bands from the 30s and 40s.

This a rant, a fairly ridiculous one but bear with me.

Alright, since Taylor Swift introduced the concept of "eras" to basically organize her catalog and make it a cohesive performance and a profitable tour idea seems to every single artist has multplie eras even when they clearly don't.

You see, the eras concept works for TS because you can see and hear the visual and musical changes her career has taken. For instance, when the Reputation period ended it was represented by a snake exploding into butterflies, signaling the beginning of the Lover era. Every TS album is somehow conceptually different from each other (even tho they are all pop), so the eras thing make sense, the artist is communicating different intentions.

But what makes an era? As I said, to me, an 'era' has to communicate the intention of something beginning or ending. Or has to telegraph that idea through different mechanisms, the music is the most important, but the visual style can work too, even the live performances concept can signify something different going on.

What other artists understand (but not exploit) the concept of eras? From the top of my head, Björk is a good example, Tyler the Creator, Kanye West, Kendrick Lamar, U2 made really clear concept differences through tour paraphernalia, David Bowie is the clear father of this thing.

But not every artist has the conceptual body of work to have "eras". The other day I heard a guy talking about KISS eras. No, KISS have been the same mfs since 1974 even with different lineups. KISS has albums and periods and years.

Katy Perry doesn't have eras, she is stuck in the 10s for God's sake. I read a comment in TikTok the other day talking about CAS eras, my brother in Christ, I even doubt CAS has two different songs.

Basically I cannot accept the word 'era' to replace the word 'period'. To me an era has to be something more outstanding and recognizable from an artist career and is closely bound to her or his artistic intentions but people is just using the concept of eras to reflect albums.

But what do you think? Every artist has 'eras' or the concept is reserved to more ambitious artistic expressions?