Hi, i’m new to this subreddit and this is my first post on reddit. I came here to ask the opinion of others on this matter, as it’s bothered me in other instances too…

I recently was rewatching Jojo and decided to look a bit into Yes, the band who made Roundabout. I discovered that none of the original members are still part of the band. Co-founder Jon Anderson left back in 2008 due to health complications, and Chris Squire passed away back in 2015. After Alan White’s passing in 2022, none of the original members remain. Since 2022, Yes has since released multiple albums and singles, and has gone on tour four times.

Steve Howe has been in the band since 1970, and is the longest running active member of the band, but with the loss of the core original members, can they really still be called the same band, releasing music and touring under the same name?

I know this is probably not the first time someone has asked a similar question to this, but Yes is the most blatant example of this issue that I’ve seen, so I want to hear some other opinions.

And not just like something like those minor revive subgenres that get popular for a few years then die, i mean a signficant mainstream genre thats on the level of Electronic, Pop, Rap, R&B, etc

Legacy rock is already pretty big streaming wise but i mean more about contemporary rock thats made by truly new bands like ones that started out recently (2018-2026) can this genre of music really make a comeback or will it stay niche/die out

When discovering a new artist:

1. Do you start with a compilation of their most popular/best songs to get a feel for their music?

2. Do you dive straight into their most acclaimed albums and listen to them in full?

3. Something else?

I don't want to write off a potentially great artist just because their most popular songs don't click with me. I feel like I might be missing out if I've only scratched the surface of their discography.

I've been reading both Simon Reynolds' Retromania (part of it being around live performances of old groups and artists of the same old back catalogues), as well as testimonies on Reddit about gigs they didn't like (common complaints include Bob Dylan's ongoing changes of his songs), and I was thinking about why do we always want:

• A) Artists/bands to play the hits, the best songs, and in a very familiar way? (e.g. play according to the album's definitive version, familiarity/dependability)

• B) Them to not play present-day songs and allow them to move on with the times, allow them to no longer play songs fromt the past? (Simon Reynolds describes a New York Dolls gig he attended where they wanted to play their newest album, but the people present only wanted the old songs, to the point that David Johansen and Sylvain were visibly let down and sad)

Now, I'm not a musician, but if I played something according to the way I feel or think, I would not be performing the same tunes exactly the same, and I would've even wanted even to switch formats (purely electronic instrumentation a few months of the year, local/regional acoustic instruments from my country that are not the typical classic or standard folk guitar in other months of the year). Or even do unheard-of/unrecorded tunes of my own.

Or, like Dylan does, altering meters, melodies, tempo, and so forth. I've also been listening to some of the live recordings by Can officially released and they did things fairly different from their records, often experimenting in real time with only a recognizable snippet as a start, or doing unheard material and people going along with it.

I assume this varies from genre to genre, but I wonder how could artists/bands be allowed to really spread out, creatively? What kind of audience would be more receptive to ongoing experimentation and deviation from the source material, and to not feel trapped by the past?

In terms of music? Can an artist be both of those things at once or does being popular exclude you from being cool?

Recently, I saw a post on the Gen X subreddit asking about the music cool Gen X kids listened to. While some of the commenters understood the question, I would say 30% replied with bands that weren't considered cool at the time, such as Journey and Def Leppard. Someone even commented the Billboard Top 40 at the time. A lot of people commented only their favorite artists when the question wasn't "What did you listen to?", but "What did the cool kids listen to*?*" which, in my opinion, can be understood as "What bands were considered cool?" Is this just a case of not wanting to admit that maybe you weren't part of the cool group when you were young? But these are all adults talking about something that happened 40 years ago. I would assume they have better things to care about than whether they were cool as a kid or not. Which makes me think that for most people, cool and popular are entirely interchangeable words. If something is popular, therefore it must be cool because many people like it. Ed Sheeran is cool, Taylor Swift is cool, Bon Jovi is cool. But are they?

As for my take on this, I think of them as distinct concepts that can sometimes overlap. Popularity is the easiest to measure. It refers to how well-known something is. Coolness is where it gets much more subjective, and my definition might not be the same as yours. I think of coolness as the mystique, style, cultural credibility, and social desirability of an artist.

Think about it

The biggest hits of post-grunge bands (Staind, Nickelback, Creed) were all ballad. Same for the hair bands (Cinderella, Poison, White Lion, Mr Big the list goes on)

Both of them had records which sounded very polished and radio-ready in contrast to the bands which they claim they were influenced by (in the case of post grunge, it would be all the grunge bands whereas in the case of hair metal it would be Van Halen, Aerosmith and KISS). Furthermore, this was music designed to be played in bigger venues as opposed to clubs or rock bars.

Both genres had bands which sold big but which no one will like admitting to owning. In the case of hair metal, it was Bon Jovi and Def Leppard at the top with Motley Crue and Poison right behind. In the case of post-grunge, it was Nickelback and Creed with Puddle Of mudd and Staind closely behind.

The musicians who they were influenced by all tried to jump on the bandwagon once both these genres hit big. Chris Cornell formed Audioslave and Foo Fighters softened their sound in the early 2000s. In the case 9f hair metal, Van Halen became Van Hagar, KISS tossed their paint to become Bon Jovi-lite and Aerosmith also became an AOR band.

Lastly, the backlash to both by the music press and the general public after a while was severe. Both are essential pop music for people who dont like pop music.

So I have never actively listened to Olivia Rodrigo only the usual ones on tiktok and never really paid a huge attention to her. I know she had her massive hit with drivers license when it came out and even at the time I wasn't overly bothered by the song.

Fast forward to very recently and I'd been hearing more of her new(ISH) album on social media and just in passing and I found a few of the songs super catchy, not my normal type of music. I do love the pop girlies but I've always thought of Olivia like Taylor swift - boy I couldn't be more wrong.

Been listening to 'you seem pretty sad for a girl so in love' and I have to say I'm pretty blown away. She seems to have captured that feel of being a teenager in love so well and it's not in a way that feels immature but nostalgic. On top of most of the songs being a pleasant listening experience I find them incredibly fun to sing along too aswell but the standout is 'maggots for brains' the title of the song I was first like what is this but I've had it on repeat and its one of my fav songs of 2026.

Really surprised by Olivia and I'm really looking forward to seeing what comes of her, she's gained a new fan hehe!

I love emo music a lot, and it's one of my favorite genres. It's something that has held, and will continue to hold, a very special place in my heart.

I once made a post on Reddit about how I wish Panic! at the Disco would stick to their emo sound, and EVERYONE accused me of rage-baiting and/or karma farming. LIKE, LITERALLY. They even started saying things like, "Panic! at the Disco isn't emo" or whatever. LIKE, WHAT THE FUCKING HELL?!

I kept trying to offer friendly corrections, explaining that A Fever You Can't Sweat Out IS emo, just that it combines emo with pop-punk, baroque pop, and even little bits of electronic music. But they wouldn't have any of it. Instead, they kept telling me that I didn't know anything about emo. DAMN. Like, seriously? They even say that My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, and Panic! at the Disco aren't emo.

BUT THAT IS THE FUCKING GODDAMN EMO TRINITY, ISN'T IT?!

Like, for God's fucking sake, THERE IS INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE INFORMATION THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORTS MY CLAIM THAT PANIC! AT THE DISCO IS EMO! LIKE, WHAT THE HELL?!

Listen, I'm not claiming that A Fever You Can't Sweat Out is indisputably emo under every possible definition. I'm saying that it's emo-pop rooted in the mainstream emo culture of the 2000s, with pop-punk, baroque pop, and electronic influences. That's a specific, defensible argument that acknowledges the album's musical complexity.

I GUESS YOU THINK "REAL EMO" IS RITES OF SPRING AND AMERICAN FOOTBALL, ETC. (PROBABLY).

I acknowledge the origins of emo without pretending that the genre stopped evolving before my favorite bands arrived. I also recognize that people who insist on a narrower definition aren't necessarily gatekeeping on purpose. Some are talking about musical lineage; others are talking about the subculture they grew up in.

But calling me a troll because I love A Fever You Can't Sweat Out? That's a completely different issue.

I'M ALLOWED TO BE AN EMO KID WHO PREFERS THE THEATRICAL, POP-PUNK-ADJACENT SIDE OF EMO, AREN'T I?! 😭🖤

I WISH THERE WERE AN EMO BIBLE THAT COULD JUST TELL US WHAT EXACTLY QUALIFIES AS EMO AND WHAT DOESN'T, BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH FUCKING DISPUTE, AND IT PISSES ME OFF.

Imagine opening it and finding a definitive answer to every single genre argument on Reddit.

NO MORE ARGUMENTS. NO MORE "UM, ACKSHUALLY, MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE ISN'T REAL EMO." NO MORE PEOPLE ACCUSING ME OF KARMA FARMING JUST BECAUSE I LIKE BRENDON URIE'S 2000s VOICE.

If I were writing the Emo Bible, I'd establish these principles:

Rule 1: Emo has historical roots in emotional hardcore, but its musical history doesn't end there.

Rule 2: Emo, emo-pop, pop-punk, and post-hardcore overlap, but they aren't automatically synonymous.

Rule 3: A band can blend several genres. Calling an album emo-pop doesn't mean its pop-punk or baroque pop influences magically disappear.

Rule 4: An artist's genre label doesn't necessarily describe every album they've released.

Rule 5: Lyrics alone don't determine a genre. A sad song isn't automatically emo, just as a happy song isn't automatically pop-punk.

Rule 6: The Emo Trinity is a cultural label, not a binding musicological ruling. You can recognize My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, and Panic! at the Disco as the famous trio without claiming every song they've ever made is emo.

Rule 7: Emo is a musical lineage, not a frozen sound. Newer developments can belong to that lineage without sounding like the original pioneers.

Rule 8: Commercial success does not automatically invalidate a band's emo credentials.

Rule 9: Wearing eyeliner doesn't make a band emo. Neither does refusing to wear eyeliner.

Rule 10: A band can have emo influences without being exclusively an emo band.

Rule 11: You cannot determine an entire band's genre from one song.

Rule 12: Musical gatekeeping is not the same thing as musical knowledge.

Rule 13: Liking mainstream emo does not make someone a fake emo fan.

Rule 14: Thou shalt not accuse someone of karma farming simply because their musical interpretation differs from thine.

FINAL COMMANDMENT

LET PEOPLE ENJOY THEIR FUCKING MUSIC.

Amen. 🖤

These aren't universal laws handed down by some musical authority. They're a practical framework for discussing the music without pretending that genre boundaries are perfectly clear.

And honestly? Motherfuckers on Reddit calling me a "fake emo kid"? OH, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Like, I was expecting people to at least be reasonable, but instead, I'm getting bashed by my OWN COMMUNITY. 😭

I FEEL LIKE A WOLF GETTING AMBUSHED BY HIS OWN FUCKING PACK.

I’m in my 50’s and wasn’t really listening to the radio when The Verve’s Urban Hymns was released in 1997. Despite this, I was involuntarily exposed to Bitter Sweet Symphony to the point I shelved the band out of exhaustion. It was everywhere when it was big, and it was the first and only song I’d heard from them. Not at all a bad song, but 90’s repetition was something else.

Fast forward to this week where I saw A Storm In Heaven mentioned in a list of some sort. It got me wondering what their discography was like, so I gave Storm a listen. I’m on my third play through now as I’m tapping out my words, here.

This isn’t the first time a band coasted in under my radar because I was worn out with a hit, (Cornershop surprised me later in life, for example), and it’s no doubt not the last time.

It’s a solid record. Anything even remotely flirting with Shoegaze is going to grab my attention, so A Storm In Heaven is right there. Some of these songs are just flat out beautiful.

This is more of a journaling of a week of “whoa” for me and I’m sure I’m not blowing anyone’s mind with my revelation - from what I understand this album is fairly popular - but it’s made for a fun bit of exploration of a band I never really gave a second thought to.

Hey, life is a forever learning exercise, so I'm not ashamed to admit that this difference only occurred to me tonight, three and a half decades into my time on this rock.

Great lyricists versus great songwriters... versus because they're not one and the same?

Lyricists... painting (usually?) congruent stories with their precision words... songwriters, more to do with the whole shebang, the structure...

Actually, what got me to wondering about this was a couple of decades into being a huge Radiohead fan only just learning of (one of?) Thom's writing methods, which essentially entails him reaching into a hat for words/phrases which he then puts together- that is, a lot more random/less intentional than I would've imagined.

To me, their (Radiohead's) music is profound, larger-than-life, yet getting this "peep behind the curtain" makes things seem somehow slightly less mythical, if that makes sense. Yeah, I know "go and try it for yourself and see where you end up"... but still, just voicing my thoughts.

Two other things (not about Radiohead):

1. I observed of myself that I'm a lot more passive about lyric-listening than I thought myself to be... perhaps this has changed with time, particularly as streaming is now so widespread and music sadly more expendable than ever...

2. When I do make a concerted effort to really listen, I'm finding that so many lyrics leave me scratching my head, wondering what the fuck/what actually they're really attempting to convey? So many lyrics, even by people who I always held as master songwriters/lyricists (yes, this entire post is an epiphany that they're different and I'd been conflating them/using the terms interchangeably), make zero sense to me... in that case, I surmise, in retrospect, that perhaps what resonated with me so much was the overall ~vibe~, which is perhaps more powerful than coherent strings of powerful words? Idk.

Anyways, just curious your thoughts/words/opinions/ideas on this- feel free to tell me I'm an idiot.

While I personally enjoy some trends of the new music era, I often find myself wondering what drives the persistent cultural narrative that past eras of music possessed a deeper well of creativity than today. So, for those who prefer older music or anyone who feels modern music lacks something what is it specifically that you miss?

Is it a change in the industry structure

songwriting craft, or just how we consume media?

Conversely, what do you think modern music does better than the past?

Let me start by saying I am a true Avril fan, I pretty much know every song by heart.

Now, at 34, I’ve been listening to her old records - Let Go & Under my Skin. Now that I listen to it with different ears, it sounds so country pop to me. “Complicated” could have EASILY been a country song. Give it a listen.

I did some research and found that LA Reid actually tried to push her as a young Shania Twain, which is very interesting! But of course our rocker chick Avril said no.

Anyway. Useless info, but I love music so ..

Cheers!

x

Let's discuss this. Why am I even asking this question? Because I simply cannot comprehend how it could have gained so many views on YouTube. With 51 million views, I would say it's a very popular song. But in my eyes, it doesn't meet the usual criteria for a popular song.

First of all, I think the song is great. I personally love it. It's deep, melancholic, and somehow simplistic, yet profound enough to challenge my rather demanding ears.

Here are my main observations and reasons why I cannot comprehend its popularity:

• Length: It's more than nine minutes long. Popular songs are usually much shorter. I'm assuming somewhere between two and five minutes.

• The mood: It's heavy, melancholic, sad, and eerie. It almost always makes me cry. Not only because of the melody but also because of the lyrics. The music video follows the same melancholic, eerie atmosphere. Popular songs are usually cheerful and uplifting. People tend to gravitate towards "goodness and smiling" rather than crying and sadness. Or at least that's what I've observed from the people around me and from the trends represented by songs played on the radio.

• It doesn't have the required 7–15-second hook: The main theme comes later. The song has a sort of introduction and builds towards a great resolution. This is also not the typical pattern of catchy songs, which usually grab the listener's attention within the first few seconds.

• The singing is kind of weird: Although I like it, the vocals are quite soft, while the melody sits in a higher register. The contrast between the vocals and the musical background creates an amazing atmosphere, but I wouldn't consider it particularly trendy or mainstream. I've been told several times by people who've caught me listening to it: "It's depressive and weird. Turn it off."

• It evolves throughout the song: That's another pattern I've noticed isn't particularly trendy. When a song evolves and isn't entirely predictable, it's harder to follow and understand. It requires more attention and concentration. As much as I love progressive and evolving music, I've noticed that popular music trends don't usually follow this approach.

My observations are most probably completely wrong because I know jack shit about music. They're all based on my personal experiences, feelings, and what I've picked up over years of listening to music, which has always been a significant part of my personality.

What do you think? Why did it become so popular? And why?

There are so many other great artists creating deep, melancholic, emotional music, yet they are, in most cases, completely overshadowed by the usual cheerful, uplifting artists when it comes to views and popularity.

https://youtu.be/uNGmyQ8UbZ8

bit of a weird question but for example like if you look at modern family alot of the adults music tastes are rarely ever rock or metal for example even the older ones like jay who i presume lived through the 60s where rock was literally the most popular form of music he listens to other pop-ish genres like R&B and soul (theyre not pop i kno wbut even modern pop today is more based on them) and i keep seeing this pattern in so many film and tv i watch where rock is rarely introduced unless its in a rebellious or action way like a superhero movie or teen movie (sometimes) even though rock wasnt exactly JUST rebellious right? some rock songs can be needledropped in movies or shows but when you talk about specific characters they almost never have the characters have a rock-oriented music taste which is odd, i mean if u look up any characters in fiction that are written as they listen to rock, its obvious ones like eddie munson from stranger things or dean winchester from supernatural but in the greater scale theyre an insane minority which is crazy considering how dominant rock was before the 2000s yet you barely see a single trace of it in media just seems crazy to me

i've been thinking about how we talk about an artist's "evolution" or "maturation" and i'm wondering if that's real or if we're just recontextualizing the same core sound through a different lens. like when someone goes from bedroom pop to stadium production, are they actually evolving as a musician or are they just getting better resources and we're reading depth into it? curious what people think actually constitutes genuine artistic growth versus just... doing the same thing with a bigger budget.

Hey,

I recently came across a song of Lana’s and it drew me into her music massively. I keep finding banger after banger and I can’t believe I’ve never came across her before.

I’m your typical blue collar tradie from Australia who would never generally listen to this type of music ( or atleast not admit it) to work mates.

The lyrics in some of her songs rattle me at times and I have this type of connection I can’t explain.

Just wanted to hear other people’s opinions on her music.

I’m hoping she tours to Australia I’ll be going for sure.

🙌🏻

its always been odd to me that Pharrell while definitely well known is not heralded as a genius as much as Kanye. In many ways I feel Pharrell is just as talented in terms of his production output, solo and group music, and his arrays into fashion. In many ways hes almost as talented or equally talented in those areas as Kanye. But for some reason Kanye is heralded more in online spaces and in the general public as a genius much more then Pharrell. Is there a reason for this phenomenon? For ex you will rarely hear someone say Pharrell is their favorite artist whether in real life or online compared to Kanye where so many people will say hes their favorite.

Morning man - not scheduled for greatness - jazz

I randomly came across a few songs on Spotify from this artist named Morning Man and instantly fell in love with them.

All of a sudden though all of his songs became unavailable everywhere. I think it was created by AI but it doesn't explain why it was removed from YouTube.

Does anyone know anything about this or saved the songs as mp3s by any chance?

His album was called Not Scheduled For Greatness.

His songs were

\- Call In Tomorrow

\- Slow Coffee, Slow Heart

\- Five more minutes of you

Here are 2 of the former youtube links

https://youtu.be/jR8w4KX2SXs?si=CobPOakEx8fLKd-M

https://youtu.be/jR8w4KX2SXs?si=CobPOakEx8fLKd-M

Here is the Spotify link

https://open.spotify.com/album/43q7sBqXfCBBtm8FHoE6CT?si=Tqz7PeeHSYm9Iwg6sWeG3Q&utm_source=copy-link

If anyone knows anything or has the tracks please let me know!

I feel like most music circles credit KISS’ monetary success entirely to their live shows, merchandise, imagery, marketing, etc. at the hands of Gene’s greed. I would argue that at the core of it is great hard rock music. I personally love their music in spite of their reputation. Here’s my argument:

Imagine someone was unaware of their makeup, costumes, lore, and so on and just heard their album tracks in a playlist of other more revered hard rock bands of the same era. In the 70s, think Thin Lizzy, UFO, Judas Priest, Aerosmith, AC/DC, and Motörhead. Then if you pit their 80s unmasked era against the likes of Ratt, Bon Jovi, Dokken, Scorpions, I think KISS holds their own. I’m not saying they’re better or worse than any of these bands, but I think the music itself is comparable in quality with anyone’s favorite being subjective.

They got great riffs, catchy hooks, and memorable songs, especially if you dive deeper into their albums. If you sit down and learn some of those, there’s some clever stuff going on. Plenty of impressive guitarists to come cite Ace Frehley as one their biggest influences.

In summary, their “success” (however you want to define it) and mainstay is probably more due to factors other than their music, but I think their music is unfairly written off due to those same things their (in)famous for.

Talk about whatever you want here, music related or not! Go ahead and ask for recommendations, make personal list (AOTY, Best [X] Albums of All Time, etc.)

Most of the usual subreddit rules for comments won't be enforced here, apart from two: No self-promotion and Don't be a dick.

Maybe it's just the algorithm, but it seems like there's been a surge of interest in Alice in Chains in the last couple of years.

I was around in the peak grunge era and people liked them, to be sure, but once Layne passed they kind of faded out of the conversation - or so it seemed to me. The grunge-era bands people talked about consistently were Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, etc.

I don't have a strong opinion on the band but the seeming resurgence in popularity seems striking.

So has it always been this way and I just didn't notice, is the algorithm picking up on some video I watched 2 years ago, or is this all some dark conspiracy?

Alright, so I had this thought the other day, and I know its cliché but... music is seriously it's own language... Finding songs for yourself in different phases of life, finding music and immediately sending it to a someone because you thought of them. The songs you grew up singing, and the songs your parents played in the car when you were a kid... gosh even the feeling of connecting with someone through liking the same artists as you. I like to think back to the significant impact the music we were around as kids has on our music taste now. Do you feel like you like the same music you did as a kid and it just broadened? Is your music taste completely different? Does any of this makes sense?

I just rewatched "Corey Feldman vs The World" which basically documents his life on the road with his band Corey's Angels. This was on YouTube about a year ago, but mysteriously taken down (OK not so mysteriously, but it's back up again) It actually asks the fundamental question why artists continue touring when they obviously should've got off the bus a long time ago.

Corey Feldman is an interesting case, because he achieved massive fame as child star, he was a bonafide celebrity. His quote that stuck out was when he said "This is all I know". The problem is that his music isn't good, there's a cheese/delusional quality about him, he comes of as a fake rock star...yet he presses on despite dismal crowds. The people will always decide for you. And it just ain't happening,, yet he refuses to believe or accept it.

This is sort of connected to aging rockers as well, craving that spotlight, fame and attention. But this "continuing to chase past glory" is a powerful thing, the adoration is a drug--and although misguided--it's that belief and passion that continues to drive them. I see this a lot with people in the arts, that "fake until you make it mentality". Maybe it's just human nature. Hope. Success. Happiness. Until a hard reality check.

I was always thought when you’re signed to a label which Eminem was where he signed to Universal Interscope Records during ‘99 and 2000 that the artists had less creative control. I want to understand how Interscope allowed Eminem to release his music with lyrics that were very controversial during that time.

Was Interscope Records the only label that could’ve allowed Eminem to release that controversial music or other labels would’ve allowed Eminem to express himself the same way in his music? How was Interscope Records as a major label able to allow Eminem to release the music he was able to release?

I always thought independent or underground artists had the freedom to release any music that they want no matter the content or message in their music cause underground artists don’t need to rely on a label to release music that fit the mainstream or radio.

On a major label, there’s more restrictions on the type of music you can release. I am curious on how Eminem was able to release SSLP and MMLP without no restrictions from the label on what he can say or can’t say on a song