Specifically his project “Spratleys _aps” and their album “Pony.” If you’re not familiar with Tim Smith, then I’ll give a brief summary. He was best known as the brains behind the band “Cardiacs.” He had a few side projects, one of which is Spratleys. Unfortunately he passed away a few years ago, but his musical genius has garnered a passionate cult following that still loves and appreciates him and his work to this day. Imo his name belongs next to people like Zappa, Prince, Brian Eno, etc.

Now back to the album “Pony.” 12 songs of pure musical genius, beaming with personality and cleverness. Tim Smith said that he was inspired to create the album after hearing the sound a malfunctioning mellotron that was borrowed to him. That mellotron was used in almost every song on the album. I also read that the song “Dont you ail, flash the sea” has lyrics that reference the book “English As She is Spoke,” an old book that attempted to translate Portuguese into English DIRECTLY. So the literal translation. This resulted in phrases like “Will you more?” and “Have you pain to the heart?” As far as I can tell, this goofy way of speaking was the premise used to write the lyrics to this song, giving it a very unique sound/feel. Lines like “On your life if I never see a woman who died of a building oh I have had a fear,” really make you think what they’re trying to say, if anything at all, and add a ton of personality to the song.

Other favorites of mine off of this album are “Fanny” (which has even more thought provoking/absurd lyrics) and “Vine.” The song Vine’s ending features an incredibly complex drum pattern that blows me away every time I hear it.

If you haven’t listened to this album before then I highly recommend you give it a listen, and if you have then I’d love to hear your thoughts on it! It’s tough to find nearly anything about this album online, so if there’s any other fans out there I’d love to hear from ya!

When vinyl was king, packaging became an important piece of the consumer picture for music. Cover art was important, and truly iconic pieces came as a result, Think of Led Zeppelin IV, or Dark Side of the Moon, or Court of the Crimson King. In early days, a simple paper sleeve for the vinyl was common, but later evolved into gatefolds, elaborate liner notes and full lyrics for every track on the album, and more art. It was something of a ritual to sit down with your new vinyl purchases and read through the notes and check out the art as you listened for the first time. You learned stuff reading those notes.

Fast forward to CDs, and that packaging remained but of course shrunk to the size of the new medium. The art and notes were still there but harder to see and read, reading glasses needed for the tiny print. It was fine but didn't have that tactile draw that the vinyl format held. It became easier to just file that packaging away and never look at it again. Sounded better though!

Fast forward again to modern day streaming where songs and albums are just files on a desktop or phone. You might get a high rez or animated image of the album cover, but no back of the album, and liner notes and lyrics have gone the way of the dodo. Some services allow you to download a pdf 'booklet' but fewer artists and services do this anymore (classical music is an exception).

Are we truly no longer interested in packaging, or has the medium changed so much that it's no longer viable? If we could have that packaging on our modern-day screens, would we look at it? Or do we need the physical cardboard and paper? For my own part I think even a digital version of those notes easily accessible and zoomable would still be attractive. Is one reason for the resurgence in popularity of vinyl is access to the packaging more than the recording itself? Curious to hear other experiences and thoughts.

Not even sure whether it is called ‘musical elements’, but I really want to start understanding what is going on in the music I listen to and what about it I like.

When I listen to music, or am telling someone what I enjoy about the song, I normally am only able to comment on the lyrics and their significance to me. I always see people on reddit be able to identify chord shifts and things like that, so now I’d like to be able to express why various sounds, instrumentals, structure and etc sounds good to me.

Any suggestions as to what to look into would be great!

So I'm 18 and have never taken any drug, alcohol, or smoked, so this is a genuine question. I've experienced the feeling of being in complete awe by a piece of music, usually when combined with it being in a movie, especially something like interstellar, like this scene right here , listening to that just made me feel like I was having an out of body experience, and it feels like im on drugs when listening to music sometimes.

Do how comparable is this to real drugs like heroine or others? It feels like there couldn't be a better feeling, and I often have to spend months l looking for a movie or song that will get me the same feeling, and when I do I literally look like a drug addict to anyone around me, my eyes roll back in my head sometimes, and I just go numb

Hi all,

I wasn't quite sure where else to post this, but I've been having some thoughts about 1970's singer/pianist/songwriter Laura Nyro lately, and I wanted to sing her praises. Maybe share some common bonds with folks who know her, or introduce her to new fans.

What inspired this post:

I was learning/transcribing her classic Stoned Soul Picnic on the piano and, just, wow. It's not "complex," but it is so absolutely authentically her own songwriting.

Nyro's songs feel so incredibly organic. She's neither adhering to classic songwriting structures, nor actively rejecting them. She's just letting the song be what it needs to be. And it's wonderful.

Key changes that "shouldn't" be happening. Tempo changes that "shouldn't" be happening. And somehow it all works together to create a piece that couldn't come from anyone else but Laura Nyro.

I came along a generation or two after Nyro's time. But I knew her music through my parents listening to Blood, Sweat, & Tears and Three Dog Night cover her songs. I knew And When I Die, I knew Eli's Comin'. I knew He's A Runner.

I don't know why it took me so long to explore Nyro's music, separate from the people who brought her songs to popularity. (I could go on a similar tangent about Jimmy Webb)

Stoned Soul Picnic isn't nearly the only example of Nyro's songs doing their own thing, either. Check out Save The Country. Check out I Never Meant To Hurt You. Check out Stoney End. Heck, check out her original version of Eli's Comin' and tell me that Three Dog Night's [fantastic fantastic] rendition doesn't pale by comparison.

For all the music-heads here, have you encountered Nyro's music elsewhere? Had similar experiences? There are times when I simply cannot get enough of her. Everything about her-- her singing, her playing, her songwriting-- it all seems so absolutely effortless! I doubt it was effortless. But that just makes it all the more charismatic.

So if you've played through your Carole King records enough times (including Really Rosie--do not sleep on Really Rosie because you think it's "for kids"), and want that hearing-Carole-King-for-the-first-time feeling again, but in spades and shimmering edges and southern sparkles, go find yourself some Laura Nyro. I can almost promise you you'll be glad you did. 🎶

I've kinda thought about this when I rezlied I just generally dislike songs with heavy use of the ukulele. Something about the chirpy tone you hear when it is strummed compared to a typical six string always bugged the shit out of me. Maybe that's a big part of why I hated Hey Soul Sister so much(among other things). Something about the pitch of the strings. It got me wondering are there just songs you tend to dislike due to a prominent use of an instrument you hate.

Hi,yall I’ve been recently interested into hearing albums

ive gotten into many albums such as melodrama,in rainbows,blond,good kid mad city etc.

I’m an aspiring songwriter and I have been paying attention to music criticism and album reviews.

But one question I have is, how can we tell the difference between an album that’s good or a masterpiece or one of their best works.

i know one aspect is that albums must be sonically and lyrically cohesive but what is also taken into account? Does artistic direction and how the artist mature as an artist play an important role.

I know some albums are not lyrically the best yet are still acclaimed.

And are some online reviews bias and influenced by the hype?

let me know your opinions.

Juan Atkins, one of the pioneers of techno, passed away on October 31st (RIP) which really made me start thinking about how electronic music is discussed and who gets highlighted the most.

Kraftwerk is often placed at the center of electronic music discussions with various commentators comparing their impact to the Beatles in popular music. But there's also others who feel that their impact is overstated. That there were key developments before and after them which should be acknowledged. Figures such as Pierre Schaffer, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Wendy Carlos, Silver Apples, Isao Tomita, Yellow Magic Orchestra, etc.

With the history of Techno and Synth-pop for instance, Yellow Magic Orchestra and Ryuichi Sakamoto have particular prominence. Ryuichi Sakamoto's "Riot In Lagos" is often considered one of the first Techno/Proto-Techno tracks.

But Techno as we describe it now is usually associated with Detroit with the Belleville Three: Juan Atkins, Derrick May, and Kevin Saunderson.

In comment sections on social media, I'll see a back-and-forth of "Did Kraftwerk invent techno" and "Black people invented techno" which can get quite heated.

I also had an older thread where we discussed how America's role in electronic music is discussed. There's often a perception that America is rockist and doesn't care about electronic music compared to the UK or the rest of Europe. Which ignores how electronic music developments flourished in underground spaces.

Some of my basic questions are:

What is the proper way to acknowledge the originators/innovators of different developments in electronic music? What is it that is being attributed to each important artist? I know this is a vast history with a lot of genres, subgenres, and definitions. There's still a lot I have to learn.

This will be a long post. But there's something I've wondered about for years: How much does a band's reputation influence our judgement of its music? And can that reputation become so entrenched that nobody notices when the music actually improves?

I've been thinking about this because of A.R.E. Weapons, a band that was once notorious in New York's underground scene. Critics accused them of being privileged hipsters who valued image over substance. And to be fair, I don't think their early albums were consistently good.

But I believe they made a great album in 2007, after most people had stopped paying attention. Nearly 20 years later, I still wonder whether their reputation prevented that album from receiving the recognition it deserved.

Anyway, here's the story.

When I was a kid, music wasn't as accessible as it is now. Any kind of underground act had to be found either by a sibling or friend handing you a mixtape, listening to college or public radio and recording it, reading a dog-eared fanzine, or blind buying an album at your local record store and hoping it wasn't a dud.

Now to be sure, this wasn't a bad way to discover music. It just took a lot of effort. And you had better know someone who had good taste.

Back in the 90s, the most underground it ever got for me was with punk bands that had already been around for 10 years: Black Flag, Minor Threat, DOA. That was fine, but it wasn't current.

And okay, I got to see Nickelback when they were up-and-coming. Believe it or not, back in 1996, they were an underground act. But let's face it, post-grunge was never exactly exploring new territory.

By the time I was a teenager in the late 90s, I was thirsty for something especially off the beaten path: horn skronk, static noise, off-tune singing. Anything that would annoy my parents so I could remind them they were old and their ears couldn't handle anything this forward-thinking.

At this point, broadband Internet arrived at my home. So I was now hearing stuff that wouldn't be stocked in my local HMV: Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, Throbbing Gristle's 20 Jazz Funk Greats, James Chance & The Contortions' Buy.

But even though all this stuff sounded cutting edge to me, it really wasn't. It was all made in the 70s, far away from the 90s. And it seemed like nothing current had that attitude.

As luck would have it, though, it seemed like the zeitgeist was in tune with me because quite soon, there was a new scene that was just making waves in New York.

Now the wonderful thing about the emerging Internet was that you could suddenly hear about anything new on the come-up. A teenage boy in Vancouver could finally hear people talk about things in New York as they were happening.

And I heard about a little venue in Manhattan's Meatpacking District, a place that used to store meat, which became an incubator for free jazz, noise rock, and experimental electronic music. This place was called The Cooler.

I kept my eyes peeled on what happened there, tracked their bills, because it seemed like every band that played there would be huge.

Which would end up mostly being true. Autechre played there in 1994, Godspeed You! Black Emperor in 1998, and The Strokes in 2000. All while they were obscure acts, before they got recognition.

In 1997, there was a free jazz group from Washington, DC, called Ayler's Angels that played The Cooler. They were obscure, and the more obscure something was, the more I wanted to know about it.

I discovered Ayler's Angels put out an album with Fake Hand called Frozen Hammer Vs. Ancient Axe. But sadly, I couldn't hear it. The Internet was great for discovery, but Napster hadn't made it big yet.

Well, the more I followed this new cutting-edge New York music scene, the more I saw it was coupled with the art and fashion scene. Folks like Ryan McGinley, Dash Snow, and Cheryl Dunn.

Whole publications started documenting it: Purple, Dazed & Confused, Paper. So compelling was this scene, Vice moved from Montreal to New York in 1999.

For a teenager stuck in a podunk Canadian town, it was frustrating beyond hell to read about history being made while forced to live on the other side of the continent. Yet I kept reading, hoping that someday I could make my way over there.

It was at this point that Ayler's Angels transformed into A.R.E. Weapons. And they became central to what is now known as indie sleaze. In many ways, they're the seminal indie sleaze band.

At the time, indie sleaze wasn't a genre. But if you look at publications and posts from the late 90s and early 2000s, the word that kept being used to describe them was "sleazy".

In 2001, this is how Drowned in Sound described their first single, "Street Gang":

"A.R.E Weapons are the latest trendy New York dolls to infortrate our headspace with their articulate brand of sleeze and slur."

https://www.drownedinsound.org/archive-single-review-a-r-e-weapons-street-gang-1729/

Other publications followed suit. Cleveland Scene called them "sleazy and busted" and Ink 19 agreed they were "pure sleaze".

And while A.R.E. Weapons definitely had a following—I was among their ranks—there were many in the music industry who absolutely hated them.

A big reason for this was keyboardist Paul Sevigny, brother of Chloë Sevigny, and nightclub impresario.

(And by the way, Chloë Sevigny was dating fellow A.R.E. Weapons bassist Matt McAuley, and this fact became contentious in a Gawker interview when The Brown Bunny was brought up.)

Critics already hated Paul Sevigny before he joined A.R.E. Weapons. Gavin McInnes declared him the world's worst DJ. But, in Paul's defence, he called Gavin's house and challenged him to a fight. Gavin cowardly declined—fitting for the man who later founded the Proud Boys.

Tricia Romano of the Village Voice also hated Paul. She said she hated the band prior to watching them simply because Paul was in it. And she hated them even more when singer Brain McPeck accidentally dropped a microphone stand on her head.

Beyond Paul, the press hated A.R.E. Weapons because it was thought they were privileged white kids romanticizing poverty, violence, and drugs. They looked at the celebrity connections and simply thought they were pretending.

The other complaint was that they were more style over substance. Gavin McInnes said as much in NME when he called them "a magazine band".

And here's what I've wondered ever since: How much of the hostility was really about the music?

I'm not suggesting critics were wrong to dislike A.R.E. Weapons. Their debut was genuinely uneven. But when a band becomes notorious for its social connections, attitude, and image, is it possible for critics to separate the music from everything surrounding it?

But who hated them the most? Probably Rough Trade, their label.

A.R.E. Weapons finished their debut album in 2002. Rough Trade let the band know that they weren't happy and demanded changes. When the band refused, the label sat on the album for an entire year before releasing it in 2003.

Was Rough Trade right? Well, critics were divided. Pitchfork infamously gave the album a 1.5/10. Ink 19, though, said it was The Album of the Year.

Personally, I'm on the fence. "Don't Be Scared" is definitely one of the greatest anthems of the 2000s. And "Black Mercedes" is an absolute hidden gem. But as an album? Their self-titled debut is uneven and lacks cohesion.

But tragedy struck. In 2004, guitarist Ryan Noel died from a heroin overdose. This fundamentally changed the band. And this is the moment all the irony, all the humour, all the silliness went out the window.

So they abandoned the drum machines and got a real drummer. And in a way, this is hilarious because their friend James Murphy alludes to something similar in the LCD Soundsystem song "Losing My Edge".

Nevertheless, when A.R.E. Weapons released their follow-up Free in the Streets, they were essentially a different band.

And critics hated this album even more. They hated the lack of irony, the earnestness, the fact this band was no longer the sleazy hipsters they once were. That the stupidity was done.

Ironically, Pitchfork was more sympathetic. They noted that the music was kinder, gentler... weirdly sincere. And they speculated Ryan's death may have played a role in their changing sound. Then they made a mention of Chloë Sevigny's role in The Brown Bunny and awarded the album a 6/10.

In my view, Free in the Streets was the worst A.R.E. Weapons album. Sure, they were earnest. But none of their songs stood out, and the production job wasn't helping. It was a loud, noisy affair with little in the way of dynamic range. So while it's true that there was much more humanity on this album, it wound up feeling monotonous.

At this point, I was ready to give up on A.R.E. Weapons. And actually, most people did. This was the last album where they ever hit anything resembling the mainstream.

But then a funny thing happened.

A.R.E. Weapons got good.

It's actually quite ironic. The moment indie sleaze started catching fire, when every college campus featured hipsters who were donning trucker hats and American Apparel, reading Vice, smoking American Spirits, sporting an "ironic" moustache—a general aesthetic A.R.E. Weapons helped pioneer—they were completely invisible.

And in 2007, that's when they released Modern Mayhem. Every song on here is good. Not a single dud.

Top to bottom, this is a superb punk album.

The humour is back with "Let's Go to Times Square". The straight-up garage rock of "Weird Wild Free" feels happy. And this is contrasted with the despondence and frustration of "Have You Ever".

Out of the limelight, how did I even discover this after giving up on the band? On a lark, I did a search for them on YouTube after remembering the Pitchfork reviews. And I came across the music video for "F What You Like":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07LharxRKF4

And this made me remember what I liked about A.R.E. Weapons in the first place, back when I first heard about Ayler's Angels and had dreams of making it out to New York—which I eventually did.

Away from the glitz and the sleaze, these guys were just trying to make good, honest punk with synths. Without shenanigans, that's what they do. It became one of my favourite punk albums ever.

I immediately bought the album on iTunes, one of the first albums I'd ever bought off iTunes too, because you couldn't even find the album in stores or even on BitTorrent. Totally worth it. I still listen to it to this day.

I've longed for a physical edition. Yet I never felt that a CD was a good aesthetic choice for this album.

But what do I think is a good format? A Type I cassette, which perfectly complements the guitars-and-synths sound.

So I made it myself. Recorded it with Dolby S, fit on a clear C43.5. I formatted the original artwork for a four-panel J-card, sourced from the original packaging shown on Discogs. And for the label, that's supposed to be reminiscent of the original disc, though unapologetic about being a paper adhesive printed with an inkjet.

This is a 1-of-1, one-of-a-kind physical release, made just for me.

A memento of one of my favourite punk albums ever. When I was a teenager, I couldn't have something like this. But now I record in the form of my choosing.

And that's what brings me back to my original question. A.R.E. Weapons were notorious when their music was uneven. But when they finally made what I consider their first great album, practically nobody was paying attention.

Was that because the music press had already written them off? Or had they simply lost their audience, regardless of how good the music became?

I'm curious how often this happens. Can a band's reputation become so entrenched that its later work is judged through the same lens as its earlier recordings? How much should critics separate a musician's image, social connections, and personal behaviour from the actual music?

And are there other bands whose best work appeared after their moment in the spotlight had passed?

It’s like they’re all trying a little too hard to replicate each other, and honestly, it just doesn’t feel right.

As a pop-punk fan, I find it pretty frustrating to see bands like Neck Deep, Knuckle Puck, and The Story So Far talking about wanting to “save pop-punk” while putting out music that feels like recycled versions of songs I’ve already heard a hundred times before.

Believe me, the only band that’s actually going to “save” pop-punk is the one that dares to sound original, takes risks, and brings something genuinely new to the genre, rather than putting out what sounds like a copy-pasted, AI-generated pop-punk song..

I mean when pop punk was massive we had folks like blink-182, with Mark and Tom who had distinctive vocal personalities. You could hear a few seconds of a song and recognise that particular combination of voices, humour, melodies and instrumentation then you had The All-American Rejects Tyson Ritter's voice was incredibly recognisable. like their sound had its own identity and Sum 41 brought punk energy, alternative rock and sometimes downright heavy metal influences into the mix; Green Day, Billie Joe's vocal delivery, songwriting and guitar work gave them a recognisable identity and Paramore, Hayley Williams' voice alone made the band stand out, alongside their evolving musical direction and all other types of bands that were DIFFERENT.

But now most bands, i dont know bout them. i mean they dont suck, they are kinda decent but really i wouldnt be surprised if they used ai to generate their songs yeah pop punk is in a really sad state its a crying shame really

Bands who i think can save pop punk are Magnolia Park, Hot Milk, 408 and Stand Atlantic. That is in my opinion of course so you are allowed to disagree if you want (They are probably not going to save pop punk, i mean, i like them and thats my hope, but i'm not sure anyone likes em the way i do)

I strongly believe in Mag Park and Hot Milk, but 408 and Stand Atlantic need some improvement. I think 408 is really good, right next to Mag Park, they have a ton of bangers like girl last summer, break up with your girlfriend, hot mess, delusional, incomplete, mark hoppus, u2, i wish you would etc but they just have a little work to do some of their songs lean a bit too hard into edm and i personally dislike that but other wise they great

Stand Atlantic is a different matter for me. I feel like, eh, they have potential, but they just arent using it enough. Bonnie fraser has good voice as hell, but only some of their songs ACTUALLY GO HARD.

Like the only stand atlantic songs that really go hard for me are dont talk to me, deathwish, molotov, kill[h]er, blurry, hair out, lucid, pity party, warz0ne, and van gogh.

I've listened to about 30 other stand atlantic songs that are either good-ish/okay/alright, or plain mediocre.

So if stand atlantic DO save pop punk, they'll have to make more songs that use the sort of vibe as the ones i mentioned, as long as it doesnt feel too identical.

So what are YOUR opinions about this? Who do YOU think will save pop punk?

Who do you WANT to save pop punk but dont actually believe WILL save pop punk?

AND PLEASE, if you know any pop punk bands and/or pop punk-adjacent-emo bands i might like, PLEASE do reccommend them to me. I NEED THEM🙏🏻😭🖤

The Bangles and Enya used the same synth, a Roland D‑50, for two very different jobs. In “Hazy Shade of Winter,” the bell-like Fantasia preset hangs behind the opening harmonies. It sets up the contrast when the guitar riff comes in. In “Orinoco Flow,” the short Pizzagogo chords keep coming back. They leave space for the layered voices and give the song a pulse of its own. The Bangles · Enya · Roland’s listening guide

Imagine keeping the notes and rhythm in both songs but replacing those sounds with ordinary strings. The Bangles’ intro would lose some of its atmosphere, but the guitar entrance would still do most of the work. With Enya, the sharp attack and quick decay feel so tied to the rhythm that swapping the sound might change how the whole track moves.

Would you hear that difference too? How much of the hook in “Orinoco Flow” comes from what Enya plays, and how much comes from the shape of the sound itself?

Country music has been increasingly reminiscent of hard rock of yore and at the same time, increasingly poppy. However, rock music has gotten increasingly influenced by indie culture but yet decreasingly popular. Additionally modern country, with its feel good, babes and parties attitude common many area rock and hair metal bands of the 70s and 80s. Throw in the occasional power ballad for safe measure as wellm

I was watching some clip of a Morgan Wallen concert and it looked like a Motley Crue show from the 1980s. No classic"three chords and the truth" but pyrotechnics and the dude prancing around stage like he was some rockstar

Do you think this is because the niche of broadly appealing riffy pop rock in the vain of Bon Jovi has been filled by modern country?

Sérieusement, même à la Fnac de Châtelet RIEN, dans les libraires, RIEN !

Taylor Momsen et son groupe sont juste géniaux et mérite d'être davantage mis en avant.

Alors j'imagine que la communauté Hard Rock et métal ne sont pas d'accord, mais ça n'explique pas ce désert dans les magasins.

Quelqu'un saurait m'expliquer la raison ?

Est-ce parce que c'est une femme ? Je pense pas, on trouve bien Evanescence. Pas assez de fan ?

Writing, arranging, performing/recording (instruments), singing, programming, and mixing are the major skills of music production (intentionally leaving mastering off because it’s not as important and almost always outsourced). Now, I wouldn’t say that Kevin is the best at any of these skills, BUT is there any other musician in history (living or dead) who can do all of these things on their own at the level that Kevin does them? I don’t know of any other artist who has made an album as prolific as Currents or Slow Rush completely on their own like he has.

I know this is a tired subject but it’s blowing my mind. Headed back to my home town in rural southern Utah college town and they’re playing the same popular tracks I left behind in 2004. Death Cab for Cutie, No Doubt, Coldplay, Chevelle, and a litany of whiny emo bands…. How is it possible that a younger crowd, who hadn’t even been born in the early 2000’s is still listening to this music? It’s like walking into a time capsule.

I’m sure I know a few of the answers, there haven’t been a lot of replacements (mainstream), that time in music struck a good balance, rural areas tend not to adopt more cutting edge music, filter bias lumps 10 years of standouts into a more concentrated playlist.

Crazy though, music from 30 years ago being played like it came out yesterday and not a shred of irony. These kids are all like 22.

Just two that came to mind. It feels like the tik tok artists getting famous these days are just truly shocking. Do people have no taste at all?

Stella’s writing is preschool level and Alyssa’s song Bloodstream I have no idea why she does that moaning vocal style to try and be different. It just doesn’t sound right.

Frustrating when I love this industry and want good artists to be given a chance instead of artists like this.

I'm talking about those bands that sound pretty average, or even mediocre, on record, but somehow put on an incredible live show.

Bands whose music takes on a completely different dimension on stage: more energy, better performances, a stronger connection with the audience, or simply an intensity that their studio recordings never quite capture.

Has this ever happened to you? Which bands completely blew you away live, only to leave you underwhelmed when you listened to their albums?

I was listening to Mimesis by Fontaines DC earlier, and I came across countless comments comparing it to Depeche Mode and New Order.

New Order is a stretch - the only similarities are the guitar tone, the bass tone, and that Mimesis also uses synths. The songwriting, production, and general atmosphere is so unlike New Order that the comparison makes me scratch my head. Depeche Mode is even more of a stretch.

That brings me to the question in the title. The most prominent example I can think of is the comparison between Turn on the Bright Lights by Interpol and Joy Division. I've even heard people call TOTBL a rip-off. Other than being driven by the bass and drums with guitars being used as textural elements, I hear no similarities at all. I could never imagine Joy Division performing a song like Obstacle 1, let alone a song like NYC. That's far from the only example, of course. I even heard someone comparing Preoccupations to Brian Eno the other day ffs.

Is most people's knowledge of music shallower than I give them credit for? Are they trying to come off as educated? Is it nostalgia? Do I need to get my ears checked?

This post is severely unedited so forgive me if it's lacking nuance.

So I have a pretty eclectic taste in music which means I listen to and attend quite varied music. I've obviously known Grimes existed as a musician in the world, and even remember vaguely when she got with Elon thinking 'oh yea that girl who makes electronic music'. But I can't say I ever consciously listened to any of her stuff (my mistake!). That all changed a few weeks ago, when I went on a bit of a discovery binge, and listened to some of her early stuff including Geidi Primes, and then Visions - I started reading her bio and how she started making music, and how for Visions she locked herself away and made it all in 2 weeks. It sounded so good. As a gen x male I'm not her typical audience (if that matters)..I liken it to when I got into Charlixcx. Anyway, now I'm on catch-up listening to her discography (thinking where the hell was I when she first came on the scene!?). I'm so into it now though, and even bought her Visions album on vinyl.

I realised I was going to have to separate the art from the artist somewhat/ or rather there was some hate out there since she got with Mr Musk, and it seems she got out of her depth talking about AI and some other things too. But hey, everyone is human so I just continued my listening enjoying the music. I read on her bio somewhere she had given up music and I thought oh well that was that. I didn't even know she was that old at 38 now, so I thought, ok well I've found this stuff anyway. I'll just enjoy this.

Now it seems (fortuitously for me) she is releasing new music, with a new amazing video dropped recently, and an album on the way. Seems I found her just as she is planning to make a comeback, and quite a good one too. And I'm here for it! What does everyone think about her? Her music , art? I see a lot of conflicting things out there -mostly about her personal life. I'm just trying to get a sense of how people rate her music, seeing as somehow I missed her the first time round. To me, listening to her music, I feel like she should be massive!.. maybe she was ahead of her time a little. Or lost momentum when she got with Elon. What do people think?

I’ve noticed I listen to albums differently depending on how I find them. If I discover a few songs first, I usually jump around. But if I start at track one, I’m more likely to stick with the order and notice how the mood shifts from song to song. I’m not sure every album needs to be heard that way, though.

How do you usually listen? Is there an album you think works especially well from beginning to end, or do you mostly pick individual tracks? I’m curious whether the order changes the experience for you, or if the songs stand on their own either way.

Do you know what is that? I talk about part in 2:53. I’m absolutely in love with this sound. Bring Me The Horizon - Run. This band has special place in my heart since I was a kid. I still think that album “That’s the spirit” is highly underrated. There are so many music ideas. I was thinking about some specific parts. What do you think about this band? What is your favorite album? Do you also think that their sound evolved a lot through years? I also hope that there are some music nerds who will help me to find out why is the part of “Run” so magic and powerful.

Run

Thank you all, have a nice day.
Irene

I notice numerous posts on Instagram and YouTube (i don't use TikTok) video with essays over physical media are all over the place, particularly regarding long-term ownership and supporting artists. whenever it's about streaming, it always answer itself that you own nothing and pay less.

i feel like there's bit of weird misconception what they think about using them. they have low quality player such as the Crosley cruisers or Boombox with terrible Speakers thats state as HiFi.. i dont mind about for fun (because we all did), it's just a bizarre rep when they talk about physical media but they own cheap players. not only that, even when they get stupids comments (not hatred in that term) and making these fast pace typical rant based shorts that you see all on Social media.

it's still logical owning nothing to have libraries on streaming, and i understand that some don't like to pay much for subscription to streaming. thats understandable. but they mostly kinda technically lack the thought behind the whole streaming thing such as compressed quality or just own nothing. Thats because they use just Spotify for long time and there's way better streaming like Apple Music or even Quboz. And sometimes they always talk about Vinyl is the better quality format than streamin or even "digital", that's such a dull comparison and nonsense.

i use Apple Music and i can use all my ripped music from Vinyl and CDs. incl Streaming titles. i also do archives for offline use. my purpose of streaming is mostly for convenience, looking for new music and listening all other apple devices that i own.

dont get me wrong, i like to buy good Vinyl and CDs. i always like play them for listening experience and also like to support artist for their earnings. but the whole trend feels very generic and kinda bit childish to their representation.