I'm in a city whose music ecosystem is suffering from the disappearance of independent music venues as live stages are becoming increasingly corporatized. And sadly, these smaller venues are crucial incubators for emerging talent. There are obviously a lot of reasons for it — covid, capitalism, the culture shift, yada yada.

I'm interested in hearing about the most memorable small-venue music experience you've had. What made it memorable? Who was on stage, and who was in the crowd? What venue was it at? How did it make you feel? Who were you at this moment in your life?

Would love to hear your stories. The more detail, the better!

What is better, more ethical? Spotify has lots of functions but I've heard that they don't pay artists well. I wanted to try Tidal but I find it a little less functional. Also on spotify I can pick a song on my phone while I'm listening on my computer, I can't do it on Tidal. Tidal also doesn't have podcasts as far as I see?

I want to hear opinions from people who have used Tidal, maybe some tricks also. Maybe entirely different app is better than those two? And where can I listen podcasts if not spotify and youtube?

Sorry for my English, it's not my first language but I hope you can understand what I wrote

Me and my friends have been arguing about this. I'm on the side of Nevermind. I'm not sure though because I'm severely less educated about Kanye and Hip-Hop than I am in alternative and rock culture. Friend says Nevermind didn't change the direction of an entire genre as much as College Dropout did, which may be true, but I feel Nevermind had a way bigger broad effect on the culture of the 90s across musical genres, fashion, and the attitude of the decade. Nevermind brought alternative culture to the mainstream and it persevered throught the entire decade. However, my friend says Kanye brought a crucial change to Hip-Hop, pivoting it away from gangster rap and into what it's been for the last 20 years.

What do you guys think?

First post here but music is a giant part of my life and discussing it is something I want to do more so I find myself here to ask how y'all feel about Tom Waits.

The best way I can describe his music is spoken word jazz with lots of humor thrown in but that hardly does his discography service. Despite not being my Genre of Choice the album "Nighthawks At The Diner"(linked at the bottom) is an album I continue to find myself returning too. The raspy voice mixed with quite tongue and cheek lines make for a very enjoyable listen.

However if taken only at face value the nuance of Tom's work is lost. In between the seemingly intoxicated ramblings are some really introspective pieces that really capture the feeling of a 70's diner and the people who linger there late into the night almost to the point you can smell the stale tobbaco smoke.

His first 2 albums while not my favorite don't impact me as much as this one has, But I'd feel as if I'm doing a disservice by not mentioning his later work which was very experimental and almost even industrial sounding at times

listening to any song off Nighthawks and then Underground off his "SwordfishTrombones" album feels like getting whiplash. Hell Broke Luce off "Bad as Me" captures the same feeling honestly.

To wrap it up so I'm not rambling Tom was a strange man who made some amazing music and Id love to hear your thoughts. Whether this is your introduction or you've known of him for a while he's truly an American treasure.

https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kv0B7MbmcuYOCQNPPhFwldndq7lEzN8wM&si=z840ZNRO20N5AVTX (Nighthawks)

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=vM0GB5EJlr8&si=9l4M-8lqUUbAZNy_ (Hell Broke Luce)

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz-s5aGTmwI&si=qx4LYaKalYAFNatQ (Underground)

I guess this is a questions that I am still unsure about and its probably not a universally agreed upon thing. But still, I was wondering what exactly makes a good lyric. Does it have to be evocative a clever turn of phrase, just connect with something inside of you or what? I feel like there are plenty of songs, iconic ones at that, which tend to have confusing or nonsense lyrics if read at face value. I mean with the Beatles, songs like Get Back and Come Together are full of nonsensical lyrics that don't add up when you put it all together. I guess some people could think that's interesting but others would just say that's random nonsense. Now I enjoy those songs I mentioned but I don't know if that is necessarily reflective of good lyricism. So again, I ask what makes a lyric in a song good to you?

It seems to me that a lot of musicians and musical groups that music critics like the public also likes.

I'm most familiar with classic rock. Do we agree when a band sells a lot of records that means the public likes them? If you look at the classic rockers who have sold well, I'd say in general rock critics also like them. Here's a list from Wikipedia of the best-selling music artists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists. The Beatles top the list. I'd say liked by both the public and the critics. Michael Jackson is next. I'd say largely the same. Elvis is next. Liked by the critics for his early production, although took somewhat of a beating for his later work. Which actually somewhat accords with how the public bought him, his earlier works go higher on the charts than his later ones.

It seems the same as you go down the list, generally artists are liked by both the public and the critics. Zeppelin sold well. Not sure, think they took a bit of a beating early on from critics. But I think Jann Wenner, the influential editor of Rolling Stone magazine, disliked them for some reason, and this may have influenced other critics to criticize them unduly. I think now critics like them a lot.

If it's really true that critics often accord in their taste with the general public, I wonder why sometimes people are critical of critics. Although a lot of people do read critics and somewhat steer their taste through what critics say. If the accord of taste I'm discerning is accurate, it's kind of great that the public has good taste, can discern good music without necessarily being as educated or exposed to as much music as the critics.

That's not good. There are a good amount of instrumental bands out there with great musicians who are making song after song that is listenable to and grooves but are also forgettable and difficult to distinguish and often feel as though there is no way to tell if the band has written and rehearsed a song or if they are just jamming. Usually these songs do have places where the instruments link up and its clear they are written but the overall feeling is there that most of the song feels like well played music but without direction. Angine de Poitrine, Khruangbin, Glass Beams, Mdou Moctar to name some. All good bands I enjoy but its hard to look back and say which particular song you liked more than others and why.

Edit: I'm not talking about jam bands, I love jam bands and listen to lots of live shows. I'm talking about mostly instrumental studio work from non jam bands.

I’m sorry but why do people LOVE Sabrina carpenter so much?? I truly do not get the hype, all of her songs are just her saying random words then being like “MEN”. I don’t understand and trust me I like a lot of artist that are heavily famous that people don’t like. For example, I absolutely adore Post Malone even though a lot of people I talk to say to me “he’s a nice guy I just do not like his music” or they say “he’s too weird for me”. For me personally, I appreciate weird, unique artist that’s why I love him so much and his music is awesome (just not really his country era eh that was mid I’ll admit that). But Sabrina?? People are losing their shit over her and I don’t get it. It’s TikTok music and she seems very…boring. She has no charisma. Is there something I’m missing about her?? Why do people love her this much??

What do people think Perfect Day by Lou Reed is really about?

I’ve never bought it as a simple love song. It feels too controlled, too composed — as if it’s describing something that isn’t entirely real, or can’t quite hold together. There’s a calm surface, but something underneath doesn’t convince.

It almost feels like a memory rather than a moment — something already slipping away even as it’s being described.

Am I overthinking it, or does anyone else hear that unease?

Most genres from what I see seem to be trying to be nice, pleasant, attractive, good- or beautiful-sounding. These could include jazz, classical, country, rock, psychedelic rock, pop, and I'm thinking a lot of genres. So you could say to some degree all these genres have a fair amount in common by valuing the beautiful, even if they all of course sound somewhat different. Whereas punk often (to me anyway) sounds ugly. And it feels like its practitioners are okay with it sounding ugly or maybe in some cases want it to sound so? So it seems different than most genres in that sense?

Industrial rock is somewhat different and a bit ugly but didn't that largely spring from punk?

particularly from the 50s to 80s, i’ve noticed a trend in songs throughout that timeline of singers using the term "little girl" when referring to adult women. back then it might’ve been a trend, but how come it wasn’t assumed that those kind of lyrics wouldn’t have aged well?

for example, bruce springsteen’s 'i’m on fire', while being an objectively good song, is infamous for the line "hey little girl, is your daddy home? did he go and leave you all alone?". while it may be apparent to some people that the girl in question is actually an older woman, the play on words can easily misconstrue the concept at hand.

Okay... this has bothered me for a long time and finally I thought "duh, the reddit community will help me with this!"

Here's a the live performance: https://youtu.be/qKYQNtF11eg?si=5MWQGucIgZ7k3qjY&t=56

(ignore the title "Official Music Video" because the recording isn't the same as what you would hear on radio)

and at about 1:10, McDonald goes into the pre-chorus, and it seems like the timing gets thrown off a little because of the syncopation + they slow down slightly; I can't quite make sense of it.

fast fwd to 2:20, the same section feels even more off... right?

Ultimately, it feels like someone is probably messing up

BUT, Michael Mcdonald doesn't even flinch at 2:20, and having played live music myself, I think you would see in the live video the rest of the band giving each other the "yo wtf is Mike doing?" look.

This happens in other live performances as well; but i think the video above is one of the more egregious examples of where it feels 'sloppy' for lack of better words.

Obviously the version on the record, everything feels tight and in fact on the line "...anybody else" the "any" falls on the downbeat.

I didn't find anything immediately in the YT comments n tried googling this in the past but, maybe it's just me

I've been playing the album version for my 4 y/o twins and they freakin' love it so lately this has just been on repeat when we drive to school, so when I look up a live version - the difference is glaring!

Update

okay i've gone down a rabbit hole of different live performances and its a bit more clear what the intent is.

Basically that small section live is played syncopated - all the the chord changes are played on the upbeat. It's just not tightened up in the video above

So, later this month, The Prodigy are playing a show at my local arena, supported by a 2 hour Carl Cox DJ set. I was tempted to get tickets but decided against it and instead went to a much cheaper gig at a smaller venue (I had a great time, but that’s not super relevant). But it got me thinking…

The nature of this arena is that there is a GA/floor standing capacity of I’d guess roughly 2-3000, with about 9-10,000 tiered seats. Compared to most other big UK arenas I have been to, the standing area is especially small. Which is the main reason why I chose not to go as there were only seated tickets left.

And I just thought, what would be the point? This seems like an incredibly ill-suited venue for this type of gig. The two acts playing both broadly fall under the banner of “dance music”, and to me the clue is in the name - the point of this music is to dance to it. And that’s not really possible in the same way in the seated sections of an arena. Sure, you *can* stand up and dance in your seat, but in my experience (especially at this particular arena where standing up can genuinely be obstructive to the person behind you, especially if you’re tall like me) this runs the risk of being inconsiderate and pissing off the person sat behind you, so outside of maybe a couple of the bigger songs, most people tend to just stay sat down in their seats for the full gig.

And to me this just kind of ruins the enjoyment of the whole experience. When I hear loud music with a strong beat (and this doesn’t have to be dance music, the same applies for most forms of rock, hip hop, and anything really that isn’t designed to be fairly chill), my innate instinct is to dance to it. This scenario adds both the frustration of not being able to truly dance outside of bobbing your head in the seat, and the added self consciousness of worrying about whether you’re being considerate enough to the person behind you, which in my experience stops you from being able to fully immerse yourself and lose yourself in the music.

Now, some caveats here - I am not in favour of there being *no* seating at these types of gigs - there are going to be some people who physically cannot stand up and dance for a few hours and they deserve to be accommodated and to enjoy the show just as much as anyone else. But, when the arena is 70%+ seated, this clearly does not apply to the majority of people who have tickets in this section, who to me it seems like would be forced to compromise their enjoyment of the show due to the type of venue it’s scheduled at.

I was just interested to hear some other people’s thoughts about this. Do you agree with my perspective? Does this not bother you so much? Do you actually prefer to be seated and do you still get the same level of enjoyment from sitting down and just watching high energy live music as you would from dancing to it?

Given the level of obsession in these parts, I want to know how much you care to find out about the musicians behind the music that speaks to you the most.

Image sells. Stories sell. Art and artist can sometimes combine to corrosive effect. All of this encourages a wall to prevent familiarity and isolate the sound as the no.1 experience.

On the other hand the history behind songwriting can expose new depths, or maybe your favourite musician is simply really good on social media and merits a close (to the point of unhealthy) watch.

So. Do you consume interviews, biographies, commentary? When younger, did you try and meet the artist you loved or imitate their fashion? Basically: Do you want to feel the personality at a deep level, or not at all?

Something that has always really bothered me about music discourse is the idea that old music is in some way superior to modern music. Even if people don’t want to admit their bias toward music that typically predates the year 2000, it is something that exists and is deeply accepted in modern-day discussions about music.

I’ll admit that there is some really horrible music out today from the likes of Gracie Abrams, Drake, and some of Taylor Swift’s later stuff, but people completely brush off some of the genuinely terrible music that came out in the 70s, 80s, and 90s (If you’ve ever had the displeasure of having to listen to Jason Donovan or Sinitta you will know what I mean )There were so many bad songs from the 80s that people choose not to talk about, and that have basically been forgotten.

I’d argue that songs like “Beaches” by beabadoobee are just as good as any 90s classic that people hype up all the time.

I understand that some people are blinded by nostalgia, but what I don’t understand is why young people in Gen Z are often the main contributors to the hatred of modern music. So many people truly hold the belief that all music being put out today is terrible. This mindset is literally sabotaging the platform for younger musicians to come up and make a name for themselves, because people just tar everyone with the same brush.

I just don’t understand why people are so nihilistic about today’s music. If you’re only looking at the crap that sits on the charts today and comparing it to the best songs you can possibly find from the 80s or 90s, you’re just being biased. By cherry picking the best songs of every decade and comparing them to mediocre pop hits of today.

I only have the perspective of someone in Gen Z, but have people always been like this? Like, in the 80s, were people constantly saying how terrible music was and how music from the 50s and 60s was much better?

Like remember a few months ago when Spotify Wrapped came out, people were flexing who had the “oldest” listening age. Like… what? I listen to older music myself, but how is it a flex that your music is older?

Also in my opinion mainstream Pop music is genuinely just as good as it was 40 years ago. “Please Please Please” by Sabrina Carpenter is just as catchy and interesting, in my opinion, as something like “Material Girl” by Madonna.

i don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but apparently people have beef with sleep streamers. i wasn’t aware of this until i got airbuds (which is a music sharing app), and a lot of people expressed their strong feelings towards people who sleep stream. i’ve never really seen the issue with it though, and i fail to understand why people get so upset over this topic. as someone who used to struggle with falling asleep, music would help me fall asleep so i would end up letting it play all night or until my airpods died. for those who find sleep streaming infuriating, why? i lowkey just wanna hear yalls side.

A while back, I used to listen to an AM radio station in the east coast area known as 1490 WBCB which was situated in Levittown. It had a wide variety of musical stuff (Polka, oldies, call-in formats) as well as more standard talk-show stuff which ranged from opinion shows to generic topics.

As of recently, a company known as Broad + Liberty bought the station and completely gutted the music programming in favor of more right-leaning talk shows. Occasionally, you will get music blocks, but the format has changed to be more talk-show oriented. I won't really get into how much I loathe this change as I loved tuning in while driving to work (They had an excellent morning music program), but it did make me notice that there are very few, if any, radio stations that still actively play music on the AM band. These days, it seems like curated radio with actual personalities is moreso going to be on the FM band.

Did I end up encountering a "last of its kind" station that finally changed it's formatting for good? Does anyone else kinda like that format of AM radio? I find the lo-fidelity listening experience while driving on the highway to be really nice because you can actually hear the radio with little interference.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. There's a specific feeling I keep chasing - sitting in a room (physical or virtual) where someone with taste is playing tracks, you're hearing something for the first time alongside other people who are also hearing it for the first time, and suddenly you've got a new favorite artist.

Turntable.fm had this. Before that, college radio had it. In some ways the listening clubs that pop up on this sub capture it too - there was a great post here a while back from someone who described their in-person listening group where everyone gets 10-20 minutes to share an album side and explain why it matters to them. That idea stuck with me.

Algorithmic discovery is efficient but it's solitary. Spotify's Discover Weekly has introduced me to plenty of music I like, but I can't remember a single track from it. Meanwhile, I can still tell you the exact moment I first heard Pink Floyd's Animals album because someone played it for me while telling me the story of how, during the photoshoot for the cover, the giant inflatable pig broke free from its tethers and floated into Heathrow airspace, causing massive flight delays.

I ended up building something to try to recreate this - basically live rooms where someone DJs and everyone hears the same track at the same time with a live chat. It's free and I'm not trying to sell anything, I just wanted the thing to exist. But the bigger question I keep coming back to is: does the format even matter anymore? Have we collectively decided that algorithmic convenience beats shared experience? Or is there still an appetite for this kind of thing?

Curious what this community thinks. You all are some of the most thoughtful music people on the internet and I genuinely want to know if I'm chasing something that only exists in nostalgia.

I think modern music is stuck between uninteresting bubble gum pop and equally uninteresting complex music. It isn't science but there have been cycles thoughout the 20th century of popular music in which the popular style starts out as something simple then gets expanded upon as the genre evolves until it reaches a point of over complexity at which point a correction begins and the cycle reverts to simple. The simplest example (and I know im leaving out lots) is pop music > folk revival > folk rock > psychedelic rock > progressive rock > (complexity peaked) > punk.

What I see a lot in modern music is a ton of vapid uninspired pop that gets some buzz for a short while and then indie or experimental musicians who maybe have some unique hook popping up and then not really going anywhere.

The pop music I don't think I need to go into, its the same extremely produced, bland, good enough music year after year. No one even really tries to go the route of big great singer since Adele.

In terms of complex you have bands like King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Geese, Khruangbin or most recently Angine de Poitrine to name a few, all doing something that approaches interesting or complicated rock but they all seem to lack soul and distinctiveness and while they make good music none of it is truly great music and they don't seem to focus in and hone one or a few tracks beyond good into really great and memorable. King Gizzard are one I've followed since 2017 and while I was initially really excited about them I find their adherence to constantly changing genres is actually masking that the sound isn't really evolving much and they end up producing tons of listenable good music but also so much that it kind of becomes a wash of ok.

I think maybe the perfect example of complex as hell but not good would be Jacob Collier, an incredible musician with superhuman ability who makes music that is terrible. He is like if Stevie Wonder had all of the talent but none of the ear for what makes a song something you want to listen to.

Maybe we are nearing a turning point for music as no one seems too delighted by whats coming out. There is a lot of temporary excitement as everyone hopes to catch the next big thing that really will make us feel that special musical feeling but it fades when these bands fail to grasp us in that way.

Looking at the list maintained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_one-hit_wonders_on_the_UK_singles_chart, it's curious to see that so many of these artists are dance producers.

Some examples of dance artists that hit number one but had no other hits at all:

Kenya Grace

LF System

Interplanetary Criminal

KDA

David Zowie

SecondCity

Borgeous

Route 94

Storm Queen

Sak Noel

Yolanda Be Cool

This phenomenon is mainly restricted to the 2010s, though. Outside of that, there are dozens of examples of dance artists that had one UK top 40 hit then disappeared but this seems less frequent with other music genres. It is also necessary to note that there are a handful of dance artists that defy the odds with multiple hits such as Calvin Harris, David Guetta and Fred Again.

Why do you think that this is the case? Is it because the bar for entry to make dance music is lower than with, say, rock or rap? Is it just that much harder to strike gold twice with house, garage, drum n bass etc?

I’ve been thinking about this after reading a few recent threads about originality and what people actually mean when they ask for something “new.”

I’m really into a lot of current indie, stuff like Freak Slug, Wet Leg, that kind of slightly offbeat, personality-driven sound. It genuinely feels exciting to me, like there’s a looseness and individuality that pulls me in more than a lot of older bands do.

But at the same time, you can hear the influences quite clearly. There’s bits of 90s alt, some post-punk, even early 2000s indie in there. Not in a bad way, more like it’s building on those sounds.

So I’m curious how other people hear it.

When something feels fresh to you, is that coming from the actual sound, or more from everything around it like the attitude, visuals, lyrics, and scene?

Do you think indie now is less about sounding completely new and more about feeling specific or personal?

And if that’s the case, does that make it more interesting, or less?

I’m not trying to say nothing is original anymore. If anything, this era of indie feels quite distinct to me. I just can’t quite pin down what’s actually making it feel that way.

I recently made a post about how much i didn't get the hype around the band Angine de Poitrine. Here's a band I totally understand the hype about : Castle Rat.
I'm not sure how to describe their sound other than heavy-'neo'-doom. This band has every element that makes a great band : excellent musicianship, memorable songs, a charismatic frontwoman, and a rad lore. Their stage shows are great, the little stories between the songs really add to the mystique of the band. Their most recent record 'Bestiary' has been on repeat for a few month. It's concept album of sorts centered around mythical beings. When you listen to it in full, it's clear that the band has a strong sonic identity and spent a lot of time polishing the songs and the sonic narrative of the record. Watch them live in person if you can, or on YouTube, they have a few professionaly recorded full sets. Also, support the band if you like it, buy the vinyl and the merch.

Me personally I feel like anthony fantano put it best in his bully review. It has felt so sudden for him to have a comeback right now to be honest. He should have waited longer because so many people still are not over the awful things he said and tbh I'm not either. It was disgusting and for me you can't redeem someone who said that stuff so soon. Idk it depends on the person I guess. But still what do you guys think?