Jump to content

stoopid

Members
  • Posts

    1938
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1358 Stellar

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.the-boogeymen.com

Member Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Las Vegas, NV
  • Interests
    Music, climbing, birds

Music Fandom

  • Number of Rush Concerts Attended
    1
  • Last Rush Concert Attended
    2007
  • Other Favorite Bands
    Porcupine Tree, Tool, Dream Theater, Yes, Gojira, Opeth, King Crimson, Riverside, Big Wreck
  • Musical Instruments You Play
    Guitar, bass, a bit of keys, bit less of drums

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This thread's premise is rooted entirely in nostalgia. The point is looking back fondly, not looking back critically. I don't have a fondness for this era, I'm not going to pretend I ever did. When metal and grunge took over late 80s onward is when I feel like "music" started to filter into the mainstream. It was a decade of massive variety on the airwaves, but eventually we came back to cheese and marketing dominating. I equate the grunge era with the hippy music of the late 60s, neither fit the mold at the time and came out of nowhere... and at some point the movement faded and record company marketing departments took over again. Much like other things in life, modern music seems to ebb and flow in cycles.
  2. The irony in your post (rant? ;) ) is that MTV was spoon feeding you certain artists and songs, opposite of that same freedom you next talk about with radio stations that played deeper cuts and lesser heard/lower charting artists. I'm also a product of that exact era of MTV and classic rock radio. I don't miss it. I know what you speak of with regards to limited selection, but the same issues existed then that exist now... the listener has to find a source for variety. Most people in the 80s listened to the 'top 40' stations and/or watch MTV (and eventually VH1) to be told what was "good music". The listener assumes "If it's on this station, and tons of people are listening to it, then it must be good". Not all of it was bad, but a fair bit of it was or hasn't aged well. It's the same today, mainstream sources emphasize "sponsored" artists, the ones with record company backing that get put onto playlists. It's the same formula to sell music, different medium.
  3. The internet would have eroded MTV's relevance regardless of the poor decisions they've made. Now we get direct access to most any music/music videos we want, much of it for free. No reason to pine for what isn't, what we have is IMO better. And if looking for a personality to deliver music to you plus ads, there's always the endless number of Youtubers doing music reviews and commentary.
  4. You should have gone with your instincts/gut and posted Satriani.
  5. I recently went through all my MP3s and made sure they were properly labeled (filename and embedded tags), even added album art to most of them since i mostly only have things I own/like. High bitrate MP3 seems here to stay, it's probably the longest running format with as much flexibility as it offers. FLAC is great too, but not inherently supported on all devices that play music. Objectively, the difference with road noise in most vehicle between FLAC/CD and 320Kbps MP3 is tough to discern, and of course FLAC/CD WAV files take up much more space too so until memory storage is super cheap/excessive, which may never be the case for phones since it's a metric they use for upselling different models/tiers in the company's lineup, it would seem that hedging my bets with MP3 is the safest course. I've been on the planet using tech long enough to see nearly all forms of car audio come/go through the years. Further back memories are radio only, if lucky 8 track. Then cassettes hit hard, and stayed around for quite a while even staying around longer as playback devices thanks to adapters that allowed their replacement, compact discs, to play over a 3.5mm jack into the same old headunit. Compact discs lasted about as long in car audio before MP3s and other digital audio started to be supported by players. Mp3s over an audio cable via a 3.5mm 'headphone' jack is still a thing today, but they could also be burned to a CD and played off the disc in some cars. Then USB thumbdrives and/or smartphones over a USB cable became the defacto means of getting digital music into the cars, quickly followed by bluetooth streaming from portable devices and phones. Now we can stream libraries of music over the cell phone data signal (wirelessly too) and even control the functions/search through the touchscreens on the car's head unit [wireless carplay/android auto]. I guess things have come a long way. No wonder iPods aren't all the rage anymore. [rant] Everyone will end up at a place they're comfortable with tech, so long as it provides the function they want. Just beware, as I've said before, of letting others control the media and medium its being delivered. 'Ownership' of music, tv shows, and movies is going away and you're trusting the people with the most to gain to not raise the prices to the point you can't/won't enjoy the same quantity or quality as you're accustomed. In one way or another, whether making you buy a compact disc at $15 or three subscriptions at $5 /month each, they WILL get their "fair share". [/rant]
  6. Treeduck, am I really supposed to watch all these videos? Are you going to reimburse my time to take off work to do so?
  7. Same here, the answer to the question has as much to do with personal tastes of the listener. Pop Genesis works better for me than Gabriel era through Duke. Starting with the self-titled I can listen to the albums from beginning to end. Not that every song is brilliant, it just rings truer and is more objectively enjoyable. Yes I like through 90125, there's some great songs on 90125 like It Can Happen, Changes, Cinema/Leave It... Big Generator is a rough listen now, although I remember enjoying it as a kid. Shoot High, Aim Low is the only surviving track to my ears. Could Yes have gone this direction if not for the successes of their prior albums and tours? The band Live (1990s mostly fame) had a mostly acoustic based first full album, Mental Jewelry. Then after grunge had a firm footing, they added a lot of electric guitars and attitude on the hugely successful followup Throwing Copper. Despite aligning with the obvious market tropes of the time [distorted, half step tuned down guitars, songs written in a lower key for the lead singer to be less shrilly] they managed to stay true to their roots, as evidence of their MTV Unplugged performance that had these same 'heavier' song translate extremely well to an all acoustic format like they would have appeared on the first album/in the style of the first album. My point is that sometimes it's not the compositions as much as the instruments they're played. Radiohead from The Bends to OK Computer wasn't a huge leap if you look under the musical hood, there was just a bit of electronic peppered into what could have easily been The Bends v2. And yet that album (OK Computer) is heralded as something new, and that was almost entirely accomplished through changing the delivery mechanism of the music (type and tone of the instruments). IMO a band needs money to record and effectively distribute an album, and to get that they need to have some level of success. Nowadays this is even tougher as contracts are written less favorably for the bands, often requiring record sales and/or touring metrics to be met to recoup the studio costs being loaned them for making the album, putting pressure on new artists to create something accessible or lose their shirts (and band) in the process. Zappa and others warned of this trend going back as far as the 1970s ('drooling accountants', etc). This makes for an environment where signed artists are less likely to take risks until they are firmly established, if ever. Thankfully we're in the age of home recording / budget studio recording that can rival what the record companies typically expect/use. So there's a healthy supply of interesting music to be made and enjoyed, so long as the artist isn't trying to fully support themselves on the sales which still requires a marketing budget, shit luck, or a boatload of touring. Is there a direct correlation of bands that have changed gears once or more over their career and the objective quality of their output? Aerosmith went full on sellout, but were commercially successful prior (although fading until they released Permanent Vacation). Their late 80s onward output is cringeworthy but coming from a place of 'we don't *really* need to sellout, but here we are'. They could have just as well gone the other direction, and went electronica, prog, or metal. I think their choice is one worth examining when looking at other artists who made the least commercially viable decision they could have made at the time. Rush did this several times, to varying success. Interviews indicate they had to in order to survive, they otherwise would have grown bored trying to make Hemispheres or 2112 over and over again. In doing so, they gave listeners something new to appreciate, even if it wasn't their favorite version of the band. Did they sell out because they changed, or did they not sellout because they changed in a pop direction their fans did NOT want? The Beatles were selling a lot of albums before and after they shifted gears, and in the context of those differing styles they made good music in either version of the band. It still comes down to what pleases the listener's ears, so it's not a rule or filter that can be applied blindly to any band, era, or trend.
  8. I saw a poll on a forum once that said he was a hack, so it must be true.
  9. I was posting in general about his playing, not any particular lead (there's a hundred or more to choose from).
  10. First name that came to mind, and quite the selection of dipole brilliant and completely useless solos. Even within the same solo there can be melodic brilliance and useless fluff. Govan on the other hand seems to have near perfect instincts, I've yet to hear a lead from him that seemed 'filler'.
  11. They could also structure the first poll to eliminate several of the lesser liked/lower hanging fruit releases. This would help cut down on the number of poll threads needed for an artist to determine a winner. Every poll I've participated had about half of the artist's releases being eliminated early as a 'known outcome', everyone engaged already knew which albums were going to occupy the top three of four spots.
  12. I like some of Sting's early solo music, but his output with the Police has held up better for me. Same with Phil Collins, some good early albums then drifted too far into mainstream or adult contemporary for my tastes.
×
×
  • Create New...