930 Forums

Musicological banter

Relaxer
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 5410
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:21 PM UTC #
ggw wrote:
Relaxer wrote:
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.


Isn't "Millennial" just a re-branding of Gen Y?

Probably, but I think of generations as coming in 15-20 year chunks.

So your Greatest Generation is ancient times to 1945, Baby Boomers from 45-65, Gen X from 65-80, Gen Y from 80 to 95, and millenials beginning at 95 and onward (which means we're damn well ready for a new shiny generation label)
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:28 PM UTC #
I know. But it smacks of an outdated sentiment that women can't be discerning music fans (then again, how much of a discerning music fan is your average Pitchfork reader in 2015, anyway? I almost only ever go there anymore to read something someone I know has written.).
Watermelondrea wrote:
azaghal1981 wrote:
The line in Condé Nast's press release about "passionate millennial males" can't be making Pitchfork's female writers (who have been responsible for its better content over the last few years) too happy.

they were referring to the audience, not the staff
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:28 PM UTC #
This is what I thought.
ggw wrote:
Relaxer wrote:
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.


Isn't "Millennial" just a re-branding of Gen Y?
killsaly
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:37 PM UTC #
ggw wrote:
Isn't "Millennial" just a re-branding of Gen Y?

YES. (also the term has been around since 1987…)

The years are up for debate but it is more like:

Generation Z - 1995 to 2012

Generation Y (aka Millennials) - 1980 to 1995

Generation X - 1965 to 1980

The years can vary a bit depending on what study you look at. 


Relaxer wrote:
So your Greatest Generation is ancient times to 1945, Baby Boomers from 45-65, Gen X from 65-80, Gen Y from 80 to 95, and millenials beginning at 95 and onward (which means we're damn well ready for a new shiny generation label)
No.  Millennials and Gen Y are the SAME THING.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/millennials-millennial-generation
http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/generation-gaps/millennial-generation.htm
stevewizzle
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:44 PM UTC #
Relaxer wrote:
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.


i think that's about right. millennial music fans are into festivals, electronic music, and molly. they could care less about rock n roll, punk rock, or any of the garbage being reported about tyler the creator or jack white.
stevewizzle
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:56 PM UTC #
curious: where's everyone getting their music news and album release info these days?

always been a huge fan of the work over at gorilla vs bear, but it's pretty niche. i've started to frequent BV more as it seems to appeal to a larger audience, but it's a workout getting through their massive content feed.
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 08:18 PM UTC #
hoborock.com
jrpa
Joined: September 03, 2013 at 03:15 PM UTC
Posts: 29999
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 08:19 PM UTC #
ggw wrote:
hoborock.org
FTFY. Technically they're non-profit. . .
walk,on,by
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 08:20 PM UTC #
those weird, gorilla versus bear shows I hear on the Sirius xmu stations are just beyond my level of odd, almost to the point of trying too hard to be weird and the music is so . . . dare I say, hoboish.
killsaly
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 08:20 PM UTC #
Facebook.com
stevewizzle
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 08:22 PM UTC #
walk,on,by wrote:
those weird, gorilla versus bear shows I hear on the Sirius xmu stations are just beyond my level of odd, almost to the point of trying too hard to be weird and the music is so . . . dare I say, hoboish.


hey man.

hobos are people too.
hutch
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 08:26 PM UTC #
Carlos wrote:
ggw wrote:
hoborock.org
FTFY. Technically they're non-profit. . .


I don't think they could afford a .org… probably more like .tv
killsaly
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 09:09 PM UTC #
CMJ seems like a nightmare.
beetsnotbeats
Joined: April 26, 2002 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 5756
Re: Musicological banter October 14, 2015 at 07:56 PM UTC #


Happy 80th, La Monte Young!
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 14, 2015 at 08:51 PM UTC #
fart wrote:
curious: where's everyone getting their music news and album release info these days?

always been a huge fan of the work over at gorilla vs bear, but it's pretty niche. i've started to frequent BV more as it seems to appeal to a larger audience, but it's a workout getting through their massive content feed.

The Quietus
Tiny Mix Tapes
Impose
Collapseboard
Fact

And just following a bunch of musicians on Twitter. Wax Idols just put a stream of her new album up there, for instance.
Sidehatch
Joined: October 04, 2011 at 04:33 AM UTC
Posts: 25687
Re: Musicological banter October 15, 2015 at 03:01 PM UTC #
jrpa
Joined: September 03, 2013 at 03:15 PM UTC
Posts: 29999
Re: Musicological banter October 15, 2015 at 03:38 PM UTC #
azaghal1981 wrote:
Tiny Mix Tapes
I love TMT.

I used to like a site called Fake Jazz but it hasn't been up in forever. And, of course, there was Bigyawn. . .
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 15, 2015 at 03:42 PM UTC #
Carlos wrote:
azaghal1981 wrote:
Tiny Mix Tapes
I love TMT.

I used to like a site called Fake Jazz but it hasn't been up in forever. And, of course, there was Bigyawn. . .

Dusted was another good one.
They still sort of exist on Tumblr but it's not the same.
walk,on,by
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Musicological banter October 15, 2015 at 08:34 PM UTC #
how much music, is too much music?
← Back to board