Hipster music talk
Bagley wrote:
http://pigeonsandplanes.com/2013/05/10-obnoxious-things-hipsters-say-about-music/s/172822/
How guilty are you?
Not guilty at all. But I do hate websites that don't show you everything and make you click next to see the next item in the list. Who doesn't hate that? Someone should create a list things obnoxious websites do in their site design.
I will admit to the first one. I have done that plenty. Actually just did it sort of with Cat Power.
And if you have signed a major label contract in the last ten years, the odds strongly are that your pre-major label work was superior due to your major label overlords' attempt to micromanage you.
Oh and yeah the multiple clicking is a pain in the ass for sure.
And if you have signed a major label contract in the last ten years, the odds strongly are that your pre-major label work was superior due to your major label overlords' attempt to micromanage you.
Oh and yeah the multiple clicking is a pain in the ass for sure.
If you talk about music with people, you're going to say some of those things eventually. I don't think those comments are obnoxious.
azaghal1981 wrote:
I will admit to the first one. I have done that plenty. Actually just did it sort of with Cat Power.
And if you have signed a major label contract in the last ten years, the odds strongly are that your pre-major label work was superior due to your major label overlords' attempt to micromanage you.
Oh and yeah the multiple clicking is a pain in the ass for sure.
It could be that when bands sign to major labels they get more money and attention so they don't have as much time or incentive to work on their music. Also bands lose talented members as they go along.
More money is a myth and the attention might increase but is fleeting. Just ask Steve Albini circa 1993. I would be curious as to how the numbers have changed today. I bet they are even worse for artists.
The only one I found to be particularly gross is "it's the most important album of the decade". I don't consider albums to be important. They're things that I listen to and enjoy, and I like hearing what other people enjoy. Having enough food to eat is important. Shelter is important. Education is important. But not a Radiohead LP.
K8teebug wrote:
If you talk about music with people, you're going to say some of those things eventually. I don't think those comments are obnoxious.
Pretty much my take as well. I've heard much of this for decades.
Try telling that to Katy Perry OR Avril Lavigne!!!!!
bearman wrote:
Having enough food to eat is important. Shelter is important. Education is important. But not a Radiohead LP.
azaghal1981 wrote:
More money is a myth and the attention might increase but is fleeting. Just ask Steve Albini circa 1993. I would be curious as to how the numbers have changed today. I bet they are even worse for artists.
Independent labels have replaced the majors, and apparently some have become pretty greedy. I think money is still being made, not so much from record sales but from licensing and touring. Put a song on a TV show or in a movie or whatever and I'll bet there's some good bucks in that. I often wonder how all these bands can exist and make money, but when I hear how much they can get guaranteed just for showing up and playing a gig, it's easy to see why so many musicians tour now. The money made in selling a record has evaporated. And the music industry was naive to see that was changing. The industry has adapted and evolved though. But eventually unless you own the rights to the music you make, you'll get screwed the way that Albini highlighted.
nkotb wrote:
Try telling that to Katy Perry OR Avril Lavigne!!!!!bearman wrote:
Having enough food to eat is important. Shelter is important. Education is important. But not a Radiohead LP.
Does Avril still have fans? I guess Katy Perry does. I don't know much about pop music.
I've said some of these things.
Not being good live, into them 2 years ago [it happens!], I usually don't think any remixes are better of songs I already like, sometimes the single is the 'worst' song on the album, sometimes the radio does ruin songs.
*pushes up thick nerd glasses*
Not being good live, into them 2 years ago [it happens!], I usually don't think any remixes are better of songs I already like, sometimes the single is the 'worst' song on the album, sometimes the radio does ruin songs.
*pushes up thick nerd glasses*
It is true that live guarantees have gone through the roof.
The demo is so much better.
chaz wrote:
The demo is so much better.
Sometimes it is, LOL. I love the druggy, cough syrup-on-glue demo of "I Don't Care" by the Ramones. Sounds more like Wire than the Ramones.
Yeah. Sometimes this stuff is just true. Of Montreal live is horrendous overly theatrics-reliant bullshit.
azaghal1981 wrote:
Yeah. Sometimes this stuff is just true. Of Montreal live is horrendous overly theatrics-reliant bullshit.
Of Montreal is one of the best live bands in the world.
atomicfront wrote:azaghal1981 wrote:
Yeah. Sometimes this stuff is just true. Of Montreal live is horrendous overly theatrics-reliant bullshit.
Of Montreal is one of the best live bands in the world.
If they're so good live why don't get play Verizon Center.
DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:atomicfront wrote:azaghal1981 wrote:
Yeah. Sometimes this stuff is just true. Of Montreal live is horrendous overly theatrics-reliant bullshit.
Of Montreal is one of the best live bands in the world.
If they're so good live why don't get play Verizon Center.
they're playing the flying dog brewery in fredneck, Md - same thing, amirite?
DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:atomicfront wrote:azaghal1981 wrote:
Yeah. Sometimes this stuff is just true. Of Montreal live is horrendous overly theatrics-reliant bullshit.
Of Montreal is one of the best live bands in the world.
If they're so good live why don't get play Verizon Center.
Because they aren't as good on album.