Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why we listen to new music

pitchfork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 166 posts

Re: Why we listen to new music

#81

Post by moojd »

nimajneb wrote: post #69
mattkevan wrote: post #25

Listening to new music is one of my favourite activities. Don't understand how people are happy to listen to the same old stuff - it must get so dull. There's so much good stuff out there, and it's so exciting to find an artist, genre or new combinations of sounds I've not heard before. Bandcamp is great for this – better than Spotify or Apple Music. You can explore by artist, genre tag, label, and by people who have…

>Don't understand how people are happy to listen to the same old stuff - it must get so dull. I've learned over time that music I actually like I like forever. Music I'm infatuated with I eventually forget about and don't go back to listen after a while. I've been listening to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and a few others since middle school. Over time bands have been added to that list and always enjoy listening to. For…

I rarely 'fall out of love' with music I discover but I do have to take a break every once in a while. I spend most of my time listening to new indie releases or genres of the past that I haven't explored before, but then I'll get to urge to just listen to Sgt. Pepper's front to back or something. I find that when I take a break and come back to music I've listened to for years I get a bit of a nostalgia rush for the time when I first heard it. I also start to notice and appreciate parts that I may not have picked up on first listen when I can come back with a fresh mindset.

I also listen to music for 8 hours a day so it's easy to burn out on things but I always come back to things I loved before eventually. Today feels like it's going to be a Built To Spill day.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#82

Post by bluntfang »

nimajneb wrote: post #69
mattkevan wrote: post #25

Listening to new music is one of my favourite activities. Don't understand how people are happy to listen to the same old stuff - it must get so dull. There's so much good stuff out there, and it's so exciting to find an artist, genre or new combinations of sounds I've not heard before. Bandcamp is great for this – better than Spotify or Apple Music. You can explore by artist, genre tag, label, and by people who have…

>Don't understand how people are happy to listen to the same old stuff - it must get so dull. I've learned over time that music I actually like I like forever. Music I'm infatuated with I eventually forget about and don't go back to listen after a while. I've been listening to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and a few others since middle school. Over time bands have been added to that list and always enjoy listening to. For…

>I've been listening to...since middle school

This feels like an appeal to tradition or nostalgia. I'd argue you're attempting to create the mentality you had in middle school, not that you like it more or less than other music.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#83

Post by lowercased »

xamuel wrote: post #58
rotoradiator wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, you are fully missing out on the advances of music production. The sounds producers can create nowdays were not available in 18th century, not even in the 80s. If you consider as music only what you can write down as sheet music you are missing out on so much. Thats why finding new artists, who can make unique sounds, not just melodies, is so rewarding.

I used to think this way too. "How could the Beatles possibly still be relevant? There's been 50 years of progress since then! You wouldn't buy a PC from the 60s, why listen to music from the 60s?" And then I actually gave the classics a try. Not all types of technology obsolete themselves like computer technology. The Beatles have yet to be beaten in pop music, and Bach has yet to be beaten in music in general. But…

"The Beatles have yet to be beaten in pop music"

They set a standard which was followed/copied for decades - self-contained music group writing/performing their own material. And they were really good at it.

The one thing that didn't get copied from them in most cases was multiple singers. They didn't really have a 'front man'. They had a lot of harmony singing. These are keys missing from most of the bands that copied them over the years.

The voices worked well together, but were distinct enough, and the songs were distinct enough, that one could enjoy 'George' Beatles music without caring much for 'Paul' Beatles music (for example).

If you don't like Bono's voice, you're going to struggle with liking U2. If you don't like Stipe's voice, you'll have a hard time being an REM fan. Don't like Mick Jagger's voice? Tough luck on digging the Stones too much.

There was also enough variety to allow almost everyone to be able to find some Beatles track they love (or at least like).

Re: Why we listen to new music

#84

Post by buckminster »

bluntfang wrote: post #82
nimajneb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't understand how people are happy to listen to the same old stuff - it must get so dull. I've learned over time that music I actually like I like forever. Music I'm infatuated with I eventually forget about and don't go back to listen after a while. I've been listening to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and a few others since middle school. Over time bands have been added to that list and always enjoy listening to. For…

>I've been listening to...since middle school This feels like an appeal to tradition or nostalgia. I'd argue you're attempting to create the mentality you had in middle school, not that you like it more or less than other music.

If all of their "forever" music dated back to middle school you might have a point but they say the list has grown over time.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#85

Post by slothtrop »

mattkevan wrote: post #25

Listening to new music is one of my favourite activities. Don't understand how people are happy to listen to the same old stuff - it must get so dull. There's so much good stuff out there, and it's so exciting to find an artist, genre or new combinations of sounds I've not heard before. Bandcamp is great for this – better than Spotify or Apple Music. You can explore by artist, genre tag, label, and by people who have…

I love new music but I'm also at the point where I'm overwhelmed by it. There's so much interesting music out there I could never keep up.

I hate to say it but the fact that great music is not that unique, and that we can easily consume it, makes it seem less meaningful. Maybe it's overconsumption and not breadth of music that does it.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#86

Post by gnulinux »

mattkevan wrote: post #25

Listening to new music is one of my favourite activities. Don't understand how people are happy to listen to the same old stuff - it must get so dull. There's so much good stuff out there, and it's so exciting to find an artist, genre or new combinations of sounds I've not heard before. Bandcamp is great for this – better than Spotify or Apple Music. You can explore by artist, genre tag, label, and by people who have…

It's the opposite for me! I hate listening old music. E.g. The Strokes (one of my favorite bands) released a new album last week. It was a pain to listen to it a few times, but I forced myself to do it since I knew after listening to >3 times I'll get hooked. Then, I listened to it every day this week!

Re: Why we listen to new music

#87

Post by Spivak »

bluntfang wrote: post #82
nimajneb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't understand how people are happy to listen to the same old stuff - it must get so dull. I've learned over time that music I actually like I like forever. Music I'm infatuated with I eventually forget about and don't go back to listen after a while. I've been listening to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and a few others since middle school. Over time bands have been added to that list and always enjoy listening to. For…

>I've been listening to...since middle school This feels like an appeal to tradition or nostalgia. I'd argue you're attempting to create the mentality you had in middle school, not that you like it more or less than other music.

But music is art! Any reason for liking it is perfectly valid.

How weird would it be to tell someone who enjoys drinking chocolate milk that they don't actually like it because it reminds them of their school lunches.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#88

Post by mettamage »

JeanMarcS wrote: post #13
murat131 wrote: post #11

Listening to new music has got to do with openness and as we age we tend to be less open to new experiences. I think best way to listen to new music is not just about a new band or new albums but more about new genres. I used to not enjoy jazz, found it elitist and quite frankly I didn't even get it. About 10 years ago I started listening jazz and anything that's got mixed with jazz, like jazz-funk, or jazz fusion an…

When I was around 15, mainly listening to heavy metal bands (Iron Maiden and alike, so not just basic rock chords/riffs), a friend of my father introduced me to prog rock, that I liked, and told me : if you like this, you will go from heavy metal to prog, then from prog to jazz, and finally to classic music. And he was right (although I’m not totally over with that journey as I like listening to classic music, but I’…

I found piano trio's to be quite nice compared to other forms of classical music. In part, I realized, it's because it sounds a bit more like a band compared to complete orchestra's.

My favorite piano trio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e52IMaE-3As

Re: Why we listen to new music

#89

Post by S_A_P »

lowercased wrote: post #83
xamuel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think this way too. "How could the Beatles possibly still be relevant? There's been 50 years of progress since then! You wouldn't buy a PC from the 60s, why listen to music from the 60s?" And then I actually gave the classics a try. Not all types of technology obsolete themselves like computer technology. The Beatles have yet to be beaten in pop music, and Bach has yet to be beaten in music in general. But…

"The Beatles have yet to be beaten in pop music" They set a standard which was followed/copied for decades - self-contained music group writing/performing their own material. And they were really good at it. The one thing that didn't get copied from them in most cases was multiple singers. They didn't really have a 'front man'. They had a lot of harmony singing. These are keys missing from most of the bands that copi…

Totally agree- I also think that the Beatles did a great job of changing and staying the same. They would change their styles but still have the familiar great harmonies/melodies. To add to your point, each of them had at least somewhat of a producers ear and probably one of the best producers/engineers ever to help them realize their vision.

George Martin was a great composer in his own right, and Geoff Emerick/Alan Parsons could bend the antiquated technology to their will. Then you have Paul who is a really good producer and John who is a great abstract thinker. So there is no single voice coming from a Beatles record.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#90

Post by xamuel »

lowercased wrote: post #83
xamuel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think this way too. "How could the Beatles possibly still be relevant? There's been 50 years of progress since then! You wouldn't buy a PC from the 60s, why listen to music from the 60s?" And then I actually gave the classics a try. Not all types of technology obsolete themselves like computer technology. The Beatles have yet to be beaten in pop music, and Bach has yet to be beaten in music in general. But…

"The Beatles have yet to be beaten in pop music" They set a standard which was followed/copied for decades - self-contained music group writing/performing their own material. And they were really good at it. The one thing that didn't get copied from them in most cases was multiple singers. They didn't really have a 'front man'. They had a lot of harmony singing. These are keys missing from most of the bands that copi…

I think there's another difference too, which is the intense practice. Long before they became famous, the Beatles were working musicians, performing live many hours a day for years. (And "many hours" was further expanded through the use of performance-enhancing drugs which would be more strictly regulated nowadays.)

Nowadays, there are a lot more distractions. Musicians are too busy working on their social media game to actually work on their music game. And with nightclubs using canned music or one-man DJs, there's a lot less opportunity to perform live even if you want to. This is technological change which harms new music, and it more than cancels out the improvements which technology brings to music.

Post reply on HN