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

141–150 of 166 posts

Re: Why we listen to new music

#141

Post by enobrev »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #135
enobrev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying about openness, but I also think there's an immense matter of time involved. Music was an obsession for me from the age of 12, and I had time to be open for all of it. Thanks to a paper route, I bought my first turntable around then and my second a few months later. I was DJing parties within a year. I listened to music _constantly_. It was ALL new to me. It was the early 90s at the time so t…

> I sure would love to take a couple months off to catch up on the last 10 years worth of music. Gnoosic is a band recommender - a quick & dirty way to get a few new bands to check out (Google & DDG point right to it).

I got five good recommendations on the first shot. Thank you.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#142

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

Polylactic_acid wrote: post #2

I don't think my dad has willingly listened to a new song in the last 30 years.

> I don't think my dad has willingly listened to a new song in the last 30 years.

I'm a dad to 5 & this is what I always expected from my generation. I never understood it either, not now or then.

I've found most of a hundred new artists in just the last year. There's unimaginably more music available, than when I was young. It's practically a golden age.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#143

Post by JeanMarcS »

mettamage wrote: post #88
JeanMarcS wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Great piece indeed ! I knew I already heard it (and the comments told me where). Great interpretation.

As a fan of dissonance, I’m more listening to Stravinsky, but I also like some Dvorak (not sure to spell the name right). But I still think I’m not ready yet (despite being nearly 50)

Thanks for the link anyway !

Re: Why we listen to new music

#144

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

enobrev wrote: post #141
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I sure would love to take a couple months off to catch up on the last 10 years worth of music. Gnoosic is a band recommender - a quick & dirty way to get a few new bands to check out (Google & DDG point right to it).

I got five good recommendations on the first shot. Thank you.

Sweet!

Re: Why we listen to new music

#145

Post by coldtea »

meowface wrote: post #108
coldtea wrote: post #24

Art (and music) is not something for endless consumption. Music is something we tie to our experiences, to our life, to times we've known, etc. There's no real need to always seek new music, obsessively, unless you particularly enjoy to (or you have business reasons). You're not a bad person, or more shallow, or lesser art lover, for not doing so (in fact many very deep creators of art had a very limited set of artis…

In my opinion, this is no different from saying there's no need to watch new films or TV shows that come out, or even older ones that you haven't seen before. Why do that when you can just watch Seinfeld, Breaking Bad, the Godfather, and 2001: A Space Odyssey? Why check out books you haven't read before when you have [insert childhood favorite]? There's absolutely nothing wrong with repeatedly returning to old stuff…

>In my opinion, this is no different from saying there's no need to watch new films or TV shows that come out, or even older ones that you haven't seen before. Why do that when you can just watch Seinfeld, Breaking Bad, the Godfather, and 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Indeed, why?

Re: Why we listen to new music

#146

Post by xamuel »

renaudg wrote: post #136
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…

You do have a blind spot. It's not just about progress, "better pop" or "better music". The 20th century has seen 3 true revolutions in music technology that have changed the nature of music itself (photography went through similar paradigm shifts) 1. Recorded music (straight to wax then vynil records) was the first one (before that there were only live performances) : it made music ubiquitous, created a new industry…

Thanks for the interesting comment.

Yes, digital music exists, but you haven't convinced me why I should listen to it. I'm sure some of it is awesome, and most of it is junk, just like all music has been through the ages. The difference is that with old music, I can rely on the "test of time" to weed out the junk.

One can spend one's whole life exploring music which has stood the test of time and is pretty much guaranteed to be awesome. By sticking to critically-acclaimed classics, one pretty much eliminates all risk of hearing junk music. One also loses the opportunity to hear new great music in its infancy, but so what?

The classics also have "canonicity". By exposing myself to them, I better understand references to them in novels; I recognize them in movies; I have something to talk about at dinner parties; etc. None of this applies to some bandcamp page with ~1000 all-time listeners, no matter how good the technology.

You talk about this new music being so great, but is it qualitatively anywhere near as good as the classics? Again, as I said in my first comment, can you post some examples? If some new band is conquering the world because they've discovered the long-hidden Fundamental Theorem of Music, then I want to know about it!!! (But I doubt it, because if anyone had done so, it would usher in a new "mania" like Beatlemania, and I would have heard about it already.)

Re: Why we listen to new music

#147

Post by mettamage »

JeanMarcS wrote: post #143
mettamage wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Great piece indeed ! I knew I already heard it (and the comments told me where). Great interpretation. As a fan of dissonance, I’m more listening to Stravinsky, but I also like some Dvorak (not sure to spell the name right). But I still think I’m not ready yet (despite being nearly 50) Thanks for the link anyway !

Well, I'm 31 and what helped me was a girlfriend who was brought up with this stuff and dragged me to every opera and classical music performance in town (I exaggerate a bit, but you get the idea). Forcing yourself to getting a lot of exposure is a method that, albeit uncomfortable, worked for me.

Dvorak is a favorite of mine as well. I'm a fan of Dumky. I haven't listened to Stravinsky while knowing it was him, so I'll have a look!

Edit: listening to the soldiers tale of Stravinsky. It sounds like video game music that could almost be in a Zelda game.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#148

Post by ralphc »

58 years old, graduated high school 1979, 30 years old in 1991. I do listen to things from that time, but there's sooo much interesting music that came out after that. Different genres of metal like metalcore and doom metal, nu metal, then EBM (NOT EDM)/synthpop, K-pop, dubstep, on and on. It's exploded since my "cutoff" date, I'm not limiting myself.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#149

Post by roro5179 »

ralphc wrote: post #148

58 years old, graduated high school 1979, 30 years old in 1991. I do listen to things from that time, but there's sooo much interesting music that came out after that. Different genres of metal like metalcore and doom metal, nu metal, then EBM (NOT EDM)/synthpop, K-pop, dubstep, on and on. It's exploded since my "cutoff" date, I'm not limiting myself.

you're NOT EDM statement made me chuckle as well as an image of a 58 year old jamming out to some BTS(which I will admit I am loving recently). Keep living life to the fullest. "I'm not limiting myself" is a beautiful way of putting it.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#150

Post by ralphc »

roro5179 wrote: post #149
ralphc wrote: post #148

58 years old, graduated high school 1979, 30 years old in 1991. I do listen to things from that time, but there's sooo much interesting music that came out after that. Different genres of metal like metalcore and doom metal, nu metal, then EBM (NOT EDM)/synthpop, K-pop, dubstep, on and on. It's exploded since my "cutoff" date, I'm not limiting myself.

you're NOT EDM statement made me chuckle as well as an image of a 58 year old jamming out to some BTS(which I will admit I am loving recently). Keep living life to the fullest. "I'm not limiting myself" is a beautiful way of putting it.

BlackPink in your A-RE-A!
Post reply on HN