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

151–160 of 166 posts

Re: Why we listen to new music

#151

Post by Threeve303 »

blakes wrote: post #124
paganel wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not even in the 80s Not the OP but personally some of most innovative music can be found in the mainstream Italian scene of the late '60s - early '70s (including music film), you've got former "musique concrète" composers (or people interested in that type of music) like Piero Umiliani, Piero Piccioni, Armando Trovajoli or Ennio Morricone himself now composing music for the masses, I don't think anything similar ha…

The Italians were also doing some amazing things in the 60's and 70's with electronic synthesizers and keyboards that made/make sounds that still can't be recreated.

This sounds like an interesting quarantine challenge. Do you have any examples of sounds that haven't been recreated? Giorgio Moroder or Kraftwerk come to mind...

Re: Why we listen to new music

#152

Post by lowercased »

S_A_P wrote: post #89
lowercased wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Something else that seems relatively foreign from a lot of 'modern' music today (of most genres) is that the entire unit stayed together for... 90%+ of their career. Beatles/Martin @ Abbey Road comprises most of their output, with some engineer changes here and there, and a bit recorded at other studios.

Compared to today, where everyone switches producers every album (or on the same album), staying mostly in the same place with the same group of support people for... 7 years is relatively remarkable, and, I suspect allowed them all to grow together in various ways.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#153

Post by saithound »

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.

Sure, the same argument applies, but that seems to be a feature rather than a bug. There's no need to obsessively seek out new movies or TV shows, unless you particularly enjoy doing that.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#154

Post by meowface »

coldtea wrote: post #145
meowface wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the people who were around when those shows and films came out had that same mentality, then they never would've seen them.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#155

Post by spunker540 »

viklove wrote: post #137
spunker540 wrote: post #127

I still like exploring “new” music, but new music that I’ve fallen in love with over the past year is Elvis, Judy Collins, James Taylor, and Curtis Mayfield/The Impressions. It’s hard for me to justify giving modern music a chance when I haven’t even given the established greats a chance. The modern music will still be around in 10 years. Hopefully by then it will be more clear what’s standing the test of time, at wh…

Music is culturally contextual and temporal in many ways. Think of Floyd's The Division Bell, an album which tries to capture the feelings and emotions that resulted from the fall of the Berlin Wall. Or think of RATM's self-titled album, which was a reaction to the police brutality and race tensions that were churning in the late 80s/early 90s. Or even MGMT's Little Dark Age, which is filled with opinions surrounding…

I think you’re being uncharitable by saying anyone who prefers older music only likes music for the “nice sounds”. It may also be I have more interest in music history than most.

But even if I want to watch a tv show or read a book, I similarly want it to be something that is more important than just “well it came out yesterday so must be relevant”. If something can still be relevant a decade after it came out, that’s when you know it’s really good.

And for the record I love music. I’m a multi-instrumentalist, I’ve played professionally in weddings, bars, played buckets in a street performing band, and continue to study music, actively taking classical piano lessons, composing songs. I play every day.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#156

Post by meowface »

saithound wrote: post #153
meowface wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Sure, the same argument applies, but that seems to be a feature rather than a bug. There's no need to obsessively seek out new movies or TV shows, unless you particularly enjoy doing that.

I'm not saying obsessing about it. The parent implied they never sought out new things to listen to. Looking for something new to watch every so often is a pretty standard activity, I think.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#157

Post by viklove »

spunker540 wrote: post #155
viklove wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music is culturally contextual and temporal in many ways. Think of Floyd's The Division Bell, an album which tries to capture the feelings and emotions that resulted from the fall of the Berlin Wall. Or think of RATM's self-titled album, which was a reaction to the police brutality and race tensions that were churning in the late 80s/early 90s. Or even MGMT's Little Dark Age, which is filled with opinions surrounding…

I think you’re being uncharitable by saying anyone who prefers older music only likes music for the “nice sounds”. It may also be I have more interest in music history than most. But even if I want to watch a tv show or read a book, I similarly want it to be something that is more important than just “well it came out yesterday so must be relevant”. If something can still be relevant a decade after it came out, that’…

I'm not sure why you're presenting this dichotomy that you can only listen to old music or new music. I listen to and love both, I'm surprised that someone like you who clearly has a deep interest in music would rule one out.

> And for the record I love music. I’m a multi-instrumentalist, I’ve played professionally in weddings, bars, played buckets in a street performing band, and continue to study music, actively taking classical piano lessons, composing songs. I play every day.

This comment makes your perspective particularly strange. Do you only play covers? Have you ever tried writing your own music? If so, does that mean that you wouldn't listen to your own music until a decade after you wrote it? Because it's a bit hypocritical to only listen to music that is more than a decade old, and still expect people to give your new music a chance considering it hasn't stood the test of time.

Do you think Elvis would have ever had a chance to make a living off of his music if everyone was like you?

> anyone who prefers older music

You're not just saying you prefer older music though, you're saying you're not even giving new music a chance:

> It’s hard for me to justify giving modern music a chance when I haven’t even given the established greats a chance.

That's pretty absurd in my opinion.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#158

Post by pjdorrell »

For most forms of passive audio-visual entertainment, we strongly prefer new to old, for example:

* films

* jokes

* stories

* news

* documentaries

Music is unusual in how much we _don't_ seek out new items.

Re: Why we listen to new music

#159

Post by saithound »

meowface wrote: post #156
saithound wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Sure, the same argument applies, but that seems to be a feature rather than a bug. There's no need to obsessively seek out new movies or TV shows, unless you particularly enjoy doing that.

I'm not saying obsessing about it. The parent implied they never sought out new things to listen to. Looking for something new to watch every so often is a pretty standard activity, I think.

On the contrary, the parent's point seems pretty clear about the obsessive aspect: "There's no real need to always seek new music, obsessively [...]".

Re: Why we listen to new music

#160

Post by ralphc »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #139
chantelles wrote: post #119

I grew up with boomer parents (one went to DJ school) who blasted only Beatles and yacht rock, explaining anything made after their youth was not even music. It spawned in me a lifelong curiosity and dedication to new music. I do on rare occasion reflect back, but never to The Who, who was my unfortunate childhood alarm clock and constant soundtrack as I played/gardened outside. (The DJ wired the yard for Who sound).

> I do on rare occasion reflect back, but never to The Who, who was my constant soundtrack I opine that any song can be weaponized thru overplaying. This may be an unpopular opinion.

It's popular opinion with the US government https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40090809
Post reply on HN