Currently very obsessed with this song and am analyzing it for a school paper. I understand the meaning behind the lyrics, but the music video has thrown me off a little. While I have a general idea, I can't fully decipher the significance of some details. And I'm talkin all kinds of details from the obvious design choice of outfits/makeup to whyever the hell they're serving North American lakes on tap lol. Even the reasoning behind the visuals during the bridge and why the guy destroys his cake are things I am looking at.

All thoughts, interpretations, and newfound details are appreciated, even if they're a bit of a stretch. I am the kind of person who will believe the curtains are blue for a reason; do with that what you will.

I've been thinking about bands or artists who become incredibly well-known for a very specific sound or style. Think about how immediately recognizable certain guitar tones are, or a particular vocal style, or even a production aesthetic. On one hand, it's what makes them unique and often catapults them to fame. On the other, I wonder if that distinctiveness can become a creative cage in the long run. For example, some artists seem to constantly evolve, dipping into new genres or experimenting drastically with their sound, and often maintain a dedicated fanbase through these shifts. Others try to deviate from their established sound and face backlash, with fans demanding they 'go back to their roots.' Then there are those who stick to their lane and manage to put out consistently good work for decades within that framework, or fade away because the sound becomes stale. Do you think having such a strong, identifiable sound ultimately helps or hinders an artist's career and creative freedom? Does it depend on the genre, or perhaps how the artist frames their evolution (or lack thereof) to their audience?

The question I want to raise in this post first occurred to me when I first started approaching people at my University regarding their taste in music. I was somewhat surprised by how often people recommended favourite albums to me instead of individual songs. I have always unconsciously approached music on a song-by-song basis; it is a semi-rare occurrence for more than 2 songs from the same album to make an appearance in my playlists.

So to discover that many people will listen to entire albums from artists was somewhat of a surprise, to say the least.

This discovery raised a number of questions in my head regarding the nature of albums. Do albums play a meaningful role in how an artist's music is listened to and interpreted, or do they simply serve as the packaging in which said music is delivered? Perhaps the purpose served by albums differs by artist; for fans of large pop icons like Taylor Swift, a new album is something to be anticipated and, when it arrives, celebrated or sometimes decried. In any respect, this could create the interpretation of an album simply serving as the delivery vehicle through which anticipation is built, and her new songs are released to fans.

However, I have also heard that Albums are more thematically and conceptually focused groupings of similar songs; this raises the question as to whether these artists intend for their songs to be listened to in groups and whether this method improves the overall impact of the music.

I apologize if this post has come across as being somewhat rambling, and I would be interested in knowing what purpose, if any, you think the concept of the album serves in the world of music.

I was having lunch with some early 50's friends and I mentioned I'd seen the Lisa movie "Always Lalisa" the night before. They didn't know who she was. I tell them she's in Blackpink. Turns out they never heard of Blackpink either. Is that normal? I wondered how anyone under the age of senior citizen could have not heard of Blackpink.

I don't have my finger on the pulse of the current music scene, but I was thinking I've at least heard of the biggest current acts. I asked AI for a list of 10 huge artists that I might be unaware of. Turns out I only knew 5 of them.

The 5 I know: Bad Bunny, Billie Eilish, Travis Scott, Dua Lipa, Post Malone. I've been aware of all these artists for several years.

The 5 I never heard of: Tame Impala, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard, The 1975, Greta van Fleet, Fred Again. Are these five really that big with a worldwide audience on the level of a Blackpink? Are any of these an artist where you'd exclaim "you never heard of xxx?!" Or are they more niche and maybe not a good example on par with the five that I knew?

I am a guitarist that grew up loving rock and metal music, especially if the music was progressive. In college, I studied classical guitar. In the past month or so, I’ve been going to jazz open jams, which has inspired me to learn and play more jazz.

I feel like a lot of my music professors and fellow students viewed classical music and jazz music as much more difficult than any other genre. I would argue that the genres aren’t necessarily equal, but each one comes with its own unique challenges.

Classical music has more dynamics than punk rock (usually). Jazz music has more complex harmony than metal (usually). Sometimes, the strengths of a genre are hard to find. I used to think rap music didn’t have many talented musicians. A lot of rappers have great language skills, using complex rhyming, word play, etc. Many rappers also have great control of their voice, the diction, and the rhythm. Also, as someone who has had to record rappers and classical music, rap is harder to produce (in my humble opinion).

Classical singers don’t use Autotune in the studio, but the intensity of a good rock singer is notable. Singers like Robert Plant and Mike Patton have great tone, great range, and are greatly expressive. I’d also argue that most rock singers write their own lyrics. Artists like Bob Dylan and Pink Floyd wrote amazing lyrics with all sorts of literary devices. A classical performer is probably singing someone else’s lyrics.

Technical death metal bands have to play fast music that requires a lot of endurance, an understanding of scales/modes, and an understanding of various time signatures. Pop artists might not have to worry about those aspects of music, but the production can be so intricate. Sometimes, a great amount of musicians are needed to make a hit song. “Industry Baby” by Lil Nas X needed many producers/musician.

Like I said, each genre comes with unique challenges. It’s easy to say your preferred genre is superior, but I’d argue that’s shallow thinking.

Ok they could kinda sorta be described as nepo babies, although the dad is not a huge star or anything (he’s a producer in music biz). But they don’t seem “manufactured.” These kids have real talent and a passion for the music. At least that’s how they strike me.

Are they “pop?” Not exactly. Some of the songs have a mediocre teenage angst aspect to the lyrics, while others are obviously political. On the latest album, some seem to have double entendres, and could be taken as political.

Anyway, Hayley Williams likes them (a couple of collabs) and so do I. So … guilty as charged I guess.

I consider myself an avid music lover across a ton of genres from raw punk, rock to psych, lo-fi, and older hip-hop (to name a few) I’m usually the last person to judge what other people listen to, or hate on an artist's success. Music is subjective, and I almost always find something to appreciate, even in genres I don't personally listen to. The wave around artists like Nettspend is one of the few times where I genuinely catch myself judging it, and I want to understand if I'm missing something structural or cultural.
Coming from a punk scene in DC, I completely respect noise, anti commercialism, maybe slurred types of delivery, and breaking traditional rules. But this micro underground/jerk scene doesn't feel like rebellious “anti music” to me. it feels like hyper consumerist, corporate backed nihilism. It’s off rhythm vocals over heavily distorted beats, glorifying lean, pills, and high end fashion, driven by algorithm pushes.

For people who fw this sound:
Is this strictly a beat/vibe first genre where the vocals just act as an extra texture rather than a lyric or melody?

Is this just the latest iteration of generational rebellion, or is it a manufactured aesthetic?

Genuinely curious to hear perspectives from both fans and fellow listeners who feel the same confusion.
At the end of the day I guess I’m just trying to understand.

Look, Chester Bennington is easily one of the most impactful and beloved frontmen in rock/metal history. Nobody is denying that. But if we’re talking about pure singing ability and vocal stamina, he gets way more hype than he actually deserves. When you strip away the studio stuff his live singing ha flaws. In the studio, his vocals were perfect. Don Gilmore made sure everything was fine for radio and to everything to make it sound like a flawless machin.

The Given Up Myth

Everyone lieks to hype up the iconic 17-second scream on Given Up. It’s an amazing feeat in the studio, but he couldn't actually do it live night after night like how people make it to be. Data shows he only did the full, unbroken scream about 7 or 8 times out of the 400 times they played it live. For 98% of performances, he had to break it into two parts because he coouldn't do it rnight after night after night. It was also a studio mistake, the scream wasnt even meatn to be that long. Chester didn't even realize he went over, so Mike had to rewrite the song to fit the scream.

The 5 Singers Who Clear Him

To ssee why Chester is overrated as a pure vocalist, you just have to look at heavy singers who completely clear his technique with zero effort:

Rob Halford (Judas Priest): The guy has a massive multi-octave range and high falsettos. He’s in his mid-70s and STILL hitting those high notes live.

Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden): This right here is juust pure vocal power. The man is pushing his late 60s, beat tongue cancer, and still sings completely raw with zero backing tracks.

Corey Taylor (Slipknot/Stone Sour): He can do a low growl, then instantly flip a switch and sound like an angel.

Tarja Turunen & Floor Jansen (Nightwish): These singers have genuine opera training, easily swapping from brutal metal vocals to pure opera in a single song.

The Bottom Line

chester bennington was an amazing singer who showed a generation, and his energy isn't replaceable. But let's separate nostalgia from reality you all. Nostalgia doesn't mean he was the greatest singer of all time. He is overrated as a singer because his legendary status relies heavily on studio production to mask his limitations. When it comes to raw live placement, stamina, and versatility, he just isn't on the same level as the true metal vocalists.

So please let me know what you guys think Do you think Chester's studio production carried his reputation too much, or did his live singing make up for the flaws? also am I crazy for putting singers like Dickinson and Halford on a completely different tier when it comes to raw vocals?

Obviously the first answer is to listen to more music and listen to old artists. The trouble is that there are people that I just haven’t heard of or genre’s that I’m not familiar with that exist. I’m curious how people who get deeply into music of many eras do it. Like how do you know where to look? I was tempted to take a class on it but I just don’t really have the time for a class not associated with my degree. But I do have the time to listen to classics while I am at work.

been thinking about this lately. I realized I can’t remember the last time I let a full album play without hitting skip at least once. Part of me thinks it’s just me and my short attention span, but I also wonder if streaming has changed how music gets made. Everything seems built around getting you to the hook in the first 15 seconds so you don’t bounce.

Not trying to be one of those “ music was better back in the day ” people , because there’s plenty of great stuff coming out now. It’s just that the albums that feel like one complete thing, where the track order actually matters, seem rarer.

So what’s an album you can still put on and play start to finish, no skips? Doesn’t matter if it’s new or 30 years old..

Most artists establish a sound early in their careers and stick with it. After several releases, they begin to sound tired.

Then there are artists who keep on pushing themselves into new directions with every release. These are more rare. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes not so much. I am not necessarily looking for success here, but the attempts.

An obvious example of success is David Bowie who first broke in the late 60s. He started with spacey psychedelia, developed glam rock, experimented with stadium rock and pop, then ventured into jazz late in his career.

Another example is Joe Strummer who found his first success with punk, which evolved into edgy rock. At the end of his career, he put out three albums of global pop with the Mescaleros in which he created a new sound. It wasn’t super successful but it was creative.

This gets back to the title question: How do some artists continue to tap into reserves of creativity in their 40s, 50s and 60s?

From '60s psych rock to psytrance, I've been trying to figure out what connects them all. Here's what I've got.

1. A specific frequency band gets pushed.** Lennon's vocal on "Tomorrow Never Knows," the sitar, Kevin Parker's vocals, psytrance leads, even the resonance of an acid bassline. They all bring out the same band, and I think it's probably the range our ears are said to be most sensitive to.

2. Repetition = trance.** Krautrock loops, obviously. But a steady LFO wobble on a synth counts too ("Bluish" by Animal Collective, "Be Above It" by Tame Impala). Big loop or tiny wobble, same effect.

3. "Acid," meaning unpredictability.** Think Psytrance or Sweet Trip: sounds you can't predict, like your thoughts jumping around while tripping. The term itself probably comes from the 303 squelch.

1 and 2 come from rock. 3 was born in electronic music. Same source, different branches.

Of course, there's endlessly more to psychedelic music than these three. This is just the core I keep coming back to.

Am I missing something? Is there psychedelic music that breaks all three?

As a musician myself, this is basically the framework I write and mix with.

Justice's "Flower In A Hurricane (ft Tame Impala, SZA, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard)" is a great song in my opinion but you can't listen to it without hearing it's influences, which are definitely not subtle. I'm young so maybe I'm just not tired of it yet but I'm a total sucker for nostalgia & I don't feel like this was distasteful or lazy. It's a cool song and very thematically appropriate for what it was created for. That being GTA VI, which has used 80's nostalgia and callbacks to Vice City a bunch in it's marketing.

The one that's really in your face is the intro. They very clearly channeled Dire Straits' "Money for Nothin'" with that synth buildup, drum fill and finally that rich tone courtesy of ZZ Top blasting through. I love that sound. So sharp; if it was a knife it would have cut you.

Later in the song we hear this ascending motif that similarly takes you back in time but in this instance to Cutting Crew's "(I Just) Died In Your Arms". That's what I heard first, although it also sounds similar to this Tom Petty x Stevie Nicks track "Stop Draggin' My Heart Around".

Overall a wicked song. Some will like it, some won't. I've already seen discourse about whether these clearly intentional and on the nose inclusions were rip-offs, stolen, etc. and whether or not it was in good faith or it was just unoriginal and derivative. I think it's clear with context (and easy to assume without context) that it's meant as an homage. I know some people on the gaming side have grown indignant of Rockstar's position on physical media (me included) but GTA VI is still gonna be a cultural phenomenon and this song is something pretty sick that's come out of it already.

It just feels like the artist said: "Sure, I'll make the best song in the universe, and sure, I'll make it barely a minute and a half long." The only real exception to this would be anything in the deathconciousness album, but one of my favourite songs in the world is only a minute and thirty-one seconds long. Is it just because it's hard to make a song good for longer, or is it just a weird coincidence that I so happened to make up?

When Troye Sivan released Blue Neighbourhood in 2015, I wished it had been released while was still in high school. The songs on this album encapsulated all the pain, feelings, desires and dreams I felt throughout high school. I was too scared to write down how I felt. My parents would find it. I was out at school and other friends were as well, but there was no comraderie. My sexuality was always weaponised and used against me.

In 2015, I finally found an album that resonated with me on a spiritual level and described all my thoughts and feelings that I was too scared to put out there when I was in my teens. Of course, the song "WILD" was the one that started it all for me.

I tried to follow Troye Sivan over the next few years. But his albums after Bloom (2018) and especially In A Dream (2020) just de-volved from the raw expression of the feeling of being oppressed but hopeful, scared yet excited, and anxious but hopeful.

By 2023, all his hits were basically just electro-pop trash that sampled previously famous songs (Get Me Started is the best example) and all his music videos seemed like they were intentionally filmed to capture the night before or the morning after a massive gay chemsex orgy.

Like, what the fuck happened? People will say, "he grew up and had more experiences and is comfortable with his sexuality and is bravely expressing it." What I say, is "these music videos just embody every sterotype about gay people ever - particularly the negative ones - and the actual songs are just electropop trash with meaningless lyrics."

It is sad that he became more popular as his songs became more generic and trashy, and the more popular he became, the more genericn and trashy the songs became.

Now all of his songs just seem to be relatively radio/club friendly (any radio edits for expletives are easy), and they are just accompanied by a hypersexualised homoerotic/explicitly gay music video where he gets off with some hypermasculine dude, someone has a wank inside their boxers or some shit, etc.

Like just, "here's a trashy song the masses will love! Don't forget to check out the music video to remember that I'm gay!"

Like dude wtf happened?

Why oh why do they all insist on working with this guy? His records sound like utter compressed, bland, corporate shit. Just seen Michael Stipes first ever solo album is being produced by this hack. I hate how much he inserts himself in the albums too. He is just the absolute poster child for uniform blandness. No dynamic range whatsoever. And the pitch correction absolutely drenched on the vocals is repulsive. What could be less rock and roll than that?

I've only just discovered Roy Harper, and I've been obsessed with his finger picking style. I'm wondering why I don't see him brought up very much in online discussions. He influenced a considerable number of artists, including Kate Bush, Pete Townshend, and Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull. His album Stormcock in particular has some progressive undertones, but all his albums are great in my opinion.

Thoughts?

Let’s talk the way you listen to music. In my case it’s mostly streaming on Apple Music where I have a mix of imported CDs and streaming. I have a cd and vinyl collection as well. I listen to those almost every day. But I’m always in denial while buying new albums. Should I buy a cd or a vinyl? I like both, I know the differences, but I would like to know if anyone else is having the same issue. Some albums I just buy on cd, I think I might just choose cd over vinyl because of the era where the album is created, the genre or the way it’s been recorded. I’m curious to hear what anyone’s thoughts are on this subject…

I'm talking about Beastie Boys, Cypress Hill, House Of Pain...

Funkdoobiest is another one, more obscure though. Onyx is definitely part of this.

What do you call this style of hip hop?

It's that dirty, rowdy, rock-adjacent hip-hop sound.

You know what I think connects these groups?

They make hip-hop that has the ENERGY of a rock band without necessarily being rap-rock.

It FEELS somewhat rock adjacent as these 3 all toured with rock bands, but they aren't straight up rap rock like Limp Bizkit or RATM or Linkin Park.

It's definitely not gangsta rap, nor is it boom bap. The closest genre label is probably "alternative hip-hop," but that doesn't quite capture it.

Alternative hip-hop also includes artists like A Tribe Called Quest and De La Soul, who are great, but not exactly the same style.

It's also not exactly rap rock, because that to many people means like Limp Bizkit or the one Kid Rock album before he went full on country rock.

It's a lost art. Eminem definitely had that alternative kid audience but he was a different style than this

I've been thinking a lot lately about how albums used to feel like complete experiences. You'd put on a record and it would take you on a ride from start to finish. There was an intentional flow with intros, outros, interludes and tracks building on each other. It felt like a story unfolding.

Now it seems like so many albums are just collections of singles. Each song is great on its own but there's no real sense of progression or a cohesive arc. Are artists focusing too much on individual tracks for streaming numbers? Or is it just how we consume music now that has changed this? I miss that feeling of listening to an entire album and feeling like I've been somewhere by the end of it.

One thing I find fascinating about Discovery is how it creates a feeling of nostalgia through disco samples, bright synths, and electronic production. Tracks like “Digital Love” and “Something About Us” feel like memories of a time that may not even belong to the listener.

The album is obviously influenced by older music, but it doesn't just sound like a collection of samples. everything feels connected, almost like a soundtrack to an imaginary childhood.

How much of that feeling comes from the samples themselves, and how much comes from the way Daft Punk rearranged and transformed them? i'm curious whether other electronic albums create that same kind of emotional nostalgia.

I guess I could well be asking "what makes a hit a hit", but I'm more interested in the opposite, which is what makes a deep-cut a deep-cut?

Speaking from a more antiquated 80's, 90's, 2000's, and even 2010's perspective, were labels mostly responsible for selecting what would become the smash-hits and ultimately peddling/marketing them? If so, I'd be interested in learning what attributes they look for in any given song when deciding which tracks will be the artists/bands anthems which majority of the audience who will ever interact with their music will come to know/identify them by. Because I believe most listeners, at least those of pop music, out there are casual and will seldom deep-dive on a band. Or is the decision re: what'll go on to be a hit fairly arbitrary, decided by one or two people with great power?

But yeah, deep-cuts... what even is a deep-cut? Is everything which fails to chart a deep-cut? Are b-sides the only real deep-cuts? Do deep-cuts simply fail to display the tropes which make other songs commercially so successful? I'm getting lost in the sauce here... help me.

Also, it's interesting how when you're a fan of an artist/band, you view so many songs in their catalogue as 'hits', yet the wider audiences out there might only deem 2-3 tracks out of their entire, multi-decade, discography as hits, if that. There's kind of tears even to hits... It's also funny how many times fans will become hit-averse, sick of hearing the songs, no matter how great, so many times.

I used to lose whole afternoons in record shops, flipping through crates and buying things because of the cover. Now I have everything one tap away, and I mostly play the same 30 albums.

Something about having limits helped: a shop only had what was in the crates that week, so you actually listened to what was there.

How do you find music now that you’d never have found by searching? Radio shows, a friend, a blog, a shop, something else?

Hey everyone, not sure if this is appropriate for this group but I'm just looking for insight from anyone who went back to physical media like CDs or vinyl from streaming subscriptions. I've noticed lately there's more and more AI bands that are being snuck into my playlists as well as the overall subscription platform and I was thinking about making that switch. Those of you who got rid of these services, was it worth it?