ilovefuzz.com

AngryGoldfish wrote:Rush were as popular as Muse are and were a Prog band. Pink Floyd were even bigger and were also highly progressive.

And I mentioned Skrillex because, like Justin Bieber and pop music, he almost single-handedly controls the market. Is Skrillex the epitome of Dub-Step? I have no idea, I don't listen to it. Is Justin Bieber the epitome of Pop music? Fuck no, but he's still one of the most popular artists within that genre. I'm talking popularity here, not skill, adeptness, and integrity.

I had a listen Liquid Stranger and didn't like it that much. The influence of Reggae wsan't my cup of tea, and neither was the deep and syrupy bass. It was definitely nothing like Skrillex though.

I wasn't talking about the past success of prog but the current success. Can you think of any other prog band that your average chart radio listener would be exposed to? I can't. You're right, Skrillex isn't the epitome of dubstep, in fact he technically he is what is referred to as "brostep". I wasn't taking a stab at you or anything I was just pointing out that a lot of people immediately jump to this (horrible) style when making generalisations about dubstep and they are missing out on a lot of cool stuff. Not just the heavily dub influenced acts like Liquid Stranger but also the more atmospheric "post-dubstep" (I know ) like Burial and Mount Kimbie. I am by no means a dubstep enthusiast and I will say for the most part it's picking gold nuggets out of a pile of shit but I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that usually there are people doing interesting things in every genre.

but Burial is straight dubstep, tho

Gearmond wrote:but Burial is straight dubstep, tho

Yeah but he was also around before the term post-dubstep existed and he has A LOT in common with artists that have subsequently been put under that tag.

EDIT: Really I should clarify. Burial isn't even a very good example of dubstep and is much more grounded in 2 step garage. The combination of 2 step garage and ambient music influence is what drives a lot of acts that are considered post-dubstep so I think that the parallel is a fair one.

or post-dubstep is a dumb as shit category that was only made because the people who called shit post-dubstep were ignorant of the history of dubstep.

anyways our musical attitudes shifted when we somehow decided that there will be No More New Genres. but then every year a new-ish genre names itself and becomes the flavor of the year. case in point: witch house, chillwave, vaporwave, seapunk, etc.

Gearmond wrote:or post-dubstep is a dumb as shit category that was only made because the people who called shit post-dubstep were ignorant of the history of dubstep.

anyways our musical attitudes shifted when we somehow decided that there will be No More New Genres. but then every year a new-ish genre names itself and becomes the flavor of the year. case in point: witch house, chillwave, vaporwave, seapunk, etc.

I agree with you but it's human nature to want to organise things that way and it's business nature to want to make a shit ton of money off a stupid buzzword. It's also a good way to sound like a wanker to someone who doesn't keep up with said buzzwords. .

Gearmond wrote:or post-dubstep is a dumb as shit category that was only made because the people who called shit post-dubstep were ignorant of the history of dubstep.

anyways our musical attitudes shifted when we somehow decided that there will be No More New Genres. but then every year a new-ish genre names itself and becomes the flavor of the year. case in point: witch house, chillwave, vaporwave, seapunk, etc.

yeah! totally yeah

phantasmagorovich wrote:you could get crucified for putting Unsane next to Cypress Hill on a mix tape. Now my random playlist does not give a shit.

I'd happily put Unsane beside an Immortal Technique record. I love make playlists.

AngryGoldfish wrote:

phantasmagorovich wrote:you could get crucified for putting Unsane next to Cypress Hill on a mix tape. Now my random playlist does not give a shit.

I'd happily put Unsane beside an Immortal Technique record. I love make playlists.

I do too, I was painting with a very broad stroke there. But I still think that the way music used to work as an identifier when I (we, I assume) was young is gone. Now there is no shunning of the past like we had and I think much less extreme segregation of the different styles. I remember when I talked to a buddy about a specific song back in school. The dude was into alternative and I was a metalhead and he was extremely surprised that I loved a certain song ba Mad Season, when it was the slowest and bluesiest of them all. I wasn't "allowed" to like it. Today everybody listens more eclectically. That is a sort of good thing, but I think it also hinders creativity.

phantasmagorovich wrote: That is a sort of good thing, but I think it also hinders creativity.

I am not sure... I have always liked a wide rang of stuff... I have never been able to just go and like most of a type, for me you'd find a few artists that were good and the rest was boring...

Mudfuzz wrote:

phantasmagorovich wrote: That is a sort of good thing, but I think it also hinders creativity.

I am not sure... I have always liked a wide rang of stuff... I have never been able to just go and like most of a type, for me you'd find a few artists that were good and the rest was boring...

Do you mean it hinders creativity in that you're not trying to innovate within a specific genre but instead you're more inclined to simply take something from somewhere else and apply it in a new way? If so I can see the reasoning behind it but I'm with mudfuzz, I could never imagine being a "mono genre" listener. Half the fun with finding new music these days is digging through all the awful to find that gold nugget, makes it more rewarding and fun I think.

Twangasaurus wrote:

Mudfuzz wrote:

phantasmagorovich wrote: That is a sort of good thing, but I think it also hinders creativity.

I am not sure... I have always liked a wide rang of stuff... I have never been able to just go and like most of a type, for me you'd find a few artists that were good and the rest was boring...

Do you mean it hinders creativity in that you're not trying to innovate within a specific genre but instead you're more inclined to simply take something from somewhere else and apply it in a new way? If so I can see the reasoning behind it but I'm with mudfuzz, I could never imagine being a "mono genre" listener. Half the fun with finding new music these days is digging through all the awful to find that gold nugget, makes it more rewarding and fun I think.

This for sure! But I can see listening to a single genre for years. Genres like metal are so huge that you could easily spend your whole life there. I don't suggest it, but spending a couple years there or another large genre like that, exploring it's many nuances, seems like par for the course. Still, no one should feel tied down to a particular genre, there is just way to much amazing music in the world to cheat yourself like that.

One of my favorite things to do is search for new music. I prefer to find new bands by going to shows featuring bands I love but I rarely get to go to shows so I have been going off suggestions from people with similar taste and browsing youtube. Needless to say 99% of what I find is either terrible or otherwise not what I'm looking for. Then when I do come across some stuff I enjoy It's like it was all worth it, like music that I like is a rare thing to be appreciated.

Like a month ago I was just about over all of my music and I really wanted something new. I was wading through a huge list of bands I had made from suggestions from people here, talkbass and live people. Nothing was clicking, I found a few that were milding interesting like Monobrow and Ufomammut but without vocals I can't get really engaged. I like to sing along to the music I'm listening to and it seems like everything I was coming across was good music with no or bad vocals or acceptable vocals to uninspired music. My search eventually ended up leading me to discovering a genre I've never looked into before. It was just Stoner Rock but it was exactly what I was looking for. I ended up with like 10 new bands in my collection, Slo Burn, Truckfighters and Lo-Pan to name a few.

though i think its generally true that people who like MUSIC tend to be the people that innovate rather than the people who like *insert genre here* so to speak. and i include *insert genre here* with people who like genre tents. for an easy example say like a band who plays "death metal with technical leanings, thrash tendencies and prog influence" which honestly will just sound like death metal, because thats what a shitton of death metal bands do. because all said and done thats an elaboration of vanilla death metal. or "rock with blues and punk influences" wow, real fresh sound there buddy, you just play garage rock.

i think its probably because on a subconcious level, all that music becomes part of their vocabulary, and whether they try to or not, it just comes out in the music.

I think what a lot of artists that are considered innovative have in common is that they don't exclusively draw their influences from other musicians.
I've found personally that I write better music when I'm not comparing it to other music (whatever genre that may be), rather making it an introspective process. e.g. thinking of things or people that are important to you when you play rather than whatever song was last stuck in your head.
Sure, any musical influences will affect the outcome but the music you make is supposed to be a personal expression, not copying other people or trying to improve upon their work.

Just my opinion, anyway.

backwardsvoyager wrote:I think what a lot of artists that are considered innovative have in common is that they don't exclusively draw their influences from other musicians.
I've found personally that I write better music when I'm not comparing it to other music (whatever genre that may be), rather making it an introspective process. e.g. thinking of things or people that are important to you when you play rather than whatever song was last stuck in your head.
Sure, any musical influences will affect the outcome but the music you make is supposed to be a personal expression, not copying other people or trying to improve upon their work.

Just my opinion, anyway.

Amen brother.
Unfortunately there is a science to making music that people will like and by that I mean making music with the intent to sell and that is the driving force behind everything I hate about the industry today.

outside of quote-unquote art music, i've never found much interesting music made solely on non-musical inspiration. not that it doesnt happen, just i don't see the correlation