|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I do this for work, there was a marked change in how word-of-mouth affected films pretty much the minute the iPhone came out. It's a known Thing. My inner nerd is curious how much this is directly attributable to the iPhone, because Twitter's popularity curve matches it almost exactly. I signed up in the summer of 2007, which is "early" but not "ground floor, first 500 users" level early. Twitter's initial pitch before widespread smartphone availability was that it was a distributed SMS network that virtually put you in text messaging proximity of people you weren't on a private phone number basis with. By 2008, both things were hog wild, as iPhones could communicate with Twitter over HTTP and removed the texting plan burden from users. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jun 22, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Craptacular! posted:As far as Coca-Cola and fast food, those brands are already in some insular foreign cultures. Japan's KFCs are widely known for their ridiculous statues of Colonel Sanders. Foreigners probably don't consume as much as we do, but they aren't supremely more health-conscious than we are. Part of the reason we're so fat compared to people of many advanced cultures is that a lot of them are still smoking like it's the 80s. Over the past few generations many people in the US have quit, and as any woman who quit smoking can tell you it's difficult to do so in part because you're going to get fatter when you stop. A relative of mine basically thought the risk of lung cancer was worth keeping pounds off. There's a bunch of major differences between how America eats and how the rest of the world eats. Americans are just loving gluttonous and sedentary. A KFC existing in Tokyo doesn't necessarily mean that people are eating there multiple times a day or even per week. In America we just shovel more and more calories in our fat, corn-fed faces all day. The super heavy corn subsidies do a lot of that; corn has a lot of calories but not much else while our food just gets stuffed with more and more corn derivatives. America just plain being a culture of absurd gluttony is also a major issue. Craptacular! posted:You're attributing too much to smartphones here. Roger Ebert used to exist with reviews of movies the morning they opened, because he saw it a couple days before you could. I have to put forth effort to leaf through a newspaper and find the review. I might even just plain gloss over it. I might check the paper for that column; I might not. That column also didn't appear in every newspaper and not every movie was reviewed. I'm sure as hell not guaranteed to read the whole paper every day and I don't have my paper with me at all times. When Charlie texts me and says "Hey bruh, I just saw [that new movie] and it was total poo poo. Don't bother." that gets my attention immediately. I have my phone with me at all times. If everybody I know says "movie bad" I'm not going to go out to see it. Hell most people I knew that got newspapers didn't even open them every day. Cell phones are a whoooooooooole different ballgame. Plus chances are every movie that got released by a major studio had at least some good reviews. The other thing the internet created was review aggregation; when half the critics and 90% of the moviegoers rated a movie as absolute garbage you can be pretty assured it's probably bad. Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist in the 80's. Chances are, by the time I go to see a movie, I might have forgotten the review I read in the paper. If ten people tell me a movie is poo poo, well...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:My inner nerd is curious how much this is directly attributable to the iPhone, because Twitter's popularity curve matches it almost exactly. I signed up in the summer of 2007, which is "early" but not "ground floor, first 500 users" level early. Twitter's initial pitch before widespread smartphone availability was that it was a distributed SMS network that virtually put you in text messaging proximity of people you weren't on a private phone number basis with. Yeah I'm sure Twitter's equally a factor. 2007 is generally when people in my line of work define the modern internet as getting off the ground, from a marketing perspective. Actually Useful social media + Actually Useful mobile internet were a powerful combination. Also I think what you're missing is that the shift wasn't that Roger Ebert reviews got easier to read, but that everyone in your entire life and every stranger on the internet became Roger Ebert.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
The advertising angle is an interesting one. Every single person I know has pretty much shut out all convention forms of marketing. No one watches live TV, everything is adblocked, and most people are savy enough to not bother watching youtubes and poo poo with obviously sponsored content (the sort of hype generating paid shills RLM is always mocking). I have no idea what blockbusters are coming to or even in theatres, I have no idea about new product X or service Y and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Pretty much everyone I know feels the same way, tune out all the marketing and just get things when you feel you need something, not when someone else tells you you need something. Word of mouth from trusted friends becomes the only form of marketing. When purchases are made, advise is sought, research is done, and biased sources and fake reviews are avoided. I don't think my behavior would change much if I had actual disposable income either, I just sincerely don't want all that poo poo. There seems to be some pretty big generational divides in shopping too. My parents and boomers in general seem very much driven by the status of consumption and the lifestyles and consumerism they see in the media. The neighbour got a kurieg machine? What's what? It's the new expensive fancy way to make lovely coffee?? We need one too!!! Don't research it, don't reach reviews, don't reflect on if you actually need it or not, just get it. So they got the stupid machine and within a month hated it realizing it was mostly a gimmick and the stupid pods were expensive and wasteful. A friend boasts about their new huge TV? Suddenly their huge TV isn't huge enough. Oh now they need a PVR, and digital cable, and netflix, and a bunch of other services they sign up for and don't really use but some other boomer friend has them so they have to have them too, even if half of them they can't even figure out how to use properly. There's always some expensive new gadget or service they just need to get to keep up with the joneses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:
What even actually is a mainstream music in a world like this? Also "catchy sugary pop music" has been the dominant form of the Now pretty much continuously since the 60s, only to be forgotten after a few months from release. The "defining genres" you're thinking of were usually quite a bit behind such stuff in terms of things like radio play - and of course the really dominant radio music was often stuff even more boring and staid. Nobody cares that no one "takes a risk" on a Pink Floyd because a modern Pink Floyd can do production that would make the entire production staff of their best albums poo poo themselves with jealously with maybe a few thousand bucks, at home. And they'll get plenty of exposure on Youtube and Bandcamp - hell probably more than most labels would have ever done for them in the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:When Charlie texts me and says "Hey bruh, I just saw [that new movie] and it was total poo poo. Don't bother." that gets my attention immediately. I have my phone with me at all times. If everybody I know says "movie bad" I'm not going to go out to see it. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Also I think what you're missing is that the shift wasn't that Roger Ebert reviews got easier to read, but that everyone in your entire life and every stranger on the internet became Roger Ebert. Yeah, there's something "off" in my family versus others once texting happened. I never got into texting early, because there were very few people I wanted to reach with that level of immediacy that I could be interrupting whatever it is they're doing. Most things I have to say are unimportant enough that I'm okay with the reader finding it in their own time, and if I had something that was critically important I could always just make a phone call with the device instead. It also helped that we refused to pay for a plan and opted to spend a dime on the rare occasion we sent or received one, so we devalued that feature by making it too expensive to use. We're a stupidly technically advanced family that had multiple Apple computers that each cost thousands of 80s/90s dollars to own (my Dad had a $6,500 machine just to handle taking his workload home), but nowadays we're a bunch of fuddies who refer to stickers and other messaging features as "teenager texting poo poo." I have one flesh and blood friend that I can only communicate over texting, and it's annoying because I don't really want his phone to buzz with my random thought of the moment when he could be at dinner. The other week my Dad finally complained that "there must be something wrong with me because I have these contacts who only want me to talk to them by texting and I don't get why." I regaled him with the story about how the original iPhone didn't have MMS because Steve Jobs couldn't understand why anyone would pay the carrier's MMS fee to send a photo via text when they could just attach it to an email and use data or home wifi for the same experience. To my mind it's all the same and never new, because it's just AOL's Instant Messaging modified for today, and honestly I'd prefer Facebook Messenger or specialty networks like Discord, but holy hell for some reason some people are just all about the SMS/MMS over cellular and never broke away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
I don't think anyone was prepared for rock to effectively cease to exist as a mainstream genre. It makes the Bill & Ted movies really quaint.Craptacular! posted:Texting Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Gonna conclude my derail with this...Tiny Brontosaurus posted:AIM-type chatting basically existed for the blink of an eye - modern teens have probably never even used it. I think AIM-type chat networks still exist, they're just Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, LINE (Japan), WeChat (China), kik (exhibitionists) etc. The only ones that really annoy me are the ones that demand my contacts and have no PC client of any kind. I gravitate to Facebook and Discord for two reasons: 1) My identity isn't tied to my phone number, which might change. (I thought this portability, along with a lightyears jump in spam filtering, is why GMail succeeded over ISP email) 2) My conversation doesn't HAVE to live exclusively in my phone. If I'm using a laptop, I can respond on a real keyboard. But people who live by SMS/MMS never seemed to know or care about these features. "new phone who dis" is a catchphrase that was inspired by the mainstream user, not the old nerds who have seen this tech coming all along.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:but holy hell for some reason some people are just all about the SMS/MMS over cellular and never broke away. Why should they? It works with like 98% of the people in the country and it's not like there's any super-pressing feature that they're missing out on if they don't install another messenger. And texting plans have long been unlimited or nearly so if you have any sort of data plan on the major carriers, and at worst still far less expensive than they used to be in like 2004.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Gonna conclude my derail with this... My text messages integrate with my laptop perfectly  And oh my god dude, "new phone who dis" is a joke about how the speaker is lying, "SMS/MMS" (it's called texting, jfc) is completely normal, functional technology and you're being a weird sperg for getting so judgmental about it. You're super mad that people are using a finished product instead of the early, lovely, non-portable iterations. Chill! You know when you were being Mr_Cool_Dude_88 on aim and talking to pedophiles all day the back-then version of you was bitching that your dumb rear end didn't know how to write a perfectly good telegram, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah, you think about this stuff really differently than most people. For one it's bizarre to think of a buzzing phone as being capable of interrupting anything. People who aren't in a situation where it's appropriate to be on their phones usually have it tucked away in a pocket or bag. It's fine. And AIM-type chatting basically existed for the blink of an eye - modern teens have probably never even used it. Having basic communication features fully integrated into a device you always have with you is nice. People barely use email outside of work anymore. It's just not needed. And it doesn't hurt that spam texts are way, way less common than spam email. A lot of the less technically-inclined people I know basically treat their email inboxes like they're infested and avoid them as much as possible. Speaking of etiquette surrounding new technology, one thing I've noticed wearing an Apple Watch is you have to be really careful about how/when you glance at it. It will inaudibly "tap" your wrist, and you'll instinctively rotate your wrist to make the display come on and see what happened, so it seems exaggerated in terms of a motion, but it's not meant to be a "gently caress, this is taking too long..." gesture that people without a smartwatch might think it is. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I don't think anyone was prepared for rock to effectively cease to exist as a mainstream genre. It makes the Bill & Ted movies really quaint. That's an interesting point. I'd never noticed it, but, yeah, it's mainly dead. The only new rock music I really notice is niche stuff, often international stuff too. Part of the problem is the listeners, though. We'd rather listen to Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Santana or Queen again rather than some band trying to break new ground in the genre today, and without innovation, there's only stagnation and death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
"Texting" is a generic enough term that it could be confused with the chat apps I mentioned, so that was why I mentioned SMS specifically. Anyhow, I'm done. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Speaking of etiquette surrounding new technology, one thing I've noticed wearing an Apple Watch is you have to be really careful about how/when you glance at it. It will inaudibly "tap" your wrist, and you'll instinctively rotate your wrist to make the display come on and see what happened, so it seems exaggerated in terms of a motion, but it's not meant to be a "gently caress, this is taking too long..." gesture that people without a smartwatch might think it is. Haha that's nuts, I've never used a smart watch so I never knew about this. And they're not very successful, as I understand it, so this gesture will probably never become common enough to lose its original meaning. The current state of rock really fascinates me, because it lingers mostly as a cultural shorthand for "cool" that is not, in fact, cool. Like kids' TV shows will have a "rocker" character in a leather jacket maybe, but the kids watching it might possibly have never heard a rock song. And in the adult space it's mostly vintage acts, like you say, frequently being brandished as a kind of tribalism - "I'm REAL, I like REAL MUSIC, which tragically ceased to be produced after 1977." I mean I think to really invest in a new young band you have to be young yourself, and rock fans mostly aren't. Except you, of course, you're still cool. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Isnt texting old tech now anyway? I do notice there was a trend to txt here in nz ages before it crested in the u.s. free txting weekends etc. Everyone I know uses messenger as their main form of communication - even the older gens. Also? Txt/im aren't interrupting people's days because the etiquette is not to expect a reply straight away. Except for my dad who still doesn't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Isnt texting old tech now anyway? I do notice there was a trend to txt here in nz ages before it crested in the u.s. free txting weekends etc. Everyone I know uses messenger as their main form of communication - even the older gens. Also? Txt/im aren't interrupting people's days because the etiquette is not to expect a reply straight away. Except for my dad who still doesn't get it. I think it's really region-specific, affected by carrier pricing structures, the availability of wifi, and cellular data speed. I think a lot of the big texting alternative apps were popular because they were a way to get around extortionate international texting rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's an interesting point. I'd never noticed it, but, yeah, it's mainly dead. The only new rock music I really notice is niche stuff, often international stuff too. Part of the problem is the listeners, though. We'd rather listen to Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Santana or Queen again rather than some band trying to break new ground in the genre today, and without innovation, there's only stagnation and death. Pop has crashed together with a lot of genres. Imagine Dragons is on the pop station today alongside Nick Jonas and Demi Lovato, whereas before it would be on a rock station because pop is where you put your Wilson Phillips and George Michael style stuff. There's probably less syrupy Whitney Houston or Celine Dion style "love letter" music than there was in years past as well. Pop music these days has rock breakdowns, EDM "drops", and rap interludes. Obviously this long existed to some degree (Michael Jackson brought a whole lot of R&B into his work) but at least in my areas "pop radio" was essentially tuned to white baby boomers, and obviously there's no better example than rap influence. Radio and MTV alike ("Yo! MTV Raps") put rap into a sort of ghetto where it could both create it's own unique culture, but also wouldn't easily break out in the way something like Drake does today. And nowadays people who are conditioned from those days to say "Pop shouldn't have any of that rap poo poo" have to look for genres with names like "Hot AC".
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Isnt texting old tech now anyway? I do notice there was a trend to txt here in nz ages before it crested in the u.s. free txting weekends etc. Everyone I know uses messenger as their main form of communication - even the older gens. Also? Txt/im aren't interrupting people's days because the etiquette is not to expect a reply straight away. Except for my dad who still doesn't get it. Do you still have to pay for texting most of them in NZ? Most other countries where using messenger apps caught on in a big way still have the carriers charging for texts, often quite ridiculous rates. Due to US carriers largely deciding to toss in texts free with the data plan people get for the smartphone anyway, or simply rolling in for holdouts on dumbphones, there isn't that sort of financial pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Pop has crashed together with a lot of genres. Imagine Dragons is on the pop station today alongside Nick Jonas and Demi Lovato, whereas before it would be on a rock station because pop is where you put your Wilson Phillips and George Michael style stuff. There's probably less syrupy Whitney Houston or Celine Dion style "love letter" music than there was in years past as well. Yeah, people forget how recent it was that putting black musical artists on a white radio station was completely unheard of. Early MTV was reluctant to air Michael Jackson videos. fishmech posted:Do you still have to pay for texting most of them in NZ? Most other countries where using messenger apps caught on in a big way still have the carriers charging for texts, often quite ridiculous rates. Yeah I think in the US the big use case for texting apps was kids who were on a shared family plan with their parents and had access to a large but not unlimited allotment of free texts, like 1500 or something, which any middle schooler can easily burn through in an afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Due to US carriers largely deciding to toss in texts free with the data plan people get for the smartphone anyway, or simply rolling in for holdouts on dumbphones, there isn't that sort of financial pressure. Before then, unlimited texting was quite expensive because phone carriers knew people were addicted to it. They reached so far that they almost caused people to adopt portable online messaging services, at which point they realized the customer's perceived value of texting was now worthless. This is part of the reason there's a whole crowd of people who once loved their Blackberries for BBM. Blackberry was initially a worker bee tool, but the widespread popularity of the Curve and other low-end models was because they gave people the texting experience for free by utilizing data between Blackberries. Same thing with the T-Mobile Sidekick, for the most part; except Blackberry was more secured and had more carriers. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
I met my wife on ICQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:US carriers only tossed in texts with the data plan when data-driven apps risked making texting obsolete. That poo poo was a profit center for a very long time even though it used extraneous overhead on the cellular spectrum. I use AT&T, and they only introduced Mobile Share Value plans in late 2013, and for the longest time (until 2015) I was on the original iPhone "unlimited" plan that still doesn't include any texting. And part of the reason I moved to an iPhone from a flipphone in late 2008 was so that my AIM and Twitter use were over data and not through a texting gateway. Well the US also didn't go majority smartphone until very late 2012. At that point, selling data could be relied on for their big profit center. However, we'd gotten unlimited texting on our AT&T family plan back in 2009 or 2010 as part as finally adding a line for my youngest brother. Not sure which "Mobile Share Value" plan you're referring to here, but it certainly wasn't the only option for it. The unlimited texting even included unlimited data... for featurephones only.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Texting chat is a super interesting read. Despite being online since the late eighties, never used messager or SMS, etc until about two years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:However, we'd gotten unlimited texting on our AT&T family plan back in 2009 or 2010 as part as finally adding a line for my youngest brother. Not sure which "Mobile Share Value" plan you're referring to here, but it certainly wasn't the only option for it. The unlimited texting even included unlimited data... for featurephones only. My family refused to pay the extortion rates they were asking, which was fine because I was at an adult age and responsible and understood that the network burden of texting was nearly non-existent and it was just a greedy company making too much money off a good thing. I used Google Voice to handle any necessary texts and, for systems that won't work with Google's virtualized numbers, occasionally would sadly report that I had a texting exchange that went back and forth a bit so expect an extra dollar on the bill. The instinct carried on so strongly that when I signed up for Uber and Lyft a couple years ago, I was annoyed that Lyft sends text messages instead of utilizing push notifications and gave them my Google Voice number. I finally left "unlimited/throttled data" circa 2009 for a plan that included unlimited texting a few months later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Texting chat is a super interesting read. Despite being online since the late eighties, never used messager or SMS, etc until about two years ago. Just want to chime in and say, the last few pages have been fascinating talk. You could almost rangle together a thread from these topics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
By the way, whoever upthread had their phone and laptop working together for texting: I haven't been able to do that since Google broke the Google Voice plugin for Chrome. No idea what magic you're doing, unless you have an iPhone and a Mac working together. I like video games too much to buy a Mac.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
On Android there's plenty of apps and services that will relay text send/receive to a computer or even any web browser. I guess on iPhone you might need to be jailbroken for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:By the way, whoever upthread had their phone and laptop working together for texting: I haven't been able to do that since Google broke the Google Voice plugin for Chrome. No idea what magic you're doing, unless you have an iPhone and a Mac working together. I like video games too much to buy a Mac. I do use a mac and I say so only out of curiosity to see the sheer spergstorm this admission will trigger. It's honestly psychologically fascinating to read your thought process, retaining this like, intensely personal anger about texting because you felt you were cheated on the rates a decade ago. Denying an app that already has your location and your credit card info from knowing your real phone number because text messages outrage you so much. It's like those crows that will teach their grandchildren to recognize the face of a human who offended them one time. Texts are free, man. They've been free for a decade. Even when they weren't free they never cost so much that it was worth adding stress to your life over it. You're like my grandma who still doesn't trust that long distance phone calls aren't a thing anymore and always tries to get me to call collect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I don't think anyone was prepared for rock to effectively cease to exist as a mainstream genre. It makes the Bill & Ted movies really quaint. People are always wrong about this (and then try to wiggle out of being wrong), but rock is still the number one genre and no where near non-mainstream. https://musicbiz.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-NIELSEN-Mid-Year-U.S-Music-Report.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Boxcar posted:People are always wrong about this (and then try to wiggle out of being wrong), but rock is still the number one genre and no where near non-mainstream. I think TB meant in terms of new rock bands being listened to, not classic rock. Like, what is even an example of a "new" rock band?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
If you prefer email that much and are that upset about sms, you can just send an email to [[phonenumber]@[carrier].net and they'll get it as a text message.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah, people forget how recent it was that putting black musical artists on a white radio station was completely unheard of. Early MTV was reluctant to air Michael Jackson videos. While US cell carrier plans are outrageously expensive and therefore include texting for the most part, this doesn't include international texting. If you know people that move around the globe, using apps like WhatsApp is much more convenient than regular old SMS. In addition, people like convenience features like built-in read receipts etc. that messaging apps offer (no, SMS read-receipts aren't the same). Fame Douglas fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think TB meant in terms of new rock bands being listened to, not classic rock. I remember there being a lot of hand wringing about "rock" when the popularity of the various genres cycled the last couple of times. IIRC, rock was ~on the permanent decline~ before Seattle/Grunge hit and brought up Nirvana/AiC/SG/PJ/etc. "Rock" has probably waned and waxed again in mainstream popularity at least once since then. Beauty of how democratized music (should be) right now is that you should be able to follow whatever genre you like, instead of like when I was in high school, being locked into whatever your radio plays for you or whatever you could buy for ~$15 at the rip-off music store.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Yeah it's interesting watching these gatekeepers now the walls are down when they purparate to only be there to provide. Now their holding back is their only purpose. The internet will eat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Yeah it's interesting watching these gatekeepers now the walls are down when they purparate to only be there to provide. Now their holding back is their only purpose. The internet will eat. Until Net Neutrality is defeated, then you'll have to pay your gatekeepers again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Boxcar posted:People are always wrong about this (and then try to wiggle out of being wrong), but rock is still the number one genre and no where near non-mainstream. I have to wonder about those low EDM/Dance numbers, given the fact that just about every label/DJ out there has a weekly hour or longer podcast. Tiesto and Above & Beyond break the top ten in music podcasts regularly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Both Rock and RB/Hip hop are still listened too crazy amounts and both are filled with aging artists because the gate keepers are alive and well, and if you're not interested in one genre you can easily look over and be like 'drat, that guy is still dominating over there? Kinda a dead genre huh' Like it is crazy to look up the artists charting in both Rock and Hip Hop and many of them got their start in the same 5~7 year span. I've never understood Pop charts like why is Drake allowed to chart in Pop but Beyonce isn't, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Kexp.org is the only station I listen to, lots of new rock out there still
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
duodenum posted:Until Net Neutrality is defeated, then you'll have to pay your gatekeepers again. Maybe you should say what you think net neutrality is and why "removing" it would make record labels have power again. Because I can tell you that we had no net neutrality legislation or enforcement at all before the middle of the Obama administration, and even now we barely have any (much of the stronger protection was not scheduled to take effect until this fall, and one of the few laws Trump actually signed blocked those from taking effect indefinitely) - plus most other countries have none or very little. Solkanar512 posted:I have to wonder about those low EDM/Dance numbers, given the fact that just about every label/DJ out there has a weekly hour or longer podcast. Tiesto and Above & Beyond break the top ten in music podcasts regularly. I think it's just a case of it being really hard to track overall music listening as opposed to the old days where it was pretty easy to track record sales + radio play (and even then, there was a lot of trouble properly tracking stuff like play in nightclubs). fishmech fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think TB meant in terms of new rock bands being listened to, not classic rock. There are plenty of new rock bands. That they aren't exposed on radio or the press is another issue. It's most a racial thing. The in vogue thing with "independent" journalism is black artists. Until a really good black rock musician emerges you're not going to see a lot of praise of a new rock band.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:There are plenty of new rock bands. That they aren't exposed on radio or the press is another issue. That's why I threw the word "mainstream" in there, yo. And I assume I don't have to go into what's hosed about your reverse racism theory, right? Can you just climb into the fuckbarrel and give yourself a quick spin? I'm tired today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:27
|
|