|
I'd be interested to know what Nielsen even means by rock in 2016 or 2017 charts.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
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. Hangouts syncs across devices just fine. Until the upcoming split anyway, I guess. Whenever that is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
saintonan posted:I'd be interested to know what Nielsen even means by rock in 2016 or 2017 charts. Well their numbers for genre include both current music and back-catalog sales/play/stream/etc. So we at least know there's a bunch of 20th century stuff in the numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted: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. It's true. Go look at the decline of Pitchfork - the single most influential musical magazine during the mid 00's. They stopped covering indie rock almost completely and cover mostly rap and pop now days. They pretty much single handedly created the rock revivalism of that era and they also pretty much singlehandedly destroyed it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Holy implicit racism batman. You know this is coming from the same concept as why prosecutors love to talk about rap lyrics in front of a jury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
If your genre relies on Pitchfork reviews, your genre is a dead man walking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:There are plenty of new rock bands. That they aren't exposed on radio or the press is another issue. Father John Misty is black now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:It's true. Go look at the decline of Pitchfork - the single most influential musical magazine during the mid 00's. They stopped covering indie rock almost completely and cover mostly rap and pop now days. They pretty much single handedly created the rock revivalism of that era and they also pretty much singlehandedly destroyed it. Ah yes the black genre of Pop, featuring Nubian goddess Taylor Swift.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Music has really gone downhill since the days of John Philip Sousa
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:It's true. Go look at the decline of Pitchfork - the single most influential musical magazine during the mid 00's. They stopped covering indie rock almost completely and cover mostly rap and pop now days. They pretty much single handedly created the rock revivalism of that era and they also pretty much singlehandedly destroyed it. Uh, this is pretty hosed up. Anyway, I thought most of the issue with the continuation of rock is that the younger radio crowd is a bit different demographics wise (i.e. not lovely suburbateens) and online with streaming or digital services you're competing against everything made ever now. There's no point in being the next Nickleback or Buck Cherry (i.e. lovely derivative rock band that's hyped to death) because radio's not playing it and you have to compete against everything actually good from the past. So you get lots of people trying new stuff that might not be under the umbrella of rock anymore, since making something novel and good is always easier than making something good while slavishly sticking to a formula.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Why do any of you need the press or whoever to validate your tastes. Just listen to whatever you like and stop giving them power over you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Why do any of you need the press or whoever to validate your tastes. Just listen to whatever you like and stop giving them power over you. Correct, the entirety of music I'm exposed to is via friends and I have no idea what's popular or not just listen to whats good, it's all word of mouth. No radio, no ads, no magazines, no gods, no masters. It's a whole world of bandcamp sites and other free streaming and friends uploading mp3's to google drives to share around. If I particularly like something, I'll buy a physical album of it. It's a good system!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Uh, this is pretty hosed up. Anyway, I thought most of the issue with the continuation of rock is that the younger radio crowd is a bit different demographics wise (i.e. not lovely suburbateens) and online with streaming or digital services you're competing against everything made ever now. There's no point in being the next Nickleback or Buck Cherry (i.e. lovely derivative rock band that's hyped to death) because radio's not playing it and you have to compete against everything actually good from the past. So you get lots of people trying new stuff that might not be under the umbrella of rock anymore, since making something novel and good is always easier than making something good while slavishly sticking to a formula. That's a perfect way to explain it. Again only talking about what's mainstream here, but I think it's really significant that a media consumer like Baronjutter describes himself to be is no longer an "I don't even OWN a TV!" type smuggo but a fairly typical adult music listener. The big pipelines - iHeartRadio, ClearChannel, Viacom - are no longer reaching anyone checked-in enough to make intentional media choices. You can put out derivative new stuff if it's aimed at kids too young to go looking for the originals yet, or at people who just don't care, and there are so many alternatives that are getting easier and easier to use that that demographic is shrinking. Even the drivetime dadrock crew are getting into satellite radio and mobile streaming now. Turns out nobody really liked lovely music interrupted by the babble of lovely DJs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Kexp.org is the only station I listen to, lots of new rock out there still *fist bump* John Waters killin it in the AM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Father John Misty is black now? He's pop that's for sure. Not rock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
KDEY ride or die
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
I notice too in the world of jewelry there's a big trend of not buying from some big chain jewelry store but instead just buying poo poo at someone's market stall during some market. They all have cards and links to their etsy store or what ever so if you find someone making stuff you like you can follow them. Pretty much all my friends who buy "fashion accessories" much prefer to buy "local handcrafted" stuff, not out of some indie local cred but because the quality is better and you can often find much more interesting and unique things that way, and it doesn't cost any more and is often in fact cheaper than buying from some over-priced jewelry chain. And no one gives a poo poo what anything is really made out of so long as it's quality and doesn't fall apart. Is that a real diamond? Who gives a poo poo, the point of this stuff is to look pretty, if it looks pretty it's pretty. $500 earrings with real diamonds don't look any better than a $50 pair with "fake" ones, it's all down to the design of the pieces them selves and how they look all together with your outfit. Which once again goes back to a shift of people buying things purely because they like them, not as some conspicuous consumption or show of wealth. Anyone can buy expensive poo poo, but it takes skill to put together a good look. No one cares anymore how much your items cost, it's entirely about how it makes you look.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I notice too in the world of jewelry there's a big trend of not buying from some big chain jewelry store but instead just buying poo poo at someone's market stall during some market. They all have cards and links to their etsy store or what ever so if you find someone making stuff you like you can follow them. Pretty much all my friends who buy "fashion accessories" much prefer to buy "local handcrafted" stuff, not out of some indie local cred but because the quality is better and you can often find much more interesting and unique things that way, and it doesn't cost any more and is often in fact cheaper than buying from some over-priced jewelry chain. And no one gives a poo poo what anything is really made out of so long as it's quality and doesn't fall apart. Is that a real diamond? Who gives a poo poo, the point of this stuff is to look pretty, if it looks pretty it's pretty. $500 earrings with real diamonds don't look any better than a $50 pair with "fake" ones, it's all down to the design of the pieces them selves and how they look all together with your outfit. Yeah, I really think it's a change for the better. But I, and presumably you, live in urban settings where we have access to this kind of stuff. I'm really curious how much the collapse of consumerism is penetrating suburbia. They're the ones with the failing malls, but where do they buy fashion accessories? I know Forever 21 does really well with their lovely jewelry but oh my god, it's such poo poo. Everyone's used to looking at their clothing and going "well I can get one wear out of this before it falls apart" but a necklace? That's ostensibly made of metal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah, I really think it's a change for the better. But I, and presumably you, live in urban settings where we have access to this kind of stuff. I'm really curious how much the collapse of consumerism is penetrating suburbia. They're the ones with the failing malls, but where do they buy fashion accessories? I know Forever 21 does really well with their lovely jewelry but oh my god, it's such poo poo. Everyone's used to looking at their clothing and going "well I can get one wear out of this before it falls apart" but a necklace? That's ostensibly made of metal? I think it really depends on the type of suburbia in question. Upscale suburbia is still doing well and their malls and lifestyle centres or whatever the name of the year of what a strip mall is called are doing pretty well. All the rich suburbs around me are still building and expanding their retail spaces. The death of malls in the US is closely matches with the spread of poverty in many suburbs. People don't have any loving money so they can't shop as much. Wealth inequality is increasing drastically as well, so mid-level brands are struggling. You need to go dollar store or super high end, anything in between is endangered. The malls around me are all trying to look very upscale, expensive renos, more picky about their tenants, don't want anything dollar-store or "value brand" looking. The few older malls with cheaper local stores are struggling or being redeveloped, but the "high end" (not actually high end, just the illusion of it) malls are doing great. They also really like to combine things like cosmetic surgery clinics, yoga studios, fitness centres, "wellness centres" and other such things so you can really spend a day there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:It's true. Go look at the decline of Pitchfork - the single most influential musical magazine during the mid 00's. They stopped covering indie rock almost completely and cover mostly rap and pop now days. They pretty much single handedly created the rock revivalism of that era and they also pretty much singlehandedly destroyed it. Maybe rock is dying because it sucks and nobody under the age of 25 wants to listen to it. LET THE MARKET DECIDE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:It's true. Go look at the decline of Pitchfork - the single most influential musical magazine during the mid 00's. They stopped covering indie rock almost completely and cover mostly rap and pop now days. They pretty much single handedly created the rock revivalism of that era and they also pretty much singlehandedly destroyed it. This is completely untrue in terms of what Pfork covers (it's full of indie rock) and Pitchfork hasn't "declined" they're bigger than ever, they got bought out by Conde freaking Nast! You are talking straight out of your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:...but a necklace? That's ostensibly made of metal? Plenty of poo poo metal in the world. Plain weak stuff that breaks. Or poorly assembled stuff that snags and gets pulled apart. Or it corrodes, looking like crap, or leaves stains on your skin, or causes irritation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:This is completely untrue in terms of what Pfork covers (it's full of indie rock) and Pitchfork hasn't "declined" they're bigger than ever, they got bought out by Conde freaking Nast! Yeah, in what bizarro world do some of you live? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-05-03/pitchfork-grows-up
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Is that a real diamond? Who gives a poo poo, the point of this stuff is to look pretty, if it looks pretty it's pretty. $500 earrings with real diamonds don't look any better than a $50 pair with "fake" ones, it's all down to the design of the pieces them selves and how they look all together with your outfit. this is how I've always felt about precious gemstones and even precious metals. our engagement/wedding bands were $6 and made of stainless steel. it's not a status piece for us, none of our jewelry is, who loving cares anymore? I make my own jewelry for the most part and the stuff I do buy is usually clearance or something I don't have the tools for, and the former I end up modifying in some way. I've sold hundreds of pieces of jewelry as well, and I made pretty personal stuff that you couldn't really get anywhere else. fun fact: one of my pieces was on a customer when she met taylor swift and she really liked it. idc about TS but I'm just. lmao. that's cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Sears Canada declared bankruptcy today finally announceing the death of the last of a once profitable company https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/06/22/trading-of-sears-canada-shares-halted-amid-report-it-will-seek-creditor-protection.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:This is completely untrue in terms of what Pfork covers (it's full of indie rock) It's really not. Go look at the top 10 albums in their yealyr charts. They haven't given rock albums top rankings in their yearly lists for a while 60%-70% of their entrees are pop, rnb or hip hop. Look at 2016 their top 10 was 1. Solange - A Seat At the Table (RNB) 2. Frank Ocean - Blonde (RNB) 3. Beyonce - Lemonade (RNB) 4. David Bowie - Blackstar (Certainly not Indie Rock) 5. Kanye West - TLOP (Hip - Hop) 6. Chance the Rapper - Coloring Book (Hip Hop) 7. A Tribe called Quest - WGIFHTY4YS (Hip Hop) 8. Anohni - Hopelesness (Indie Pop) 9. Angel Olsen - My Woman (Indie Pop) 10. Radiohead - A Moon Shape Pool (Indie Rock) There's only 1 Indie rock record. If you complete the 20 list there's only 2 other Indie Rock albums on there. A whole 7 other albums are RNB or Hip Hop for a total of 14 albums out of 20 being Hip Hop or RNB. 2015 was the same thing. There is only one album on the top 10 considered rock and even that one (Tame Impala - Currents) is one of the most controversial and divisive albums of the past 10 years. A lot of the indie community is adamant that its not rock - so much to the point that it is a recurring joke on /r/indieheads. This is a trend that has developed since 2010 or 2011 - and essentially only 10%-20% of the music that makes Pitchforks year end lists tends to be independent. And even then only a subsample is rock. Most indie rock albums being put out now get middling to negative reviews when it seems to me they would of fared much better a few years ago. the black husserl posted:This is completely untrue in terms of what Pfork covers (it's full of indie rock) and Pitchfork hasn't "declined" they're bigger than ever, they got bought out by Conde freaking Nast! This is actually what directly to it's downfall. Pitchfork now covers and reviews popular music more often positively than not and has lost it's independence. The outlet was started as a magazine that was dedicated to the artistic merit of music above all else and was key in bringing a lot of obscure and unique sounding little known bands to popularity - and now it's become the complete opposite of that. A stooge for big media to sell albums already receiving radio play and hype to hipsters. There are a lot of artists that have gone on to become very popular due to the impact of Pitchfork. But that trajectory isn't really possible anymore. They do not really bring little known artists to the forefront like they did with M83, Arcade Fire, The National, Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes, Beach House, Bon Iver, James Blake or even The Weeknd. That's really sad. I think the last small band that got any kind of major exposure due to Pitchfork was Titus Andronicus and that was in 2008. ThisIsWhyTrumpWon fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:It's really not. Go look at the top 10 albums in their yearly charts. They haven't given rock albums top rankings in their yearly lists for a while Probably because there haven't been any albums that deserve it, hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Probably because there haven't been any albums that deserve it, hope this helps. Except there has been as The Quietus which is a zine that has really taken up Pitchforks mantle (without nearly the traffic or success) shows with their year end lists which feature 4 or 5 Rock albums within the top 10 and it making up a good 30%-40% of the music. The problem is that Pitchfork was founded by a Rockist whose musical senses where heavily entrenched in the culture of the underground and alternative scenes of the late 80s and early 90s as were informed by Sub-Pop and Steve Albini. Then it hired on a couple of people who were poptimists and they began to take over the editorial room and that really was for the worst. Here's a good article about where we are at with this. And I don't think it's a better place. ThisIsWhyTrumpWon fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Except there has been as The Quietus which is a zine that has really taken up Pitchforks mantle (without nearly the traffic or success) shows with their year end lists which feature 4 or 5 Rock albums within the top 10 and it making up a good 30%-40% of the music. Hmm nah, those albums just aren't quite good enough, I'm afraid. Probably they'd have more success if they weren't touting tired trash?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
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. Google Fi probably. I'm going to be really sad when they separate SMS and hangouts (RIP) because I can't have a cell phone at work and being able to listen to voice mails/read the transcripts of them and text people from my gmail account is amazing...and half the reason I signed up for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:There are a lot of artists that have gone on to become very popular due to the impact of Pitchfork. But that trajectory isn't really possible anymore. They do not really bring little known artists to the forefront like they did with M83, Arcade Fire, The National, Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes, Beach House, Bon Iver, James Blake or even The Weeknd. That's really sad. I think the last small band that got any kind of major exposure due to Pitchfork was Titus Andronicus and that was in 2008. Come on, you're still doing the rear end talking thing. Yes, Pitchfork puts a lot of rap and pop in its top ten lists. That doesn't change the fact that they still promote a SHITLOAD of indie rock and blow up small indie bands all the time. They made goddamned Mac DeMarco a rockstar! Dude has millions of plays on all his tracks and it all started because Pitchfork gave him a Best New Music. In fact, they're constant boosters of Captured Tracks, Mexican Summer, Sub Pop, and every other relevant indie label. I think Titus Andronicus was just the last band you heard before you stopped paying attention to new music, cause it's insane you missed Pfork's canonization (and career-making) of Parquet Courts, Porches, Girlpool, Jay Som, Real Estate, DIIV, Viet Cong, Speedy Ortiz, VAMPIRE FREAKING WEEKEND, Savages...the list is endless. Plus they still constantly give breathless coverage and 10.0s to the indie rock canon, everything from Pavement resissues to whatever the new Arcade Fire album is. Whatever culture war you're trying to fight....it doesn't actually exist. Wait, why am I having this conversation? What was this thread about again? the black husserl fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Did someone really buy an account so they could complain about Pitchfork liking black music too much in the retail thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Did someone really buy an account so they could complain about Pitchfork liking black music too much in the retail thread I don't have problem with black music. If Pitchfork wanted to promote little known hip hop artists that's fine. They have to some extent with The Weeknd, Danny Brown, Death Grips, and Lil B. I have a problem with Pitchfork following along and copying what every other magazine is doing just to make themselves look cool and ignoring the rest of the other genres while doing so. They just gave the new Lorde album a 9.2 despite not giving a rock album a ranking like that in years - which kind of cements my point. They have abandoned the people they claim to serve. ThisIsWhyTrumpWon fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Did someone really buy an account so they could complain about Pitchfork liking black music too much in the retail thread He bought an account because he's a MIGF re-reg whose last re-reg got banned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:I don't have problem with black music. If Pitchfork wanted to promote little known hip hop artists that's fine. They have to some extent with The Weeknd, Danny Brown, Death Grips, and Lil B. This, truly, is why Trump won
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
whoa lookit all the new replies, must have missed hearing about a big bankruptcy or something
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:He bought an account because he's a MIGF re-reg whose last re-reg got banned. I'm dying. MIGF re-reged as ISeeCuckedPeople?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Rock existed before Pitchfork so I'm pretty sure it's free to continue after it. If Pitchfork isn't writing as much about rock as they used to maybe it's because it's not as popular a genre anymore. Sorry the mere existence of black talent caused an end to the service your whiteness feels entitled to though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
The only problem with that Lorde score is that it wasn't a perfect 10. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:
Because Lorde is awesome and you're too old
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 04:03
|
|
