I just can't agree with this quote from the article, and don't think I ever will. There is more music available to us at our fingertips now than ever. The truth is that if he can't find talented...
Rundgren is always trying to broaden his influences, seeking new music, consulting his children on what he should be listening to – but even then, it can be challenging. “It’s very hard to find artists who are sincerely musical nowadays, who haven’t simply leveraged their internet celebrity into a musical career,” he says. “The music is just mediocre.” He wonders whether people still form the same intimate attachment to songs as he did growing up. “Then, most of the music you got exposed to was the Top 40 on the radio,” he says. “Nowadays I open my newsreader and there’s 20 artists whose names sound like they’re internet passwords and you’ve never heard their music.”
I just can't agree with this quote from the article, and don't think I ever will. There is more music available to us at our fingertips now than ever. The truth is that if he can't find talented musicians then he isn't looking hard enough AND is doing them a huge disservice by saying as much. Popularity is a terrible thing to equate to musicality or skill. Besides, finding music from the Top 40 list decades ago is not any different than kids today finding music through the radio's Top 40 or something like Spotify. Today's kids will look back fondly at this music, even if he considers it unworthy.
Whenever I explore old (read: before-streaming) music, I find a lot of gems... and a lot, lot of crap that I think is beyond a matter of my taste. I think the proportion of talented-to-mediocre...
Whenever I explore old (read: before-streaming) music, I find a lot of gems... and a lot, lot of crap that I think is beyond a matter of my taste.
I think the proportion of talented-to-mediocre musicians might even be better today, given the proliferation of music instruction and technology. Musicians are sharing insights and learning from the best.
On the other hand, I think that streaming technology, data-driven music, and the incentives of social media in self-promotion are:
Creating some vague homogeneity in certain musical aspects. Music is more diverse than ever, I believe, as artists are drawing from and mixing ever more genres and influences from around the world. But there's also something intangible all contemporary music now seem to share. Many songs are 3–4 mins long and have a somewhat muzak quality that makes them perfect to be played in a Whole Foods, a gastropub, a third-wave coffeeshop, or a clothing boutique.
Making music less folksy and deep-hearted but instead more optimized for the consumer masses. I wonder who our era's Bob Dylan will be. Will there ever be one?
On the first point, I totally agree. There's been much chatter about the way streaming is driving consumption. A key part of that is that music is definitely being mood-driven again. The desire...
On the first point, I totally agree. There's been much chatter about the way streaming is driving consumption. A key part of that is that music is definitely being mood-driven again. The desire for pre-curated playlists for cooking, driving, sleeping, sadness, happiness, are all available now. The lofi beats from ~2016 embodied this perfectly. They're very pleasing and soothing, but are also minor variations on a theme. I recall a few standout projects, but that's a testament to how much of it was all the same.
On the second point, I have seen a real groundswell of younger artists going back to the folk roots. Artists captured by WesternAF, GemsOnVHS, and DittyTV in field recordings have used those platforms to rise to varying levels of fame. Other artists have made endroads in more conventional ways. I love these field recordings because they put a spotlight on playing music and singing live and re-introducing what that sounds like. I'll note that artists like Charley Crockett, Sierra Ferrel, Nick Shoulders, Willi Carlisle, Bella White, Riddy Arman (all featured on one of those platforms) are exceptionally folksy and are beginning to build (or have built) huge followings without the help of the country+folk establishment. I just recently found the No Depression publication, but they're spotlighting a lot of the things I'm seeing.
I am unbelievably excited to see him in November! I was surprised he's coming to my area but I've gotten my friends on board too, even though they aren't big western fans. I really hope they enjoy...
I am unbelievably excited to see him in November! I was surprised he's coming to my area but I've gotten my friends on board too, even though they aren't big western fans. I really hope they enjoy the show.
I thought I hated country and western music, but blimey there's some amazing music on these channels. The field recording aspect of it is important - I get to hear stripped back simply performed...
WesternAF, GemsOnVHS,
I thought I hated country and western music, but blimey there's some amazing music on these channels. The field recording aspect of it is important - I get to hear stripped back simply performed music that pushes emphasis on the song writing and the core features of the melody.
IME most people who say they hate country music are strictly thinking about mainstream, top 40 pop-country shit, and haven't actually been exposed to much Americana, American Folk, Bluegrass, or...
IME most people who say they hate country music are strictly thinking about mainstream, top 40 pop-country shit, and haven't actually been exposed to much Americana, American Folk, Bluegrass, or even plain old fashioned Country & Western music, which are very very different from that, and hard to hate if you appreciate any musical artistic talent at all.
And yeah, WesterAF and GemsOnVHS are amazing channels, so great recommendations @soks_n_sandals. Speaking of which, that Sierra Ferrel's In Dreams performance on Gems is probably one of my most played country songs in the last few years. So fucking good.
If you're looking for some more music in a similar vein, here is a copypaste from an old comment of mine with lots more recommendations:
I don't know much country so if you care to recommend some of the better stuff I'd like to check it out.
Sure can, although I mostly listen to Indie/Singer-Songwriter/Contemporary Folk, Bluegrass/Newgrass, Southern Rock and Alt/Progressive Country so my recommendations would mostly be limited to those genres... and I mostly listen to Live music too. But with that said, here are some of my favorites, off the top of my head and quickly copied from various playlists:
It's probably too nitpicky, but I feel I'm part of the people that hate country music and your examples does not appeal to me either :p I don't want to speak as if I'm most people (and with my...
It's probably too nitpicky, but I feel I'm part of the people that hate country music and your examples does not appeal to me either :p
I don't want to speak as if I'm most people (and with my tastes I shouldn't), so your point probably still stand, but the main things that I don't like is the too simple sound of acoustic guitar which feel overused and always remind me of all the known clichés (especially tied to its cliché use in many movies).
And the often overly pronounced american accent which really repulse me, even used in other genres (and it has always been the case from my childhood).
Even in my teens where I've listened to all sort of rock, blues, and music genres often near the sound of country, I've always been displeased by it.
But now I'm even more difficult with it, as I don't find relaxing/down-tempo pleasing anymore.
There is a reason I said "most" instead of all. ;) But there is also nothing wrong with being an outlier in that regard either. I don't feel the same way, but I can totally understand how the...
There is a reason I said "most" instead of all. ;)
But there is also nothing wrong with being an outlier in that regard either. I don't feel the same way, but I can totally understand how the southern twang of the vocals, and the nearly ubiquitous use of acoustic guitars, mandolins, ukeleles, fiddles, and/or banjos in most American folk/country music might genuinely annoy some people. To each their own. :)
I think the answer to this is a definite no. Reading about Marylin Monroe, Elvis Presley, The Beatles and these huge social phenomena now, nothing today is remotely as dominating. Media used to...
I wonder who our era's Bob Dylan will be. Will there ever be one?
I think the answer to this is a definite no. Reading about Marylin Monroe, Elvis Presley, The Beatles and these huge social phenomena now, nothing today is remotely as dominating.
Media used to have a severely limited bandwidth. That meant that most people in society were exposed to the same things. Our media landscape (especially with social media, but also with the ease one can start a tv, radio, newspaper or other publishing channel) is so fractured that people just don't have the same frames of references anymore.
Just to give an example: On the 1st of January every year for several decades two unlikely groups of Norwegians would indirectly meet in front of their tv screens: There was a classical music show on the only available channel, the state broadcast. It was followed by the final round in the "Superbowl of ski jumping", the Christmas week competition.
So for about the last song and a half of the traditional broadcast, socialites tuning in to watch the peak of European orchestral music would be joined by skijumping fanatics who didn't want to miss a single jump.
Reversely, it'd be the one time each year the classical music crowd would be exposed to ski jumping and sports culture before they invariably turned it all off.
Those kinds of meetings don't happen anymore. Most of us are exposed to completely different news, social media, local media, trends, music, tv series, sports, books, movies, pictures, personalities and on. We have our own personalized bubbles. I wouldn't dream of turning on the tv to watch whatever happens to be on live at that time, special events excepted.
The mornings after the finale of a long-running show where that's all everyone talked about are gone.
I don't even know who the most popular artists are right now. I'm not even exposed to them regularly. That's required for another Dylan or even Spice Girls dominating for a time.
You might know more than you think. The biggest band in the world is Blackpink or BTS depending on the day of the week. Kpop is huge. But outside of that you've probably heard of Justin Bieber,...
I don't even know who the most popular artists are right now.
You might know more than you think. The biggest band in the world is Blackpink or BTS depending on the day of the week. Kpop is huge. But outside of that you've probably heard of Justin Bieber, Drake, Rhianna, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran and so on. You might not have heard much (or if you're lucky, any) of their music, but it would be tricky to have not heard the names.
I wonder who our era's Bob Dylan will be. Will there ever be one?
Sigh. It's Ed Sheeran. Ed Sheeran has sold more records than Bob Dylan and Ed is fifty years younger than Bob. Which is a bit depressing because Sheeran is absolutely terrible. At least he can sing though.
Something insane like 3% of American adults have seen Coldplay live. The Spice Girls wish they had that kind of market domination.
You learn names and sometimes even recognize faces. I have no idea if a specific artist or actor is popular now or were popular three or five years ago. I wouldn't be able to tell you what genre...
You learn names and sometimes even recognize faces. I have no idea if a specific artist or actor is popular now or were popular three or five years ago. I wouldn't be able to tell you what genre of music now tops the top 40 lists.
I know my parents don't know who Ed Sheeran is (I asked not long ago). Their parents couldn't avoid knowing what music their kids were listening to because it was unavoidably present in society.
Yes, there's a vibrant concert-going crowd. It's a small subsection of folks. I know plenty of people who've never been to a music festival, and I have other friends who travel to 5-10 stadium-sized concerts a year.
Even baseball, basketball or football isn't a ubiquitous part of US culture anymore. Like a large segment of society has completely stopped getting news (beyond random, unsolicited touches in their social media feeds).
There can't be a superstar phenomenon the same way as was the pre-internet case. I think that's a good thing.
The sad truth of the matter is that there have always been talented musicians everywhere, but most people aren't willing to pay for their performances. The musical economy, for lack of a better...
I think the proportion of talented-to-mediocre musicians might even be better today, given the proliferation of music instruction and technology. Musicians are sharing insights and learning from the best.
The sad truth of the matter is that there have always been talented musicians everywhere, but most people aren't willing to pay for their performances.
The musical economy, for lack of a better term, has been going through massive "market disruptions" constantly. The most major of all of them were the ability to record music. After the invention of musical score, compositions could become popular because those papers could travel a long distance and musicians who have never heard the songs could perform their own versions of that song. But then when audio recording became a thing, musicians feared they would lose their livelihoods. And in a manner of speaking, they did; live music performances became drammatically less common. Why hire a band when you can buy a player and some recordings once and keep playing them over and over again?
In the past 100 years of recording, we have seen complete genres of music live, die, and be reborn again . and through it all, the recording industry has consolidated to just a handful of companies who operate globally. That's why pop music is so big today. Really pop isn't even a genre anymore; it's just basically a meta-category of music that gets played often enough, regardless of genre or style.
That being said, I agree with you; I also feel optimistic that the more open nature of music today with so many smaller players becoming big, we're going to see something of a new renaissance in music. We'll see many genres of music reborn and reimagined and there is going to be a wide variety of choice. We've already seen something like that with the world's discovery of Japanese City Pop. The music has always been here; it's just that nobody's ever bothered looking for it before.
Perhaps being a little pedantic here, but I think that statement would be more accurately phrased as "the music marketing industry has consolidated.." The ability to record music is easier now...
the recording industry has consolidated to just a handful of companies who operate globally
Perhaps being a little pedantic here, but I think that statement would be more accurately phrased as "the music marketing industry has consolidated.."
The ability to record music is easier now than it's ever been. Studio and engineer time was, and remains, expensive. Recording was for a long time a luxury, and either paid for by the artist's label or bankrolled by parents/friends with money to burn. In the 80s and 90s there was a huge change when it became possible to track electronic music at home (famously how The Prodigy started, literally a few bits of gear in Liam's bedroom) and the electronic music scene exploded as a result. Not very long after than anyone with a computer - or even just a phone - and a few hundred currency's worth of audio gear can record any type of music at near-professional audio fidelity and publish it worldwide via places like Bandcamp, Youtube and many more. That's absolutely huge.
Admittedly home recording and internet distribution also gave us Justin Bieber so it's not all great news. But there's a lot of artists who have made it with no "help" from the music industry at all. That's a vastly positive change.
You are right of course. I was originally going to write a much longer comment before I realized that most of it wasn’t really that relevant to the discussion and I ended up cutting too much. That...
You are right of course. I was originally going to write a much longer comment before I realized that most of it wasn’t really that relevant to the discussion and I ended up cutting too much.
That being said, those handful of companies still have a tremendous influence in the world’s consumption of music.
They do, and it's not a good thing. There is at least a route to avoid the big companies these days, which there didn't used to be. But when Sony or RCA or SM Entertainment or whoever decide...
They do, and it's not a good thing. There is at least a route to avoid the big companies these days, which there didn't used to be.
But when Sony or RCA or SM Entertainment or whoever decide someone is going to be big.. they are. Then that influences everything else. And they care more about profits than they do about music although to be honest that's true of a lot of labels. Those like Factory Records are few and far between. But they can change the world when they do exist.
You're entitled to your opinion but just a heads up...it's kinda hard to take anything you say serious when you trash artists left and right based on nothing but you own subjective taste.
You're entitled to your opinion but just a heads up...it's kinda hard to take anything you say serious when you trash artists left and right based on nothing but you own subjective taste.
And you're entitled to like Justin Beiber, I'm not judging you. That you love the Biebster doesn't make any of your other opinions invalid, nor does it affect how I read anything you say (apart...
And you're entitled to like Justin Beiber, I'm not judging you. That you love the Biebster doesn't make any of your other opinions invalid, nor does it affect how I read anything you say (apart from on the topic of whether Justin Bieber is any good). Because Drake fans are still capable of rational thought. Blinks can still construct logical arguments. Music taste doesn't affect a great deal. Some of my very best friends have dreadful taste in music, but we can still converse just fine on any number of topics. Except that of Coldplay.
I mentioned five artists over two comments. Not sure that counts as "left and right". Arguably I only "trashed" two of them. If you like Ed Sheeran's music then more power to you! I'm glad he makes you happy. By all means express your opinion on bands I do like. Lots of people think Blackpink are terrible, I love them. Trash away. It doesn't affect my enjoyment.
The idea that one shouldn't express opinions about music because they're "subjective" is weird to me. All opinions are subjective. Objective opinions are just... facts. Any wouldn't life be boring if all we did was relate facts to each other? Especially in a thread which is about someone's opinions on music.
I'm glad my comment could incite some insight :) I'm not a Bieber nor Sheeran fan by any stretch but that rebuttal was to be expected. I'm generally trying to say that to me it kinda muddies the...
I'm glad my comment could incite some insight :)
I'm not a Bieber nor Sheeran fan by any stretch but that rebuttal was to be expected. I'm generally trying to say that to me it kinda muddies the intention when trying make a point you have to throw random artists somewhat under the bus in the process. Injecting those small quips deflects the overall message and that's too bad when the points you're making are valid.
My intention was to talk about music. That almost necessarily involves some of my opinions about musical artists. I don't think my opinions take away from anything. They are part of what I'm...
My intention was to talk about music. That almost necessarily involves some of my opinions about musical artists. I don't think my opinions take away from anything. They are part of what I'm saying. There was nothing random about the people I chose to mention, and I didn't throw anyone under any kind of a bus. They're all still completely fine. They're obscenely rich and massively successful. I couldn't hit them with a bus if I tried, metaphorical or otherwise.
For example: this generation's Dylan probably is Ed Sheeran, and that's a bad thing for music. If I don't say it's bad, people might think that on some artistic level I consider Sheeran and Dylan comparable. They are not, even as objectively as it's possible to make that comparison. Sheeran is not a sociopolitical commentator with anything like the insight or eloquence of Dylan. This is relevant to the topic. Sheeran being a derivative, mediocre, uninspiring songwriter and yet still somehow incredibly successful is part of what we're talking about.
Drake, Tay, Rhianna et al are among the biggest selling artists in the world. That's also bad. Their music is largely devoid of meaningful content. They're not the Beatles, who were musically pushing boundaries in a way rarely seen in pop today. They're not Madonna who was bringing various subcultural movements to the fore. The big pop acts of today are shaped and massaged to fit algorithmic predictions of success (where success = sales). This is bad. They are not musically interesting to me, a person interested in music. That is highly relevant. That I notice and acknowledge it matters, because the entire topic here is about the mediocrity of modern mainstream music.
The points I was making were the points I chose to make, and the way I chose to make them was part of that. If you don't like that, that's fine. You're welcome to contribute in your own way. But please don't assume I was doing it just for kicks.
Just as a matter of interest, did you find it distracting when I mentioned The Prodigy in positive terms? Because that's the same thing just from the other side. Or when I mentioned Blackpink or BTS completely neutrally?
I strongly agree with your comment. I haven't listened to mainstream music since I was a young teenager and there are plenty of artists who have a high level of 'musicality', you just have to look...
I strongly agree with your comment. I haven't listened to mainstream music since I was a young teenager and there are plenty of artists who have a high level of 'musicality', you just have to look for it. There is a whole ecosystem in music discovery and often the best sources are found not on a newsfeed but in active and deep research.
I think you are absolutely correct, but I also feel like I agree with Todd. Perhaps the key here is this bit that you wrote (emphasis mine): I personally find it really difficult to discover great...
I think you are absolutely correct, but I also feel like I agree with Todd. Perhaps the key here is this bit that you wrote (emphasis mine):
The truth is that if he can't find talented musicians then he isn't looking hard enough
I personally find it really difficult to discover great new music these days. Good new music is everywhere, and it's wonderful to have. But the kind of music that I would have an "intimate attachment to" that the interview mentions, the sort that changes me as a person? I don't really come across that very often these days. I think the two general points that @EgoEimiraised about contemporary music are important factors here.
And while the top 40 has certainly never been the best source for music recommendations, I would argue that back in the 80s and 90s, and I'm sure even more so in the 70s that Todd is likely referring to, the top 40 was an artistically more interesting list, and as a result discovery in general was easier. Radio DJs and quality music magazines worked as fairly independent, third party curators that directly influenced sales and the top 40. This changed in the 80s and 90s, and today the top 40 and any visibility on streaming sites seems to be just the results of paid advertising that doesn't have to appeal to any independent quality controllers. This probably also means that music that has higher artistic merit, but still exists within the confines of the genres of "popular music", is finding it more difficult to be financially successful than before.
But all that being said, I'm sure my difficulties in finding great new music is also a generational thing -- me growing older, having heard so much music that it's more difficult to surprise me any more, and at the same time me for whatever reason no longer being able to be in tune with the new directions that popular music is taking.
You make great points here. Part of the difficulty I find in locating new music is the algorithmic confine. Discovery is very siloed if you use a service a lot because you end up in a feedback...
You make great points here. Part of the difficulty I find in locating new music is the algorithmic confine. Discovery is very siloed if you use a service a lot because you end up in a feedback loop, and modern radio is ... meh.
I have heard chatter that part of the "intimate attachment" is likely due to listening music in our formative years (adolescence and teens). I think it might be unfair to pass the same value judgement or maintain the same expectations as we age since we are perpetually getting further from our formative years.
I will slightly contest the independence of radio DJs. No doubt there were a handful of DJs in some markets that were weird, wacky, and brought music to a market that would've never had it. Off the top of my head are Dewey Phillips (Memphis) and Wolfman Jack (problematic as he may be in retrospect - SoCal). We owe a lot to the DJs that broke racial barriers or did experimental things with radio. But many were beholden to ads/marketers and record companies, or bought best-selling lists from local shops. The 60s/70s blues revival is a great example of young fans loving a sound that older fans thought was passed by. It's a parallel to what's happening now. The stuff that was formative for Rundgren would've been what many folks tried very hard to leave behind, or tried to outright ban. Hell, even the artists themselves tried to leave it behind.
This probably also means that music that has higher artistic merit, but still exists within the confines of the genres of "popular music", is finding it more difficult to be financially successful than before.
I'm in total agreement here. FM brought a station for every market, and with it the failures of popular opinion. It's so common to have a test group say "we hear the same things on the radio! change it up!" and then proceed to vote in favor of keeping all the same songs they're tired of.
Finding smaller music publications and hand curated playlists is takes a lot of time, and usually some money. I have all but abandoned Spotify. I wish to add to the discourse on helping people find new music, so this is my strategy.
I now follow small record labels and independent studios (like Singlelock or Colemine records), music writers and publications (No Depression, WesternAF), and trawl through hand-curated new release playlists (on Qobuz and Roon) each Friday just to hopefully, maybe find a single new record I like. I find studio musicians on records I like and go listen to their other projects (ex: Golden Hour by Kacey Musgraves and Something More Than Love by Lera Lynn have the same acoustic guitarist). I find mastering artists and see what they've done in the past (ex: the mastering engineer for Free Love by Sylvan Esso also did work for Bon Iver and Siv Jakobsen, who I would have never found otherwise). The information available on Discogs is a treasure trove for linking tastes and uncovering glossed over details. Lastly, I maintain playlists for family and friends to 1) put my finds in one place and 2) help them break from the algorithm. Your favorite bands may have playlists of their influences or current tastes. Your favorite label may do the same. Heck, I sometimes even use playlists curated by the company who made my stereo amplifier.
I would at this point give a hearty recommendation to BBC Radio 6 Music. It's daytime output is good enough to background any day with but if you want to discover new stuff, the specialist shows...
I would at this point give a hearty recommendation to BBC Radio 6 Music. It's daytime output is good enough to background any day with but if you want to discover new stuff, the specialist shows like Recommends, New Music Fix, the Artist Collection, Lose Yourself With.. and so on, not to mention their resident artist programme is amazing. Also Iggy Pop has a show on sundays and it's just... chef's kiss
It's run by music nerds, for music nerds. It's possibly the best thing the BBC have ever done and that's a very, very high bar because they've done a lot of incredible stuff. Also because it's the BBC, they're not on the hook to anyone for funding, so they can and do play whatever they like, as much as they like.
Oh, and it streams worldwide for free. You can listen live, or all their shows are available on catchup or as podcasts. No adverts.
Their website is.. not as good as it could be. Might be worth browsing the schedule to see if anything stands out. The late night (post 9pm) slots are usually where the really interesting stuff happens.
That's a good point. And if one grew up with physical media, the listening experience was also different. Those stronger relationships with albums and artists probably came more naturally if you...
I have heard chatter that part of the "intimate attachment" is likely due to listening music in our formative years (adolescence and teens).
That's a good point. And if one grew up with physical media, the listening experience was also different. Those stronger relationships with albums and artists probably came more naturally if you spent good money on an album and it was the only collection of new music that you would hear that week.
I will slightly contest the independence of radio DJs.
You likely know more about this than I do, already because I know next to nothing about it, and I don't think I've actually listened to radio since something like the mid-90s. But somehow my understanding, which I suppose comes from reading music biographies, is that somewhere in the 80s and definitely in the 90s, the rules became much stricter for radio DJs, not only in terms of what they could play, but more importantly what they had to play.
That is to say, while you definitely couldn't have Dewey Phillipses and Wolfman Jacks on every station, there at least used to be more freedom to influence what was played, and while smaller stations and off-peak-time programmes perhaps still continue to have a degree of freedom of choice, larger stations and primetime programming is now almost fully pre-programmed and the radio jockey is there pretty much just to press play. Does that sound like a fair assessment?
I wish to add to the discourse on helping people find new music, so this is my strategy.
Thank you for these pointers! While I check out music based on producers, engineers and sessions musicians, for some reason I had never really thought to follow record labels, other than with some world music labels. I'll definitely need to educate myself more about today's indie labels.
I personally use Spotify a lot, but I don't use any of their discovery features since they just don't seem to be relevant to me. As I'm also almost exclusively an albums listener (which is one reason why I probably struggle with today's music), I primarily use Spotify to search for an album and then play it with repeat on. With artists new to me, I do also often check out the Spotify generated "This is..." playlist. It usually offers a nice general introduction, basically a long compilation album.
To discover new releases, I have set up RSS feeds for a couple of dozen news sources, including some blogs and publications, as well as a couple of scripts that scrape recommendations from review aggregation places like Metacritic. It's not a perfect system, and it's been particularly challenging to find music from outside of the English speaking world. I listen to around a hundred new releases each month. Which maybe brings me back to the point I made at the beginning of this post -- perhaps one reason why I'm not creating those strong connections with new music is that I'm just not giving new music enough room to breathe. Possibly I'm just trying to listen to too much of it.
A friend of mine actually made the conscious decision to cut down his listening, and started to keep a diary of sorts for all the music he listens. He says it has helped him to connect with music better. I'm not sure if it's a solution for me, as I've always enjoyed listening to a wide range of things, but perhaps it's something I should try.
I think you're spot on here. It's definitely become far more homogeneous. I did some surface-level investigation into RSS feeds for sites that don't have native support and abandoned the idea. Did...
larger stations and primetime programming is now almost fully pre-programmed and the radio jockey is there pretty much just to press play. Does that sound like a fair assessment?
I think you're spot on here. It's definitely become far more homogeneous.
I did some surface-level investigation into RSS feeds for sites that don't have native support and abandoned the idea. Did you use custom scripts or something pre-written?
I listen to around a hundred new releases each month. Which maybe brings me back to the point I made at the beginning of this post -- perhaps one reason why I'm not creating those strong connections with new music is that I'm just not giving new music enough room to breathe. Possibly I'm just trying to listen to too much of it.
That's a lot of new records! I definitely fatigue when trying to hear that many new releases. I start to make snappier decisions and unfairly write of records that I would have probably liked a lot otherwise.
When I'm in discovery mode I think I maybe listen to 30-40 spread out over a week or two. Usually, at least a handful will stick. If I hear something that remotely interests me, I'll add it to my library and listen again later. Typically three to four listens gives me an idea of whether I like it. I try to get up to 8-12 listens in the first week or two. Personally, I know whether I like a record by the 10th listen, and I'm sure that most other people would, too.
Currently, I'm doing both. For some websites, I use services like FetchRSS and Feed43 to convert web pages into RSS feeds. These are really good for pages that are updated once or twice a day,...
I did some surface-level investigation into RSS feeds for sites that don't have native support and abandoned the idea. Did you use custom scripts or something pre-written?
Currently, I'm doing both. For some websites, I use services like FetchRSS and Feed43 to convert web pages into RSS feeds. These are really good for pages that are updated once or twice a day, like for instance Bandcamp's always interesting album of the day. For some other websites, I've created custom scripts. It's handy to have more control for websites like Metacritic, if you want to filter out things below a certain score, for instance.
That said, my current RSS reader of choice, FreshRSS, recently introduced HTML+XPath support for scraping any website. I've been thinking about converting to using that feature, but haven't made the jump yet as I'll first have to learn XPath syntax.
Personally, I know whether I like a record by the 10th listen, and I'm sure that most other people would, too.
I'm a little quicker (or hastier) to discard albums that don't catch my attention. But just like you, I tend to mark interesting albums for later. I work from home, so typically I go through a handful of albums every day with fairly passive listening, and save the ones that catch my interest for a later revisit, when I can concentrate better.
Although right now, Todd's new album has pretty much taken over my player. I really, really like it. I know that if I continue playing it like I've been doing, I'm doing myself a disservice, as at some point it'll just be too much. But I just want to listen to it. I guess, with the world being what it is, one gravitates towards new things that are safe and familiar.
As a guy in solid middle age i puzzle about music. It’s hard to know if I don’t like stuff because of me or because of the music. What i find though, is that music from the 70s that is new to me i...
As a guy in solid middle age i puzzle about music. It’s hard to know if I don’t like stuff because of me or because of the music.
What i find though, is that music from the 70s that is new to me i enjoy more than new music i hear from now, with occasional exception. Also, most of the time i hear something today that i like, it sounds a lot like the music of yore.
That said, pure pop is nearly as good as it has ever been. Lady gaga, lizzo, bruno mars, harry styles, even bts are all pretty awesome.
That said, i still enjoy the college hippie classics the most, along with 50-70s jazz. I can still get lost in dsotm. And i just bought new speakers, it’s almost like hearing it again for the first time. Alan Parsons is the greatest engineeer ever to turn a knob.
Speaking of which, part of whit stymies music is the standardization of polished recording. The best engineers are artists in their own right. Creating a sound with life takes more than technical perfection and accuracy. It’s kind of like how all bananas we eat are descendants of one variety, bred more for storage and transport than flavor or nutrition.
The clickbaity title aside (was debating whether to change it for the submission), it's a pretty nice interview with Todd who has a new album out on Friday. His 25th, or 42nd, or something,...
The clickbaity title aside (was debating whether to change it for the submission), it's a pretty nice interview with Todd who has a new album out on Friday. His 25th, or 42nd, or something, depending on how you count.
I'm quite excited. His albums are always exciting, and his previous couple of releases have also been excellent. While the last album was him sending unfinished demos to other artists for their input, this one appears to be the opposite: him gathering unfinished demos from other artists and finishing the songs.
In case anyone is interested, I can report that Todd's new album is indeed very Todd-like. If you are new to his music, it's likely not going to blow your mind. You might even think of it as...
In case anyone is interested, I can report that Todd's new album is indeed very Todd-like. If you are new to his music, it's likely not going to blow your mind. You might even think of it as mediocre. But if you love Todd, it will warm your heart and tickle your cerebral cortex. It's yet another great release.
I just can't agree with this quote from the article, and don't think I ever will. There is more music available to us at our fingertips now than ever. The truth is that if he can't find talented musicians then he isn't looking hard enough AND is doing them a huge disservice by saying as much. Popularity is a terrible thing to equate to musicality or skill. Besides, finding music from the Top 40 list decades ago is not any different than kids today finding music through the radio's Top 40 or something like Spotify. Today's kids will look back fondly at this music, even if he considers it unworthy.
Whenever I explore old (read: before-streaming) music, I find a lot of gems... and a lot, lot of crap that I think is beyond a matter of my taste.
I think the proportion of talented-to-mediocre musicians might even be better today, given the proliferation of music instruction and technology. Musicians are sharing insights and learning from the best.
On the other hand, I think that streaming technology, data-driven music, and the incentives of social media in self-promotion are:
On the first point, I totally agree. There's been much chatter about the way streaming is driving consumption. A key part of that is that music is definitely being mood-driven again. The desire for pre-curated playlists for cooking, driving, sleeping, sadness, happiness, are all available now. The lofi beats from ~2016 embodied this perfectly. They're very pleasing and soothing, but are also minor variations on a theme. I recall a few standout projects, but that's a testament to how much of it was all the same.
On the second point, I have seen a real groundswell of younger artists going back to the folk roots. Artists captured by WesternAF, GemsOnVHS, and DittyTV in field recordings have used those platforms to rise to varying levels of fame. Other artists have made endroads in more conventional ways. I love these field recordings because they put a spotlight on playing music and singing live and re-introducing what that sounds like. I'll note that artists like Charley Crockett, Sierra Ferrel, Nick Shoulders, Willi Carlisle, Bella White, Riddy Arman (all featured on one of those platforms) are exceptionally folksy and are beginning to build (or have built) huge followings without the help of the country+folk establishment. I just recently found the No Depression publication, but they're spotlighting a lot of the things I'm seeing.
He played at a music festival I attended about a month ago. I hadn’t heard of him before then, and I gotta say, he is really good.
I am unbelievably excited to see him in November! I was surprised he's coming to my area but I've gotten my friends on board too, even though they aren't big western fans. I really hope they enjoy the show.
I thought I hated country and western music, but blimey there's some amazing music on these channels. The field recording aspect of it is important - I get to hear stripped back simply performed music that pushes emphasis on the song writing and the core features of the melody.
Here's a list of my favourites:
Sierra Ferrell - "Jeremiah" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYSUpPirJM
Sierra Ferrell - "In Dreams" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fPqmceCf90
Christina Vane - "Wishing Bone Blues" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVEzjDKftrY
Dwight Hawkins - "Hey Whiskey" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlalSo0-ueM
Nick Shoulders - "Rather Low" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmAwFPqHTe0
(see also "Snakes and Waterfalls" and "Too Old to Dream" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I7ME1oacMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hweEQY_nDGg )
Cat Clyde - "All the Black" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5IqbpAI-as
Sabine McCalla - "Baby, Please Don't Go" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lYigC2Jn20
Nick Hans - "High Ballin' Everywhere I Go" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feikKT-nRs4
IME most people who say they hate country music are strictly thinking about mainstream, top 40 pop-country shit, and haven't actually been exposed to much Americana, American Folk, Bluegrass, or even plain old fashioned Country & Western music, which are very very different from that, and hard to hate if you appreciate any musical artistic talent at all.
And yeah, WesterAF and GemsOnVHS are amazing channels, so great recommendations @soks_n_sandals. Speaking of which, that Sierra Ferrel's In Dreams performance on Gems is probably one of my most played country songs in the last few years. So fucking good.
If you're looking for some more music in a similar vein, here is a copypaste from an old comment of mine with lots more recommendations:
It's probably too nitpicky, but I feel I'm part of the people that hate country music and your examples does not appeal to me either :p
I don't want to speak as if I'm most people (and with my tastes I shouldn't), so your point probably still stand, but the main things that I don't like is the too simple sound of acoustic guitar which feel overused and always remind me of all the known clichés (especially tied to its cliché use in many movies).
And the often overly pronounced american accent which really repulse me, even used in other genres (and it has always been the case from my childhood).
Even in my teens where I've listened to all sort of rock, blues, and music genres often near the sound of country, I've always been displeased by it.
But now I'm even more difficult with it, as I don't find relaxing/down-tempo pleasing anymore.
There is a reason I said "most" instead of all. ;)
But there is also nothing wrong with being an outlier in that regard either. I don't feel the same way, but I can totally understand how the southern twang of the vocals, and the nearly ubiquitous use of acoustic guitars, mandolins, ukeleles, fiddles, and/or banjos in most American folk/country music might genuinely annoy some people. To each their own. :)
I think the answer to this is a definite no. Reading about Marylin Monroe, Elvis Presley, The Beatles and these huge social phenomena now, nothing today is remotely as dominating.
Media used to have a severely limited bandwidth. That meant that most people in society were exposed to the same things. Our media landscape (especially with social media, but also with the ease one can start a tv, radio, newspaper or other publishing channel) is so fractured that people just don't have the same frames of references anymore.
Just to give an example: On the 1st of January every year for several decades two unlikely groups of Norwegians would indirectly meet in front of their tv screens: There was a classical music show on the only available channel, the state broadcast. It was followed by the final round in the "Superbowl of ski jumping", the Christmas week competition.
So for about the last song and a half of the traditional broadcast, socialites tuning in to watch the peak of European orchestral music would be joined by skijumping fanatics who didn't want to miss a single jump.
Reversely, it'd be the one time each year the classical music crowd would be exposed to ski jumping and sports culture before they invariably turned it all off.
Those kinds of meetings don't happen anymore. Most of us are exposed to completely different news, social media, local media, trends, music, tv series, sports, books, movies, pictures, personalities and on. We have our own personalized bubbles. I wouldn't dream of turning on the tv to watch whatever happens to be on live at that time, special events excepted.
The mornings after the finale of a long-running show where that's all everyone talked about are gone.
I don't even know who the most popular artists are right now. I'm not even exposed to them regularly. That's required for another Dylan or even Spice Girls dominating for a time.
You might know more than you think. The biggest band in the world is Blackpink or BTS depending on the day of the week. Kpop is huge. But outside of that you've probably heard of Justin Bieber, Drake, Rhianna, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran and so on. You might not have heard much (or if you're lucky, any) of their music, but it would be tricky to have not heard the names.
Sigh. It's Ed Sheeran. Ed Sheeran has sold more records than Bob Dylan and Ed is fifty years younger than Bob. Which is a bit depressing because Sheeran is absolutely terrible. At least he can sing though.
Something insane like 3% of American adults have seen Coldplay live. The Spice Girls wish they had that kind of market domination.
You learn names and sometimes even recognize faces. I have no idea if a specific artist or actor is popular now or were popular three or five years ago. I wouldn't be able to tell you what genre of music now tops the top 40 lists.
I know my parents don't know who Ed Sheeran is (I asked not long ago). Their parents couldn't avoid knowing what music their kids were listening to because it was unavoidably present in society.
Yes, there's a vibrant concert-going crowd. It's a small subsection of folks. I know plenty of people who've never been to a music festival, and I have other friends who travel to 5-10 stadium-sized concerts a year.
Even baseball, basketball or football isn't a ubiquitous part of US culture anymore. Like a large segment of society has completely stopped getting news (beyond random, unsolicited touches in their social media feeds).
There can't be a superstar phenomenon the same way as was the pre-internet case. I think that's a good thing.
The sad truth of the matter is that there have always been talented musicians everywhere, but most people aren't willing to pay for their performances.
The musical economy, for lack of a better term, has been going through massive "market disruptions" constantly. The most major of all of them were the ability to record music. After the invention of musical score, compositions could become popular because those papers could travel a long distance and musicians who have never heard the songs could perform their own versions of that song. But then when audio recording became a thing, musicians feared they would lose their livelihoods. And in a manner of speaking, they did; live music performances became drammatically less common. Why hire a band when you can buy a player and some recordings once and keep playing them over and over again?
In the past 100 years of recording, we have seen complete genres of music live, die, and be reborn again . and through it all, the recording industry has consolidated to just a handful of companies who operate globally. That's why pop music is so big today. Really pop isn't even a genre anymore; it's just basically a meta-category of music that gets played often enough, regardless of genre or style.
That being said, I agree with you; I also feel optimistic that the more open nature of music today with so many smaller players becoming big, we're going to see something of a new renaissance in music. We'll see many genres of music reborn and reimagined and there is going to be a wide variety of choice. We've already seen something like that with the world's discovery of Japanese City Pop. The music has always been here; it's just that nobody's ever bothered looking for it before.
Perhaps being a little pedantic here, but I think that statement would be more accurately phrased as "the music marketing industry has consolidated.."
The ability to record music is easier now than it's ever been. Studio and engineer time was, and remains, expensive. Recording was for a long time a luxury, and either paid for by the artist's label or bankrolled by parents/friends with money to burn. In the 80s and 90s there was a huge change when it became possible to track electronic music at home (famously how The Prodigy started, literally a few bits of gear in Liam's bedroom) and the electronic music scene exploded as a result. Not very long after than anyone with a computer - or even just a phone - and a few hundred currency's worth of audio gear can record any type of music at near-professional audio fidelity and publish it worldwide via places like Bandcamp, Youtube and many more. That's absolutely huge.
Admittedly home recording and internet distribution also gave us Justin Bieber so it's not all great news. But there's a lot of artists who have made it with no "help" from the music industry at all. That's a vastly positive change.
You are right of course. I was originally going to write a much longer comment before I realized that most of it wasn’t really that relevant to the discussion and I ended up cutting too much.
That being said, those handful of companies still have a tremendous influence in the world’s consumption of music.
They do, and it's not a good thing. There is at least a route to avoid the big companies these days, which there didn't used to be.
But when Sony or RCA or SM Entertainment or whoever decide someone is going to be big.. they are. Then that influences everything else. And they care more about profits than they do about music although to be honest that's true of a lot of labels. Those like Factory Records are few and far between. But they can change the world when they do exist.
You're entitled to your opinion but just a heads up...it's kinda hard to take anything you say serious when you trash artists left and right based on nothing but you own subjective taste.
And you're entitled to like Justin Beiber, I'm not judging you. That you love the Biebster doesn't make any of your other opinions invalid, nor does it affect how I read anything you say (apart from on the topic of whether Justin Bieber is any good). Because Drake fans are still capable of rational thought. Blinks can still construct logical arguments. Music taste doesn't affect a great deal. Some of my very best friends have dreadful taste in music, but we can still converse just fine on any number of topics. Except that of Coldplay.
I mentioned five artists over two comments. Not sure that counts as "left and right". Arguably I only "trashed" two of them. If you like Ed Sheeran's music then more power to you! I'm glad he makes you happy. By all means express your opinion on bands I do like. Lots of people think Blackpink are terrible, I love them. Trash away. It doesn't affect my enjoyment.
The idea that one shouldn't express opinions about music because they're "subjective" is weird to me. All opinions are subjective. Objective opinions are just... facts. Any wouldn't life be boring if all we did was relate facts to each other? Especially in a thread which is about someone's opinions on music.
I'm glad my comment could incite some insight :)
I'm not a Bieber nor Sheeran fan by any stretch but that rebuttal was to be expected. I'm generally trying to say that to me it kinda muddies the intention when trying make a point you have to throw random artists somewhat under the bus in the process. Injecting those small quips deflects the overall message and that's too bad when the points you're making are valid.
My intention was to talk about music. That almost necessarily involves some of my opinions about musical artists. I don't think my opinions take away from anything. They are part of what I'm saying. There was nothing random about the people I chose to mention, and I didn't throw anyone under any kind of a bus. They're all still completely fine. They're obscenely rich and massively successful. I couldn't hit them with a bus if I tried, metaphorical or otherwise.
For example: this generation's Dylan probably is Ed Sheeran, and that's a bad thing for music. If I don't say it's bad, people might think that on some artistic level I consider Sheeran and Dylan comparable. They are not, even as objectively as it's possible to make that comparison. Sheeran is not a sociopolitical commentator with anything like the insight or eloquence of Dylan. This is relevant to the topic. Sheeran being a derivative, mediocre, uninspiring songwriter and yet still somehow incredibly successful is part of what we're talking about.
Drake, Tay, Rhianna et al are among the biggest selling artists in the world. That's also bad. Their music is largely devoid of meaningful content. They're not the Beatles, who were musically pushing boundaries in a way rarely seen in pop today. They're not Madonna who was bringing various subcultural movements to the fore. The big pop acts of today are shaped and massaged to fit algorithmic predictions of success (where success = sales). This is bad. They are not musically interesting to me, a person interested in music. That is highly relevant. That I notice and acknowledge it matters, because the entire topic here is about the mediocrity of modern mainstream music.
The points I was making were the points I chose to make, and the way I chose to make them was part of that. If you don't like that, that's fine. You're welcome to contribute in your own way. But please don't assume I was doing it just for kicks.
Just as a matter of interest, did you find it distracting when I mentioned The Prodigy in positive terms? Because that's the same thing just from the other side. Or when I mentioned Blackpink or BTS completely neutrally?
I strongly agree with your comment. I haven't listened to mainstream music since I was a young teenager and there are plenty of artists who have a high level of 'musicality', you just have to look for it. There is a whole ecosystem in music discovery and often the best sources are found not on a newsfeed but in active and deep research.
I think you are absolutely correct, but I also feel like I agree with Todd. Perhaps the key here is this bit that you wrote (emphasis mine):
I personally find it really difficult to discover great new music these days. Good new music is everywhere, and it's wonderful to have. But the kind of music that I would have an "intimate attachment to" that the interview mentions, the sort that changes me as a person? I don't really come across that very often these days. I think the two general points that @EgoEimi raised about contemporary music are important factors here.
And while the top 40 has certainly never been the best source for music recommendations, I would argue that back in the 80s and 90s, and I'm sure even more so in the 70s that Todd is likely referring to, the top 40 was an artistically more interesting list, and as a result discovery in general was easier. Radio DJs and quality music magazines worked as fairly independent, third party curators that directly influenced sales and the top 40. This changed in the 80s and 90s, and today the top 40 and any visibility on streaming sites seems to be just the results of paid advertising that doesn't have to appeal to any independent quality controllers. This probably also means that music that has higher artistic merit, but still exists within the confines of the genres of "popular music", is finding it more difficult to be financially successful than before.
But all that being said, I'm sure my difficulties in finding great new music is also a generational thing -- me growing older, having heard so much music that it's more difficult to surprise me any more, and at the same time me for whatever reason no longer being able to be in tune with the new directions that popular music is taking.
You make great points here. Part of the difficulty I find in locating new music is the algorithmic confine. Discovery is very siloed if you use a service a lot because you end up in a feedback loop, and modern radio is ... meh.
I have heard chatter that part of the "intimate attachment" is likely due to listening music in our formative years (adolescence and teens). I think it might be unfair to pass the same value judgement or maintain the same expectations as we age since we are perpetually getting further from our formative years.
I will slightly contest the independence of radio DJs. No doubt there were a handful of DJs in some markets that were weird, wacky, and brought music to a market that would've never had it. Off the top of my head are Dewey Phillips (Memphis) and Wolfman Jack (problematic as he may be in retrospect - SoCal). We owe a lot to the DJs that broke racial barriers or did experimental things with radio. But many were beholden to ads/marketers and record companies, or bought best-selling lists from local shops. The 60s/70s blues revival is a great example of young fans loving a sound that older fans thought was passed by. It's a parallel to what's happening now. The stuff that was formative for Rundgren would've been what many folks tried very hard to leave behind, or tried to outright ban. Hell, even the artists themselves tried to leave it behind.
I'm in total agreement here. FM brought a station for every market, and with it the failures of popular opinion. It's so common to have a test group say "we hear the same things on the radio! change it up!" and then proceed to vote in favor of keeping all the same songs they're tired of.
Finding smaller music publications and hand curated playlists is takes a lot of time, and usually some money. I have all but abandoned Spotify. I wish to add to the discourse on helping people find new music, so this is my strategy.
I now follow small record labels and independent studios (like Singlelock or Colemine records), music writers and publications (No Depression, WesternAF), and trawl through hand-curated new release playlists (on Qobuz and Roon) each Friday just to hopefully, maybe find a single new record I like. I find studio musicians on records I like and go listen to their other projects (ex: Golden Hour by Kacey Musgraves and Something More Than Love by Lera Lynn have the same acoustic guitarist). I find mastering artists and see what they've done in the past (ex: the mastering engineer for Free Love by Sylvan Esso also did work for Bon Iver and Siv Jakobsen, who I would have never found otherwise). The information available on Discogs is a treasure trove for linking tastes and uncovering glossed over details. Lastly, I maintain playlists for family and friends to 1) put my finds in one place and 2) help them break from the algorithm. Your favorite bands may have playlists of their influences or current tastes. Your favorite label may do the same. Heck, I sometimes even use playlists curated by the company who made my stereo amplifier.
I would at this point give a hearty recommendation to BBC Radio 6 Music. It's daytime output is good enough to background any day with but if you want to discover new stuff, the specialist shows like Recommends, New Music Fix, the Artist Collection, Lose Yourself With.. and so on, not to mention their resident artist programme is amazing. Also Iggy Pop has a show on sundays and it's just... chef's kiss
It's run by music nerds, for music nerds. It's possibly the best thing the BBC have ever done and that's a very, very high bar because they've done a lot of incredible stuff. Also because it's the BBC, they're not on the hook to anyone for funding, so they can and do play whatever they like, as much as they like.
Oh, and it streams worldwide for free. You can listen live, or all their shows are available on catchup or as podcasts. No adverts.
Their website is.. not as good as it could be. Might be worth browsing the schedule to see if anything stands out. The late night (post 9pm) slots are usually where the really interesting stuff happens.
That's a good point. And if one grew up with physical media, the listening experience was also different. Those stronger relationships with albums and artists probably came more naturally if you spent good money on an album and it was the only collection of new music that you would hear that week.
You likely know more about this than I do, already because I know next to nothing about it, and I don't think I've actually listened to radio since something like the mid-90s. But somehow my understanding, which I suppose comes from reading music biographies, is that somewhere in the 80s and definitely in the 90s, the rules became much stricter for radio DJs, not only in terms of what they could play, but more importantly what they had to play.
That is to say, while you definitely couldn't have Dewey Phillipses and Wolfman Jacks on every station, there at least used to be more freedom to influence what was played, and while smaller stations and off-peak-time programmes perhaps still continue to have a degree of freedom of choice, larger stations and primetime programming is now almost fully pre-programmed and the radio jockey is there pretty much just to press play. Does that sound like a fair assessment?
Thank you for these pointers! While I check out music based on producers, engineers and sessions musicians, for some reason I had never really thought to follow record labels, other than with some world music labels. I'll definitely need to educate myself more about today's indie labels.
I personally use Spotify a lot, but I don't use any of their discovery features since they just don't seem to be relevant to me. As I'm also almost exclusively an albums listener (which is one reason why I probably struggle with today's music), I primarily use Spotify to search for an album and then play it with repeat on. With artists new to me, I do also often check out the Spotify generated "This is..." playlist. It usually offers a nice general introduction, basically a long compilation album.
To discover new releases, I have set up RSS feeds for a couple of dozen news sources, including some blogs and publications, as well as a couple of scripts that scrape recommendations from review aggregation places like Metacritic. It's not a perfect system, and it's been particularly challenging to find music from outside of the English speaking world. I listen to around a hundred new releases each month. Which maybe brings me back to the point I made at the beginning of this post -- perhaps one reason why I'm not creating those strong connections with new music is that I'm just not giving new music enough room to breathe. Possibly I'm just trying to listen to too much of it.
A friend of mine actually made the conscious decision to cut down his listening, and started to keep a diary of sorts for all the music he listens. He says it has helped him to connect with music better. I'm not sure if it's a solution for me, as I've always enjoyed listening to a wide range of things, but perhaps it's something I should try.
I think you're spot on here. It's definitely become far more homogeneous.
I did some surface-level investigation into RSS feeds for sites that don't have native support and abandoned the idea. Did you use custom scripts or something pre-written?
That's a lot of new records! I definitely fatigue when trying to hear that many new releases. I start to make snappier decisions and unfairly write of records that I would have probably liked a lot otherwise.
When I'm in discovery mode I think I maybe listen to 30-40 spread out over a week or two. Usually, at least a handful will stick. If I hear something that remotely interests me, I'll add it to my library and listen again later. Typically three to four listens gives me an idea of whether I like it. I try to get up to 8-12 listens in the first week or two. Personally, I know whether I like a record by the 10th listen, and I'm sure that most other people would, too.
Currently, I'm doing both. For some websites, I use services like FetchRSS and Feed43 to convert web pages into RSS feeds. These are really good for pages that are updated once or twice a day, like for instance Bandcamp's always interesting album of the day. For some other websites, I've created custom scripts. It's handy to have more control for websites like Metacritic, if you want to filter out things below a certain score, for instance.
That said, my current RSS reader of choice, FreshRSS, recently introduced HTML+XPath support for scraping any website. I've been thinking about converting to using that feature, but haven't made the jump yet as I'll first have to learn XPath syntax.
I'm a little quicker (or hastier) to discard albums that don't catch my attention. But just like you, I tend to mark interesting albums for later. I work from home, so typically I go through a handful of albums every day with fairly passive listening, and save the ones that catch my interest for a later revisit, when I can concentrate better.
Although right now, Todd's new album has pretty much taken over my player. I really, really like it. I know that if I continue playing it like I've been doing, I'm doing myself a disservice, as at some point it'll just be too much. But I just want to listen to it. I guess, with the world being what it is, one gravitates towards new things that are safe and familiar.
As a guy in solid middle age i puzzle about music. It’s hard to know if I don’t like stuff because of me or because of the music.
What i find though, is that music from the 70s that is new to me i enjoy more than new music i hear from now, with occasional exception. Also, most of the time i hear something today that i like, it sounds a lot like the music of yore.
That said, pure pop is nearly as good as it has ever been. Lady gaga, lizzo, bruno mars, harry styles, even bts are all pretty awesome.
That said, i still enjoy the college hippie classics the most, along with 50-70s jazz. I can still get lost in dsotm. And i just bought new speakers, it’s almost like hearing it again for the first time. Alan Parsons is the greatest engineeer ever to turn a knob.
Speaking of which, part of whit stymies music is the standardization of polished recording. The best engineers are artists in their own right. Creating a sound with life takes more than technical perfection and accuracy. It’s kind of like how all bananas we eat are descendants of one variety, bred more for storage and transport than flavor or nutrition.
The clickbaity title aside (was debating whether to change it for the submission), it's a pretty nice interview with Todd who has a new album out on Friday. His 25th, or 42nd, or something, depending on how you count.
I'm quite excited. His albums are always exciting, and his previous couple of releases have also been excellent. While the last album was him sending unfinished demos to other artists for their input, this one appears to be the opposite: him gathering unfinished demos from other artists and finishing the songs.
In case anyone is interested, I can report that Todd's new album is indeed very Todd-like. If you are new to his music, it's likely not going to blow your mind. You might even think of it as mediocre. But if you love Todd, it will warm your heart and tickle your cerebral cortex. It's yet another great release.