Rick Beato's YouTube channel is a must-subscribe

[Rip76 4969]

This is great, and really long.

 

[G650 14278]

45 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There's always somebody to bitch about something.  I don't make it a habit of watching Beato's videos, but I've seen a bunch, and he strikes me as an educated, talented musician who is truly interested in his subject matter.  I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

Yeah, I guess I should have posted the context. The joke is more at who the poster is replying to rather than Beato.

[jimmyjazz 46276]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

Yeah, I guess I should have posted the context. The joke is more at who the poster is replying to rather than Beato.

Not the first time something has zoomed right over my head.

[atomheartbevo 89846]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

There's always somebody to bitch about something.  I don't make it a habit of watching Beato's videos, but I've seen a bunch, and he strikes me as an educated, talented musician who is truly interested in his subject matter.  I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

youngpeople

Beato's problem is that he doesn't get angry enough and do a bunch of baseless rants screeching about something..  Beato instead calmly discusses why he doesn't like something, and then provides a bunch of educated, well-thought out reasons, including demonstrations with instruments or equipment, about why he doesn't like it, all the while saying it's okay if other people like it, but it's just not for him.

/youngpeople

 

[G650 14278]

22 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

youngpeople

Beato's problem is that he doesn't get angry enough and do a bunch of baseless rants screeching about something..  Beato instead calmly discusses why he doesn't like something, and then provides a bunch of educated, well-thought out reasons, including demonstrations with instruments or equipment, about why he doesn't like it, all the while saying it's okay if other people like it, but it's just not for him.

/youngpeople

 

I mean, I fully admit I think Beato is about the lamest thing going, but I have no animosity to the guy and totally get people enjoy his stuff and that's all good.

 

But anyway as I mentioned the joke was actually about the old guy yelling at clouds who was using some Beato exposition about how new music sucks or something along those lines. It originated in a rant about how girls are generally not as capable musicians as guys.

[stc 1466]

21 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

youngpeople

Beato's problem is that he doesn't get angry enough and do a bunch of baseless rants screeching about something..  Beato instead calmly discusses why he doesn't like something, and then provides a bunch of educated, well-thought out reasons, including demonstrations with instruments or equipment, about why he doesn't like it, all the while saying it's okay if other people like it, but it's just not for him.

/youngpeople

 

i don't think it has anything to do with young people. most people don't use music theory to justify why they like/dislike a song or album. no amount of discussion about time signature, chord construction, and vocal register is going to convince me that cheap trick is a good band. 

[G650 14278]

33 minutes ago, stc said:

i don't think it has anything to do with young people. most people don't use music theory to justify why they like/dislike a song or album. no amount of discussion about time signature, chord construction, and vocal register is going to convince me that cheap trick is a good band. 

 

 

[Deej 76972]

3 hours ago, stc said:

i don't think it has anything to do with young people. most people don't use music theory to justify why they like/dislike a song or album. no amount of discussion about time signature, chord construction, and vocal register is going to convince me that cheap trick is a good band. 

Correct. They aren't a good band. They are a great band. 

[DougO 5256]

Beato actually likes a lot of newer artists. He's just correct about how popular music is made and cranked out for the masses these days. It's predominantly based on repeated formulas with a team of 30 writers using the same patterns repeatedly and produced with excessive autotune. It's like assembly line stuff. 

Now me, personally, I just think newer music is shit because its shitty shit. 

[G650 14278]

5 minutes ago, DougO said:

It's like assembly line stuff. 

 

So I see you have caught up to the trends of the 1950s.

[Deej 76972]

Music has always been follow the leader, for the most part, but in the 50's, people were actually playing their instruments along with each other. 

[G650 14278]

If you mean have actual musicians play their instruments because they couldn't, then yes.

 

There's actually far more people creating their own music now than in the past. It's not even close. To posit otherwise is just Boomer old man yelling at clouds because the music they like isn't top 40 anymore. There's a much richer and more varied music culture now than ever before.

[Rimbo 26158]

On 10/18/2022 at 4:30 PM, G650 said:

I mean, I fully admit I think Beato is about the lamest thing going, but I have no animosity to the guy and totally get people enjoy his stuff and that's all good.

 

But anyway as I mentioned the joke was actually about the old guy yelling at clouds who was using some Beato exposition about how new music sucks or something along those lines. It originated in a rant about how girls are generally not as capable musicians as guys.

From what I can tell from my son and his friends, young people agree with him. They know the music of today is garbage.

[tbone_ 14198]

I enjoy Beato’s videos and don’t really give a fuck if others do or don’t. Dont recall seeing one that I didn’t think was interesting.

I also dgaf about the new Vs old music debate. I like what I like. Others are free to do the same.

[Chad Fuck 17817]

From what I can tell from my son and his friends, young people agree with him. They know the music of today is garbage.

Meh. Since popular music has been a commodity - significantly starting in the big band era - this argument has been thrown around. It’s always been false and reeks of nostalgia. There have always been people making music. With more people come
more people making it. There is necessarily more chaff than wheat always. Such is the nature of the creative endeavor.

Ask your kid to pick a top whatever chart of the last 50 years, and most of them are filled with the chaff. Forgettable nothings. The entire “music now sucks” argument is based upon remembering only the wheat. I don’t think it’s any different today.

[G650 14278]

33 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Meh. Since popular music has been a commodity - significantly starting in the big band era - this argument has been thrown around. It’s always been false and reeks of nostalgia. There have always been people making music. With more people come
more people making it. There is necessarily more chaff than wheat always. Such is the nature of the creative endeavor.

Ask your kid to pick a top whatever chart of the last 50 years, and most of them are filled with the chaff. Forgettable nothings. The entire “music now sucks” argument is based upon remembering only the wheat. I don’t think it’s any different today.

Quite right sir

[stc 1466]

14 hours ago, Deej said:

Correct. They aren't a good band. They are a great band. 

need more metrics to know for sure. for know i'll keep them in my top 5 least favorite of all time. 

[G650 14278]

I'd have to add I said basically the same thing as @Rimbo son when I was young. I pretty much listened to the oldies station in 1990 because I thought most contemporary music was horrid. There was basically G'nR, and Metallica and Megadeth, but the top 40 was shit like Vanilla Ice. Until Soundgarden and those bands broke it was a wasteland. We wear rose colored glasses on what things were like.

[Goredho 17426]

49 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Meh. Since popular music has been a commodity - significantly starting in the big band era - this argument has been thrown around. It’s always been false and reeks of nostalgia. There have always been people making music. With more people come
more people making it. There is necessarily more chaff than wheat always. Such is the nature of the creative endeavor.

Ask your kid to pick a top whatever chart of the last 50 years, and most of them are filled with the chaff. Forgettable nothings. The entire “music now sucks” argument is based upon remembering only the wheat. I don’t think it’s any different today.

I want to agree, but things are radically different today than 30-40 years ago.  For a few thousand dollars you can have a home recording studio that is capable of producing professional quality recordings (assuming you have the skills to use it).  You can push a button and distribute your music to the world to where anyone with an internet connection can consume it with their own push of a button.  Every facet of the music industry is documented and accessible.  Want to be your own publisher?  There's 39483948 Udemy courses for that.  Areas that require developed technical skill (audio engineering, mixing, mastering) are becoming more and more automated with AI plugins.

In short, the barriers for producing and distributing your own music are infinitesimally low compared to yesteryear.  We shouldn't have roughly the same amount or ratio of good music as there was.  We should have much, much more.  This time should be the unarguable Camelot of independent music and musical visionaries.  But if the barriers to producing and distributing your music are orders of magnitude lower , why don’t we have orders of magnitude more fantastically daring and creative musical forces on the world?  Where is the bounty of visionaries this should empower?  The successors to Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd/Roger Waters, Queen, etc…?  I just don't see/hear them.

I think a lot of it has to do with:

• The barriers for entry are so low, the market is flooded with mediocre artists that must be sifted through.  Using your analogy, the chaff-to-wheat ratio is much higher now than when those barriers effectively acted as a filter for the chaff.  Finding the wheat is harder than ever.
• Streaming as a business model for independent musicians sucks.  While it is easier than ever to produce and distribute music, it is no easier to make a buck.  And given that you have to be heard above orders of magnitude more competitors, it is arguably harder to make a buck.

[Rimbo 26158]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

The entire “music now sucks” argument is based upon remembering only the wheat. I don’t think it’s any different today.

 

I know all about that. We glorify the past because we only listen to the classics that have survived the test of time and all that. 

That doesn't mean "today's music is garbage" can't also be true. It was more or less true from about 1986-1989; there are tons of classics from 1977-1986, and a huge amount starting again in 1991, but there's this gap in-between of forgettable Van Hagar tracks and Richard Marx and "Waiiiiiiiitin' For a Staaaar to Fall" (which was actually decent, but gives you an idea of just how bad that time period was).

The past year or so has somehow managed to be worse. There's some good writers like Mark Ronson doing good things and that really incredible "Driver's License" song by Olivia Rodrigo... and then everything else is some bitch mumbling to a trap beat or That One Chord Progression Everyone Uses Now.

 

[Rimbo 26158]

37 minutes ago, G650 said:

I'd have to add I said basically the same thing as @Rimbo son when I was young. I pretty much listened to the oldies station in 1990 because I thought most contemporary music was horrid. There was basically G'nR, and Metallica and Megadeth, but the top 40 was shit like Vanilla Ice. Until Soundgarden and those bands broke it was a wasteland. We wear rose colored glasses on what things were like.

That's because 1990 WAS garbage. But '91 made up for it and then some... NIN, Nirvana, everything changed that year.

[G650 14278]

25 minutes ago, Goredho said:

The successors to Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd/Roger Waters, Queen, etc…?  I just don't see/hear them.

 

I mean there's shit loads across all sorts of genres. Just in the other thread you had Japanese Breakfast and Kurt Vile. There's everything from stuff like St Vincent and Wolf Alice to Nathaniel Raitliff and The Record Company, X Ambassadors, to Florence and the Machine to Shakey Graves to Sam Fender to some of the shit Lizzo is putting out. And there are myriad others.

 

Basically listing the bands you listed just reinforces the old man yelling at clouds thing about this.

25 minutes ago, Goredho said:

The barriers for entry are so low, the market is flooded with mediocre artists that must be sifted through.  Using your analogy, the chaff-to-wheat ratio is much higher now than when those barriers effectively acted as a filter for the chaff.  Finding the wheat is harder than ever.

 

This maybe true for distribution, and what we ultimately hear, but the kids always had tape recorders, there is not any greater quantity of people making music than before.

[G650 14278]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Richard Marx

I have Endless Summer Nights in my daily rotation. Fantastic song.

[Rimbo 26158]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

I have Endless Summer Nights in my daily rotation. Fantastic song.

He had a couple. There's always one. Even now, there's some good stuff showing up (like I mentioned). Doesn't mean the rest isn't garbage and, to my point, actually worse than at most other times in the past.

And this goes in cycles. It typically happens when record execs spend most of their time manufacturing broad-appeal music for the masses, rather than publishing the stuff the masses already like. When Seattle hit in 1991, the sales numbers demanded that the record execs change their strategy. Same with Van Halen and co in the late 1970s, or New Wave in the 80s. 

What happens, as always, is that the record execs catch up and start making their own bands in those styles and pushing them out; the genre gets too well defined, tired, washed out. That's what happened in the late 80s, and even in the 90s with grunge/alternative rock. (Bush was to the 90s what Bon Jovi was to the 80s - the fulcrum point where the genre shifted from being fan-driven to record execs-driven).

We're in a period now where the music on the radio is packaged, written and produced by marketers again. Eventually someone will do something new, different and cool that everyone will like, far outside the record execs' control, and the cycle will start again.

Until then, it's not just "get off my lawn" shit; it's part of a normal cycle the industry goes through.

[G650 14278]

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

He had a couple. There's always one. Even now, there's some good stuff showing up (like I mentioned). Doesn't mean the rest isn't garbage and, to my point, actually worse than at most other times in the past.

And this goes in cycles. It typically happens when record execs spend most of their time manufacturing broad-appeal music for the masses, rather than publishing the stuff the masses already like. When Seattle hit in 1991, the sales numbers demanded that the record execs change their strategy. Same with Van Halen and co in the late 1970s, or New Wave in the 80s. 

What happens, as always, is that the record execs catch up and start making their own bands in those styles and pushing them out; the genre gets too well defined, tired, washed out. That's what happened in the late 80s, and even in the 90s with grunge/alternative rock. (Bush was to the 90s what Bon Jovi was to the 80s - the fulcrum point where the genre shifted from being fan-driven to record execs-driven).

We're in a period now where the music on the radio is packaged, written and produced by marketers again. Eventually someone will do something new, different and cool that everyone will like, far outside the record execs' control, and the cycle will start again.

Until then, it's not just "get off my lawn" shit; it's part of a normal cycle the industry goes through.

 

Yeah it's not tho. This is all complete nonsense.

 

19 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's because 1990 WAS garbage. But '91 made up for it and then some... NIN, Nirvana, everything changed that year.

 

Because this is a false statement. There was just as much good music in 1989 and 1991 as there was in 1990. That was the point.

 

Edit: Alice in Chains released Facelift in 1990 and Soundgarden put out Louder than Love in 1989 btw.

Edited October 20, 2022 by G650

[Braff Zacklin 13667]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

Quite right sir

No, no, Quiet Riot wasn't all that good.

[Rimbo 26158]

3 minutes ago, G650 said:

There was just as much good music in 1989 and 1991 as there was in 1990

Yes, but I'm not talking about the good music. We're talking about everything else, the things that made the top 40 but didn't become timeless classics.

Even if we adjust to the "good" songs, what you're saying isn't true. There are fewer classics in the top 40 from that time period compared with others, and a lot of the ones that did stick around did as much for irony's sake as anything. (We're no strangers to love... you know the rules, and so do I...)

And you can't just hand wave it all away with the ol' "99% of everything is garbage," because there are times when most of the top 40 songs are great, times when most of it is garbage, and the frequency of it being one or the other fluctuates over time.

No, I'm not speaking nonsense. Those top 40 songs in 1989 absolutely were worse than, say, 1992. Things were pretty rough in the late 1970s, too.

It takes a lot of blind faith -- or deaf faith, perhaps -- to say that things always are a certain way and don't change or, at the very least, go in cycles.

 

 

1 minute ago, Braff Zacklin said:

No, no, Quiet Riot wasn't all that good.

everything went to hell for them after Ozzy stole away Randy Rhoads, sure... and all their best songs were Slade covers anyway

[Goredho 17426]

28 minutes ago, G650 said:

 

I mean there's shit loads across all sorts of genres. Just in the other thread you had Japanese Breakfast and Kurt Vile. There's everything from stuff like St Vincent and Wolf Alice to Nathaniel Raitliff and The Record Company, X Ambassadors, to Florence and the Machine to Shakey Graves to Sam Fender to some of the shit Lizzo is putting out. And there are myriad others.

 

Basically listing the bands you listed just reinforces the old man yelling at clouds thing about this.

 

This maybe true for distribution, and what we ultimately hear, but the kids always had tape recorders, there is not any greater quantity of people making music than before.

So I'll freely admit, I haven't heard everyone in your list, but of the ones I have, I don't hear a Wish You Were Here or Bohemian Rhapsody among them.   Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree that your list stands up to the best music of the 70s.

As for old man yelling at clouds, I definitely have a bias to music from the 70s.  Because its fucking badass and daring.  It was also generally before my time.  Maybe you are old man trying to be "hip" or whatever the kids call it these days?

No argument that there have never been more people making music.  But plunking down a cassette recorder in your practice space in 1985 and playing that in your Camaro for your buddies is not in the same ballpark as what can be done with a personal computer, audio interface, cheap powered studio monitors and an internet connection in 2022.  The point is, all those kids that would record a cassette for their friends in 1985 are putting it in spotify and itunes in 2022 (I'm one of them), and the vast majority of their music isn't really noteworthy.  The democratization of music production and distribution doesn't mean there are more great artists, just that there is a lot more mediocre ones cluttering the space.

[DougO 5256]

2 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Meh. Since popular music has been a commodity - significantly starting in the big band era - this argument has been thrown around. It’s always been false and reeks of nostalgia. There have always been people making music. With more people come
more people making it. There is necessarily more chaff than wheat always. Such is the nature of the creative endeavor.

Ask your kid to pick a top whatever chart of the last 50 years, and most of them are filled with the chaff. Forgettable nothings. The entire “music now sucks” argument is based upon remembering only the wheat. I don’t think it’s any different today.

There was definitely lot of filler and flavor of the week that burned out stuff mixed in with the classics. But there were also rich mines of deep cuts and lesser known bands that were great in their own right, but there wasn't enough room at the top. The variety and depth of music in the "Boomer" age is absolutely unmatched. 

 

[G650 14278]

49 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Yes, but I'm not talking about the good music. We're talking about everything else, the things that made the top 40 but didn't become timeless classics.

Even if we adjust to the "good" songs, what you're saying isn't true. There are fewer classics in the top 40 from that time period compared with others, and a lot of the ones that did stick around did as much for irony's sake as anything. (We're no strangers to love... you know the rules, and so do I...)

And you can't just hand wave it all away with the ol' "99% of everything is garbage," because there are times when most of the top 40 songs are great, times when most of it is garbage, and the frequency of it being one or the other fluctuates over time.

No, I'm not speaking nonsense. Those top 40 songs in 1989 absolutely were worse than, say, 1992. Things were pretty rough in the late 1970s, too.

It takes a lot of blind faith -- or deaf faith, perhaps -- to say that things always are a certain way and don't change or, at the very least, go in cycles.

 

 

everything went to hell for them after Ozzy stole away Randy Rhoads, sure... and all their best songs were Slade covers anyway

 

 

What's in the top 40 isn't relevant. Even in this mythical heyday many are pining for the vast majority of the best shit wasn't in the top 40. Name a Gentle Giant song in the top 40. Or Wishbone Ash. Or Captain Beyond etc... I mean even a lot of these songs that are really popular on classic rock radio were never even singles and barelt got radio play in their day.

 

45 minutes ago, Goredho said:

So I'll freely admit, I haven't heard everyone in your list, but of the ones I have, I don't hear a Wish You Were Here or Bohemian Rhapsody among them.   Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree that your list stands up to the best music of the 70s.

As for old man yelling at clouds, I definitely have a bias to music from the 70s.  Because its fucking badass and daring.  It was also generally before my time.  Maybe you are old man trying to be "hip" or whatever the kids call it these days?

No argument that there have never been more people making music.  But plunking down a cassette recorder in your practice space in 1985 and playing that in your Camaro for your buddies is not in the same ballpark as what can be done with a personal computer, audio interface, cheap powered studio monitors and an internet connection in 2022.  The point is, all those kids that would record a cassette for their friends in 1985 are putting it in spotify and itunes in 2022 (I'm one of them), and the vast majority of their music isn't really noteworthy.  The democratization of music production and distribution doesn't mean there are more great artists, just that there is a lot more mediocre ones cluttering the space.

I mean I'm the biggest 70's dork around so I'm with you there. I may have mentioned it before but in high school a buddy of mine cracks "the rule is if it's obscure and from the 70's, G650 loves it". He wasn't wrong. But even if I like a band like Queen, they are not something that  I would use as an example to prove your point personally. Pink Floyd are next level shit, there's no argument there, but that's an exception.

 

 

 

[Rimbo 26158]

14 minutes ago, G650 said:

What's in the top 40 isn't relevant.

Then you and I are talking about completely different things, because it's the most relevant thing to what I'm talking about.

"Music is no good these days" is not about "did good music exist at the time if you dug into unheard bands and deep cuts." It's about "how good was the music the majority of people were listening to" at the time.

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Rimbo

[G650 14278]

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

Then you and I are talking about completely different things, because it's the most relevant thing to what I'm talking about.

"Music is no good these days" is not about "did good music exist at the time if you dug into unheard bands and deep cuts." It's about "how good was the music the majority of people were listening to" at the time.

 

Yeah I guess we are then, which is fair enough. But I think that you are just applying your taste to what people are enjoying or not because the vast majority of what people are listening to has been pretty mediocre since time immemorial. For shits and giggles I looked at the Grammy performers for 1990 and 1992, and it's essentially a wash in terms of quality. Honestly 1990 may have been better.

 

Somehow Micheal Bolton was in both lol.

 

[Chad Fuck 17817]

4 hours ago, G650 said:

I'd have to add I said basically the same thing as @Rimbo son when I was young. I pretty much listened to the oldies station in 1990 because I thought most contemporary music was horrid. There was basically G'nR, and Metallica and Megadeth, but the top 40 was shit like Vanilla Ice. Until Soundgarden and those bands broke it was a wasteland. We wear rose colored glasses on what things were like.

Same same.  

But mostly I didn't like hearing the "kids these days" from the real Boomers - forever in debt to their priceless advice, and all. I always thought it sounded like jealousy of youth and I never wanted to be that guy.  Let the kids be kids.  They're alright.  

[G650 14278]

2 hours ago, Braff Zacklin said:

No, no, Quiet Riot wasn't all that good.

This is funny, I just remember I saw Quiet Riot in a club in Charleston SC back in '98 or '99 with like 20 people in the audience lol. I got Carlos Cavazo's guitar pick.

[G650 14278]

10 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Same same.  

But mostly I didn't like hearing the "kids these days" from the real Boomers - forever in debt to their priceless advice, and all. I always thought it sounded like jealousy of youth and I never wanted to be that guy.  Let the kids be kids.  They're alright.  

For sure. I can't say I'll like it, but I'm always interested to see what the kids come up with and hope they keep everything moving because my dinosaur ass sure isn't.

[Chad Fuck 17817]

4 hours ago, Goredho said:

I want to agree, but things are radically different today than 30-40 years ago.  For a few thousand dollars you can have a home recording studio that is capable of producing professional quality recordings (assuming you have the skills to use it).  You can push a button and distribute your music to the world to where anyone with an internet connection can consume it with their own push of a button.  Every facet of the music industry is documented and accessible.  Want to be your own publisher?  There's 39483948 Udemy courses for that.  Areas that require developed technical skill (audio engineering, mixing, mastering) are becoming more and more automated with AI plugins.

In short, the barriers for producing and distributing your own music are infinitesimally low compared to yesteryear.  We shouldn't have roughly the same amount or ratio of good music as there was.  We should have much, much more.  This time should be the unarguable Camelot of independent music and musical visionaries.  But if the barriers to producing and distributing your music are orders of magnitude lower , why don’t we have orders of magnitude more fantastically daring and creative musical forces on the world?  Where is the bounty of visionaries this should empower?  The successors to Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd/Roger Waters, Queen, etc…?  I just don't see/hear them.

I think a lot of it has to do with:

• The barriers for entry are so low, the market is flooded with mediocre artists that must be sifted through.  Using your analogy, the chaff-to-wheat ratio is much higher now than when those barriers effectively acted as a filter for the chaff.  Finding the wheat is harder than ever.
• Streaming as a business model for independent musicians sucks.  While it is easier than ever to produce and distribute music, it is no easier to make a buck.  And given that you have to be heard above orders of magnitude more competitors, it is arguably harder to make a buck.

I think you've answered your own questions here.  I agree finding the wheat is much much harder.  To strain more analogies, the cream is finding a harder go of making it to the top.  Before there was an industry made to generally sort the wheat from the chaff.  The path was narrow, but effective because record companies weren't going to spend a lot of money supporting crap they couldn't make money off of.  Now, that gatekeeper isn't there.

Your second point is a separate issue, that is, how does one make money making music?  I agree with you that its' probably as hard or harder than it ever was.

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Chad Fuck

[Chad Fuck 17817]

3 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 

I know all about that. We glorify the past because we only listen to the classics that have survived the test of time and all that. 

That doesn't mean "today's music is garbage" can't also be true. It was more or less true from about 1986-1989; there are tons of classics from 1977-1986, and a huge amount starting again in 1991, but there's this gap in-between of forgettable Van Hagar tracks and Richard Marx and "Waiiiiiiiitin' For a Staaaar to Fall" (which was actually decent, but gives you an idea of just how bad that time period was).

The past year or so has somehow managed to be worse. There's some good writers like Mark Ronson doing good things and that really incredible "Driver's License" song by Olivia Rodrigo... and then everything else is some bitch mumbling to a trap beat or That One Chord Progression Everyone Uses Now.

 

That was a dark time for the force, no doubt.  

But at ACL Fest this year, I saw a lot of good new (to me at least) music.  Perhaps I'm just coasting on that.

[G650 14278]

5 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Your second point is a separate issue, that is, how does one make money making music?  I agree with you that its' probably as hard or harder than it ever was.

This is a super legitimate point really that @Goredho has brought up. I truly worry about it as well even though it's not directly impacting me as I moved on to a different industry totally. I just basically have given up to blind faith that some sort of sustainable model will evolve, as I don't know what it will be. A load of great artists are not able to support themselves right now, it's awful.

[Goredho 17426]

18 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

That was a dark time for the force, no doubt.  

But at ACL Fest this year, I saw a lot of good new (to me at least) music.  Perhaps I'm just coasting on that.

 

17 minutes ago, G650 said:

This is a super legitimate point really that @Goredho has brought up. I truly worry about it as well even though it's not directly impacting me as I moved on to a different industry totally. I just basically have given up to blind faith that some sort of sustainable model will evolve, as I don't know what it will be. A load of great artists are not able to support themselves right now, it's awful.

Yeah, it is probably a topic for another thread, but there is a reason a whole new generation of musicians are spending their time making 30 second instagram clips and 5-15 minute YouTube videos to become a consumer influencer vs spending their time to produce killer new works of musical art.

Hint: it is not because it pays better to produce killer new works of musical art.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Goredho
Quoted your wrong post, Chad Fuck, but fuckit

[stc 1466]

86-89 is not being treated fairly, plenty of now classic albums:

1986:

Paul Simon- Graceland

Metallica- Master of Puppets

Beastie Boys- License to ill

Slayer- Reign in Blood

1987:

U2- Joshua Tree

GnR- Appetite for Destruction

Prince- Sign O The Times

Michael Jackson- Bad

INXS- Kick

1988:

Jane's Addiction- Nothing's Shocking

Pixies- Surfer Rosa

Traveling Wilburys- Vol 1

Metallica- And Justice For All

NWA- Straight Outta Compton

1989:

NIN- Pretty Hate Machine 

Nirvana- Bleach

Tom Petty- Full Moon Fever

Stone Roses- s/t

Beastie Boys- Paul's Boutique

 

 

 

[Deej 76972]

I just want to intervene to point out this thread is an example of why this board is one of the top ones on this site. Pages of actual civil arguments. Good work, guys. 

[Chad Fuck 17817]

Just now, Deej said:

I just want to intervene to point out this thread is an example of why this board is one of the top ones on this site. Pages of actual civil arguments. Good work, guys. 

I'm just having a scotch and listening to some records with my brosephuses while chatting about music.  If I could do it in person, I would, but online will have to suffice. 

 

[G650 14278]

7 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I'm just having a scotch and listening to some records with my brosephuses while chatting about music.  If I could do it in person, I would, but online will have to suffice. 

 

Just polished off my first Balvenie as we speak

[Rimbo 26158]

12 minutes ago, Deej said:

I just want to intervene to point out this thread is an example of why this board is one of the top ones on this site. Pages of actual civil arguments. Good work, guys. 

fuck off you shithead

 

... just kidding

[Rimbo 26158]

but yes we should get back to Beato videos

This was fantastic and taught me a new favorite Doob song.

[Rimbo 26158]

13 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I'm just having a scotch and listening to some records with my brosephuses while chatting about music.  If I could do it in person, I would, but online will have to suffice. 

 

We should set up a zoom to watch a Beato video while drinking, occasionally pausing to discuss points.

I vote this video, because (1) it is short so we can spend time talking and (2) it's clickbait garbage that we don't have to pay full attention to: 

 

[CooterBrown 18034]

That's because 1990 WAS garbage. But '91 made up for it and then some... NIN, Nirvana, everything changed that year.

NIN, Nirvana, Soundgarden, etc. all had releases in the 80s. ‘90 didn’t suck at all. What was popular sucked.

[tbone_ 14198]

We should set up a zoom to watch a Beato video while drinking, occasionally pausing to discuss points.
I vote this video, because (1) it is short so we can spend time talking and (2) it's clickbait garbage that we don't have to pay full attention to: 
 

Clickbait or not I enjoyed that list. Like the comments said, missing Blind Melon and Marcy Playground but still.

The gnarly lick in the Space Hog tune might be the best thing to come out of the 90s besides Jenna Jameson.

[G650 14278]

7 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Clickbait or not I enjoyed that list. Like the comments said, missing Blind Melon and Marcy Playground but still.

The gnarly lick in the Space Hog tune might be the best thing to come out of the 90s besides Jenna Jameson.

We actually covered Space Hog's In the Meantime back in like '96.

 

Also, they put on one of the best shows I've ever seen, bar none. Absolutely ridiculously good.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

He got this song right,  I could watch this video over and over again just to see Natalie.