The first track i heard was around the time i quit weed for good. It's also the first artist that made me like brass instruments.
I love Toh Kays songwriting yet i tend to forget about them ever so often. I feel my main problem is that the lyrics are often way to fast to sing along but they are so bloody good and interesting compared to other 3rd wave ska bands like Less Than Jake or Mad Caddys. Kinda feel like they are so underraded. It's not really Ska nor is it Skapunk. They are kinda unique and have such a bloody good brass section.
And now roast me :)

My daughter was listening to "Say So" by Doja Cat on YouTube. And I asked her to replay it because something sounded eerily familiar—as if I heard it before.

Turns out, it sounds remarkably similar to the future funk song "Fiona Coyne" by Skylar Spence. If you're unaware, future funk is a genre that originated in the 2010s. It's basically a mix of disco and vaporwave. It has its following, but never cracked the mainstream.

But hold on... "Skylar Spence" samples "Love Talkin' (Honey It's You)" by Tatsuro Yamashita, one of the heavyweights of city pop.

City pop is what's known as a retronym. That is, a label we give to music when a retrospective canon gets formed, requiring recontextualization. Yacht rock is another example of a retronym.

In Japan, where city pop originates from, city pop is an obscure genre even though city pop songs themselves are popular. That's because it was simply mainstream pop in Japan.

Now don't get me wrong. "City pop" as a term existed in Japan during the 80s. But this wasn't a genre with a defined musical structure. It was more a marketing term to sell aspiration, much like how we in the West hear terms like "contemporary" and "sophisti-pop". Because of this, most Japanese people didn't recognize city pop as an identifiable thing.

Fast forward to the 21st century. Westerners started hearing Japanese music from the 80s. They needed context. So they re-purposed a Japanese marketing term to define a corpus, a body of work that identified Japanese music with broad similarities that seemed to have an associated scene.

The city pop canon was never big in the West. Even now, it's only known amongst music nerds. But its effect on modern mainstream music is huge. Here's examples:

• "Out of Time" by The Weeknd samples Tomoko Aran's "Midnight Pretenders"
• "GONE, GONE / THANK YOU" by Tyler, the Creator interpolates Tatsuro Yamashita's "Fragile"
• "We Ride" by Brave Girls was a Top 5 K-pop hit, but it was blatantly marketed as city pop upon its release

What's wild? City pop is not the only obscure genre to impact the mainstream but never hit the mainstream. Witch house, phonk, and vaporwave all had a big impact. But none of the artists who originated these genres have ever become house house names.

I think this is one of the defining characteristics of 21st-century music. A genre can remain underground while its sounds, production techniques, and aesthetics become completely mainstream.

We're in a time where the mainstream raids from subculture before subculture can ever challenge it.

Is this why we no longer see musical revolutions like jazz, rock, punk, hip hop, and grunge?

Has the mainstream become so good at absorbing underground music that new genres can influence it without ever displacing or fundamentally transforming it?

Van Halen could sell out stadiums in the US, yet in Europe they had to open for Bon Jovi. That would never happen in the States.

DMB could easily sell out the biggest arena in my country (Portugal), but I doubt they have much of a fanbase in the rest of Europe. My dad is a huge fan of 70s rock, and he tells me Van Halen and Journey were never particularly big over here. And FUNNILY ENOUGH, he'd never even heard of Tom Petty...

I’ve worked sound for live shows for years now from local bar gigs to international tour circuit venues, and one thing I’ve noticed is that at least 90% of the musicians are men. Most bands are entirely comprised of men and vocalists are the most common female role, although they are still a minority there too.

Is it a cultural rift pointing back to the early days of western music performance where women weren’t allowed to perform on stage? Or is being a rockstar just less striven for by girls and women than guys? I’m really curious why this significant gap especially in instrumental musicians is so present today.

Snoop Dogg is the only artists in history to reach superstar status immediately as a solo artists. Only artists to reach success right away like Snoop was possibly The Beatles but even their debut album Please Please Me didn’t put up the #s like The Chronic and Doggystyle did.

Gun N Roses debut album Appetite for Destruction is the highest selling debut album of all time but their debut album didn’t do well initially and it was a long process for Gun N Roses to be successful cause they were viewed too controversial with their music promoting too much sex and drugs. The band’s manager had to plead for MTV to play their music after several attempts of MTV of refusing to play their music and Guns end up getting good luck with MTV playing Welcome to the Jungle on a 5:00 AM Sunday morning which Guns eventually garnered success.

50 Cent Get Rich or Die Tryin surpass Doggystyle as the fastest selling debut album of all time with 50 Get Rich selling 872,000 the 1st week surpassing Snoop’s previous record of 806,000 the 1st week but at the same time 50 didn’t get success as an artists right away.

50 debut album was supposed to be Power of the Dollar and 50 had a small local buzz in NY with songs like How to Rob which wasn’t a hit song but garnered some success.

But Power of the Dollar didn’t get release and was shelved by Columbia Records after 50 got shot 9 times and record labels felt 50 was too dangerous and labels didnt wanna to associate with him during this time after he got shot. It was a long process for 50 to get popular where he released several mixtapes after getting shot which got the attention from Dr Dre and Eminem to sign 50 on their label.

But Snoop is the only artists I seen gain pop level of success right away with songs like Nothing but A G Thang, What’s my Name and Gin N Juice. What made fans gravitate towards Snoop right away? Is Snoop Dogg that more talented than other artists or did he have the best luck being at the right place right time or was Snoop able to finagle his way in the music industry in the easiest way possible as an industry plant?

I am curious how Snoop became such a big artist right away without have any real previous bodies of work before The Chronic and Doggystyle. Can [r/LetsTalkMusic](r/LetsTalkMusic) tell me how Snoop Dogg was able to garner success so quickly as an artist?

What if some of the biggest male artists across different generations and genres came together to form a boy band?

Imagine a supergroup featuring Jungkook, Bruno Mars, Justin Bieber, and The Kid LAROI, with potential additions like The Weeknd, Chris Brown, or even Kendrick Lamar as the main rapper.

The idea would be to combine artists whose talents transcend different eras of music. Between their vocals, songwriting, dancing, stage presence, and musical versatility, this group could potentially create something incredible.

The biggest challenge would probably be distributing lines and balancing so many talented singers. Some additional role diversity might help, but each artist already brings something different to the table.

Jungkook — The All-Rounder

Jungkook brings powerful vocals, impressive dancing, and years of experience performing in BTS. His experience working within a group would be especially valuable when it comes to choreography, teamwork, and balancing individual performances. He could help bring everyone together.

Bruno Mars — The Veteran Performer

Bruno brings incredible versatility, experience, and stage presence. His ability to move between pop, funk, R&B, and soul would give the group plenty of musical flexibility. He's also an excellent live performer and songwriter who could contribute to the group's longevity.

Justin Bieber — The Pop and R&B Specialist

Bieber has an impressive track record spanning multiple eras of pop music. Beyond his recognizable voice and massive popularity, he brings songwriting experience, musical instincts, and an understanding of how to create successful records. His versatility would make him another valuable member.

The Kid LAROI — The Younger Perspective

LAROI brings a different energy through his blend of melodic rap, pop, and R&B. His ability to experiment with different sounds could help the group explore multiple musical directions.

His emotional delivery and distinctive vocal style would complement the other members. While he might not be as dance-oriented as Jungkook or Bruno, his strengths as a vocalist and songwriter could make him an important part of the lineup.

Kendrick Lamar — The Main Rapper

Kendrick would bring a strong rap presence to every track, adding another dimension to the group's sound. His incredible lyricism, storytelling, flow, and songwriting abilities would make him an essential member of the lineup.

His versatility would allow him to complement the group's pop and R&B influences while bringing his own unique style. He could also work alongside The Kid LAROI on rap sections, giving the group even more musical flexibility.

The Weeknd or Chris Brown — Alternative Additions

Both could fit into the lineup for different reasons.

The Weeknd would bring his distinctive vocals, atmospheric R&B sound, and ability to create memorable melodies.

Chris Brown would contribute strong R&B vocals, dancing, and performance experience, adding another member capable of handling demanding choreography.

The Big Question

Would a supergroup with this much individual talent actually work?

With so many established solo artists, balancing creative control, musical direction, and line distribution could be difficult. However, their different strengths could also lead to some incredible collaborations.

Who would make your ideal lineup? Would you keep these artists, replace anyone, or add someone who brings a completely different skill set?

And most importantly, what kind of music should a group like this make?

my friends are a tad older than me and to my opinion missed out on them. Not cause i don't cringe about my younger self obssessing over Pop Punk and Emo but rather cause i think Sum41 aged less weirdly and always did 'their own thing' instead of just going with the flow.
Argueably they had their corny, visually emo, phase but their music today even feels a lot less insincere than their peers in blink, green day or good charlotte.

I am a sucker for early 90s music, and I like to detect patterns.

Recently, I have felt there was a similar kind of music pattern in those:

*The theme song of 1992 infamous SegaCD game Night Trap by Sunny Blueskyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YRccJrn4M0
*Synthpop song Never Easy by Mattie Maguire (2015, but deliberately retro): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhAQYwxifS0
*First mission music from 1995 game Crusader: No Remorse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSF4LJLYByU

What kind of instruments and arrangements are used here that make me feel similar patterns? I'd be curious to know why I like those. Thank you.

I've been thinking about how much weight the final track of an album can carry.
Sometimes an album seems to be telling you one story, but the ending makes you reconsider everything that came before it.
A tragic ending can make earlier moments of confidence feel more like denial. A hopeful ending can make everything that seemed hopeless before it feel completely different.
But I think there's a fine line between an ending that genuinely changes your perspective and one that feels forced. If the rest of the album hasn't earned that conclusion, even a beautiful final track might not be enough to make it convincing.
And I'm not necessarily talking about albums where the closing track is the best song. I'm more interested in endings that change how you interpret the earlier tracks when you listen again.
Have you ever experienced that with an album? What was it, and what specifically changed about how you heard the rest of it after reaching the end?

I was listening to a band the other day and noticed how much their sound seemed to evolve with each album. Sometimes this is great it shows growth but other times it feels a bit jarring. I started thinking about how often bands change their recording environments. Does moving between many different studios perhaps with different engineers and equipment affect the overall sonic identity across a discography? Or is it more about the band's creative choices and artistic direction regardless of the recording space? What are your thoughts on this?

The American radio station KEXP recently aired a countdown of KEXP Listeners’ Favorite Songs Of The 90s. It’s a good list to check out. However, the thing that struck me immediately is how some of these songs weren’t hits in their time - they were either slow burns that have accumulated fans over time or have been used in media after their release and have become notable.

Here are the top 10 songs on the list [spoiler] followed by their chart performance in the US and UK.

Beck “Loser” (US #10 / UK #15)

Soundgarden “Black Hole Sun” (US - / UK #12)

Radiohead “Creep” (US #34 / UK #7)

Deee-Lite “Groove Is In The Heart” (US #4 / UK #2)

Massive Attack “Teardrop” (US - / UK #10)

Radiohead “Paranoid Android” (US - / UK #3)

The Breeders “Cannonball” (US #44 / UK #40)

Beastie Boys “Sabotage” (US - / UK #19)

Mazzy Star “Fade Into You” (US #44 / UK #48)

Nirvana “Smells Like Teen Spirit” (US #6 / UK #7)

I’m not arguing against any of these picks, they are all great songs. What is fascinating to me how far away from hits that some of these songs were - “Cannonball” and “Fade Into You” in particular were not notable as singles but have grown in time to iconic 90s songs.

Just for fun, the year 1994 is overrepresented in the top 10 above: four of the ten songs were released as singles in 1994. What were the top singles in the US and UK in 1994? “The Sign” by Ace Of Base and “Love Is All Around” by Wet Wet Wet.

It’s worth noting: the listenership of KEXP skews older and more towards rock. That said, ask the same question on this sub and you might arrive at a similar answer.

I’m interested to hear what people think about how favorite songs 30 years on differs so greatly from what was popular in its time. If you ask about favorites songs of the 90s in 20 years, will the answers change again?

This is a thing that bothers me personally so I am trying to do a project that truly shuffles your playlist and all song gets the same attention. I want to first know if there are other people who are also bothered by this and in order to do that, I am asking on subreddits. For example, Spotify queues, even people who have premium sometimes like the feeling of being surprised by a random song next and put their playlists on shuffle.

I've been thinking about a strange paradox in how we consume music today. Older music seems to be more popular and accessible than ever before, especially among younger generations. Yet at the same time, it feels like older artists and bands no longer command the same level of cultural reverence they once did.

Back in the 2000s artists like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, and The Rolling Stones were treated almost like untouchable musical royalty. There was a certain god tier status that older music had, and younger generations were often told that modern music couldn't compare to the greats of the past.

Nowadays, thanks to streaming services, TikTok, and social media, younger listeners have unprecedented access to decades of music. Artists like Fleetwood Mac, Radiohead and the Deftones have found enormous audiences among people who weren't even alive during their original popularity. Songs like Mr Brightside, Unwritten, Creep, Iris dominate the streaming charts. The distinction between old and new music seems increasingly blurred.

But even though older music is more accessible and widely consumed, the idea of certain artists being universally recognized as musical legends seems to have weakened. Younger audiences might enjoy a Radiohead or Deftones song much as a contemporary pop hit, but they don't necessarily regard Radiohead superior simply because they're an older, established band.

As well as that, there's been a lot of talk about how younger generations are forgetting artists like REM, Jimi Hendrix, Beastie Boys... and a lot of people just kinda accept "ehh they just have their own artists". But back in like the 2000s, there used to be much more reverence for older music. I wonder what changed?

I’m a 90’s/2000’s kid, so not like I’ve any inherent bias for the stuff I’m talking about, which seemed to abound more from the 50’s to 70’s & 80’s.

It’s just that I’ve noticed a distinct lack of these epic, memorable, melodies like you often heard in tracks back then, and I’m wondering why that might be.

I’m a musician myself and am well aware most all songs will have some kind of melody, thanks, but, again, I’m talking the truly epic global smash hit melodies anyone would know- things which effectively have become standards… stuff like Happy Together, Sound of Silence, Strangers in The Night, and of course countless others. The melodies are so strong they’re almost palpable.

But with every passing decade, the emphasis on and desire for such strong melodies seems to fade. For as many smash hit songs as came out in the 80’s, already these style melodies seemed to be on a decline by then. Again, everything has melody, much of it can be catchy, but not necessarily epic.

I’d also love to know some contemporary tracks/artists you might recommend who you feel feature such big melodies. From what I’ve heard, Father John Misty seems to like to do this kind of thing, though I might be conflating use of string sections and a general 70’s sound with epic melody.

In fact, there are none melodies more epic than the ones you’d find in classical music, but I guess I wanted to focus more on “pop” or whatever cats like Humperdinck, Jones, Elvis, Vinton, ABBA, Simon & Garfunkel, etc etc were doing is called.

I'm not religious. I'd call myself an atheist. But I'm half Black and currently live in the South. My wife is religious and said her church is always looking for more drummers (even though they have a few) so I decided to join the praise band for fun. And wtf, it was not what I expected!

It's super high energy, everyone is shouting and dancing and singing, and the drumming is QUITE technical with lots of feel as well, especially during the praise breaks. Lots of rudiments, chops, dynamics, linear drumming. A lot of the best drummers today came out of the black church playing this kind of music a la gospel chops. I've done a few drum shed sessions with the other percussionists at the church and we take turns playing the kit.

I thought church worship music would suck from what EVERYONE said but at least at my black church the music is objectively very good requiring semi virtuosic talent to pull off on all levels - singing, drumming, keys, other instruments etc.

I still am non religious, but I think it's categorically false and a lie that church music sucks. I think a lot of atheists don't know what they're talking about and say incorrect things. I'm doing this just for exposure and having an outlet to perform live (my old band broke apart due to people moving to new cities), and there's been zero pressure on me to convert to Christianity. It's a win win for me.

Why do people do this?

Doesn't necessarily have to be a person, it could also be like a streaming/YouTube recommendation.

For example, I noticed for me I usually don't follow-up on a recommendation when I know that person has a massively different music taste that my taste doesn't really align with or when they've consistently recommended music I don't have a taste for, even when they show me some songs that I kind of do like in the moment, but wouldn't necessarily listen to on my own.

It's kind of intriguing though because in the dozens of songs they've shared with me, 2-3 of them I've actually really come to enjoy and saved, but it's rare given our very different music tastes, so I generally find myself not fully engaged when they recommend me music or deeply go into the context of it.

And then for someone else who's music taste does intersect with mine, I find myself following-up more with their song recommendations and more frequently finding songs from them I enjoy.

As for digital recommendations, it usually has to hook me quickly in the beginning with instrumentals I enjoy/be a song from someone I'm familiar with, or I'll just skip and don't end up giving the rest of the song a try.

I've been thinking a lot lately about albums that are praised for their 'deep cuts' - those tracks that aren't singles but are supposedly essential to the album's overall quality or artistic statement. On one hand, I get it. Sometimes, those less-played tracks reveal a different side of the artist, showcase experimental ideas, or provide crucial thematic depth that the singles can't. They can make an album feel more substantial and rewarding on repeated listens. But then, I also wonder if sometimes this praise for deep cuts is a bit of a music fan's intellectualization. Is there a point where an album has too many 'deep cuts' and not enough genuinely strong, memorable songs? Does the presence of a few standout non-singles automatically elevate an album that might otherwise be just okay? Or are we sometimes just looking for reasons to appreciate every track, especially from artists we already admire? I've definitely found albums where the deep cuts became my absolute favorites, revealing layers I missed on first listen. But I've also listened to albums where the 'deep cuts' just felt like filler, and the album would have been stronger if it were shorter and more focused. What are your thoughts? Do deep cuts genuinely make an album better, or is it more about the overall consistency and quality of every track, regardless of its 'single' status?

I get that bands need to appeal to casual fans who want the greatest hits, and that these shows don't really serve to sell albums anymore, but I wish there was a better balance.

I'm going to catch Cheap Trick in a couple of weeks, so I was checking out what their set lists have been like lately. They've been on a great run for the last four albums, but they're only playing one song from any of them, and sometimes not even that. The rest of the set is at least 35 years old, and I've seen them play it all a bunch of times.

I have to imagine the audience showing up for acts this far into their careers has to have some interest in recent songs, right?

So this is a band I was introduced to at Lollapalooza back in 2018, and they really hit a chord -- they had this really cool progressive streak, impeccable playing, very tight rhythms, and sorta 70s style falsetto funky smoothness. And weird (e.g. "AKA M80 the Wolf"). I was instantly attracted. At times the guitar felt like he was channeling Carlos Santana at Woodstock, other times Barry Gibb. They were pretty unknown at the time - the Album was The Satanic Satanist - tongue-in-cheek but also serious ("People Say" was the 'hit'). It was considered their breakthrough album at that time as their earlier stuff was even stranger. I listened to a lot of that album and went to their back catalog, and saw them several times. All that, and I will honestly say they are a band that is easy to like but hard to love. There's a distant coldness about them, probably driven by John Gourley's introversion and perhaps a feeling of not being totally let into their world. It's more like "see what we can do" rather than "here is who we are." Oh, yeah, and the band's name is kinda annoying -- who puts punctuation into their name for gawd's sake? ;) I read they did it because they were trying to evoke a character named "Portugal."

Fast forward to today, and most people know "Feel It Still" as the big hit but don't really know the band. I feel like either the band really wants to remain underground, or wants to break through but doesn't quite know how. I have most of their albums (haven't picked up Shish yet), most of them have good to great reviews, and I do listen regularly but don't enjoy them as much as that first album. Even so, I am always impressed by their songwriting and their alt-progressive-rock chops.

Is that their destiny until they find some other way? Just be happy with what they do? I feel like I want more from these guys, but not sure exactly what! Be happy to know other experiences and takes.

"Does Gen Z not care about Elvis Presley?"

"Are people forgetting about The Doors in modern discussions?"

"Is R.E.M. irrelevant to younger music fans?"

"aRe tHe bEAtlEs bEiNg foRgoTTen by mOdErN mUsiC fans??!!?!"

Chill, the quality of music isn't determined by the number of streams or how many Gen Z'ers have heard of the artist. Just because your preferred band from the 70s doesn't have +20 million monthly streaming listeners doesn't mean they weren't important. We are forgetting the most important opinion when it comes to music: your own. As long as you still enjoy the music, why get antsy or upset that newer music listeners care more about Bad Bunny and Billie Eilish over R.E.M./Dire Straits/U2? The older bands had their glory days and moment in the sun and the same thing will happen to Bad Bunny/Sabrina Carpenter/The Weeknd when they are overtaken by next big pop stars & bands.

Bigger picture, won't even the biggest music acts be forgotten to time? Are we expecting the people of 2126 A.D. to care about Ariana Grande or Travis Scott? The 1960s were only 60 years ago, which isn't even a long time in the grand scheme of things and we still remember a lot. (Assuming humanity is still here) it would be interesting to see what music from the 20th/21st centuries is still interesting or relevant to people born centuries from now. We might be surprised by what music we currently consider "important and relevant" actually sticks around considering how little music from the 1600s is relevant in our lives.

Why am I starting to see nostalgia for 6ix9ine so soon?

If this sounds weird to you, I'm on Instagram and TikTok... and I am seeing tons of people nostalgic for 6ix9ine.

Yes.

THAT guy.

Usually, nostalgia doesn't happen until 10 years AFTER someone's prime.

Yet I'm already seeing people nostalgic for freaking Gummo played everywhere.

In the early 2010s people were STILL whining about Limp Bizkit despite not being relevant anymore.

In the late 2010s Nickelback was still being hated on like it was 2006, despite the band not being relevant anymore.

But apparently 6ix9ine was somehow underappreciated?

Why?

His songs were always BLICKY STIFFY UH ICKY VICKY UH with titles like BLABBO or FOOFA. And he also was a statutory rapist.

And my generation now thinks "he wasn't that bad, people were too harsh on him!"

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE. WE ARE NOT DOING THIS.

Internet logic=

Nickelback = evil forever

Limp Bizkit = cringe until proven otherwise

6ix9ine = “lowkey kinda fun era?”

Why did it take forever for these 2 bands to get redeemed but an objectively worse artist is being redeemed rn?

Are the other 2 actually the worst artists in history who committed horrible unforgivable crimes against sound and a screaming sex offender with songs like ICKY VICKY STIFFY UH is simply far superior?

Shit, a certain Canadian teenage boy received significantly more hate for singing inoffensive pop songs than a convicted sex offender screaming nonsense lyrics.

6ix9ine seems like such a weird case... he was almost UNDERhated

There are few artists who can turn a mistake into an improvement quite like John Mayer. I was in a deep rabbit hole of listening to him live and I noticed on multiple occasions that he messed up a specific part in a solo, and somehow recovered and completely changed the structure for the next measure or two. These changes are made in such a short period of time and its truly a sight to see. The best example obviously being his save in his solo during Gravity.

I was curious if anyone has any other examples from other artists like this they would like to share, because its my favorite aspect of live music!

I recently discovered Gram Parsons and I am blown away at how he is not a household name.

First of all, he was the one (or at least gets credited for it the most) who combined country and rock, which was basically the style of the Eagles and look how popular they were. But he did it first! 

Second of all, the story about his untimely death is absolutely insane to the point where if somebody didn't know better they would think it was the plot of a Hollywood movie!

I listened to his first two albums last night and some of the songs remind me of Johnny Cash, the storytelling aspect and the overall vibe of the music.

Does anyone else like him? Why do you think he is not a household name in music? I mean it's crazy that it took me until I was 54 years old to even hear about him.