Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Help me with something. I'm not being sarcastic here, I really dont know the answer. As some one commented already about my age, yea I am from the old school.
You said this song was #1. Who rates things these days and how? It used to be record sales. The band who sold the most records had the #1 album. But no one is buying CDs anymore. Are songs rated by how many downloads? How many hits on youtube? I still dont understand all this indi stuff and searching for music. How can something be rated that is underground so to speak? An item needs to be purchased to count. If no one knows others are listening to it because they downloaded it then how can it be a number one or any number for that matter?
Do only under 22 year olds know about this crazy almost invisable music that you will never hear about unless you search? I have said earlier that music should be for listening pleasure. Searching just seems like a task, a job, a high physical output. But as one of you told me, you see searching for music as like a hobby.
The album (Contra) is number 1 on the billboard chart. That song probobly didnt even crack the top 50. As far as how they count it...I'm pretty sure the billboard top 200 albums chart is cd and vinyl purchaces. Im almost certain a separate chart exists for digital downloads...but, I could be wrong.
Alright, I'm going to make a generalization here... Indie music is generally popular among the 25-30 something age group and a certain portion of college students. Why an "older" crowd?? I have no idea... but you will be hard pressed to find a popular indie band with members under the age of 25. Fleet Foxes come to mind...
The term "indie" is extremely broad and is really hard to define. Generally speaking, indie bands are artists on independent record labels (usually) who incorporate a certain sound, or a collection of sounds (post-punk, shoegaze, lo-fi, noise rock, twee pop, post rock, britpop, etc...) into their music while maintaining complete artistic control over the music itself. Basically- indie was associated with "college rock" or "alternative rock" back in the 1980's and up until the early 90's when alt. went mainstream. So...it grew out of that and the post-punk bands of the 1970's.
Indie is like any other "underground" scene. It thrives on word of mouth and online fanzines. If you surround yourself with friends that are into the same sort of music the searching part, and finding new and interesting bands really isn't that difficult.
You said this song was #1. Who rates things these days and how? It used to be record sales. The band who sold the most records had the #1 album.
This is actually a great question, and I was wondering where Interpol76 saw that it was #1. I see it at #5 in CDs for the week (of any genre) and #4 in MP3 album downloads at Amazon.com. What about LP sales? iTunes? Rhapsody? B&N.com? Brick and Mortar CD sales? It must be a daunting task to compile data into a list these days. Interestingly, it's #22 on Amazon's Indie-specific CD list: Amazon.com Music Bestsellers: The most popular items in Indie Music. Updated hourly. -- not sure if the update times are different or what. I listened to #9 on that list (Grizzly Bear) twice all the way through today at work.
On the other hand, I've hardly ever seen sales be any sort of indication of artistic merit so I've never really cared too much. But it is remarkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertsun41
But no one is buying CDs anymore.
I've bought twenty CDs, shrink-wrapped, in 2010 already!
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertsun41
I still don't understand all this indie stuff and searching for music. How can something be rated that is underground so to speak? An item needs to be purchased to count. If no one knows others are listening to it because they downloaded it then how can it be a number one or any number for that matter?
Clearly the new Vampire Weekend album, however it is they're compiling the data, is being purchased at high velocity. It's not "underground" and the indie label they're signed to has also signed highly established artists such as Beck, Damon Albarn, M.I.A., The Prodigy, Radiohead, Thom Yorke, Sigur Ros, and The White Stripes, all of whom have been at least nominated for multiple academy awards and many other mainstream awards. It's a major operation if not technically a major label.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertsun41
Do only under 22 year olds know about this crazy almost invisable music that you will never hear about unless you search?
Wow, I mean do you really need it to be piped over the intercom everywhere? It is really not that hard. I get stuff sent to me in email over morning tea and in my snail mail box all the time. Amazon recommends stuff to me and I visit forums and blogs like Stereogum for a few minutes a day. Oh, and I'm 35 years old. But I vow to never stop seeking out genre-bending/boundary-collapsing sounds and creations.
I have said earlier that music should be for listening pleasure. Searching just seems like a task, a job, a high physical output. But as one of you told me, you see searching for music as like a hobby.
If that's work, then what are we doing here? Working? Because in a couple of recent threads here in Music I've found some stuff I've ended up ordering from other members -- was that a high physical output? Clicking on a Youtube, listening, hitting up Metacritic/Wikipedia/Amazon and then doing 1-click ordering?
Sometimes I take it to an extreme, and that's a hobby. But it's not really very hard to find out Animal Collective is breaking some boundaries and people are talking about em and yet radio/television would never touch them or acknowledge their existence (but actually Letterman had them on so there goes that).
I say the bottom line is while there are better bands out there, it is good to see something that is undeniably MUSIC on the number 1 spot. I mean, as of this week, January 20th, that Kesha crap is the top single right now. Compared to that, The Vampire Weekend is the second coming of the Beatles.
Are there better bands out there? Sure. But at least an actual band with some talent is on the top for a change.
The term "indie" is extremely broad and is really hard to define. Generally speaking, indie bands are artists on independent record labels (usually) who incorporate a certain sound, or a collection of sounds (post-punk, shoegaze, lo-fi, noise rock, twee pop, post rock, britpop, etc...) into their music while maintaining complete artistic control over the music itself.
Yup, fair to say it can encompass everything from "The Fox in the Snow" by Belle and Sebastian to "Fury Whip" by High on Fire. It's not a genre. Of course, there's Indie and then there's really obscure. How many people here own stuff from The Loud Family, Pop Poppins, Frequency Fall, Summer Blanket, Moonwash, The Fantomas, The Dog-Faced Hermans, or the Deathray Davies?
I mean, as of this week, January 20th, that Kesha crap is the top single right now. Compared to that, The Vampire Weekend is the second coming of the Beatles.
Do only under 22 year olds know about this crazy almost invisable music that you will never hear about unless you search? I have said earlier that music should be for listening pleasure. Searching just seems like a task, a job, a high physical output. But as one of you told me, you see searching for music as like a hobby.
No.
I am 55 years old. I shook hands with Pete Townshend when I was 15.
Maybe I am a case of arrested development, a pathetic example of an oldster straining to remain young and/or renew the glory days--probably both.
Regardless, for me, music is visceral; repetitive classic rock is torturous.
As much as I like the old stuff, I am unwilling to limit myself to it.
It's good to discover new sounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interpol76
The album (Contra) is number 1 on the billboard chart. That song probobly didnt even crack the top 50. As far as how they count it...I'm pretty sure the billboard top 200 albums chart is cd and vinyl purchaces. Im almost certain a separate chart exists for digital downloads...but, I could be wrong.
Alright, I'm going to make a generalization here... Indie music is generally popular among the 25-30 something age group and a certain portion of college students. Why an "older" crowd?? I have no idea... but you will be hard pressed to find a popular indie band with members under the age of 25. Fleet Foxes come to mind...
The term "indie" is extremely broad and is really hard to define....
Indie is like any other "underground" scene. It thrives on word of mouth and online fanzines. If you surround yourself with friends that are into the same sort of music the searching part, and finding new and interesting bands really isn't that difficult.
I agree indie is difficult to define and searching for any kind of music is not at all difficult.
At this point, indie seems less an aesthetic than a distribution strategy.
In a world where people cook up some scheme *strictly* in the hope that it will go viral on the internet, I can sometimes share Desert's skepticism.
There are plenty of teenagers who thrive on disassociation/exclusivity and deliberately search for the most obscure music, but many other beleaguered adolescents enjoy their safety in numbers. All younger people can have their tribal ways, hanging out in the basement mooning over Twilight, playing Xbox, listening to Miley or the latest unheard of band.
Late 20-to-30 somethings have had some time to develop their identities and preferences. I like to think that mature listeners simply enjoy the music for itself and do not worry about their choices being validated--but I think plenty do obsess over it. (OMG--you're listening to Morcheeba--lame, bro!
Then the Morcheeba fan deletes the song to avoid a repeat of this humilation.)
I say the bottom line is while there are better bands out there, it is good to see something that is undeniably MUSIC on the number 1 spot. I mean, as of this week, January 20th, that Kesha crap is the top single right now. Compared to that, The Vampire Weekend is the second coming of the Beatles.
Are there better bands out there? Sure. But at least an actual band with some talent is on the top for a change.
We dont always see eye to eye in our taste in music but we sure do agree about that Kesha crap. The fact that the Kesha thread here is like 8 pages long now may be indication of what the future of music will be. How very sad. How very very sad.
No. I am 55 years old. I shook hands with Pete Townshend when I was 15. Maybe I am a case of arrested development, a pathetic example of an oldster straining to remain young and/or renew the glory days--probably both. Regardless, for me, music is visceral; repetitive classic rock is torturous. As much as I like the old stuff, I am unwilling to limit myself to it. It's good to discover new sounds.
In a world where people cook up some scheme *strictly* in the hope that it will go viral on the internet, I can sometimes share Desert's skepticism.
There are plenty of teenagers who thrive on disassociation/exclusivity and deliberately search for the most obscure music, but many other beleaguered adolescents enjoy their safety in numbers. All younger people can have their tribal ways, hanging out in the basement mooning over Twilight, playing Xbox, listening to Miley or the latest unheard of band.
Late 20-to-30 somethings have had some time to develop their identities and preferences. I like to think that mature listeners simply enjoy the music for itself and do not worry about their choices being validated--but I think plenty do obsess over it. (OMG--you're listening to Morcheeba--lame, bro!
Then the Morcheeba fan deletes the song to avoid a repeat of this humilation.)
Nice opening paragraph with supporting descriptions to explain taste VS age.
Let me try using your same outline. I am of same age group as you. An old concert hound with more then 500 ticket stubs in my posession to prove it. I took up keyboards and studied music in my younger days. Fast forward to adult. Past 2 wives were big time groupies who can tell you more stories then the rag magazines hanging at the grocery store cash register. Through these wives I got to meet quite a few very famous musicans and even jambed with them. One even stayed in my home because his son was my step son, who's step mom is also a pretty famous pianist.
Today in my other professional career these famous musicians call me to work for them. They sit me with their family at shows. We talk and many times they open up. I learned a lot about music and the music business from more then just a college music professor. I guess I say this not to brag but to qualify me to talk intelligent about music.
BlueWillow I understand what being a kid is. But our generation was about fitting in. If we came to school with white socks or colored hair or bald we would get the sheet kicked outta us. You had to be the same by fitting in. Today the key is to be different and unique and better yet, to invent that uniqueness yourself. And the real gullable teens would just adapt a new trend/fad by a famous musician. Madonna and Michael Jackson started several trends in the 80s that were copied by teens everywhere.
Way back.....Monday morning at school we all wore our black concert shirts from the big concert that weekend and we talked and compared notes about the big show. Today concerts are almost non existant and it seems music has to be searched for in non obvious places.
Way back....we did not have bad music or music that might offend some. Whatever tape or LP your friend or companion pulled out of his arsenal was good stuff to you too. Today that same senario played out might cause a fight. Our worst battle of the 70s was Disco sucks. And us rockers won that battle. I feel we will win the wrapper/hippity hoppity battle too because that stuff is worse then disco ever was.
Back to that thought of fitting-in and young people developing their own identities. Our generation might not have followed that so strong. To fit in we had to be like everyone else which included listening to the same music. Today.......any freaking thing goes....
How boring to all listen to the same thing. An analogy (to follow up on my previous posts) might be every restaurant everywhere in the entire world being McDonald's.
"What do you want to eat?"
"McDonald's"
"What kind of food do you like?"
"McDonald's"
"Found any good food lately?"
"Just McDonald's"
"Post your new food finds!"
"I found McDonald's"
"What new food are you looking forward to in the next year?"
"McDonald's"
BlueWillow I understand what being a kid is. But our generation was about fitting in.
Desert, when it comes to high school, I think every generation, to some degree, is about fitting in--but that's high school.
I agree that music has splintered into a zillion different genres.
Something for everyone. I like it. I don't worry too much about what category it should be in, but I like the choices.
Quote:
Way back.....Monday morning at school we all wore our black concert shirts from the big concert that weekend and we talked and compared notes about the big show. Today concerts are almost non existant and it seems music has to be searched for in non obvious places.
Lots of bands are touring these days.
People young and old can share music with each other.
It's easier than ever--but the distribution system has changed.
Quote:
Way back....we did not have bad music or music that might offend some.
Two words:
Bobby Goldsboro. ::shudders::
Or Mac Davis!
Then we had:
McCarthur Park
Heartbeat (It's a Lovebeat) by the DeFrancos
Feelings by Morris Somebody
I could go on and on.
Remember when the Rolling Stones "sold out" because they said "Let's spend some time together" on Ed Sullivan instead of ""Let's spend the night together?"
And the Stones were famous (infamous) for their chauvinist 'squirming dog' Under My Thumb lyrics, but because they were Brits and sang it in an accent it was somehow okay.
Women were sex objects back then, it was an Anchorman world, then Title IX etc came along and I really thought things would get better, but progress seems fitful.
Punk lyrics were plenty mean, the band name "The Dead Kennedys" is not exactly the best of taste, some moms maybe got a bit worried about Ramones songs like Teenage Lobotomy, but somehow everyone saved their severe outrage, indignation and concern for the coming of the dreaded gangsta rap.
Spoken word might have begun long before then, but it was, I believe, the 90's when things went to court.
I agree that a lot of that stuff can be ugly, but then the environment that creates it has some nasty stuff going on.
There is good and there is schlock in all of it, just like music from the 70's.
Quote:
Back to that thought of fitting-in and young people developing their own identities. Our generation might not have followed that so strong. To fit in we had to be like everyone else which included listening to the same music. Today.......any freaking thing goes....
So maybe we can not compare?
I dunno. I'm not sure I was always listening to the same stuff as everyone else.
I just remember the joy of discovery--and I still have it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Working? Because in a couple of recent threads here in Music I've found some stuff I've ended up ordering from other members -- was that a high physical output? Clicking on a Youtube, listening, hitting up Metacritic/Wikipedia/Amazon and then doing 1-click ordering? 
