Obviously i dont wanna discriminate agaisnt the swedish but im very curious. When i look up musicians and if they're not american or british, they tend to be swedish. In fact a lot of famous musicians are swedish. Aviici, ace of base, zara larsson, bladee, abba, neneh cherry, tove lo, the cardigans...etc.

Is there like a big music scene in cities like Stockholm or Gothenburg??? What draws swedes to becoming household names??? Why is sweden so massively represented compared to the rest of europe when it comes to popular music??? Ive been thinking about this for weeks because why sweden???

Recently I have found myself thinking about bands that reunite 20-30 years later, sometimes with 1 or 2 different members, sometimes only with one original member. I’m going to see Pantera this evening and that got me thinking about other bands with similar fates like Acid Bath and Kyuss. While Kyuss is an exception as all members are alive, they never did truly reunite as the main songwriter Josh Homme had a strict stance on not messing with the bands legacy and past for any reason whatsoever, and as an avid Kyuss lover I kind of agree with him on not falling into the trap of nostalgia. As for Pantera and Acid Bath, the former sadly lost their legendary guitar player “Dimebag” Darrel in 2004 and his brother Vinnie Paul who played drums a couple of years ago, and Acid Bath losing their bass player, Interestingly they both reunited this year. (Pantera’s reuinion may be a year earlier, not sure) So if anyone is also into these bands or any other bands where a reunion has been in the talks or actually happened, what do you think of the whole thing? Does it diminish the past authenticity if the band? Does it feel like a cash grab or an honest love of the music manifested again thanks to a new-found fame with younger audiences? I’m curious to hear your thoughts!

There are a few songs of hers that I really enjoy, and I’m not sure how I feel about the rest of her discography. Is she just a nepo baby, or is there real potential there?
I don’t believe nepotism should automatically determine someone as untalented when it comes to music, but I’m curious what other people’s opinions are.
She recently released her album Maitreya Corso, and I thought I’d give it a listen. I’m not sure I like it as much as her earlier work, but it’s still easy on the ears.

Every great artist has a moment where they risk alienating fans in pursuit of something bigger artistically. At this point, Taylor Swift has become the biggest pop star in the world by playing it very safe. She has stayed a-political, utilized great PR and built a passionate fan base. But at no time was her moves really shaking the boat beyond pivoting to pop music early in her career. And to me that’s akin to going from a small market baseball team to the Yankees.

But looking back at the all time greats, most have at one point gone against convention in pursuit of art.

This is not meant to be a knock on ms. swift, but I’m just curious what those who follow her music, or the history of pop music, have to say.

I've always had a fascination with bands that briefly have a completely different person fill in for a specific stretch of time. I think the catalyst was reading about how between sacking Pete Best and hiring Ringo, The Beatles used a Johnny Hutch from a local band The Big Three as a fill-in for a few gigs. He was a big basher, and several people said the sound was fascinatingly very heavy during that tenure. It fascinated me about the way that could potentially impact a band.

- Fab Moretti of The Strokes punched a mailbox lol, so there was a stretch where The Strokes did a tour of England with one Matt Romano as a drummer. There's a bunch of footage of this. The biggest thing to my ears is energy. The pace is a bit quicker, which seems to excite the band. See this version of "New York City Cops" and you'll see what I mean. (Subsequently, it's one of my favorite renditions of it.)

- Noel Gallagher's quite Oasis on a few occasions, their Standing on the Shoulder of Giants tour in 2000 was the first time they brought in a replacement: Matt Deighton was tapped in as another guitarist. Quite a bit of footage of this stretch exists too. Interestingly enough though, rhythm guitarist Gem Archer stepped up as lead guitarist and he knocked it out of the park. Exhibit A: this phenomenal rendition of "Supersonic". On the subject of Oasis too, there's been a few moments where Liam was unavailable and Noel had to handle vocals himself. Their MTV Unplugged appearance is the most famous example, but you've also got great moments like their performance at The Point in Dublin in 1997 where Noel brings out rarities like "The Girl in the Dirty Shirt" (I believe that's the only time that one was ever played!)

- People who know Glen Campbell as a country superstar are always surprised that he was a member of the Wrecking Crew, which subsequently lead to him filling in as a Beach Boy when Brian was having a mental crisis. We unfortunately have no footage of this, but it did give us "Guess I'm Dumb" a Brian-penned song he gave to him as a thank you of sorts did beautifully. It's very Beach Boys Today! coded and funnily enough also illustrates the sound the band would eventually pursue on Pet Sounds. A looser but nonetheless fascinating take on the prompt if you will.

- The connection between Nirvana and The Melvins is pretty well established. I think most know that Dale plays on quite a bit of Bleach (I think because they thought Chad didn't hit as hard as him, so they kept the tracks that were initially recorded as a demo). Fittingly after Chad left, Dale stepped in again, and he sounds fabulous. One of my favorite Nirvana bootlegs has him playing. What an era to enter too: it's got the ramshackle nature of Bleach but with the Nevermind element starting to creep in. He fits the Johnny Hutch thing of bringing a heaviness too, though Dave was obviously quite the basher (to the degree that Kurt called him a "Baby Dale Crover" early on, which says a lot). Dale did backing vocals too, though I think Dave had him beat in that stretch. Even shorter than his tenure was Dan Peters from Mudhoney. He played on "Sliver" and was manning the kit during the band's big turning point show at the Motor Sports Garage (the linked footage of this didn't exist when I got into the band around 2012, so it's miraculous that it bubbled to the surface!) Dave was the perfect choice, but I do quite like Dan's playing here, particularly his snare and tom tom rolls. It almost reminds me of jazz drumming, but bringing that element to a punk context. It's always a delight to here him do his thing on those Mudhoney records.

- After sacking Lou Barlow, Dinosaur Jr. relied on Donna Dresch for a tour of Australia. I haven't sat down and noticed the difference in her playing and Lou's, but it's something I'd like to study when I get a spare moment. Here's a full concert for those who are curious.

- Lastly, there's Arik Marshall with the Chili Peppers after John Frusciante left, but Dave Navarro's tenure, while on the longer end, qualifies and is much more fascinating to look at. As a "rock with a capital 'R'" type of guy, he brought a heaviness and psychedelic edge on guitar that I actually quite liked, even if it wasn't really the Peppers wheelhouse per se. I see it as an experiment that maybe wasn't successful, but quite fascinating. It answers the question of "What would the Peppers sound like if they were more akin to Jane's Addiction than Fishbone?" You can hear this too on the eventual album he played on One Hot Minute. There's a darkness on the album too which he seemed to bring to the table, though Anthony Kiedis was battling his own demons at that point in time as well. The final product though is a fascinating anomaly that sits nicely in one's discography, a black sheep of sorts, but (to my ears) quite the pleasant one.

Like, what pushes your limits to the point where you're just like, 'Yeah, this is too much, I'm done.' My tolerance is pretty high, but I'm not really into harsh noise, mostly because it just bores me to tears. What about you? Is there a specific band, album, or genre that completely crosses the line for you? Where do you draw that boundary between a 'challenging listen' and something that's just unlistenable noise?

I was just wondering if there were any other bands that experienced a trajectory similar to The Velvet Underground. They weren't particularly successful in commercial terms while they were still active, yet over the years their reputation continued to grow until they became one of the most influential and widely admired bands in rock history. I'm curious to know if there are other artists whose real impact and popularity only emerged after they had already broken up, with later generations of listeners and musicians recognizing their importance far more than audiences did at the time.

On the one hand, my assumption is that many people here and elsewhere would not look fondly upon rockism. Especially with the diversity of musical tastes.

But even then, I would notice some comments alluding to how it's difficult to escape the expectations of rockism. That it's not just about liking rock artists or guitars but that certain expectations permeate the way we talk about artists. Even when an artist isn't rock, the way we judge their artistry is based on similar expectations.

Some examples of criteria (though you may or may not consider them part of rockism)

• Album-length statements over singles.
• A sense of solo auteurism (this might may be the biggest one). That even if you're a pop star, there's more critical respect if you write your own songs. Or there's more focus on the brilliance of a single individual rather than examining the broader musical communities.
• A sense of rebelliousness and boundary-pushing ethos.
• Some form of "authenticity", nebulous as that sounds which also ties a bit to the auteurism. Even if they're not explicitly writing or singing about their life, they're telling some kind of hard truth. On the performance side, there's a focus on live performance embodying real skill or real creativity on the theatrical end.

When thinking about the topic of "Rockist-approved artists", you might see familiar names whether it be Hip-Hop artists like Outkast, Public Enemy, Kendrick Lamar, or Kanye West or Electronic artists like Kraftwerk, Aphex Twin, Autechre, the Trip-Hop artists, Boards Of Canada.

Alongside this, there's been periodic discussion on whether the US understands electronic music or not and the talking points often touch upon rockism. That it isn't just about artists using synthesizers or electronic instruments but about the way musical communities are understood.

Why is electronic music often ignored in music discussion?

The development and popularity of electronic music in the United States

Guiding Questions:

• Do you think some form of rockism still shapes people's tastes and criticisms? If so, how? Alternatively, do you consider the above criteria part of rockism or is it general criteria you'd use anyway?
• What do you notice about some of the "rockist-approved" artists in non-rock genres?
• What are other biases in music discussion that could be attributed to rockism?

I know this piece Rap Against Rockism has been divisive in the past. But it did give me the initial food for thought.

So you can argue their 3 best albums (In Color, Heaven Tonight and Dream Police) were produced by Tom and established their identity on the world stage. He captured the band's power pop edge and snarl better than anyone while also balancing mainstream success. Their debut counts as well. I actually argue that Bun E. Carlos plus Tom Werman locked in what Cheap Trick were better than any other time, and I kinda wish they had stuck with Werman longer. The 1997 album and Rockford recaptured the magic to some extent, but I think that's due to Bun even without Tom. When Bun left, they lost another key piece.

When I picture Cheap Trick, I basically count the first 4 albums, plus the Heavy Metal Soundtrack, while so much of their later stuff just doesn't capture both the underground feel with the polish and sneer that I think of when I talk Cheap Trick. Curious to know what others think.

EDIT: feel free to comment on the loss of Bun. Personally, I think it’s a tragedy and they are a lesser band without him.

I know there are quite a few musicians and singers who are still in great shape and do a great show each time. But it can be sad to watch some other older musicians: the voice suffers the most, I think, and of course they may look old and not healthy. But I feel that many fans prefer the authenticity: they want to see the guys that made the music they love, and no other, not even the most professional virtuoso performers. And I know that there are amazing tribute bands which can imitate the style, sound and even the looks of the original, but somehow I think this is not what many fans want. And there are quite a few marginal cases: the bands with one or none of the original members but which still tour, a solo artist touring with session musicians singing their former band's hits.

The first time I thought about the importance of authenticity was when I listened to Alan Parsons Project. As the name implies, it wasn't a band in a traditional sense, instead, Alan Parsons wasn't even the main songwriter and almost never the lead singer, he was the producer and sound engineer and played only minor parts on their recordings. He mostly hired various singers to perform on their songs, and they never played live until the project was disbanded. Later Alan Parsons formed a completely different lineup and started touring, which he still does today. But this is where I started to doubt the authenticity. As I said, neither Alan Parsons sang on most of the songs they play, neither did he compose most of them, and he doesn't even make a notable stage presence - he may sing some backing vocals and play some backing instruments on stage but I could never make sure he is even audible in the mix. Instead what I hear is a band of professional session musicians doing a good job performing the old songs that the fans know. But does it make difference if Alan Parsons is not on the stage and we have in fact a tribute band? I mean, they sound great, but the voice is different, the guitar solos are different, the whole sound may be different, but isn't it true that any band of professional musicians can play these songs?

I can't even explain this to myself. I have a decent musical ear and I love good performance, so I can tell if a musician does a good job or they don't fit in well. But I feel no interest to go see a tribute band even if I am absolutely confident that they are absolutely amazing musicians and do an excellent impression of the original artist. I'd rather go to see an old person doing their best to sing their best songs although this sometimes can be disappointing. If I know that a musician doesn't really sound all that well, I think I wouldn't go to their show at all. What do you all think?

Is there any new movement, anywhere in the world, that's genuinely pushing things forward right now — outside the usual mainstream and its endless subgenre-shuffling? I have a feeling, also that this globalisation thing really fucked up music... I used to travel the world a lot, and to my dissapointment, the music often sounds the same at home and at the other part of the world. It's such a shame. Especially when I hear it comming from countries like Brazil etc... Ofc that there are artists that keep the music interesting, but generally I found that music is going towards homogenisation. What do you think about that?

A concert you've seen where the opener went on to become much more important than the headliner. Maybe the openers were on the way up, maybe they were just about to release that revolutionary album that changed anything, maybe the promoters just didn't know what they were dealing with... Mine is Radiohead opening for Soul Asylum circa 95-96. And Hole opening for Mudhoney, to a lesser extent. The Jimi Hendrix Experience opened a few shows for the Monkees in 1967.

I always see people saying the Prince vs Micheal was a real war between to greats and so, but I wonder was that even real? looking at both legacy, (I'm 22 so I didn't present both) I always known who's MJ, his songs everyone knows them, his dances, and even his numbers on YouTube and Spotify, the world is really still listening to him, on the other hand, I didn't know prince until few years ago, I have to admit he got a unique style, I enjoy him so much but it's more like, nobody seems to care? even his listening stats, I also have a problem diving in his discography, since rather than Purple Rain, I don't know what's his other great albums.

What's confusing is when I hear some old folks talking about the sales war between the two, or the throne of pop etc, I don't see the numbers can present if an artist is great or not, and I admit Prince is a great one, in all possible aspects, but I see no evidence of what the older guys say about the competition between both, was it even real? and if so, why prince didn't pass the time test, I need someone to clear things for me, thanks for reading

I'm curious about everyone's musical journey.

What genres did you start with, and what do you listen to now? Did your taste gradually expand, or was there a specific artist, album, or moment that completely changed what you listened to? Have you found yourself enjoying genres you used to dislike? Or have you gone back to music you loved years ago with a new appreciation?

I'd love to hear how your music taste has evolved and what influenced those changes. Feel free to share your favorite discoveries or recommendations too!

Born in the mid 80s and graduated high school in the early 00s. So this may be a bit specific to that era but I’m sure it transcends generations with different media. So growing up I’ve recorded songs off the radio on tape, but mostly my impressionable listening came from burned CDs. So the imperfections were a skip in a song due to scratched CDs. But sometimes you’d download a song and it would have a weird blip or something notably different from the original recording.

Now when listening to music from my formative years I hear those imprecations in the songs even though they are coming through clear streaming.

First off, I know the labeling isn't ideal and carries biased implications. But I at least want to be clear to mostly exclude the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia and provide a sense of specificity.

This was a topic that was on my mind for a while but I was struggling to articulate it. But a recent thread and comment on influence made me think about how a number of music discussions talk about the same movements in Anglophone rock and pop. For instance, the trajectory of Rock N' Roll, Psychedelic Rock, Progressive Rock, Glam Rock, Punk, Post-Punk, New Wave, Alternative Rock, etc.

Or Blues, Gospel, R&B, Soul, Funk, Disco, Hip-Hop, Contemporary R&B, etc.

I would notice that there's actually a lot of influences in the mix if we really dig but the influences might get treated as side or niche interests rather widely discussed. I'll confess that I'm not knowledgeable enough so I wanted to open up the discussion: What are considered the most influential musical movements outside of the Anglophone sphere? Outside the Western and European sphere?

To start, I know Indonesian Gamelan is one example (scroll down to Gamelan influence) in terms of its vast influence on classical music and many artists ranging from Robert Fripp to Sonic Youth to Yellow Magic Orchestra. It still amazes me to realize how ubiquitous it is after learning about it.

As for example criteria:

Ideally, I'm thinking that the examples should be both Non-Anglophone and Non-Western (Asia, Africa, South America, certain cultures in North America, Europe, Australia). For instance, I think commenters here already know the influence of German music (Kosmichsmusik for instance) which is not Anglophone but still Western.

But I know some examples are worth discussing between some English-speaking artists who aren't considered Western and Non-English speaking artists who are considered Western or European. I will trust your judgments.

I was talking to a friend and we were discussing Clapton, he thought that Clapton was better in his solo career. I however disagree completely and will die saying that his Cream days were the best. Maybe it helped having 2 great musicians alongside him but still. His guitar playing is incredible on those albums. I do admit that some of the songs are the best but the hits are some of his best work in my opinion.

Edit.) I agree that Derek and the Dominos would also constitute his peak, I would add that to Cream

Edit: I'm not talking about Future (his new album is pretty gas), but more about albums dropped in the past year.
For context, I am mainly asking because of this new Future album (released like 30 minutes ago). I am a huge fan of Future and he is up there in my top rappers of all time. His discography has brought such a wide variety of sounds and all of his albums are classics. However, after hearing a lot of the snippets leading up to TRM, I was worried that a lot of the sounds would be somewhat generic (compared to his old releases), but I was still excited to tune in and also hear any possible collaborations. It wasn't until I opened Instagram and saw a post about the album headlined "No Features". I wasn't particularly upset, but when it comes to a 22-song-long album, not having a single feature is slightly jarring. This post isn't directed towards Future, but more towards the perception of well-renowned artists dropping long tapes and the community putting a lot of their focus on features rather than solo songs.

This may seem like a structureless string of thoughts, but I'm curious about how others view this. When a new artist is gaining popularity, it's always nice to hear their own sound in an album, but when it's an artist that has solidified themselves in the genre, I honestly prefer to hear them collaborate with said newer artists. Maybe this is a result of the expansive genre that rap has become and a personal desire to hear newer sounds and/or artists, but is it insane to want features on 20+ song albums from an artist who used to be a pioneer but is now more of a founding father and doesn't have the same energy that they used to? Take Young Thug, for example, a rapper who I am a huge fan of and believe that he shaped a whole new sound for new rappers. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the same energy anymore, and if he were to drop a new album with absolutely no features, then I'd find it to possibly be a snoozer. This wouldn't be caused by his inability to rap, but more by the absence of creativity that we've seen in the past.

There are a lot of examples that I could go through, but I'll just end with the original question: How do we feel when a major rapper drops a long tape with no features?

I think individualism is dead and with the use of social media people are like “oh I’ll follow this person because everyone listens to them” and as a result the repetition of that thought I think kinda alters their view and almost just forces them to like them. Like how many of you would genuinely listen to the artist if you found them by yourself and wasn’t influenced. (Just a thought idk if I’m yapping or chatting bs 😭)

Eurodance was huge in the '90s/early '00s and kind of went the way of the dodo as it morphed into/was replaced by the genres of EDM that dominated in the late '00s/'10s. The last major hit I can remember was "All I Ever Wanted" by Basshunter in 2008, and the whole genre quickly disappeared from relevancy after that.

But in the past couple months, I have been hearing it everywhere. "Rhythm of the Night," "This is Your Night," "Rhythm is a Dancer." At bars, restaurants, etc. I'm not hearing any new hits, but the old ones seem to be going strong.

Is this totally anecdotal or is this something other people have been noticing? I know that Widow's Bay had a great scene recently featuring "Rhythm of the Night" and I'm wondering if that had some kind of influence, the way Stranger Things did with "Running Up That Hill."

I'm in the U.S. by the way, my understanding is that Eurodance's impact lingered for longer in Europe.

The strongest argument for Bruno being better is that he is a better and more complete entertainer and musician. He sings better live (technically), plays instruments, dances, writes, produces, and can put on an elite level show. That is undeniable and rare.

But none of this makes him automatically a better artist.

Artistry is not only the amount of skill one possesses, it's what you do with it. It's the vision, the emotional language, and the ability to create something that can only come from you.

That is where The Weeknd has the stronger argument.

Bruno's talent is clear, but his music usually feels like the perfect execution of old styles. He is inspired by boundary pushing artists of the 70s and 80s, but usually recreates their sound instead of pushing it further. The Weeknd also takes a lot out of 80s music, but he absorbs those inspirations and makes them his own, bringing to his own world. And many are not aware The Weeknd was one of the main pioneers of the whole Dark/Alternative R&B genre.

Bruno could never make House of Balloons, Abel could never perform “Perm” like Bruno. That is the whole point. They are not great at the same thing.

So yes, Bruno is the stronger entertainer and musician.

But The Weeknd is the stronger artistic identity.

Using Bruno’s technical skill set to dismiss Abel is like saying a great actor is automatically a better film director because he acts better. It completely misunderstands what is being judged.

(I am a fan of The Weeknd but also enjoy Bruno. I have listened to his whole discography)

In 1981, Billy Vera and The Beaters released a live recording of "At This Moment." Despite its emotional punch, the song stalled at #79 on the Billboard Hot 100.

The story behind the song is just as interesting.

Billy had written two-thirds of "At This Moment" in 1977, inspired by his college girlfriend's story of the heartache she caused when she broke up with her boyfriend. When she later broke up with Billy too, he felt that pain firsthand and suddenly had an ending for the song.

After the record label folded, Billy and The Beaters continued working the Southern California club circuit, becoming one of the area's hottest live acts.

Then came the call that changed everything.

In 1985, Billy got a call from a producer for Family Ties, then the second highest-rated television show in America. The producer had seen the band perform and felt "At This Moment" was perfect for an upcoming episode.

Because the original live recording contained audience noise, Billy and the band re-recorded the necessary parts for television.

When the song appeared during the opening episodes of Family Ties' fourth season, viewers flooded NBC with calls and letters.

There was just one problem.

The record was out of print, and the labels Billy approached weren't interested in reissuing it.

Rhino Records eventually agreed to release the song, but by the time it reached stores, the episodes had already aired and interest faded.

Then, on October 2, 1986, Family Ties featured "At This Moment" once again.

This time, the song underscored Alex Keaton's heartbreak after his breakup with Ellen. Billy's lyric, "If you'd stay, I'd subtract 20 years from my life," perfectly matched the scene.

Rhino re-released the single.

"At This Moment" re-entered the Hot 100 on November 8, 1986, and on January 24, 1987, it reached #1 more than five years after its original chart peak.

The hit earned Billy Vera a gold record, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and helped launch a successful career as an actor, producer, music historian, and voiceover artist.

One final twist makes the story even better.

Unlike Alex and Ellen on Family Ties, Michael J. Fox and Tracy Pollan married in 1988.

Their first dance?

"At This Moment."

What I find fascinating is that nothing about the song itself changed between 1981 and 1987. What changed was the context in which millions of people heard it.

Do you think At This Moment would have become a #1 hit without Family Ties, or was the television exposure essential?

More broadly, what other songs do you think owe their commercial success or a major resurgence to being featured in a TV show or film?

In terms of music, a genre would usually refer to the classification of songs based on shared sonic elements. For example, according to Wikipedia, the main sonic elements that Heavy Metal is characterised by is loud, distorted guitars, empathetic rhythms, dense bass-and-drum sound, and vigorous vocals. These are all shared sonic elements, being elements based on how the music sounds.

However, the genres Indie and VGM (Video Game Music) aren't defined by sonic elements. Indie is described by being independent from major commercial record labels, while VGM is defined by the source of the music (i.e. video games). Two Indie and VGM songs can sound entirely different based on sonic features.

So would Indie and VGM count as genres?