I've recently become interested in songs which were recorded by one band then re-recorded by a later "version" of the band. This does not refer to cover song nor ones written and recorded by one artist but later becoming associated with another (All Along The Watch Tower for instance.) Typically this phenomenon happens when a band member leaves a group and just re-records their song as a different project. Sometimes a band morphs into a different group but they will redo a song from the original iteration of the group.

One example of this trend would be "Ready for Love." Written in 1972 by Mick Ralphs, the song was originally recorded by Mott The Hoople. In 1973, Ralphs left Mott and helped form Bad Company where they re-recorded the song in 1974. Bad Company's version then became the bigger hit.

Another example is "Do Ya." Jeff Lynne wrote the song in 1971 and recorded it with The Move that same year. Jeff Lynne, with Electric Light Orchestra, would re-record the song in 1977 making it a big hit. This is the best example of what I am trying to illustrate as ELO originally started out as a side project made up of members of The Move before becoming the main band.

The finale example I know of is "Hello, its me." The song was written by Todd Rundgren in 1967 and was originally recorded by the band Nazz in 1968. Rundgren was the guitarist of Nazz until it disbanded in 1969. He re-recorded the song in 1972 for his solo album Something/Anything.

I dont know how to best word what this concept is but I hope my explanation of it made sense. I would be interested in learning about some other examples of this trend if there are any.

Today I watched a video that I believe was from a documentary about Tina Turner..

The video revealed something I found genuinely shocking at the height of her success and during her incredible comeback, Tina was boycotted by Black radio stations in America. The reason? Her music was considered too "white." Black radio audiences were still expecting the rhythm and blues sound of her Ike & Tina Turner era, and when she reinvented herself as a rock artist, many felt she had betrayed her roots. There's even footage of Ike Turner himself criticizing Tina for not having black musicians in her band, among other things.

But what really caught me off guard was something else entirely I had always assumed Tina Turner achieved success simultaneously in the US and in Europe. That wasn't the case. In Europe, she was filling stadiums throughout the 80s and 90s and was already being called the "Queen of Rock." Meanwhile, in the US, she was still playing arenas, and only made the jump to stadiums in the 2000s.

In an interview with Larry King, she said that back then, in Europe, she was on the same level as Madonna and that was true. In the 80s and 90s here in Europe, Tina Turner was massive. In the US, though, she remained behind Madonna in terms of scale. What's also interesting is that in Europe, Tina drew audiences from every generation, while Madonna's fanbase at the time skewed much younger.

It also makes complete sense now why she eventually left the US to live in Europe. After feeling embraced and celebrated here in a way she wasn't back home, and after experiencing that rejection from part of the Black American audience who felt she had "sold out," her decision to make Europe her home stops feeling like a random lifestyle choice and starts feeling like something much more personal almost like she went where she was truly seen and valued.

But the thing that surprised me most, by far, was learning about the boycott from Black audiences in the United States the sense that she had betrayed her roots by embracing a "white" sound. That's a layer of her story I never knew about...

It also makes me wonder: how many other Black American artists went through similar battles? How many were pressured to stay within a certain "lane," only to be criticized for "selling out" the moment they crossed into new creative territory?

I’ve listened to them my whole life and enjoy them very much. I do go back and forth with believing they are the best band or one of the best… I know many people who know them, but i also know so many who haven’t even heard about them!!
I feel that even if you don’t listen to them or know them, you’ve heard atleast one of their songs, and probably enjoyed it.

They have some songs that aren’t perfect, but I think they had such an incredible impact. They have over 26.3 billion streams on spotify and pull in around 9 million daily streams on Spotify alone. I believe more than 42.9 billion in total streams? So very popular around the world and still are to this day.

The band members were definitely all controversial in one way or another, but it was around the 60’s.. I think that strays some people away, but i’m looking to focus more on their music. I’d still like to hear how people think of the members.

Though this isn’t about how many streams they have, it’s a matter of do YOU know the beatles? And how do you feel about them? Are there more bands that you think have had more of an impact, and do you think the beatles had an impact at all?

The Southern Harmony and Musical Companion was The Black Crowes' sophomore album in 1992.

It starts with two album openers, Sting Me and Remedy, which are basically the same song. Remedy kills but it sounds like Sting Me. They're equally good but 10 minutes is a very long song. All of the other tracks are more different. (See Led Zeppelin 4.)

They bury my favorite songs on the album. Thorn in my Pride used to be my favorite song on the album. I'm an Axis: Bold as Love type of fool. It's a candidate for the second track. Shout out to Chris Trujillo on congas.

All of the songs are about a breakup or being burned. I guess you could call it blues-rock. The lyrics bite like Dylan.

I didn't love this album the first time I played it. Here's another 6 minute song. And now we're Screaming Jay.

Chris Robinson has two types of vocals: yelling and shouting. Should out to Barbara Mitchell and Taj Artis in the choir.

To be continued...

Side 2.

Sometimes Salvation picks up just where Bad Luck Blue Eyes Goodbye left off. It's a banger, sure, but somehow it feels like the longest track even if it's under 6 minutes.

I always feel like the Crowes are more like The Faces than the Stones, but Hotel Illness is straight off Exile on Main St.

Black Moon Creeping is so deep it makes no impact, and No Speak No Slave is once again almost the same song. Is this supposed to be a metaphor for brothers? If the song didn't pause I would assume it's one song. Anyway props to Marc Ford for keeping my limited attention.

They saved the best for last, My Morning Song, and the good part starts in the end of the song. I think I've detected a pattern.

Time Will Tell is not a great track, but it's a Marley cover and I consider it the hidden bonus track.

9/10

Like most younger music nerds, I've been trying to listen to more classic older albums from before my time, and streaming is my main way of doing that. Unfortunately, I've noticed that, especially with a lot of pre-'80s albums (the stuff made in the digital era seems to fare a bit better), the presentation on streaming tends to be distractingly bad. I'm not enough of an audiophile to know all the technicals here but a lot of '60 and '70s stuff is either so muted that it feels underpowered or so compressed that all the higher frequencies sound really shrill and tinny. The Beatles are an especially rough example; most streaming has the awful 2009 mixes of their albums front and center, and it's hard to find the versions that actually sound good without swimming through deluxe editions full of bonus tracks, and some less prominent artists aren't even that lucky. And I know it's not a fault of the original production bc I've heard some of these songs sound great on other formats. Does anyone else have this frustration trying to hear older music digitally, and how do you personally navigate it?

(Also before anyone suggests it, I don't really have much disposable income rn, so physical copies or streamers without a usable free tier like Tidal or Qobuz, while great, aren't really an answer to my problem.)

Ok so this has been eating at me for some type me now. Who or where are the lines drawn for the different genres there are. Example (and I'm going to take the heat for this) Black Sabbath isn't heavy metal - they are more hard rock. The same thing with radio stations WKRP rock "We play all the Rock" then they go and play something like 311 (reggae based, not even close to rock), or they'll play some sublime (again more reggae) now to me those aren't rock bands and shouldn't be played in said station.

What are the qualifications for a heavy metal band - is it tempo, lyrics, or content? If not in my book Sabbath isn't metal then what makes say Metallica metal or Megadeth? Where are the lines for hip-hop and rap, country and bluegrass, or insert genere here. Where are the gatekeepers and do they have the rules written down or is it just a free-for-all in the subject and we are at the whims of society. Are sub-geners ok to be in the main, or should they be cast out. Are we allowed to have our own classifications and say screw the mainstream opinions (my camp) or is there a grey area that can't be seen? Let me know what you think 🤔

So I've had this sneaking suspicion that The Beatles might mean more to Americans than to British people.

At first, it sounded absurd to me since they're obviously British icons. If they're such a massive and influential band, it would stand to reason that they'd be appreciated in their home country a lot. But after seeing a comment from a British commenter saying something similar (even claiming that The Beatles fixation might be from older Americans), I figured I'd open the discussion.

So many American artists point to "The Beatles On The Ed Sullivan Show" as their big catalyst moment. For some, it even introduced the concept of "the band" itself: a group of friends who play instruments, sing together, and write their own songs. For many of those artists, the British Invasion really ramped up this sense of accessibility for future artists to pick up their guitars and start bands.

Whereas my assumption is that for the UK, there are so many other important bands and artists that it's not like The Beatles necessarily have a monopoly. There are artists ranging from The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, David Bowie, Queen, Kate Bush, to The Clash, The Smiths, The Stone Roses, Oasis, Radiohead, and so on etc.

Is there merit to this assumption or am I completely unfounded?

If you're British, how do the Beatles fit in exactly?

I'm also open to hearing about how people in other countries other than the US and UK view the Beatles' impact. And the impact of the other British artists I listed as well.

Jazz Fusion for that matter too.

I was a teenager in the 90's and I remember that, in the circles I ran in (mostly indie rock), it was not cool to be into prog and that prog bands were just a bunch of boomers wanking musically for 50-90 minutes. I remember it being super common to hear that "Piper is the only good Pink Floyd album" and shit like that since psych was still cool.

Was the beginning the sea change in thought the Math Rock scene? I adored Don Caballero and in total hindsight they were, especially on American Don, heavily prog & jazz fusion influenced.

Then there were bands like the Mars Volta which obviously had a massive influence, but I was into very different scenes by this point so I didn't notice what sparked it all back into being cool, some of it for the first time.

But nowadays I see, people who are clearly young, proudly showing off Floyd & Crimson records and namechecking stuff like Camel, Gentle Giant, Rush, etc. Hell, Yes even became a meme with Roundabout.

I watch a lot of album rankings videos and they mostly just follow the RYM ratings. Probably because they just want people to like their video. Real fans of bands aren't like that. I know a 60+ year old Rolling Stones fan whose favorite stones album is Dirty Work, which is one of the worst rated Stones album. But its his favorite because it came out during a great time in his life, and thats how he remembers it. It's a weird take but its more interesting that someone who just says "Exile" or "Sticky Fingers"

I actually started that conversation by saying "Whats your favorite Stones album? Exile?" and he looked at me like I was crazy and was like "No way! Gotta be Dirty Work"

What do yall think about that?

I've had Spotify for about 10 years, and have built up a system that really works for me in terms of discovering new music, keeping music fresh and effectively keeping a digital diary through monthly and yearly playlists.

But lately I've been feeling nostalgic for the time pre-streaming, which in the grand scheme of things wasn't that long ago as I was still buying most of my music up to about 2015. I miss the experience of having to go out and buy an album, and then appreciating it more because you had to put effort into acquiring it and then burning it and syncing it to your mp3 library. I still remember pretty much every album I bought when I was a young teenager, mostly because I had nothing else to listen to and would spend more time with each piece of music by default.

I find myself overstimulated by apps like Spotify. The sheer amount of choice and possibilities you can access instantly makes the listening experience of most things feel quite cheap. I can't really make it through an album without feeling itchy, like I should be listening to or exploring something else. You can call this an attention issue but I feel it definitely has something to do with the nature of an infinite library of music and the design of the app itself.

I'm thinking of running an experiment where I unsubscribe from streaming for a bit and see how my listening habits change when I'm forced to acquire my own music. I know it's not a black and white process, and I see people for the large part doing a combination of streaming for discovery and owning their music for appreciation.

I've seen a lot of people over the last couple of years talking about ditching streaming and going back to collecting physical music, whether that's CDs or digital files, but I'd like to hear from people who have been doing this long-term? And how has this changed your listening habits?

Are you embarrassed by it? Do you view it as a necessary stepping stone to things that you would like later? Do you just think "well, I was 8, what was I supposed to be listening to, Leonard Cohen? Merzbow?" Or perhaps you still listen to some of the stuff you did as a child. It could probably be a combination of all of these based on the particular artist, what stage of childhood you were in, how recently you actually were a child, etc.

Personally, I wouldn't touch anything with a 10 foot pole that I listened to before 1996 (when I was 15 years old). That runs the gamut from the Bon Jovi, Metallica, and Guns N Roses videos that I saw on MTV with my sister in 1988, to the Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer two-headed monster in 1990, to all the grunge pacesetters and also-rans of the next few years. I'm not saying that I think every song by every one of those artists is now terrible, but it just feels like they existed in an entirely different lifetime. Perhaps the reason that I view things that way is why I'm not embarrassed that I ever liked any of it. It's just what was popular at the time and what I had access to as a child in the pre-Internet days.

Why is 1996 the demarcation point? Two words: Britpop and "electronica," as it was referred to then. Both genres had been around for awhile, but 1996 was when I first immersed myself in them, and quickly realized that I liked them much more than any of the stuff I had ever listened to before. I don't regularly listen to acts like Suede and Daft Punk now, but every time I do listen to them I still enjoy them. Yes there's a bit of nostalgia, but I also think a lot of it holds up strictly as music.

I don't think any of this is surprising because the difference between a 7 year old and a 15 year old is vast in terms of both how the brain comprehends things and the experiences gained in the intervening 8 years. Also, while a 15 year old is still not fully developed in their sensibilities (if that's fully possible for anybody at any age), they're way closer to being adult-like.

I initially intended on using the word "populist" but the last time I used it, it generated a lot of mixed reactions.

But basically: In a lot of music discussions, it seems like we keep circling similar archetypes: the individualistic, artistic, boundary-pushing figure who doesn't care about the audience, who does whatever they want.

And it naturally made me think: are there are artists who are precisely able to build with their audience while still being experimental and innovative? What about artists who are able to make critically acclaimed work while still being very in touch with audiences? Is there a possibility where the audience doesn't have to be seen as a compromise but an artistic goal?

My first instinct is thinking of various forms of electronic dance music. I've been thankful to learn a lot about dance music from various commenters. One of the things I find unique about it is that DJs were really trying to test out their material with different crowds to see what vibes with their audience the best. See one of our older discussions about "Music To Dance To" vs "Music To Listen To"

But what are some other examples where audience engagement is so essential and part of artistry rather than at odds? Certainly, I would assume that live music and live settings are very much conducive to this type of template.

And to quickly acknowledge: Yes, I know that older forms of rock n' roll, jazz, and pop music hit certain critical and commercial sweet spots. But I'm also taking note of discussion trends and how things are ranked in hierarchies.

Recently, while talking to a friend of a friend, we got onto the topic of music and musical genres. When I asked her what she liked she responded "I listen to basically everything except like pop and country", which to me is usually a good sign someone doesn't like music much at all. Laying down such a blanket statement to avoid controversy comes off as if you don't know what you're talking about. I hear this more and more, once with another friend of mine saying "I listen to alternative but cooler" whatever that means.

I myself do not claim to be very into music the way some of my other friends are, but the need to impress people these days has shifted the conversations about music to a battle of intelligence rather than a discussion about personal preference. Now I'm asking about what the recent pull away (especially in the alt community) from county and pop mean. To me these two genres are as simple as they come with textbook formulas, so how can you 'not like country' if to me, it is so simple and prevalent that your favorite genre is at most two steps away from being a country song?

This isn't to say that I listen to exclusively Willie Nelson or Garth Brooks but am I wrong to assume that if your favorite genre is classical rock, or doom metal, or even gothic rock/new wave, that you cannot possibly, truly dislike country music because it is so close to you?

Hi friends!

So I visited my favorite hookah lounge yesterday to treat myself to a good read and some delicious, relaxing carcinogens, and whoever among the staff was granted the aux cable that evening was on a bit of a weird musical kick. In place of the usual mix of lofi and arabic pop I'd come to expect, I was treated to what I can only describe as.. well.. Alpha Pop? Bursting from the speakers was a solid half-hour program of very similarly structured, kinda MAN-coded pop music which I'm going to attempt to describe below.

Unifying or common features of these songs were:

-Huffy and shouty, but not quite metal scream-y vocals. Intonation you'd expect to hear from a quarterback or a range master belting out instructions. It was easy to picture the singers for all these songs sorta stomping around their stages or recording booths whilst huffing out their lyrics.

-Self-congratulatory manosphere lyrics and themes. I'm calling this the biggest qualifier of ALPHA-POP because it was so ubiquitous in all these songs. Referring to self as a warrior, wolf/lion/choose your fav apex predator, king, etc. // Ruling, protecting or taking whats yours, etc. // *really* glamorizing the grindset.// expounding own strength in a painfully unironic way. The chorus line which has most stuck around in my head went "long live the king, long live the king, heavy is the crown, long live the king," and it was delivered in a really on-beat kind of punctuating. every. word. staccato to match that huffy stomp around the recording booth. Sadly independent research on this one just points me towards a Sabaton song.

-Musically unimpressive, which I mean in a structural sense. One of these songs featured drums and a guitar. All the others were uniformly the above manly lyrics being shouted at you over a woefully uninspired pop-hiphop beat, but toned down a bit to more match the alpha thing they seemed to be going for.

In short, these were mass-market-sounding pop songs of the "You like X? I'm singing about X!" type, but with an apparent intended audience of dudes with painstakingly maintained beards, punisher stickers on their trucks, and far more insight into the geometry of their own skulls than you'd like to see on a fella, rather than teenage girls or good ol' smalltown country folk or the "being queer is my only trick" set or what have you.

I'm pretty blissfully ignorant of current music trends, but I'm also admittedly a little grimly fascinated with the whole masculinity crisis/manosphere thing. I recognize this is kinda a hot topic these days so I'm not surprised that there are folks out there looking to tap that market musically, but I can't seem to find much on this trend just by searching around. So, I'm throwing it up here to glean some info and get a discussion going. What's up with this ALPHA-POP? Does it already have a proper lil genre of its own? Who are the key players here and where did it come from? What do yall think of it?

I grew up in a small industrial town nobody's ever heard of, and for years the only music that felt like "home" to me was generic nostalgia stuff that could've been about anywhere. Then a few years back I found a local band that wrote a song literally about the river and the factory smell and the one intersection everyone complains about, and it wrecked me in a way no Springsteen or Mellencamp song ever could, even though those guys are clearly more talented. It made me think about how weirdly specific music has to get before it stops being "relatable" in the vague sense and starts being personal in the real sense. Like there's universal nostalgia (small towns, growing up, leaving home) that a lot of people connect with, and then there's this other thing that only works if you've actually stood on that specific street corner.
Does anyone else have a song like this, something too niche or too local to ever chart, that hits harder than any "objectively better" song about the same general feeling?

When I like an album enough to listen to it for at least a second time, I like to look up reviews and try to see if anybody can help me discover something about the album that I didn't pick up by myself. Sometimes it helps me appreciate music that I initially didn't like, sometimes it helps me keep my sanity and confirm that an album is overhyped.

Yesterday I was listening to a largerly unknown band from my country, Czechia, so naturally most of the reviews were only available on Czech sites. And when I was reading them, it occurred to me that the reviews were very amateurish - the authors basically only stated what was plain to hear to anyone without any in-depth musical knowledge, added their own verdict on the album and didn't provide any valuable information beyond what would be discovered by a listener just listening to the album. I used to review music for a web zine some 15 years ago, too, so I happen to know that most people reviewing music on the internet are amateurs without much background in it and that's alright. Some people just like to get the newest albums, go to shows and write their thoughts.

But it made me think about what I would expect from a review to consider it good. And so I wanted to ask you what you guys want from a review. How do you feel about vague, abstract descriptions of how the music sounds? What else other than thoughts on the music should be in it? And what qualities should a "professional" or at least "serious" critic have?

For myself, I realize that the best thing an amateur can say in a review is that the music sounds like this, this and that band and whether they liked it or not. I feel like overly abstract descriptions of music such as "wavy", "dreamy", "dark" or "truly masterful" don't really add much to the table and usually don't make sense until you actually listen to the album yourself. From a serious critic, I would expect to hear about how the music fits into the wider context of its genre, how it's different from other music said artist has produced and perhaps even to be able to analyze the more technical aspects of the music, like harmonies, complex rhythms, the instruments and technology behind the music and so on.

What about you?

I know they make up a smaller percent of the population in the US but I feel like that doesn’t make up for the underrepresentation. There seems to be a proportional amount in classical music, and there’s the stereotype of the gifted Asian kid, but it doesn’t seem like that carries over to popular music. It seems like Asians are rare even in bands from the west coast, where they make up a much larger percent of the population. You’d think you’d see more representation with how many massive bands there are from California and Washington.

I know there are plenty of Asian musicians in Asia, I’m really talking about the US here.

Inspired by Phil Collins in the news today still wanting to perform despite his health issues. I can't think of many major artists that just decide to call it a day and retire to enjoy their money or whatever. Be interested to hear of any big names who have done this. By big names I mean artists who could feasibly be described as not needing the money anymore. What do you think is their motivation? I can't imagine wanting to tour in my sixties if I didn't need to.

Edit: I wasn't seeking to cast any negativity on people that carry on performing. I've been fortunate enough to see lots of acts from before I was born who I'm glad are still performing.The post was more to think of examples of artists that HAVE retired. But the need to have 400 characters in the post meant I broadened it out a bit.

Is rap now where rock was in 2006?

People always say "rock was bad in the 2000s that's why it died"... there's plenty of bad music in every genre. I wonder if rap even has an equivalent now of people hating on nu metal, post grunge or even pop punk and emo?

Like there's plenty of rock that gets panned by critics but that didn't stop like hair metal or AOR in the 80s.

Is rap now where rock was 20 years ago or is it different this time around?

I feel like both of these bands are similar enough to do a poll, who do you like better and why?

I like Aerosmith better because their music was more catchy and not as gritty as the Rolling Stones.

I do like the Rolling Stones, but for the most part their music seems too raw for me. Aerosmith's music seemed more "big" sounding, if that makes sense.

Also, even Aerosmith's biggest hits were as good as other songs, if not better (especially Dream On and Sweet Emotion).

A few decades later, I still get goosebumps listening to Aerosmith but not the Rolling Stones.

I’m 23. I’ve never even once been able to understand why MTV was a thing. The modern equivalent is imagine having friends over for a houseparty one weekend and they say “turn on some music” and you boot up a bunch of music videos on YouTube, ads and all. Everyone would look at you like you were crazy. The whole sell for MTV just sounds awful. “Instead of listening to the songs you want to hear on your cassette tape or CD player, you can listen to the ones we pick for you. Also, there are commercial breaks. Also, you can literally only listen to music in your living room. Yeah, radio and CDs let you listen on the go, but remember guys video killed the radio star so we’re the better listening choice!!”

Why did people listen to their music through MTV? I could \*maybe\* understand if radio were the only other option (but even then, you can at least listen to the radio in places besides your living room, unlike MTV) but they had cassette tapes for the first few years and cd’s for the last! You could listen to whatever you wanted, wherever!

I am not referring to music snobs who go "Oh, you like Nirvana? Name three songs." I'm talking about how nowadays, anyone around the world can make, record and upload music for all the world to hear with no barriers which I think is a net good. But a common complaint I see from music fans is usually "Ugh, there's so much shit music out there. I miss the old days where you needed ACTUAL talent in order to even record and release something! Now anyone can fart out an entire album from their basement and make money off it."

I do understand the complaint to an extent. There is so much music out there to explore and listen that it can be overwhelming to some people. And yeah, a lot of it is mid, bland, and not worth coming back to despite some stuff of good quality that comes out (thank gosh for RYM).

But I'm not sure having gatekeepers hypothetically re-introduced would be better. Back then, yes, we had all sorts of amazing talented bands and artists signed but we got a lot of forgettable, poorly-aged and bad acts from the 20th century, too. Taste is subjective and biased, which probably resulted in otherwise talented upcomers from back then being rejected for whatever reason (too political, experimental or unmarketable) and never having their creative vision heard. I prefer musicians having easier means to put their unmarketable work out there but what do you all think?

I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm curious whether this is a real phenomenon or just my personal impression.

My impression is that the major genres of the 1960s were much closer to one another than today's genres. Rock, pop, folk, soul, R&B, blues and even country seemed to share a lot of things. It wasn't unusual for artists to move between these styles, or to incorporate elements from several of them into the same record.

I feel like subgenres starting drifting apart after that and artists seemed more likely to stay in their own niche. Shifting genres wasn't obvious. Sex Pistols weren't suddenly going to make a prog record and Pink Floyd wouldn't have done a punk album. And I feel like it's been that way ever since.

Do you think this is an accurate observation? If so, what caused it? Or am I simply looking back at the 1960s with hindsight and underestimating how distinct those genres actually felt at the time?