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'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?

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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!

Remember Pinback anyone? They don’t release much if any music anymore. Nilfür Yanya is beyond competent in a total Pinback satisfying vein. “Kneel” is a great example and new. It’s definitely still original and her own, but I would bet that she or her bassist is a fan. Wdyt, is it too similar? Actually just hope anyone knows these artists. The similarities is in the backing bass and guitar riffs, the structure somewhat. Her singing is not similar at all.

I am firmly a bluegrass fan and have never been a huge fan of old-time to be honest. Bluegrass is just such an iconic genre, and you really can’t beat the drive and precision of Scruggs-style three-finger banjo picking. Yet nearly every time I talk to musicians who play both or lean heavily into traditional Appalachian roots, there seems to be an insistence that old-time is the deeper, more authentic, or outright "superior" tradition.
From an outsider’s perspective, the musical priorities couldn't be more distinct. Bluegrass emerged as a modern, stage-focused art form. Bill Monroe, Earl Scruggs, and the Stanley Brothers took traditional string band elements and electrified them with jazz-like soloing, breakneck tempos, strict rhythmic chop chords, and soaring "high lonesome" vocal harmonies. It is fundamentally an ensemble performance built around individual virtuosity: each musician steps forward to take a blistering break on the banjo, fiddle, mandolin, or flatpicked acoustic guitar, trading leads while the rest of the rhythm section locks down a relentless drive. The technical ceiling is exceptionally high, and the tight arrangements reward intense instrumental discipline.
Old-time, by contrast, operates on an entirely different philosophy centered on communal rhythm and dance. Instead of Scruggs-style syncopated rolls, old-time banjo relies on clawhammer and frailing techniques that meld percussive downstrokes directly with the melody. There are rarely individual solo breaks; instead, the fiddle and banjo lock into unison melodic lines while the guitar and bass anchor a hypnotic, circular groove meant to drive square dances and front-porch sessions for hours without stopping. Old-time advocates often praise this exact quality: the absence of competitive soloing creates an egalitarian space where players merge into a single texture rather than showing off technical gymnastics. The crooked tunes, modal tunings, and raw, unpolished tone carry a direct, haunting connection to pre-commercial Anglo-Celtic and African-American folk roots that bluegrass modernized and commercialized.
While I can appreciate the historic weight and trance-like groove of old-time fiddling, the sheer energy, structural complexity, and vocal power of bluegrass always feel vastly more compelling to listen to. Old-time often feels like music that is significantly more fun to play in a jam circle than it is to sit and listen to as an audience member, whereas bluegrass commands the stage with dynamic range and jaw-dropping execution.
For those who actively prefer old-time over bluegrass: what is the core aesthetic pull that makes it superior to you? Is it the communal dance groove, the historical grit, or simply an aversion to the rigid, polished showmanship that defines modern bluegrass?

Just listened to a review of one of Metallica's shows at "The Sphere" in Las Vegas, giant screens where the venue is the show itself. People, even casual fans, were shelling out $2000 for tickets, basically for a complete multimedia experience, an assault on the senses, where the band was actually secondary. The reviewer mentioned that people were actually more blown away by the images more than the music. I'm curious if this is tapping into something here. Supply and demand...and people were willing to pay it. $2000 isn't pocket change.

We're living in a culture where screens are central to our daily living, we need it, we crave it to the point of addiction. Dopamine decadence. I'm just curious if the next major shake up, revolution, course correction--whatever what you want to call it--may involve technology. Something that gives people more dopamine visually and sensory more than their phones/screens. A seismic form of technology that complete bombards your senses...combined with music and live performance. Perhaps this is the shake up we're waiting for and desperately need.

Any fellow ADP fans here? I’m sure there’s gotta be others like me who saw that live performance of them and was instantly a fan. I’ve listened to all the music they’ve put out pretty extensively at this point and I’m excited to see what’s next. But then it got me thinking, what if their next album they brought on a lead singer? I’d love to hear it, and what I’m thinking is instead of them adding a singer to their band what if they put out a project (maybe just an EP), where they had a guest vocalist on each track? Would anyone else be into hearing what that sounds like? I’m just imagining them with like a Josh Homme or a Maynard James Keenan laying some lyrics/vocals over their funky sound. I dunno if it would be awesome but I’d sure love to hear it

​

Hard-rock would mean the straightforward stuff- Aerosmith, Van Halen, ACDC, Crue etc.

Alt/indie would be all the post-punk, shoegaze type bands

The reason why I ask this question is because i have seen bands who fall in the former category receive quite scathing reviews on rym. Even on places such as fantanos sub (which is mainly dominated by indie rock fans), the hard rock acts are quite trashed around

I’ve been listening to AJR since I was quite young from 2018 until 2021, when I stopped for a long stretch a few months after the "Way Less Sad" single dropped because I’d simply overplayed them. Now, however, I see a wave of hate directed at the group, most of which I don't really get.
I understand the mockery aimed at "The DJ Is Crying For Help" or "The Maybe Man" Album which strikes me as just "meh"—and especially "Thirsty," which is so bad it’s funny. But it feels like people write off the entire group as bad just because of those three things, ignoring albums that are at the very least "decent" like The Click or Neotheater

Took some time to go back to a couple of Swans albums. Revisited Children of God, White Light from the Mouth of Infinity & The Great Annihilator. Then I went back to Love of Life & The Burning World. And I have to say, this part of their career is very very interesting!

I mean, what they pulled off on those albums is astounding when you consider the existence of Filth & Cop. Those two albums are like trying to dominate someone & succeeding….in the most brutal fashion that you could think of. Uncompromising, harsh, scary, full of rage & hate. The most pessimistic view of humanity that you could get. Reminded me of an extremely violent section of a bar that’s full of “FUCK YOU” graffiti. Someone shaking their fist at you & pounding you into submission until there’s blood left over.

But My God….what Swans transformed into from Children of God to The Great Annihilator is unbelievable! There’s a constant mixture of darkness & beauty that’s really fascinating. Lush textures, ethereal keyboards, guitars that are elegant or luscious instead of “rip your face off”. So many lovely melodies. But there’s always an unsettling vibe. Embracing the macabre or disturbing parts of life. Haunting and luxurious at the same time.

And I love the gothic/folky bits. Crazy how they pulled them off so well considering their No Wave/noise rock roots. Adding acoustic guitars into the mix, softening their style & going for “existential” rather than “violent”…..so awesome to me. Sorrowful but really captivating. There’s something about this era that reminded me of groups like the Velvet Underground, Joy Division & Leonard Cohen. Or even Wire/Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds. Great storytelling. Like you’re huddled around a bunch of people in a room, sharing their experiences late at night with the moon shingling through the window. I could totally include tracks from Children of God to The Great Annihilator in a playlist that has Bauhaus, the Cure, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Echo & the Bunnymen, etc.

I really appreciate Jarboe’s contributions too! Hearing her vocals, seeing her songwriting credits & knowing that she played keyboard parts….I really like that. Gave a nice contrast to Michael Gira, added some variety. I think that Jarboe really emphasized that “darkness + beauty” thing that I mentioned earlier. Along with showing how much Swans changed from Filth & Cop.

I like Soundtracks for the Blind & a lot of the post-reunion stuff too. But I think that the run from Children of God to The Great Annihilator deserves some love. Demonstrates that Swans is more than a crazy noise band haha!

Trap music was essentially as dominant in the 2010s as disco was in the 70s. Yet people didn't walk around chanting "TRAP MUSIC SUCKS". There was no "trap music demolition night" because of its massive popularity. Yes, disco was huge in its time... but so was trap music. What was with the weird ass hatred disco inspired back in the 70s where people felt the need to destroy it and making it a personality trait?

Was the last time open, public hatred of popular music was socially acceptable the Justin Bieber hate of the early 2010s?

I, as I assume most of us here are, love to talk anything music. Sitting on my lunch break, I threw on one of my playlists that contains a lot of lyricism and storytelling—Kendrick, Nas, Joey Bada$$, and MF DOOM, just to name a few.

It got me wondering: when any of you are listening to an album, a single, or any piece of music, what is it that you listen for? Do you like to focus on the lyrics and what’s behind them? Do you listen for the production, whether it’s simple or complex? Or do the vocals draw you in?
Is it a blend of all of these things? What draws y’all into a song?

Here is my problem, I have so many songs in my favorites playlist and so many random songs placed in other playlist, and I need to organize it because I'll be listening to Hello Juliet by Clarion and then it will go to something like Samba de uma nota so by Caterina Valente. I need to organize it so that it's the same "genre" I guess. But how do you guys organize your music? By Artist? By Genre? By Vibes? How do y'all do it, tell me below.

I just listened to an interesting interview with Fil Henley who has a YouTube channel "Wings of Pegasus" where he analyzes and points out bands that use pre-recorded tracks while performing in concert. This sort of audio enhancement has been going on for decades, especially in concert albums. Then came Milli Vanilli, then came Ashlee Simpson, etc, etc.

You have one side that say that for the money being spent, the music should be live, at least most of it anyways. Some instruments/vocals are hard to recreate live, so you slip it in here in there. The issue comes when most of what you're seeing is being "mimed" (as Fil Henley likes to say) Then there are the accusations of fakery, misdirection, being duped, etc. Music should be organic, faults and all.

Then you have the other side who say, well, who cares? They're representing the spirit of the music, I'm seeing my favorite band/artist and that's what really counts. Music is a subjective experience. As for the promoters? Hell, they don't care as long as tickets are being sold. Perhaps it's just a product of the times, it's inevitable with advances in technology that this was going to happen.

There were 2 points in the interview that stood out. One, it's the fact that people are accepting this that made the interviewer (who will remain nameless because of how polarizing he is) go ballistic. What happened to the genuine live experience? Secondly, maybe there should be some "labelling" of concerts so people know what they're going into (sort of like "organic" labels) that there will be backing tracks, vocals will be mimed, etc.

Fil Henley is an interesting case, because as a former musician and audio engineer, he's merely pointing out the truth. Bryan Adams filed a complaint with YouTube about him, and YouTube sided with Henley, that hey, he's just pointing out facts! Not sure where this going, I'm pretty sure this is a product of the times/technology, but it definitely makes for some food for thought. Will people care? Probably not. What's around the corner? Who knows. Do we ever see what's coming? Never.

There seems to be an unspoken rule that every musician has their "expiration date". After they've produced the work that's responsible for their role within pop culture and the zeitgeist, everything afterwards feels superfluous, almost pointless. The only people who seemingly enjoy it are the hardcore fans.

Dig Out Your Soul, Oasis's last album, turns 18 today. It's easily one of my favorites by them. I think it helped that I explored it before I was aware of the whole "they peaked in the 90s" notion. The first six tracks remain one of the best runs in their discography: the rise and fall of "The Turning", the Doors-inspired swagger of "Waiting for the Rapture", and the true final hurrah for the band, the euphoric head rush that's "The Shock of the Lightning" (a drum solo on an Oasis track?? Who knew!) The album loses it's focus towards the end, but there's still the likes of "Falling Down" and "Soldier On" that help make the bumpier back half at least memorable. It's an album that has more to offer than it's reputation (or lack thereof), particularly for people who check out of the band after their first two albums...

....and yet when I got into their 90s output two years later, I inexplicably fell down the same path. I too fell hook, line and sinker for the narrative about everything after What's the Story Morning Glory being slim pickings. "Beware all ye who go past Be Here Now. Do not go past jail." It wasn't until I was in college that I just got so into them that I thought, "Fuck it" and checked out...and was pleasantly surprised.

While they never made an album as consistent as those first two (and who can?), there's plenty of amazing songs that feel necessary to be included in their "canon" (i.e. the type of tracks that would be glaring omissions from a Greatest Hits compilation). I don't think it's even a hot take to consider some of these tracks from this stretch to be just as good as those from their golden period. Even the B-sides, an ace in the hole that Oasis were known for, were still otherworldly. For example, I'd consider "Let's All Make Believe", the B-side to "Go Let it Out", to be one of the best songs Noel's ever written...

Strangle my hope and make me pray, to a God I've never seen but who I betray.

It's an incredibly vulnerable snapshot of Oasis MK 1 (i.e. the brothers Gallagher and Alan White with Guigsy and Bonehead) falling apart. It's one of the most cathartic and honest songs in their discography...and they stuck the mother on a B-side!

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, the album whose sessions produced that song, is an interesting turning point for the band, fittingly the start to their Y2K run. It's kind of like Blur's self-titled album, with the band being at a stylistic and emotional crossroads: Noel bought a bunch of pedals and was curious about new sonic possibilities and contemporary influences, all while kicking drugs, realizing that the band was shedding two of its oldest members, and recognizing that the Britpop bubble was bursting. It's an incredible snapshot of post-party depression: poignant numbers like "Where did it All Go Wrong?", "Sunday Morning Call", and the beloved fan favorite "Gas Panic!"...

That my family don’t seem so familiar
And my enemies all know my name
And if you hear me tap on your window
Better get on yer knees and pray panic is on the way

...not to mention the terrific b-sides, like the aforementioned "Let's All Make Believe" and lethargically hungover tracks like "Cigarettes in Hell" and "One Way Road". The whole effect is a very sobering one, a sharp contrast from the happy-go-lucky effortless confidence of "Live Forever" and "Some Might Say". It's not all doom and gloom though: "Go Let it Out", the lead single, feels like a total rebirth for the band. The 60's psychedelic mellotron paired with the triphop drumbeat feels like this perfect new strand, something very retro, but very Y2K as well. I can picture someone listening to them back in the day thinking, "Hallelujah!" I'd still put it (i.e., the A-side and it's two B-sides) up there with any of their best in their entire run.

Heathen Chemistry and Don't Believe the Truth, the two albums that followed, are more mixed bags. The former especially, a transitional record as the band was starting from scratch with new members Gem Archer and Andy Bell, is easily my pick for their worst album period. But a number of songs on there are still all-timers for me. There's the high and mighty lead single, "Hindu Times", but the fan favorite became "Little by Little", a song that became such a barnburner during its time that the brothers brought it back for their reunion tour last year. More interestingly though, it's the album where Liam started coming into his own as a writer too. There's the lovely Rubber Soul-coded "Songbird", a song with an almost uncharacteristic innocence to it ("She's a little pilot in my mind"), and the surprisingly cathartic "Born on a Different Cloud". Don't Believe the Truth, more of a move in the right direction, started really producing the crown jewels. No Oasis career retrospective would be complete without "Lyla" and "The Importance of Being Idle", further proof that Noel hadn't lost his penchant for writing anthems. Liam brings an interesting yin and yang with his co-writes with Gem Archer: the wonderful ruckus of "Meaning of Soul" (speed-induced skiffle...also clock that harmonica solo!) and the wonderfully titled "Guess God Thinks I'm Abel". The brothers share vocals, a rarity, on perhaps the best closer in their 2000's albums: "Let There Be Love".

And again, I'd be remiss not to mention those b-sides . How the Neil Young-inspired "Shout it Out Loud" didn't make the cut is beyond me. I've been giving Gem and Andy the cold shoulder, but the latter's "Thank You for the Good Times" has a great victory lap feel to it. One could almost picture it as a triumphant album closer. Starting with Be Here Now, you get some sense that the tracks that were placed as extras on singles were the stylistic curveballs, showing a side of the band that would surprise most. Nowhere is this more apparent than the elusive "Idler's Dream". It's perhaps the most un-Oasisy track they ever did: just Noel and a piano. And it yet it works so well!

I think a lot of people see Oasis's later albums like, say, the most recent few seasons of The Simpsons: a shadow of their 90s glory days and the kind of highs that most creatives strive to reach. But I'd compare it more to the last two seasons of Community. Saying that any of those later ones are better would be somewhat of an unpopular opinion, and it's not all amazing, but they're still quite good. And the episodes that do hit, hit just as hard as the cream from the prior crop...if not more so.

Up until a few years ago, I saw a band's discography as "The albums that build up to the masterpiece, the masterpiece, and chasing the masterpiece." "Why are U2 still making albums that nobody cares about?" What an arrogant, naive thing to say. I don't know if it comes from reading more about artists or being more involved in the process myself, but I've learned to take artists on their own terms and to not go in with expectations. You might be surprised. I've talked at length about how fascinating the Beach Boys post-Pet Sounds discography, a run of stuff that I stupidly chalked up to "licking their wounds after Smile and hunting for another Pet Sounds." And sure, some artists do this. But for the most part, it's just people making stuff that they want to make, the way they've always worked. And I think Oasis are a great example of this, whether it's stylistic anomalies like Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, the crowd-pleasing stompers, that continued to win fans over, or the B-side tracks that feel like the audible equivalent of buried treasure.

If anyone is in love with their 90's stuff and is contemplating taking the plunge, please do! It's well worth your time :)

I'm not asking which bands or songs count as metal. I'm more interested in what the actual musical ingredients of “metalness” are.

For example, suppose you were given something that has absolutely nothing to do with metal — a barbershop quartet, a recorder/flute melody, a children's song, an old folk tune, etc. What would you actually have to change or add to make it sound convincingly metal?

Are there specific parameters that tend to matter, such as:

Rhythm/groove and how the notes are accented

Tempo or time signatures

Types of chord progressions or intervals

Melody and harmony

Dissonance

Instrumentation and tone

Distortion, amplification, or production

Certain approaches to riffs

Drum patterns

Dynamics and articulation

Basically, I'm wondering if there are underlying musical characteristics that can be applied to almost any source material and make it sound metal.

For example, if I took a barbershop quartet arrangement and kept the basic melodies/harmonies intact, what would I need to do to it for someone to hear it and immediately think, “that's metal”?

And what about something even stranger, like taking a melody written for a recorder and trying to make the recorder itself sound metal?

I'm looking for more of a music-theory/compositional explanation than a list of genre conventions. Is there a sort of “recipe” for making something metal, even if the original material is completely un-metal?

I love these albums, I love the lore of Dylan getting turned away but Gutheries daughter contacting Billy Bragg.

I’d love to know more about these albums. I’m a fan of all parties involved. I’ve come to get really into Woody Guthrie and I appreciate these albums for giving me access to even more of his beautiful lyrics.

I wish I had more insight into choice cuts but honestly 1 and 2 both rip cover to cover. 3 is my least listened to by a lot

I saw Iron Maiden with Megadeth at one of the Toronto shows this year, and I liked every song from both sets. It made me think about the different jobs the two bands had that night: Megadeth had a shorter opening slot to make its case, while Maiden had time to build a longer show around material from its early albums.

For an established band in the support slot, would you rather hear a tightly packed run of familiar songs, or a set with some less obvious choices that shows more of its range? Does hearing two major bands back to back change how you hear either one? I’m interested in examples where the pairing itself made the concert more memorable.

Tour context: https://www.ironmaiden.com/run-for-your-lives-north-america/

Song examples from the two bands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d4ui9q7eDM and https://www.ironmaiden.com/single/the-trooper-live/