r/LetsTalkMusic

For example I will see posts on instagram of new bands or artists and I'll see plenty of hate in the comments even if they aren't that bad, and unfortunatelly I have to admit I feel this too sometimes. It's like there is the urge to stop any new creators from becoming popular, because "I'm already familiar with everyone who's currently famous, and I don't want to have to get used to someone new"

Or maybe because musians become succesful through social media nowadays it doesn't feel like they are special like how they used to be. In the past musicians were on TV or you would find their music in record stores, there were on a different level to your average person and there was no questioning their fame or skill, but now it's through gaming the social media algorhithm or having some strange gimic that gives you 10 seconds of fame, and it feels inauthentic, because "I could do that too, if only I was lucky with my posts on social media"

Does anyone else resonate with anything I've mentioned?

I know some ppl who simply don’t like listening to music but they read, watch smth and have interests in general. I’m thinking about ppl who prefer listening super simple song, without trying to search for something better. Or ppl who thinks that music in charts might be better than less popular
artists, just because it’s popular, without any other reasons. From my perspective music is one of the things that shows our personality, emotions or what we’ve experienced before. What’s your take?

This is somewhat anecdotal, but has anyone noticed that Kanye West and Kendrick Lamar are by far the most popular rap artists among music nerds and critics?

The website Best Ever Albums compiles user lists and critics lists to determine the greatest albums of all time, and they also have a list of greatest artists based on their performance on the albums list.

Both Kanye and Kendrick are in the top 20, and no other rap artists appear in the top 100.

I'm just curious about this discrepancy. Eminem used to be loved among both critics and the general public but his stock has fallen in recent years. Jay-Z is rated high by establishment critics but less so among music nerds. Public Enemy, Run-DMC and the Beastie Boys used to be rated highly by Rolling Stone and the like but less so now.

Do you have any thoughts or opinions as to why these two are so far ahead?

So, I was looking at another post on the musicians sub and started to think about this.

A lot of musicians out there are somewhat fixated on music marketing strategies online, I think, and I just don't think that most of them are relevant to their current level of success.

Somewhat notoriously, musicians make an average of $0.004 per stream on Spotify. That's a grand total of $4,000 per million streams. You'd need seven and a half times that annually to even be making what is barely even a living wage at $15 an hour before tax.

On SoundCloud, musicians make on average $0.0025 to $0.004 per stream. SoundCloud is, of course, a bit different in purpose than Spotify, which is how it has skirted a bit of the flak in this regard, but, it's, anyways, slightly, but significantly actually less than Spotify.

Perhaps, for someone with different interests, it could be a bit more, but, on my bandcamp fan page, the highest number of sales in a given collection is around 1,000. Even if every person, which probably doesn't usually happen, pays $20 for the album, that's still only $20,000, which obviously wouldn't be coming in annually.

YouTube will pay between $0.001 and $0.005 per stream for a music video, which, again, is comparable to Spotify.

In the best of all possible worlds, if an act has multiple albums on bandcamp which are selling well, say, for a total of $10,000, je ne sais pas, three million YT views in a given year for $9,000, and another four million streams total on SC and Spotify for $14,000, that's still just barely over $30K at $33K and it's also probably entirely lacking in sustainability.

So, even if they're really quite lucky, most musicians just aren't making any real money online.

Yet, many musicians are rather concerned with trying to figure out how to game these kind of music marketing data matrixes. What I have to wonder is as to why.

The most plausible explanation is that they just don't know that sharing your music online is not generally profitable.

Another possible explanation is that they suspect that it still somehow matters. It may, and I am sure, on some level, does, matter to a major record label or their subsidiaries because they look at these statistics to try and figure out what has a good chance of success. Independent labels, to a lesser degree, may also do the same.

The thing about this, however, is that very few labels, major or otherwise, even accept demos and, if they do accept demos, it's more out of a general curiosity than it is to realistically find bands whom they're terribly willing to sign. To my own personal experience and general madness, I feel like I can say this with relative certainty.

If your online portfolio is only going to matter so much for your demo submission and the submissions are mostly pointless, anyways, the only way you're realistically going to be breaking out is either if you know someone already or a scout shows up at one of your shows.

Assuming that you don't know anyone, which, if you did, why would you care about any of this, what you're effectively still banking on is being and the right place in the right time and putting on a good show.

So, rather than concerning yourself with maximalizing your online presence at all, what you ought to be doing is what every moderately successful musician tells you to be doing, which is to create good music, play good shows, and to reasonably promote them.

All that your online presence is going to do for you is to cast a wider net of people who will either know or discover who you are before coming to see you live. True internet sensations are all too few and far between.

So, assuming that the real goal ought to be to get people in the venue when you play out, what, then, is "reasonable" promotion?

If you're playing local shows, you should make a flier for the show and post it around the city. You should also scan said flier, post it on your own pages, a community page or two that is designed for people to promote events like this, and, if the venue does not have a website or has not done so on their own social media account already and is also willing to let you do so, on their wall or whatever as well. If you play an open mic, you can also mention it briefly. That's basically it. It costs very little and should only take about a day or so. If you're music is good and you put on a good show, people will come out. As you play more and more, you might be able to get into larger venues, in which case, things may change, but, until you've become established within a given scene, there's just little to no need for you to consider any marketing aspects aside from the base DIY minimum.

What's good about having a music video on YouTube, uploading your music to bandcamp or SoundCloud, or whatever else is that it lets people out there engage with your music before coming to the show. No music marketing metrics are going to matter to you unless you've already come out of an established scene and are now a successful touring musician. You could be the next MIA, I guess, but it's really a pretty goddamn longshot.

Over-marketing is also just a bit off-putting. If someone invites me to a show at an open mic, I'll consider going to it, but, if they tell me to follow them on Instagram, then I will surely never respect them as a musician ever again.

Maybe I'm just a purist, though, idk?

Hi guys and gals, im 24M from Europe, and i freaking love Country music especially, dark country, some Johnny Cash, White Buffalo, Heavy Horses.

I play that kind of music here almost everywhere, my circle of friends is also into that kind of music. What im trying to say is people enjoy listening that music here and also in bars where i play, but, what got me thinking is, if i start making my own kind of American Dark Country, is it going to be stupid, i don’t even know why, maybe this question is stupid, but idk just because im not American maybe some folks will think im trying to be someone or smth, thank yall.

What the title says. To make this more interesting lets say the band or musician is aware of what they're doing and is doing is to "speak for the people" or music for the people and not fame, something like that. How would you feel? Will you reject their purpose? Or would you respect them? I dont know if bands like those exist or something that really isnt a problem the thought kinda just popped in my head.

I posted already today and it was incredible the responses i got but I want to see some more opinions and see if I word it in a better way! so here goes:

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how rock music has always felt like such a masculine genre culturally, even though there have always been incredible women in it.

When people picture “rock stars,” it still feels like most of us instinctively imagine men first aggressive stage presence, rebellion, chaos, masculinity etc. Even growing up, most of the rock imagery I was exposed to was heavily male-dominated. Like even the fan base was men with beers and long hair idk

For women who listen to rock (or play music themselves), do you think female representation in rock has influenced the way you see femininity, confidence, identity, or gender roles at all?

Do female rock artists feel genuinely represented within the genre now, or are women still treated differently to men in rock culture/music spaces?

I’d also love to know if there are any female artists/bands that changed your perception of women in music or made you feel seen in some way.

With the release of Iceman, and the other two albums alongside it , it feels like we’ve reached a tipping point where it’s difficult to deny his placement among the genre's all-time greats.

Looking at his trajectory over the last decade and a half, his ability to bridge the gap between commercial dominance and genuine sonic curation especially with the atmospheric production choices on this latest record is incredibly rare.

Beyond the streaming numbers, how do we critically evaluate his longevity, his influence on the sonic landscape of the 2010s and 2020s, and his fusion of R&B and rap?

I, myself am very inspired by classic and modern day female rock musicians. They were and are breaking gender expectations and I feel they are a strong inspiration for many young women regarding identity, sexuality and the patriarchy. BUT with the new rise of pop stars, influencers and rappers in the new age have we lost that spark of inspiration to be more messy, chaotic, angry, rebellious? I fear that we are reverting back to an age where we idolise traditional ideas of a woman and their place in society. Everything online (like tiktok and your popstars) tells us to be clean and holistic. Whilst being healthy is a great thing obv, why are we pushing this need for perfection back onto women? I think rock as a whole is falling behind as a genre. I mean how many people really honestly care about and listen to female rock musicians nowadays? (Who didn't grow up in the prime era of rock and roll.) I might be rambling but for so long we as a sex fought for a place in the genre to write and create not be limited to a groupie or a muse. That influence and inspiration was vital to the young female identity and fucking the patriarchy but now it feels like its fucking us and we are losing that spark of individuality and messiness that was so integral to the way we perceived genders and the stereotypes surrounding them! Thoughts??

I don't really have a message to convey here. It's only that I saw the movie Michael a few weeks ago with my wife and daughters. It got me playing his music again and thinking about him. Michael Jackson was my first musical idol, after Bad came out. He was the ultimate pop icon at the time (I discovered Prince not long after). I grew up and my musical tasted changed quickly. By the time Dangerous was released, I already had gone through a Queen and Guns n Roses phase, and around that time I got blown away by Smells like teen spirit, grunge and much more alternative music. Michael was a thing of the past for me.

These days, I still LOVE the albums Off the Wall and Thriller, the happier Michael with classic dance pop songs. I think after that, his life and his music took a turn for the worse. His music and his voice became angrier, more mechanical, the lyrics more paranoid, his vocal tics and mannerism increasing. The joy left his voice. Is there a song from Dangerous onwards where he sounds joyful or carefree? The way you make me feel might be the last of the mohicans. He seems to have only two default modes: the angry, paranoid, defensive songs (Leave me alone, Scream, Ghost, They don't care about us (great song btw)) and sappy/mournful songs. Imho Michael Jackson got stuck, in his private life and in his music.

In his 90s and 00s output, there is one song that really stands out for its heartfelt emotion and musical power, and that is Stranger in Moscow. Here, the musical accompaniment is not overwhelming or overbearing, but subtle, giving his voice space to shine. The song and the lyrics are very emotional, heartfelt and relatable. His voice beautiful and vulnerable. For me, it conveys the essence of Michael's later years, a ray of light of simplicity and honesty through all the musical bluster and the 30 meter high Michael Jackson statue on a boat on the Thames (portrayed on the HIStory album sleeve). It's a portrait of loneliness and loss, maybe he mourns his lost childhood and/or his lost innocence (the abuse allegiations against him started in 1993. Outwardly, he always played the victim, but if he really did those things, he might feel some inner guilt about it).

In short, I think it's a beautiful, devastating and relatable song and the only classic song he made after Smooth Criminal eight years prior.
Interested to hear your views on this song and on Michael's post-Thriller musical career.

hopefully, after michael’s new movie coming out and people listening to his music and the jackson’s again, we will see a rise in disco 80s type of music. We need some groovy tunes back, because honestly music lately is either extremely sad or just very hyper. I love earth wind and fire maybe some bee gees too. we need more dance feel good music that has a good instrumental, not just beats but guitars, drums, everything. bring back good quality thought out music!!

Apparently religion plays a role in hip hop culture but I'm just wondering how important it is. And doesn't religious belief contradict the artistic content of violence, misogyny, drug use and homophobia, flashing with luxery etc, especially during the 90s and 2000s, is something I wonder about.. Because even though religion historically did promote violence and oppresion of women, it modernly teaches modesty, equality and peace. Rapping about life is one thing but really promoting the above things through art is something else. And hip hop did that. I am an atheist myself, born in a black mixed christian, muslim and atheist family and there are plenty of examples of famous rappers dealing with religion and spirituality in general: Snoop Dogg converted to Christianity, Ice Cube to Islam, Nas is in between Christianity and Islam, or maybe just universally religious, Kanye West is or was a Christian, DJ Kool Herc was tied to Five Percent Nation (pseudo Islamic and pseudo science sect) and Christianity, 2Pac is associated with Christian imagery, Jay-Z is universal, KRS-One is associated with Hinduism, a bit of Christianity but mainly just spirituality, Drake is Jewish, Lil Wayne is a Christian, RZA is a Muslim, B-real is a Babalawo (Ifá), Kendrick Lamar is a Christian, Wonder Mike (Sugar Hill Gang) is a Christian, Rakim is a Muslim, Eminem is a Christian, Lauryn Hill is just spiritual, Joseph Simmons (Run-DMC) is a Christian, Busta Rhymes is a Muslim, The Notorious B.I.G. was raised as a Jehova and later on just spiritual, Black Thought is just spiritual with an upbringing of Islam and a bit of Christianity, Missy Elliott is a Christian, Mike D (Beastie Boys) raised Jewish and is spiritual. So my main concern is how important religion is in hip hop culture and whether being religious contradicts the artistic stimulation of violence, money, drug use and so on.

I'm someone who loves all kinds of music across many genres and eras, but I’ve started to realize I mainly listen to music from the 1950s up to mid/late 2010s. The more I think about it, the more I feel that mainstream music has lost its spark. A lot of it feels lifeless, and I don’t jump to listen to new releases like I used to. Instrumentals don’t feel as intricate and intentional like they used to, most of them are loops instead of layered production and experimenting with different sounds. Vocal performance is lacking and artists are not playing around enough, there’s not much vocal stacking, harmonies, dynamic, artists are not doing as much like they used to compared to older music. Mixing has become so polished that the personality and rawness in these songs are gone. Song structures are predictable following the verse, pre chorus, chorus, verse, pre chorus, chorus, chorus, outro formula, and 1-2 minutes long songs have become normalized. Albums are becoming large playlists for streaming and losing the artistic part of them (themes, storytelling etc.), Songs are mostly being used as viral moments giving the artists 5 minutes of fame because of a 15 second snippet played 100 times and then everyone moves on in a few months and the songs being forced onto the public (specifically pop music) sounds like 80s inspired music that only plays in H&M. I could honestly keep going but the point is, music nowadays sounds lifeless and flat. I know that there are artists that don’t align with this at all and there’s good modern music if you go looking, but majority of mainstream music makes me feel this way. I'm scared for what music will become in the future.

For while, I've been reading and hearing about shoegaze being a genre that has become repetitive. Nothing really new is coming out and/or much of it sounds the same

I've stopped listening to shoegaze for this reason but also because it's just not a genre that is all that interesting to me but I wanted to know what people who actively listen and love the genre think about the future of shoegaze and where they think it's heading?

Do you see some bands experimenting with different influences? Are you seeing more bands incorporate different influences into their music? Shoegaze brands using their shoegaze sound but in different ways? etc.?

For example, I listen to a lot of post hardcore, emo, etc. whatever you wanna call it and I hear a lot of metalcore and melodic influence being blended with screamo such as I Promised The World. I've also heard a little bit of bands that blend death metal with screamo/metalcore/post hardcore

Super cool to hear and I really like the pathway that the genre/genres that I'm listening to are taking and I'm wondering what that is looking like for shoegaze; a genre which has been seen as a bit lacking and stagnant for a while

Like most, I’ve always known and loved Tapestry. For some reason this morning I decided to see what else she released that is well known. To my surprise….nothing?

King had like 18 studio album and somehow not a single one got remotely close to the same level of commercial attention nor critical acclaim. Just looking at music review sites like RYM and Sputnik, even the albums immediately before and after pale in comparison (both in quality and notoriety, apparently).

Anybody have more insight into that? Did her songwriting quality really drop off immediately after Tapestry? Or was that album so good it just forever eclipsed anything else she did?

I’d like to know if I’m the only one who notices this about myself, or if others have experienced it too. I’ve been listening to a lot of music my whole life. But I only started getting really into bands and artists and listening to entire albums about two years ago. I love discovering new music or listening to songs that are already considered classics and masterpieces. But ever since I started listening to entire albums, something important has been missing from the music. Namely, the fact that I associate music with memories. For a long time, I just listened to whatever I liked at the time. As a result, I associate this music with memories, experiences, or simply the time when I listened to it a lot. This gives these songs and albums a whole new significance. As a result, generic pop songs from the 2000s evoke something completely different in me than, for example, albums like "The Queen Is Dead" by The Smiths or "Violator" by Depeche Mode. Although I find the albums I just mentioned to be musically far superior to any long-forgotten pop songs from 2000, these albums simply lack the memories and nostalgia that make them perfect for me. Rationally, I’m of course aware that the music I’m listening to now will eventually take on that same nostalgia, but it’s still not the same.

Is this just me, or does anyone else experience this too?

*sorry for typos, not my main language*

I was having a conversation with a guy about some pop culture icons, i won't mention which two icons, cause people will start talking about them specifically, and won't focus to the main point of my post... I was telling him that this *woman singer* has a really strong influence in music, culture, performances, fashion, younger singers etc too, it wasn't just that *man singer* having that, but it's not much mentioned or credited anymore cause she's a woman. And sometimes people can't even see the influence she has, even if it's right in front of their eyes, cause her career is not as much pushed and studied by younger generations, as the career of the male singer is.

I told him that it's more difficult for a woman to have "complete" dominance and strong longevity, even tho that speficic female singer has some longevity, but oftens gets ignored or shamed for other reasons. And that's cause it's rare to see a straight man being obsessive about a female singer, the way they're about male singers, or the way a woman could be obsessed with a male singer too. So you can't have complete dominance and respect, when a big % of that huge demographic rarely acknowledges and fully supports you. You can see women succeeding now, like Taylor Swift (she isn't the female singer i was talking about with my friend). But i don't think in 40 years from now, Taylor Swift will be known as much as a successful man singer from 40 years ago is remembered now, and she def won't be as much respected either.

And it's true, i don't see straight men usually being hard fans of women singers, while i see the opposite. I'm not saying it to create drama, it's just reality. And i don't think the excuse "he just makes better music" is valid too, its just an excuse. I've seen many men supporting vocally mediocre men, or male singers with not that strong discographies.

So i think that my point was valid, you can't compare the legacy of a man and woman from 40-50-60 years ago, based on how much popular they're in 2026, when the larger demographic audience won't be interested in discovering or impartially listening to the music from one of them. And i repeat, that's what i see, i'm a man and i listen to everything, that doesn't mean that every man does that, i don't think they do. I think many are snobs.

Okay let me preface this with the fact I am not a harry styles fan… not a hater it’s just fine background music , to me inoffensive.

I have two points to make here. Okay so first it’s really apparent to me that even young people who ‘look cool/indie/alternative’ are directly getting most of their music from what’s current and trending on tiktok. I’m 29 and grew up loving bands like my bloody valentine, Joy division, pixies etc etc. that were actually well before my time. I also grew up loving Rihanna, ASAP Rocky, Lana Del Rey ( tumblr era girl of course ) so this isn’t snobbery about any one type of music be better than the other but I do find that younger people now aren’t generally deep diving into inspirations of current artists and what’s come before them ( this is not an absolute of course there’s exceptions). I had a younger coworker that was obsessed with Harry styles and when I gave a listen to what she was listening to I was like you know if you like this there’s a whole world of music this is directly derived from I can give you some recs.

ANYWAY this leads me on to my second point - I’m seeing everyone complaining about his show, ‘why’s there no dancers?’ ‘ where’s my money being spent’ ‘ why did the show just end?’ ‘ where’s the outfit changes’?

The disconnect is I strongly suspect Harry is wanting to take himself seriously and I imagine HIS fave artists could be Iggy Pop, the Rolling Stones, James Brown, Elton John, Simply Red, New Order, Jamiroquai. But his fans other faves are Sabrina Carpenter and Taylor swift… and this leads to this disconnect, when you go and see other indie artist and rock bands etc . even at a stadium on a larger scale for example Arctic Monkeys you’d never be expecting an outfit change or dancers ? I think there’s a major disconnect on the artist he wants to be and who actually buys the music and are fans etc. I also think it’s a shame that many younger people just don’t seem to be listening to older music or deviating from the mainstream. Seeking out different bands doesn’t seem cool anymore even for ‘cool kids’. I think if they had this bit more musical knowledge and context they’d get what he was going for a bit more and then wouldn’t be expecting sparkly razzle dazzle dancers!

Interested to see what anyone else thinks about this especially anyone who’s seen the constant disappointment I’ve mentioned across social media platforms!

We think the biggest problem with music right now isn’t that artists got worse. it’s that nothing has enough time to become part of people’s lives anymore.

older songs had time to attach themselves to memories. school years, car rides, burnt cds, radio runs, movie soundtracks, random songs your friends put you onto.

now a song can blow up, get used in 300,000 videos, peak, get skipped, and feel old within two weeks.

there is more music than ever, and a lot of it is good. but it feels like the culture around songs moves so fast that fewer records actually get to age with people.

maybe that is why people keep saying older music was better. maybe it was not always better. maybe it just had more time to mean something.

when discovery was more human, songs came with context. someone showed you something. a friend burned you a cd. a blog posted a weird artist. a local scene had a sound. even radio, as limited as it was, created shared moments.

now music discovery is technically better, but it feels more isolated. everyone has their own feed, their own algorithm, their own version of what is popular.

Do you think modern music is actually less memorable, or are we just not giving songs enough time to become memories?

I recently had the very disappointing realization that the absolute vast majority of music I've consumed throughout my life was "discovered" by me via extremely "surface" means. Even my "deep-cut" secret handshake iykyk acts are actually quite widely known... remember when it felt like being a fan of Aphex Twin, Boards of Canada, Tricky, Massive Attack, Portishead, meant you were apart of some secret club? No? Well I do, but probably I was wrong to and my world-view was smaller then.

Also, before I continue- I don't for a second want to come off as some snobby elitist gatekeepy type whose enjoyment stems more from flexing knowledge of obscure niche acts... I totally appreciate that's what some of my first paragraph might read like, but that's absolutely not it...

The premise of my thread comes from a way more pure and curious place... I simply got bummed out at the idea of just how much I've been missing out on my 30+ years, regardless of how deeply rewarding it's been enjoying all of my favourite acts (of which there are an untold many more than the mere few I mentioned). Thinking of all the hundreds and thousands of names who most of us never got to know (and won't know) for every one of the ones we do. The terms indie, underground, etc. begin to lose value when you realize that many times there's still decently sized labels behind them pushing their stuff. Absolutely nothing wrong with that and absolutely super necessary, but just saying- think of all those who never get that privilege, yet are every bit as good and deserving or better/more.

So yeah, I'm just curious: how do you go about discovering these bonafide hidden gem deep-cut musical acts? Many times searching my favourite artists favourite artists still yields acts/names well within the established music zeitgeist/world. There are so many "niche" bands that actually aren't niche at all. I just want to explore the genuinely unknown but great.