I'm talking about Beastie Boys, Cypress Hill, House Of Pain...

Funkdoobiest is another one, more obscure though. Onyx is definitely part of this.

What do you call this style of hip hop?

It's that dirty, rowdy, rock-adjacent hip-hop sound.

You know what I think connects these groups?

They make hip-hop that has the ENERGY of a rock band without necessarily being rap-rock.

It FEELS somewhat rock adjacent as these 3 all toured with rock bands, but they aren't straight up rap rock like Limp Bizkit or RATM or Linkin Park.

It's definitely not gangsta rap, nor is it boom bap. The closest genre label is probably "alternative hip-hop," but that doesn't quite capture it.

Alternative hip-hop also includes artists like A Tribe Called Quest and De La Soul, who are great, but not exactly the same style.

It's also not exactly rap rock, because that to many people means like Limp Bizkit or the one Kid Rock album before he went full on country rock.

It's a lost art. Eminem definitely had that alternative kid audience but he was a different style than this

I used to lose whole afternoons in record shops, flipping through crates and buying things because of the cover. Now I have everything one tap away, and I mostly play the same 30 albums.

Something about having limits helped: a shop only had what was in the crates that week, so you actually listened to what was there.

How do you find music now that you’d never have found by searching? Radio shows, a friend, a blog, a shop, something else?

Hey everyone, not sure if this is appropriate for this group but I'm just looking for insight from anyone who went back to physical media like CDs or vinyl from streaming subscriptions. I've noticed lately there's more and more AI bands that are being snuck into my playlists as well as the overall subscription platform and I was thinking about making that switch. Those of you who got rid of these services, was it worth it?

I've been thinking a lot lately about how albums used to feel like complete experiences. You'd put on a record and it would take you on a ride from start to finish. There was an intentional flow with intros, outros, interludes and tracks building on each other. It felt like a story unfolding.

Now it seems like so many albums are just collections of singles. Each song is great on its own but there's no real sense of progression or a cohesive arc. Are artists focusing too much on individual tracks for streaming numbers? Or is it just how we consume music now that has changed this? I miss that feeling of listening to an entire album and feeling like I've been somewhere by the end of it.

One thing I find fascinating about Discovery is how it creates a feeling of nostalgia through disco samples, bright synths, and electronic production. Tracks like “Digital Love” and “Something About Us” feel like memories of a time that may not even belong to the listener.

The album is obviously influenced by older music, but it doesn't just sound like a collection of samples. everything feels connected, almost like a soundtrack to an imaginary childhood.

How much of that feeling comes from the samples themselves, and how much comes from the way Daft Punk rearranged and transformed them? i'm curious whether other electronic albums create that same kind of emotional nostalgia.

I guess I could well be asking "what makes a hit a hit", but I'm more interested in the opposite, which is what makes a deep-cut a deep-cut?

Speaking from a more antiquated 80's, 90's, 2000's, and even 2010's perspective, were labels mostly responsible for selecting what would become the smash-hits and ultimately peddling/marketing them? If so, I'd be interested in learning what attributes they look for in any given song when deciding which tracks will be the artists/bands anthems which majority of the audience who will ever interact with their music will come to know/identify them by. Because I believe most listeners, at least those of pop music, out there are casual and will seldom deep-dive on a band. Or is the decision re: what'll go on to be a hit fairly arbitrary, decided by one or two people with great power?

But yeah, deep-cuts... what even is a deep-cut? Is everything which fails to chart a deep-cut? Are b-sides the only real deep-cuts? Do deep-cuts simply fail to display the tropes which make other songs commercially so successful? I'm getting lost in the sauce here... help me.

Also, it's interesting how when you're a fan of an artist/band, you view so many songs in their catalogue as 'hits', yet the wider audiences out there might only deem 2-3 tracks out of their entire, multi-decade, discography as hits, if that. There's kind of tears even to hits... It's also funny how many times fans will become hit-averse, sick of hearing the songs, no matter how great, so many times.

My daughter was listening to "Say So" by Doja Cat on YouTube. And I asked her to replay it because something sounded eerily familiar—as if I heard it before.

Turns out, it sounds remarkably similar to the future funk song "Fiona Coyne" by Skylar Spence. If you're unaware, future funk is a genre that originated in the 2010s. It's basically a mix of disco and vaporwave. It has its following, but never cracked the mainstream.

But hold on... "Fiona Coyne" is inspired by "Love Talkin' (Honey It's You)" by Tatsuro Yamashita, one of the heavyweights of city pop.

City pop is what's known as a retronym. That is, a label we give to music when a retrospective canon gets formed, requiring recontextualization. Yacht rock is another example of a retronym.

In Japan, where city pop originates from, city pop is an obscure genre even though city pop songs themselves are popular. That's because it was simply mainstream pop in Japan.

Now don't get me wrong. "City pop" as a term existed in Japan during the 80s. But this wasn't a genre with a defined musical structure. It was more a marketing term to sell aspiration, much like how we in the West hear terms like "contemporary" and "sophisti-pop". Because of this, most Japanese people didn't recognize city pop as an identifiable thing.

Fast forward to the 21st century. Westerners started hearing Japanese music from the 80s. They needed context. So they re-purposed a Japanese marketing term to define a corpus, a body of work that identified Japanese music with broad similarities that seemed to have an associated scene.

The city pop canon was never big in the West. Even now, it's only known amongst music nerds. But its effect on modern mainstream music is huge. Here's examples:

• "Out of Time" by The Weeknd samples Tomoko Aran's "Midnight Pretenders"
• "GONE, GONE / THANK YOU" by Tyler, the Creator interpolates Tatsuro Yamashita's "Fragile"
• "We Ride" by Brave Girls was a Top 5 K-pop hit, but it was blatantly marketed as city pop upon its release

What's wild? City pop is not the only obscure genre to impact the mainstream but never hit the mainstream. Witch house, phonk, and vaporwave all had a big impact. But none of the artists who originated these genres have ever become house house names.

I think this is one of the defining characteristics of 21st-century music. A genre can remain underground while its sounds, production techniques, and aesthetics become completely mainstream.

We're in a time where the mainstream raids from subculture before subculture can ever challenge it.

Is this why we no longer see musical revolutions like jazz, rock, punk, hip hop, and grunge?

Has the mainstream become so good at absorbing underground music that new genres can influence it without ever displacing or fundamentally transforming it?

I don't have problems with understanding texts, i read a lot. Also i am a writer, and write not only stories, but also certain amount of poetry for the songs since i was a kid. In theory, this background should make things easier for me... But nope.

There are certain amount of songs (only songs, never a prose) where i simply can't understand meaning behind sentces. Often i can get the general idea of the song - like, this one is about humanity being obsessed with violence, this one about loss, etc. But when i start to read it line by line - it does not make sense. Sentences can mean something, but do not connect, do not rely to each other. And sometimes even meaning of sentences is obscure to me. And in very rare cases i can't understand the entire song.

There are entire bands that have a lot of lyrics beyond my understanding. Especially japanese ones - at first i was blaming bad translation, but AI's not can translate pretty good, but it still does not make much sense in lots of cases. I can't feel the story being told by those words, and more like... shattered echoes of the story, where i constantly try to put puzzle together but fail.

I have various theories of why this happens, from being an effect from asd to me just being not smart enough to understand more complex narratives. So i need to hear experience of other people about this subject. Do you have problems with understanding lyrics, and how often?

Van Halen could sell out stadiums in the US, yet in Europe they had to open for Bon Jovi. That would never happen in the States.

DMB could easily sell out the biggest arena in my country (Portugal), but I doubt they have much of a fanbase in the rest of Europe. My dad is a huge fan of 70s rock, and he tells me Van Halen and Journey were never particularly big over here. And FUNNILY ENOUGH, he'd never even heard of Tom Petty...

I love the song "Run Away to Mars" by TALK.

But I am wondering about something. Is the song saying he is actually on Mars? Or is he only on Mars in his mind?

The song talks about him being on Mars but skipping stones as though he is on Earth.

What is your take on this?

The lyrics to Run Away to Mars is below:

Your color's fading
'Cause I kept you waiting
It's a wild, wild world
And you're a wild, wild girl

Our sun's still shining
But it seems half the size
And it's a wild, wild world out here

Before my time runs out

What If I run away to Mars?
Would you find me in the stars?
Would you miss me in the end
If I run out of oxygen?
When I run away to Mars

I can't tell which way is home
I've been gone for so long
It's an empty world up here
I skip stones and wonder
How long 'til I'm discovered
It's a quiet life up here

Before my time runs out

What If I run away to Mars?
Would you find me in the stars?
Would you miss me in the end
If I run out of oxygen?
When I run away to Mars

Three, two, one, I miss you
I'm sorry, I got issues

What If I run away to Mars?
Would you find me in the stars?
Would you miss me in the end
If I run out of oxygen?
When I run away to Mars

The first track i heard was around the time i quit weed for good. It's also the first artist that made me like brass instruments.
I love Toh Kays songwriting yet i tend to forget about them ever so often. I feel my main problem is that the lyrics are often way to fast to sing along but they are so bloody good and interesting compared to other 3rd wave ska bands like Less Than Jake or Mad Caddys. Kinda feel like they are so underraded. It's not really Ska nor is it Skapunk. They are kinda unique and have such a bloody good brass section.
And now roast me :)

The long version of “People Make the World Go Round” has a whole second half, and I think it’s the best part

https://youtu.be/2owZXPyeilc?si=pq2Q5CoSjFxLEqN-

Most people probably know “People Make the World Go Round” from the single, which is around 3:30.

That version is already great. Thom Bell’s arrangement, Linda Creed’s lyrics, Russell Thompkins Jr. singing in that ridiculous falsetto.

But the album version on The Stylistics’ first record is over six minutes long, and right around the point where the single fades out, it just keeps going.

And honestly, that’s the part I like the most.

The vocals slowly disappear and the whole thing opens up. Bass, drums, congas, all those strange Bell percussion sounds, then guitar and flute drifting in and out.

It doesn’t really feel like it’s trying to get anywhere anymore. It just sits in the groove.

That part hits me more physically than the first half. It’s hard to explain without sounding slightly ridiculous, but it feels like the song starts breathing differently.

The lyrics are actually pretty bleak. Strikes, garbage piling up, pollution, Wall Street losing money. The whole world is dysfunctional.

Then the words disappear and the music just keeps going.

To me it almost feels like the song is saying: yeah, the world is a mess, but it keeps turning anyway.

That’s obviously just my interpretation, but once I started hearing it like that I couldn’t really unhear it.

I also found something interesting about the rhythm.

I assumed the long instrumental part felt more relaxed because it probably settled into a simple 4/4 groove. Apparently not. The ending vamp has been analysed as alternating between 4/4 and 5/4.

Which is kind of funny, because it feels more relaxed even though the meter is actually less regular.

Maybe that extra beat is part of why it feels so loose, like the music is constantly hanging around a little longer than you expect.

The song also seems to have really appealed to jazz and soul-jazz musicians. Milt Jackson did an eight-minute version, Cleveland Eaton covered it, O’Donel Levy did a great guitar version, and it kept resurfacing later in hip hop and sample culture.

I don’t want to claim all those musicians were specifically obsessed with the long Stylistics outro, because there’s no way to know that. But it does feel like there was something in the composition that musicians wanted to stretch out and live inside.

Does the long outro change the meaning of the song for you, or does it just feel like an extended groove?

And for anyone here who understands the meter better than I do, why does that 4/4 and 5/4 vamp feel so relaxed when the rhythm is actually becoming less regular?

If you only know the short version, let the album version keep running past the point where the single would have faded out.

That’s where the song really starts for me.

Like actually. I've spent the last two years making what I think is my life's greatest work, only to realise the world in which I live values this craft less and less. I mean I'm guilty of it too, listening to records just isn't what it used to be, but I try. Yet here we all are making them as though nothing has changed. How depressing! I don't mean to be dramatic, I know the fire will always burn, but it flickers now in the winds of time.

I’ve worked sound for live shows for years now from local bar gigs to international tour circuit venues, and one thing I’ve noticed is that at least 90% of the musicians are men. Most bands are entirely comprised of men and vocalists are the most common female role, although they are still a minority there too.

Is it a cultural rift pointing back to the early days of western music performance where women weren’t allowed to perform on stage? Or is being a rockstar just less striven for by girls and women than guys? I’m really curious why this significant gap especially in instrumental musicians is so present today.

I've been thinking about how much weight the final track of an album can carry.
Sometimes an album seems to be telling you one story, but the ending makes you reconsider everything that came before it.
A tragic ending can make earlier moments of confidence feel more like denial. A hopeful ending can make everything that seemed hopeless before it feel completely different.
But I think there's a fine line between an ending that genuinely changes your perspective and one that feels forced. If the rest of the album hasn't earned that conclusion, even a beautiful final track might not be enough to make it convincing.
And I'm not necessarily talking about albums where the closing track is the best song. I'm more interested in endings that change how you interpret the earlier tracks when you listen again.
Have you ever experienced that with an album? What was it, and what specifically changed about how you heard the rest of it after reaching the end?

my friends are a tad older than me and to my opinion missed out on them. Not cause i don't cringe about my younger self obssessing over Pop Punk and Emo but rather cause i think Sum41 aged less weirdly and always did 'their own thing' instead of just going with the flow.
Argueably they had their corny, visually emo, phase but their music today even feels a lot less insincere than their peers in blink, green day or good charlotte.

I am a sucker for early 90s music, and I like to detect patterns.

Recently, I have felt there was a similar kind of music pattern in those:

*The theme song of 1992 infamous SegaCD game Night Trap by Sunny Blueskyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YRccJrn4M0
*Synthpop song Never Easy by Mattie Maguire (2015, but deliberately retro): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhAQYwxifS0
*First mission music from 1995 game Crusader: No Remorse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSF4LJLYByU

What kind of instruments and arrangements are used here that make me feel similar patterns? I'd be curious to know why I like those. Thank you.

Snoop Dogg is the only artists in history to reach superstar status immediately as a solo artists. Only artists to reach success right away like Snoop was possibly The Beatles but even their debut album Please Please Me didn’t put up the #s like The Chronic and Doggystyle did.

Gun N Roses debut album Appetite for Destruction is the highest selling debut album of all time but their debut album didn’t do well initially and it was a long process for Gun N Roses to be successful cause they were viewed too controversial with their music promoting too much sex and drugs. The band’s manager had to plead for MTV to play their music after several attempts of MTV of refusing to play their music and Guns end up getting good luck with MTV playing Welcome to the Jungle on a 5:00 AM Sunday morning which Guns eventually garnered success.

50 Cent Get Rich or Die Tryin surpass Doggystyle as the fastest selling debut album of all time with 50 Get Rich selling 872,000 the 1st week surpassing Snoop’s previous record of 806,000 the 1st week but at the same time 50 didn’t get success as an artists right away.

50 debut album was supposed to be Power of the Dollar and 50 had a small local buzz in NY with songs like How to Rob which wasn’t a hit song but garnered some success.

But Power of the Dollar didn’t get release and was shelved by Columbia Records after 50 got shot 9 times and record labels felt 50 was too dangerous and labels didnt wanna to associate with him during this time after he got shot. It was a long process for 50 to get popular where he released several mixtapes after getting shot which got the attention from Dr Dre and Eminem to sign 50 on their label.

But Snoop is the only artists I seen gain pop level of success right away with songs like Nothing but A G Thang, What’s my Name and Gin N Juice. What made fans gravitate towards Snoop right away? Is Snoop Dogg that more talented than other artists or did he have the best luck being at the right place right time or was Snoop able to finagle his way in the music industry in the easiest way possible as an industry plant?

I am curious how Snoop became such a big artist right away without have any real previous bodies of work before The Chronic and Doggystyle. Can [r/LetsTalkMusic](r/LetsTalkMusic) tell me how Snoop Dogg was able to garner success so quickly as an artist?

What if some of the biggest male artists across different generations and genres came together to form a boy band?

Imagine a supergroup featuring Jungkook, Bruno Mars, Justin Bieber, and The Kid LAROI, with potential additions like The Weeknd, Chris Brown, or even Kendrick Lamar as the main rapper.

The idea would be to combine artists whose talents transcend different eras of music. Between their vocals, songwriting, dancing, stage presence, and musical versatility, this group could potentially create something incredible.

The biggest challenge would probably be distributing lines and balancing so many talented singers. Some additional role diversity might help, but each artist already brings something different to the table.

Jungkook — The All-Rounder

Jungkook brings powerful vocals, impressive dancing, and years of experience performing in BTS. His experience working within a group would be especially valuable when it comes to choreography, teamwork, and balancing individual performances. He could help bring everyone together.

Bruno Mars — The Veteran Performer

Bruno brings incredible versatility, experience, and stage presence. His ability to move between pop, funk, R&B, and soul would give the group plenty of musical flexibility. He's also an excellent live performer and songwriter who could contribute to the group's longevity.

Justin Bieber — The Pop and R&B Specialist

Bieber has an impressive track record spanning multiple eras of pop music. Beyond his recognizable voice and massive popularity, he brings songwriting experience, musical instincts, and an understanding of how to create successful records. His versatility would make him another valuable member.

The Kid LAROI — The Younger Perspective

LAROI brings a different energy through his blend of melodic rap, pop, and R&B. His ability to experiment with different sounds could help the group explore multiple musical directions.

His emotional delivery and distinctive vocal style would complement the other members. While he might not be as dance-oriented as Jungkook or Bruno, his strengths as a vocalist and songwriter could make him an important part of the lineup.

Kendrick Lamar — The Main Rapper

Kendrick would bring a strong rap presence to every track, adding another dimension to the group's sound. His incredible lyricism, storytelling, flow, and songwriting abilities would make him an essential member of the lineup.

His versatility would allow him to complement the group's pop and R&B influences while bringing his own unique style. He could also work alongside The Kid LAROI on rap sections, giving the group even more musical flexibility.

The Weeknd or Chris Brown — Alternative Additions

Both could fit into the lineup for different reasons.

The Weeknd would bring his distinctive vocals, atmospheric R&B sound, and ability to create memorable melodies.

Chris Brown would contribute strong R&B vocals, dancing, and performance experience, adding another member capable of handling demanding choreography.

The Big Question

Would a supergroup with this much individual talent actually work?

With so many established solo artists, balancing creative control, musical direction, and line distribution could be difficult. However, their different strengths could also lead to some incredible collaborations.

Who would make your ideal lineup? Would you keep these artists, replace anyone, or add someone who brings a completely different skill set?

And most importantly, what kind of music should a group like this make?

The American radio station KEXP recently aired a countdown of KEXP Listeners’ Favorite Songs Of The 90s. It’s a good list to check out. However, the thing that struck me immediately is how some of these songs weren’t hits in their time - they were either slow burns that have accumulated fans over time or have been used in media after their release and have become notable.

Here are the top 10 songs on the list [spoiler] followed by their chart performance in the US and UK.

Beck “Loser” (US #10 / UK #15)

Soundgarden “Black Hole Sun” (US - / UK #12)

Radiohead “Creep” (US #34 / UK #7)

Deee-Lite “Groove Is In The Heart” (US #4 / UK #2)

Massive Attack “Teardrop” (US - / UK #10)

Radiohead “Paranoid Android” (US - / UK #3)

The Breeders “Cannonball” (US #44 / UK #40)

Beastie Boys “Sabotage” (US - / UK #19)

Mazzy Star “Fade Into You” (US #44 / UK #48)

Nirvana “Smells Like Teen Spirit” (US #6 / UK #7)

I’m not arguing against any of these picks, they are all great songs. What is fascinating to me how far away from hits that some of these songs were - “Cannonball” and “Fade Into You” in particular were not notable as singles but have grown in time to iconic 90s songs.

Just for fun, the year 1994 is overrepresented in the top 10 above: four of the ten songs were released as singles in 1994. What were the top singles in the US and UK in 1994? “The Sign” by Ace Of Base and “Love Is All Around” by Wet Wet Wet.

It’s worth noting: the listenership of KEXP skews older and more towards rock. That said, ask the same question on this sub and you might arrive at a similar answer.

I’m interested to hear what people think about how favorite songs 30 years on differs so greatly from what was popular in its time. If you ask about favorites songs of the 90s in 20 years, will the answers change again?

I’m a 90’s/2000’s kid, so not like I’ve any inherent bias for the stuff I’m talking about, which seemed to abound more from the 50’s to 70’s & 80’s.

It’s just that I’ve noticed a distinct lack of these epic, memorable, melodies like you often heard in tracks back then, and I’m wondering why that might be.

I’m a musician myself and am well aware most all songs will have some kind of melody, thanks, but, again, I’m talking the truly epic global smash hit melodies anyone would know- things which effectively have become standards… stuff like Happy Together, Sound of Silence, Strangers in The Night, and of course countless others. The melodies are so strong they’re almost palpable.

But with every passing decade, the emphasis on and desire for such strong melodies seems to fade. For as many smash hit songs as came out in the 80’s, already these style melodies seemed to be on a decline by then. Again, everything has melody, much of it can be catchy, but not necessarily epic.

I’d also love to know some contemporary tracks/artists you might recommend who you feel feature such big melodies. From what I’ve heard, Father John Misty seems to like to do this kind of thing, though I might be conflating use of string sections and a general 70’s sound with epic melody.

In fact, there are none melodies more epic than the ones you’d find in classical music, but I guess I wanted to focus more on “pop” or whatever cats like Humperdinck, Jones, Elvis, Vinton, ABBA, Simon & Garfunkel, etc etc were doing is called.

This is a thing that bothers me personally so I am trying to do a project that truly shuffles your playlist and all song gets the same attention. I want to first know if there are other people who are also bothered by this and in order to do that, I am asking on subreddits. For example, Spotify queues, even people who have premium sometimes like the feeling of being surprised by a random song next and put their playlists on shuffle.

I was listening to a band the other day and noticed how much their sound seemed to evolve with each album. Sometimes this is great it shows growth but other times it feels a bit jarring. I started thinking about how often bands change their recording environments. Does moving between many different studios perhaps with different engineers and equipment affect the overall sonic identity across a discography? Or is it more about the band's creative choices and artistic direction regardless of the recording space? What are your thoughts on this?