Slashdot Mirror

There's also a thing called arrangement, and sometimes also something called transcription, none of which is necessarily particularly easy or without artistic merit.

Sure, I agree. The problem is, they gave credit to the original authors for the composition.

Just dismissing someone making a version of an older song as "trading on someone else's effort" is making it way too easy for yourself.

I didn't say he should burn in hell, or get no money. I said he should get money when his performance is used. Why do you think he deserves more? Yes, he increased the popularity of that collection of notes. But he profited from it, as well. Sounds fair to me.

... which was immortalized in this album title: Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention

I believe that you have him confused with Bill Maher

It's interesting that you say that, though you are very, very wrong. The Rants is absolutely a collection of Dennis Miller works, and he is the guy I'm talking about. The reason it's interesting that you bring up Bill Maher, though, is that I like him more and more every year, while I couldn't even watch the latest Dennis Miller special because he has resorted to pandering to denialists.

and Guitars. http://www.allmusic.com/album/...

what ring-tone best fits my personality...

Listed here for your convenience.

Huh?

I thought the ELO system was made by Jeff Lynne.

You should wear headphones if you're looking for metal machines. You do not want to end up listening to metal machine music.

This is hardcore...

you know there are different strains (89 I think) of anthrax

Nonsense. There is only one Anthrax

If you think it isn't deadly, there are about a hundred graves in Russia you could visit for an interview.

Hey, it's not a good concert unless there are a few fatalities.

So this sexting thing is labeled as child porn yet this isn't: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0ifyxqq5ld6e

C'mon people! I continue to be amazed at our country's puritanical stance on sex overall. Yes, child porn and abuse is a VERY bad thing and should be punished by the extreme measures of the law (yes Catholic Church...I'm talking to you) but this kind of stupidity is not acceptable. And as a parent of three, you better believe that I will be on them about sending ANY kind of picture least of all a nude one to their friends. Trust me, I'm not the one that's going to be embarrassed in public about it. If they need to learn the hard way, so be it.

1977 actually.

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:fifpxqy5ld0e

Now, however, I have a new name to explore - Pavement - I don't have any of thier music.

This prompted a trip down memory lane for me. How did I discover Pavement? This is, in some ways, a pathetic story-- in other ways it echoes the article. No, i didnt hear them live. No, my buddy didn't bring them in the car on a cross country road trip. No, their beautiful music was not the soundtrack of my first kiss.

Actually, I read a review of their first album online about five years ago. Downloaded it, put it on my mp3 player, went for what I thought would be a short walk to the grocery store. Actually, I never made it to the grocery store. I walked to central park. Past the park to the river. When the album finished I sat for a while. Then I listened to it again on my walk home.

Seriously this band changed my life.

And get this. They are reuniting to play for the first time in years. Where? Central Park. Guess who bought a ticket during the absolutely ridiculous 1 year advance presale? Yep. See you there?

right... as far as I can tell Mah Na Mah Na is owned by Sony not Warner Music ... allmusic.com: mah na mah na search.

"I guess the question is: why does people listen to shitty music."

I would hazard a guess that it's because, due to the ever increasingly media-centric world we live in, we're bludgeoned by this shitty music everywhere we turn. In the same way advertising works, familiarity with a product (no matter how irritating and crappy it may be) leads to it being more readily consumable. From TV shows, to the commercials between those shows, movies, ringtones, shopping malls, youtube montages, restaurants, you name it, our heads are being filled with this music, and it leads to demand. This is how radio has always worked, so it is not unreasonable to assume the same demand is created by media other than radio.

I am not immune to this: When that awful Hanson one-hit-wonder title "Mmmmbop" hit the scene in the 90's, I found it so goddamned infectious and catchy, I went out of my way to find a copy online. Not because I liked the song; it was more of a way to exorcise song -- play it until you're forever burnt out on it. Ditto several others of the era: Aqua's "Barbie Girl", Trio's "Da Da Da" (I know -- it was an 80's song, but gained popularity due to that dot-com-era commercial), and "Jump, Jive, an' Wail" (The Brian Setzer Orchestra). I still have those MP3's, but I haven't listened to them in nearly 10 years. I certainly would never have bought the albums -- even the singles -- had free MP3s not been around.

One particular stat that I like to trot out in such discussions is AllMusic.com's Top Searches stats page. Without fail, 90% of the acts listed are from the 90's or much earlier. The two conclusions that I have drawn from that page are: 1) baby-boomers and their offspring (like myself) are over-represented on this particular site; or 2) the younger, more 'net-savvy generations recognize good music. I tend to discount #1 due to the fact that many boomers are still techno-phobic. There may be a simpler explanation, but it seems clear that old music is still very popular, in many cases more so (in the long haul) than new music.

My theory is that the torrent stats reflect what people have an immediate need for: that catchy song by so-and-so that they heard on the radio during the commute to work or on that Gillette commercial. Stats on sites like All Music reflect people trying to track down a *good* artist's back catalog so that they can purchase it (or maybe download/copy it from elsewhere).

I think I'd rather listen to Nails n' Chalkboards Greatest Hits.

Let me make a recommendation: Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music. Makes Nails 'N Chalkboard sound almost pleasant.

Actually, it was first recorded by Three Dog Night in 1969 and written by Harry Nilsson. allmusic

AllMusic
Grand Comic Book Database

Easy: The Rabbit of Caerbannog.

Runners up: Monsters, and Scary Monsters.

Easy: The Rabbit of Caerbannog.

Runners up: Monsters, and Scary Monsters.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Ayg09ke9tsq7z (all song have Lavigne on the credits)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU5-pGKP0LE (all sounds cause ear cancer)

I haven't listened to the radio in years. Virtually 100% of the new music I find I get through word of mouth (usually a thread on a forum) or from sites like Allmusic or Pandora. Both are awesome, and free.

He's the Rick Rubin of the UK. Seriously.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Try again.

He's the Rick Rubin of the UK. Seriously.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Try again.

Sir Cliff will start losing his royalties before the end of next year ("Move It" (1958)).

I don't think that's too unfair, though. How many times has he released (or re-released) another Christmas song? And how long have some of his old Christmas hits been earning him royalties for?

TBH I think some of us will be glad come Christmas if Cliff Richard says he isn't releasing any more songs if the copyright stays at 50 years :D

I dunno, if the remaining Beatles survive another 6 years then their early work will be out of copyright in their lifetime.

Cliff Richard will start losing royalties two years before that.

I dunno, if the remaining Beatles survive another 6 years then their early work will be out of copyright in their lifetime.

Cliff Richard will start losing royalties two years before that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the video games version of a filler filled album. Whereby an established artist gives us an average/sub-par release due to complacency, degree of difficulty, cocaine addiction, whatever...

Ok guys, you're "not stupid", you know people want the feature, yet, you decide not to give it to us anyway. WTF are you guys, our first girlfriends?? The "if it's too difficult, we won't do it" response REEKS of complacency.

It would not be out of the realm of possibilty to say that the success of a subpar Halo 2 (i.e. no matter what we put out there, those f-ing meatheads will buy it) would fuel a supbar Halo 3. Hope you enjoyed your stay, Bungie

It's not a genre of music. It's a genre of album if anything.

Johny Cash is an icon and one of my favorite performers of all time, but America sucks. It beats you over the head. Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral is a great album, and it has been called a "concept album," but it doesn't beat you over the head and so it works. As I said, if you're beating people over the head with your "message," you suck as a writer.

The stereotypical concept album was an artifact of 1970s hallucinogens and progressive rock. 20 minute songs deserved to die.

It's not a genre of music. It's a genre of album if anything.

Johny Cash is an icon and one of my favorite performers of all time, but America sucks. It beats you over the head. Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral is a great album, and it has been called a "concept album," but it doesn't beat you over the head and so it works. As I said, if you're beating people over the head with your "message," you suck as a writer.

The stereotypical concept album was an artifact of 1970s hallucinogens and progressive rock. 20 minute songs deserved to die.

It's not a genre of music. It's a genre of album if anything.

Johny Cash is an icon and one of my favorite performers of all time, but America sucks. It beats you over the head. Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral is a great album, and it has been called a "concept album," but it doesn't beat you over the head and so it works. As I said, if you're beating people over the head with your "message," you suck as a writer.

The stereotypical concept album was an artifact of 1970s hallucinogens and progressive rock. 20 minute songs deserved to die.

Not only that, the MIT guys made no mention of the soundtrack for the original experiment, either.

(Not AH's best, but it's got it's moments...)

Ever consider seperating your business account from your personal one? Of course, Amazon could also incorporate aspects, profiles or whatever into individual accounts that would solve this problem. I think everyone encounters it in some form or another - whether you are buying gifts, changing jobs or changing as a person.

With that said, I don't think the central concept is screwed. If we can agree that the central concept is about effectively making suggestions to new things based on what we like, then there are many places that do this well. A few examples:

Say you were listening to All Music Considered and you really like the Mavis Staples tune "Down in Mississippi". If you go to AllMusic, you can find similar artists - many which you may already know and like. However, you might discover a few new ones you didn't know anything about and get recommendations of which of their many albums might be most likely to be worth your money - although I don't always agree with Allmusic's assessment, their recommendations are worthwhile when I don't know enough about a group to have an opinion.

Or you could go somewhere like Pandora and put in her name and listen to similar artists right there.

Personally, I like the idea of Pandora better but it is their execution (the inability to select which similar artists you hear, track back to recommended albums, limited fast-forward, iPod centricism (I prefer to buy CDs), etc.) that keeps me going back to Allmusic.

So we have a Podcast that recommends music; a music reference that provides information on artists, albums and songs; and a service that plays similar artist's songs based on your preference for a particular artist. All of these can be useful - which is why they exist. They are each also an example of the central idea - that people want good recommendations and exposure to new things they might like.

Now, I don't particularly care for Amazon's way of going about making recommendations. But, the fact they do it poorly doesn't mean the concept itself is bad.

Indeed.

Online stores are nice but simply can't beat a brick & mortar store with knowledgeable staff and a good selection.

A few months and who knows?

The man is skilled. Skilled at sampling and editing. He's not, however, a skilled musician.

I'm sorry, you're mistaken.

The only things your argument establishes is that he is not a talented drummer or pianist. A musician is someone who makes music, and for the purposes of defining the term, I couldn't give a shit how it's made.

The Richard D. James Album by Aphex Twin contains, in my opinion, some of the most beautiful "music" made in the last decade using techniques very similar, in principle, to the ones this guy is using. I'm thrilled to see that new tools are allowing different people to become musicians in brand new ways.

As much as many people here pooh-pooh the "everything sucks today" argument, an honest person has to take a hard look and see whether or not it's true. I know it's hard -- no, impossible -- to quantify the 'quality' of music. It's obviously a changing beast, dependent on the audience, and other variables.

I submit, as one small data point, the "Top Searches" page on allmusic.com. Notice a trend? Yup -- a good chunk of the artists on that list were in their prime is 10-to-40 years ago.

So what does that *particular* list say? It's a tough call. It may just be that AMG's site is too un-cool for the covetted tween to mid-20's music demographic, leaving us 30+ folks (I'm 34) who were weaned on 60's and 70's rock by our baby boomer parents who went on to be influenced by the 80's and 90's in our teen years. Perhaps there are sites more used by the younger generations that has a "top serach" function that other readers can add to the mix, for comparison.

But maybe -- just maybe -- that today there are fewer artists that actuall make good *albums* that won't sound dated in 10 years and can be listened to over and over in their entirety. Maybe the majority of entertainers that get radio play are optimized for one-hit-wonderhood, who get their 15 minutes and go out in a blaze of glory until they'll featured in ten years on "Where Are They Now?".

Or, perhaps, hind-sight is 20/20 and it's much easier to find the gems from 10+ years ago than it is to find the few that exist today but are lost in the crap that's been on the airwaves since the dawn of radio. :)

As much as many people here pooh-pooh the "everything sucks today" argument, an honest person has to take a hard look and see whether or not it's true. I know it's hard -- no, impossible -- to quantify the 'quality' of music. It's obviously a changing beast, dependent on the audience, and other variables.

I submit, as one small data point, the "Top Searches" page on allmusic.com. Notice a trend? Yup -- a good chunk of the artists on that list were in their prime is 10-to-40 years ago.

So what does that *particular* list say? It's a tough call. It may just be that AMG's site is too un-cool for the covetted tween to mid-20's music demographic, leaving us 30+ folks (I'm 34) who were weaned on 60's and 70's rock by our baby boomer parents who went on to be influenced by the 80's and 90's in our teen years. Perhaps there are sites more used by the younger generations that has a "top serach" function that other readers can add to the mix, for comparison.

But maybe -- just maybe -- that today there are fewer artists that actuall make good *albums* that won't sound dated in 10 years and can be listened to over and over in their entirety. Maybe the majority of entertainers that get radio play are optimized for one-hit-wonderhood, who get their 15 minutes and go out in a blaze of glory until they'll featured in ten years on "Where Are They Now?".

Or, perhaps, hind-sight is 20/20 and it's much easier to find the gems from 10+ years ago than it is to find the few that exist today but are lost in the crap that's been on the airwaves since the dawn of radio. :)

The main [AllMusic] page [on the Byrds] looks nice, but the only discography is a small icon of six albums. Clicking on those takes me to a great page for each album, with very detailed information, but The Byrds had more than six albums! There also doesn't seem to be anything more than names listed for most songs. I'd like more detail, which is especially important when bands release multiple versions of the same song.

Methinks you've missed the tabs at the top. With labels like "Discography" and "Songs". The Discography tab on the Byrds lists 14 albums, and about 100 compilation albums that they appear on. Clicking on the Songs tab, and selecting the song "Eight Miles High" gives a page with a long review of the song, and about 40 albums it appears on, with lengths listed.

I think you've just missed all the data you're looking for on AllMusic. It all seems to be there, presented well, but perhaps a tad difficult to navigate.

The main [AllMusic] page [on the Byrds] looks nice, but the only discography is a small icon of six albums. Clicking on those takes me to a great page for each album, with very detailed information, but The Byrds had more than six albums! There also doesn't seem to be anything more than names listed for most songs. I'd like more detail, which is especially important when bands release multiple versions of the same song.

Methinks you've missed the tabs at the top. With labels like "Discography" and "Songs". The Discography tab on the Byrds lists 14 albums, and about 100 compilation albums that they appear on. Clicking on the Songs tab, and selecting the song "Eight Miles High" gives a page with a long review of the song, and about 40 albums it appears on, with lengths listed.

I think you've just missed all the data you're looking for on AllMusic. It all seems to be there, presented well, but perhaps a tad difficult to navigate.

The Yahoo subscription service also has a neat feature where you can queue up songs which are similar to a song/album/artist and listen to those songs, plus at $60 a year it is a pretty cheap way to find new music. I wouldn't reccomend it for building a music library due to the subscriptionyness of it though.

"Balls to the Wall" was by Accept, not AC/DC. Come on, man. . .

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:uz adqj2boj0a

And as for the GP, I think "Big Balls" would be a little more than a few microns in diameter, don't you?

Heh...Rising Force Online? Heh, sounds like a total shred-fest. "You are now level 8. New Technique Learned: Hammer-On. WICKED! "

I dunno if you've seen this, but AllMusic has been working on something that will do this to some extent:

http://tapestry.allmusic.com

The AllMusicGuide has a wide number of "style" categories which albums are classified into, but the number of actual genres are surprisingly sparse. Most /.ers' music collections will all fit into Electronica, Jazz, Latin, R&B, Rap, and Rock.

Why so few genres? Because AMG's real purpose is for music stores to display consistent information about an album. When a record store buys a truckload of albums, they need to categorize them somehow. If you're looking for Fatboy Slim, for example, you're going to look in the Rock/Pop section.

Imagine if record stores had a "Funky Breaks" section (the primary style that AMG gives for Fatboy Slim). It would be a nightmare trying to find any music that you weren't already familiar with. That kind of categorization makes sense for an obscure independent store where you probably haven't heard of most of the music there, and so you'll look for a style you're familiar with and pick out something that looks good. But it doesn't work when people are looking for a particular CD first.

What bearing does this have on the question? Well, in my opinion, any respectable music tagging site should classify music according to the AMG genres. You lose a bit of information, but the system will never fail; music will never be misclassified, just insufficiently classified.

Besides that, it would be nice if ID3-using programs supported styles (so that you could designate New Order as both post-punk and synthpop, for example), but if they don't, then I'd just recommend that you attach the most relevant style by hand. I classify New Order as "Rock: Post-Punk", where the first part is the genre and the second part is the style that is most relevant for me. This has the added advantage of keeping the record store genres next to each other in an alphabetical list, so that depending on my mood, I can choose to play all of my rock albums or only the post-punk ones.

Of course, lately I haven't been genre-tagging my music at all. It's very rare that I don't know exactly what album I want to listen to at any given moment. And shuffle mode is right out. Albums are meant to be listened to as a whole...

I don't know if you're familiar with it, but a good source of music data is AllMusic.com. They have fairly good genre/style info. You'll probably have to roll your own screen-scaper around it, though, if you intend to automate at all. This guy seems to have taken a stab at it. (Of course, I understand Tag&Rename can pull from there as well...)

Oh, it's an Alan Parsons Project reference, is it?

Then (Score: -2, Offtopic)

Why would you think that deserves positive Karma?

There's still fantastic music being made, just not on major labels.
I recommend these websites:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/
http://tinymixtapes.com/
http://www.epitonic.com/
And to a lesser degree, http://www.allmusic.com/.

If you can't find new music you like, you aren't trying hard enough!

The website you want is AllMusic

You have to register to be able to search by song (it's free, or you can use BugMeNot), but you can search by group anonymously.

All Music does a pretty good job of classifying artists