When and What do you guys do while listening to music

I listen to music often and at certain times but I’m hoping to get other perspectives. For me, I usually listen on the bus back from school, in one or two of my classes, when I’m traveling for a while.

Do you guys sit at your desk and randomly listen to music? it’s what I do once in a while. Do you guys play games while doing it? Do you play music while walking?

This is really directed at the guys who do the kitchen videos, but I hear it all the time from so many others.

I didnt even have to bother trying to find a specific video that you can hear the pitch correction in, this was literally the first one that showed up when I searched. I was an uber-dorky choir/acapella kid growing up, and to my ears this is simply not how harmony EVER sounds.

https://www.tiktok.com/@anthony_gargiula/video/7673214770979376414

I dont think I would have as much of an issue with it if they weren't singing in the kitchen. The environment tells a viewer that this is a raw take, that these people are just casually murdering their vocals and are just incredibly talented.

The reality is that after this was recorded, every note has been pitch corrected so that the performance is perfect. To me that feels very deceptive.

And its not just the influencers that are doing it. Take this viral performance of 'Blackbird' by The New York Vocal Collective -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ot2MyW2w0

Anyone who has sung in a choir would know instantly that this is not possible. And if you're presenting yourselves as an elite-level choir, it feels again just very dishonest to be using this amount of pitch correction on EVERY singer (that's why everyone is mic'd individually, you'll notice.)

If you havent had the experience of knowing what a top level choir sounds like, compare that video with this performance by Next Generation Varsity Chorus for the Barbershop Harmony Society. This is what elite level harmonies sound like -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4M3rQ6cg7E

Even if they ARE using some pitch correction for this video, my ears arent picking it up

Am I just a hater, or is this kind of tomfoolery a cheap way to make yourself sound better than you really are?

I’ve been thinking about something my mom said to me a while ago. She’s in her 40s and mostly listens to gospel and Christian hip-hop, so I once asked why she didn’t listen to more newer female artists. She said she liked some of them, but her main problem was, “Why do they always have to sell sex?”
At the time I didn’t have an answer, but the older I get, the more I understand what she meant.
It feels like a lot of women in today’s music industry, especially mainstream female rappers, are expected to have an extremely sexualized image. Sometimes it’s directly in the lyrics, but even when the song itself isn’t that sexual, it shows up in the clothes, choreography, poses, interviews and social-media presence. Music videos will have close-up shots of their chest or butt, their bodies will be oiled and highlighted and the camera will deliberately frame certain body parts as the main attraction.
I originally started thinking about this because of Ice Spice. I wouldn’t necessarily call her content completely explicit, and I definitely wouldn’t call her promiscuous because none of us know what she does in her personal life. However, her public image is almost constantly sexually suggestive. Even when she isn’t showing complete nudity or doing anything outright sexual, the clothes, poses, dancing and camera angles are usually designed around sex appeal.
The same pattern can be seen more explicitly with artists like Cardi B, Sexyy Red, Latto and Doja Cat. I know that some of these women may genuinely enjoy presenting themselves that way, and sexuality can be a form of confidence or self-expression. I’m not saying they’re being forced into it or that they should be ashamed of their bodies.
What I’m questioning is why that particular image seems to be rewarded so heavily and why there isn’t the same amount of room at the top for female rappers with completely different presentations.
Men contribute to it too. Male rappers have spent decades putting half-naked women in their videos and using women’s bodies as background decoration. Male artists also sell sexual fantasies, but they usually aren’t required to display their own bodies in the same way. A man can become successful by looking dangerous, wealthy, mysterious, funny, emotionally detached or powerful. For women, especially in mainstream rap, it sometimes feels like being conventionally attractive and sexually available has practically become part of the job description.
I also don’t want this to come across like I’m targeting Black women or claiming they’re naturally more sexual. I’m talking about a mostly Black genre, the image the music industry promotes within that genre and what audiences reward. There are female rappers who don’t center their careers on sex, but they rarely seem to receive the same marketing, attention or mainstream push.
You can compare that with singers like Adele or Taylor Swift, who are allowed to build their images around songwriting, heartbreak, personality or relatability without constantly presenting their bodies sexually. Beyoncé has definitely used sexuality in her work, so she wouldn’t be a perfect exception, but her public image has enough other dimensions that sexuality doesn’t have to be the only thing audiences associate with her.
Maybe it happens because sexual imagery catches people’s attention, creates clips that spread across social media and brings in more views and money. Maybe labels believe it’s the easiest way to market female rappers. Maybe audiences—including men—keep rewarding that image. It’s probably some combination of personal choice, industry pressure and basic economics.
I’m not arguing that female artists should stop making sexual music. I’m asking why the industry seems to offer them such a narrow path to mainstream success. Do other people notice this too? Do you think it’s mostly the artists’ choice, pressure from labels, audience demand or all three?

Years ago, I really liked this small independent artist, but they recently deleted all of their songs from YouTube and Spotify. They completely vanished from the internet, and because they were so small, no other reuploads exist anywhere(ive looked everywhere for it).

I somehow managed to have the mp3 file of the song. I’d love to contact them to ask for permission, but they are literally untraceable. I'm thinking of posting them so they aren't lost forever, but with a clear disclaimer and massage for the artist so heknows that he can just telle to delete all of it and i will immediately do so. Or should I just let it disappear? What's the best move here?

I used to think older people were exaggerating when they complained about modern music. Now I hear one new song and immediately want to explain how much music was different and better in the past.

Is it too optimistic to say music always transcends time and likings? I believe in current times, a person is consuming varied content in mass media. This clouds their perception, belief system and taste preferences. Hence they grow to lack relatability to other’s taste.

especially when looking at the development of African-American and Caribbean and Latin music. Enslaved Africans came from many different regions and ethnic groups, but despite being separated from their homelands and subjected to forced assimilation, certain African musical traditions seem to have survived and influenced the music that developed in the Americas.How much of what we hear in African-American, Caribbean, and other forms of diasporic music today can be connected to pre-colonial African musical traditions? And which aspects were preserved relatively directly versus being transformed through interaction with European and Indigenous musical traditions?

I’ve been thinking about how much an artist’s personality, story, aesthetic and online presence influence how people connect with their music.

Do people genuinely fall in love with the music first, or does becoming emotionally invested in the artist make them care more about the music?

For example, can a great song from an unknown artist have the same impact as a great song from an artist whose story and personality you already feel connected to?

Curious to hear from both artists and listeners. What actually makes you become invested in an artist?

I honestly appreciate beats that use a sample as one of several components to a beat rather than the foundation of the beat. I kind of find it really lazy when a beat is basically a sample but with the pitch changed plus a few drums added. That's just taking a good song and singing over it instead of going through the whole or even half of the creative process yourself.

Kanye is the best example of using samples appropriately. I know my standards could be a bit harsh if not overkill since the music scene has always endorsed and supported covers of songs and remixes, this just might be the production version of a music cover. I'm still conflicted with it because it really makes the creative process hollow. I'm no stranger to dadism and the concept of readymades. This isn't a ready made though but rather someone else's art which you fashion as your own

Don't get me wrong. The culture of covering songs, remixes and sampling has given us different takes to songs which is cool. What it has also done is create a phenomenon of original songs being eclipsed by the cover/remix, like nina simone's the other women, Lana's has been so successful people think it's the original. Is this Imitative competition or borderline appropiation? That's my question. I just want to know when exactly has virgil abloh's 3% been met and when it hasn't, and if we should endorse anything below it

EDIT: The other woman was originally written and performed before nina

I'm listening to the new Dinosaur Jr. record and thoroughly enjoying it. They are one of my favourite, dearest, bands. Yet despite it sounding much like much of their earlier, or, frankly, all other, work, I'm not mad about it as I might be with other artists who might attempt the same thing- sounding the same over and over and over again.

Fans of... stuff in general... seem to be of two camps; 1) those wanting/demanding change/development and 2) those wanting more of the same old familiar thing.

I think it's also to do with what a band gets their fanbase accustomed to... a band like Radiohead, for example, is fairly forward-moving, not really rehashing what they'd already done really, always experimenting... and fans have come to expect that... While other bands maybe did somewhat the same thing for 2-3 albums and then fans continue to want more of that and actually get upset if they deviate too much. So it can go either way I guess.

If anything, it's the exception, that fans want more of the same, and Dinosaur Jr. seems to fall in that camp- they seem exempt from any such criticism that they might've stagnated, frankly, because they're genuinely just too fucking cool. But also, how far can what they are really be taken? I don't think sonic experimentation quite like that is their niche, and that it's okay for them to stay in their wheelhouse.

Maybe they're an anomaly and the only band to fit this, idk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNdcFPjGsm8&list=RDSNdcFPjGsm8&start_radio=1

"Revolution 9" by The Beatles is one of the most unique, odd, and polarizing tracks in their discography. I, like many people, used to hate it and always treated it as an easy skip when listening to The White Album. Recently, however, I have developed a newfound appreciation for it. I would now argue that "Revolution 9" is one of the most innovative and visionary pieces the band ever created. How can a track so universally disliked become a respected piece of art to an individual? And I am certainly not the only one who defends it.

I think of "Revolution 9" as less of a traditional song and more of an experience, acting as a sonic and atmospheric painting. Of course, music is subjective, and this perspective doesn't mean you have to enjoy it. I will be the first to admit that I don't listen to it the way I would a regular track. You can't just listen for melody, chords, or a standard beat. Instead, it is much closer to visual art. I would compare its ambient, atmospheric walls of sound to modern post-rock and electronic artists like Boards of Canada, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, and Aphex Twin.

A great conceptual parallel to this track is the album Everywhere at the End of Time by The Caretaker. This project refuses to be simplified into basic pop music. The album sonically mirrors the ongoing battle with dementia, charting the incremental degradation of a mind through fleeting memories and building confusion. As it progresses, the audio becomes hollow, fractured, and decayed. You don't casually say, "Hey, I want to listen to that dementia album." You sit with it as if you were staring at a painting.

To me, "Revolution 9" evokes a similar, heavy conceptual weight. It sounds like the auditory experience of suffering a traumatic brain injury, or perhaps the final moments of dying. It captures a consciousness becoming fragmented, overwhelmed, and completely detached from ordinary reality. You hear the fleeting final moments of life through distorting voices, repetitious loops, and abstract thoughts. It sounds like a mind fleeing from life, being forgotten, and degrading back to its primordial self. In my opinion, that makes it one of the most visionary "songs" in The Beatles' entire catalog.

This may be a niche topic that some won’t understand depending on your generation

My husband and I are having a discussion while watching old music videos tonight. Would you explain the scene culture as more of a fashion culture or music culture. If music which bands do you believe were inherently “scene” and why?

Additionally, it would be interesting to know which part of the US or world you grew up in and what years you associated with the peak of this culture

U2 is a big one for me.

I really like U2, and it seems so too did a lot of people for their first few albums.

Then, suddenly, it became like the cool de facto thing to do, to hate on U2.

What was it in their case that turned them from once-loved to so widely hated, the butt of countless jokes?

Was it the Africa/activism stuff? Weird thing to hate on, imo. Was it the iPod/iPhone forced-download thing? Is it such an inconvenience to delete an album off your device that it'd forever negatively taint their reputation?

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed everything until How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb- actually, that and All That You Can't Leave Behind are my favourite U2 albums- granted, I think it's because they're the two I grew up with. And I even liked No Line On The Horizon, but that seems to never be talked about. It was definitely the album/moment where they quite heavily began to veer off into "phoning it in" territory. I'm sure some would argue that happened with my two favourite albums I mentioned above, but obviously my bias won't let me say that. I genuinely, thoroughly, enjoy almost every track on those two records.

They make epic feel-good music which so many love and can vibe out to together, and there's great value in that, imo.

Again, I'm obviously biased, but I genuinely can't fathom why the endless hate.

It's funny when people will spew endless hate on them but always have the caveat "but their first few albums..."- it's just funny to observe the switch-up, from loving something to hating it so strongly.

Moby is another one... I don't actually know whether he was actually widely loved or always kind of made fun of... I want to say Eminem alone did irreparable damage to the perception of Moby lol...but like, it seemed somewhat okay to say you liked him in the 2000's, whereas now, you're made to be some big lame if you do. As much as I'm for animal rights and don't deny his heart is in the right place with all that, it can definitely be heavy-handed and over-the-top.

RHCP another one, similar to U2, where the first few albums, culminating in BSSM, are seen as something revolutionary/explosive/amazing, but anything later gets regularly put down. My personal favourite is the three record run of Californication-By The Way-Stadium Arcadium.

Coldplay... they seemed to be made fun of from the start, for what, allegedly being a Radiohead rip-off/wannabe? Idk, they're def nowhere near Radiohead quality/status, but their first three or four albums are solid. I will admit, even as a fan, that anything post-Mylo Xyloto (and even that album) just sounds so overtly polished and devoid of soul. A big departure from the first few.

See, even just writing all this out, I can already feel your hate and judgement coming a mile away, I've been so conditioned to be ashamed of my taste by fellow music fans, which is what the real lame thing is, imo.

I'm just curious though what it is that makes certain once-loved acts become hated later. And I mean purely as far as the music goes- of course with the shitty things they've done in their personal lives, that's more than reason enough to forever hate on someone... but this hate was observed before many such things came to light- like there was some collective barometer reading "sellout". What is the sound of selling out? How does it appear/manifest in the music? Genuinely curious.

I listen to all sorts of music. And every single time that I find a new genre of music I have to do a bunch of digging to determine what genre the song or album is actually in, and even then nobody can agree on the genre. There will be a general consensus for smaller genres but for wide ranging ones like all the genres or pop, or rock, it’s almost impossible to find a definitive genre and it’s upsetting me I can’t get anything organized into a proper playlist. I end up making “_____ and anything that sounds like it” which is fine, but the same issue occurs when I find a new genre I know nothing about and I obviously research albums that fit in that genre so I can discover more. And again, apart from the widely known and accepted albums, everyone has a different opinion about whether or not an album is the genre I’m trying to research. Please help

For decades I've seen Molly Hatchet albums at second-hand stores and never, not even once, was curious about what they sounded like. I assumed cheesy metal because of the Viking looking mascot. But out of curiosity's sake I put it on my streamer and realized this is the band that did the song Flirtin' With Disaster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNAfSENE68&list=RDOgNAfSENE68&start_radio=1

As someone that grew up in a place with ZERO rock on the radio (country, tejano and a top 40 station that included hits in Spanish). I learned about classic rock later in life and just assumed that maybe that was a Charlie Daniels Band song. I was exposed to MTV rock, but classic rock? Nope. It was so bad I would tape rock stations when I went out of town just to hear something different.

If you like southern, twangy, over the top bluesy rock that whole album is amazing. The song Fall of the Peacekeepers is pretty amazing as well from a different albumhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjeY2EbokSA&list=RDBjeY2EbokSA&start_radio=1.

It turns out that at least that whole Flirtin' with Disaster album is a good time. Overly technical southern rock with more freewheeling solos than necessary. You get a feeling, especially because they're from Florida, some of these guys would be in technical death metal bands today due to how complex the guitar game is. It's fun. It's party music for the most part.

Also, this band is a total mess when it comes to who is even in the band and what they were up to. They are touring right now and no original members are still alive. Total Madness. I don't know if they've had more lineup changes than Napalm Death or TSOL. There's absolutely no reason for a wiki page to be this long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Hatchet.

I kind of wish Danny McBride would star in a movie about these guys. They started off as a cover band that would just play every club in Jacksonville and then change the band name and do it all over again. They also sounded so much like Lynyrd Skynyrd that a member of LS was on the verge of heading into the studio with them when the plane crash happened.

Anyway, just wanted to post something fun and talk about a bunch of crazy southern guys making music that anyone born below the Mason Dixon line will be naturally drawn to. Something about that twangy sound that will get to you if your from the South, makes me think of Bret Hinds and his bluegrass pickin' solos on all those Mastodon albums. I bet 100% my uncles were smoking bowls to this in their younger days.

I've been noticing lately that some of my absolute favorite songs feature instruments I have zero experience with. Like the kora in some African music or a zither in folk tunes. Or even just a really well-played bass clarinet. I'm a guitar player myself but there's something about the sound of these less common instruments that just hooks me.

It's not just that they sound cool. It's almost like a fascination with the instrument itself. I'll watch videos of people playing them even though I have no intention of ever learning. It's like appreciating a beautiful painting even if you can't paint.

Is it the unique timbre? The cultural context? Or just the novelty of hearing something different from the usual guitars drums and keys? I'm curious if anyone else gets this feeling with certain instruments.

I’ve always found it interesting how we can feel genuinely attached to an artist we’ve never met and probably never will. Sometimes it’s the music itself, but sometimes it feels like there’s something deeper.

What do you think creates that connection? Is it the artist’s lyrics, their voice, their personality, their story, or simply the way their music makes you feel understood? And can you feel connected to an artist even if you know almost nothing about their personal life?

Not the genre or “for fans of…”

I mean the little human details: a strange association, a memory, a specific moment in the song. The reason they came back to it. Something they heard in it that I may or may not hear myself.

I’ve realized those are the recommendations I tend to follow. They leave breadcrumbs 😊.

The artist or label gives the music one frame. Then a listener adds a little of themselves to it. And suddenly I want to follow that trail, listen, compare their perception with mine, and probably leave a few breadcrumbs of my own.

So, what kind of recommendation makes you press play?

Personally got super into music in the early 90s, then got into Grateful Dead and things like that. Still adore GD, but now days mostly listen to, I guess you'd call it folk, because I'm a geezer, Lots of Dylan, Tom Waits, Zevon, Van Zandt, etc... probably listen to more Jerry Garcia Band than GD these days.

A few years ago I revisited a lot of 90s stuff. We were a lot more limited in the 90s without streaming, so a lot of it I just don't really need to hear anymore because I listened to the albums over and over, like Nirvana and PJ. And some of it seems immature now, like RHCP, a lot of that just seems overly explicit and unnecessarily gross, or NIN seems overly edgy (still really like some songs by both of them).

Since I revisited the 90s stuff though, some of it has stuck. Blind Melon is one I appreciate more now than back then, even though I listened to the Bee album like crazy. And some of the other stuff I listened to back then, but not that much, like PJ Harvey, good God she is awesome, and The Breeders.

Not really sure if that means the stuff that holds up for me now was the best or if seeing it from a different lens, but curious if others have experienced the same and why you think that might be. Plus I want some good recs!

I posted on r/kendrick lamar about Tupac. I'm aware he's seen as one of the greatest and most influencial rappers of all time but on a personal level how do you guys feel about it. I can't get into any of his stuff but I'm a huge on kendricks work and kendrick views Tupac as one of his idols and one point one of the best rappers alive.

Is he the same to you guys? Do you see anyone who doesn't listen to rap majority of the time listening to him regularly if at all?

Feels like upon entering 1960s, most of the black musicians are tend to make music that's rather more soulful and sweet ballad like music, includes James brown. But upon entering 1964, James Brown's music and performance are gradually become more aggressive and energic; where the beat is stronger and more complex compare to his music from 50s and early 60s, is it because the need to compete with british invasion that has similar energy? Or just james hiself decides to make new move on his music?

I have been listening to punk, indie, alternative pop and rock for about 40 years now. There have always been some female vocalists, but they were in the minority. I can’t say that I have gone out of my way to listen to female vocalists, but have nothing against them.

These days almost all of the indie artists I find myself listening to are women: Waxahatchee, Adrienne Lenker, Snail Mail, Japanese Breakfast, Soccer Mommy, Courtney Barnett, Hurrah for the Riff Raff, The Beths, and so many more.

Is there really just an explosion of fantastic female artists, or a dearth of guys in indie pop/rock, or am I just in some kind of bubble?

So on one hand I hear outlaw country just means people who weren't associated with the major record labels/type of country out of Nashville (Willie Nelson). But there seems to be a modern definition of a completely new type of country that has a real swampy/dark instrumentals (Typically in drop d tuning on guitar for example) and you can find this all over on social media if you check out the hashtag #outlawcountry. Its usually made by random people, not well established artists but they all have the same sound to them. Personally I dig this second type of music more than traditional outlaw country but I have no idea how to find more of it that's actually downloadable. Any ideas?

✌️Boring✌️ in quotes because ultimately, music is subjective of course, but I've recently been listening to a lot of Charlie Puth. I just wanna preface I don't hate Charlie, he's incredibly talented in all areas, vocals, musicality, production etc. though I've always thought his music was...mid?

Others like Shawn Mendes, Ed Sheeran (I love Ed), even Justin Bieber cross my mind, all incredibly talented musicians in their own right, but I cant help but feel exhausted with the whole "radio" sound.

I don't necessarily mean "generic" either. There's plenty of music that follows a conventional structure that I wouldn't call boring. I think what I'm trying to describe is when an artist has all the technical ability in the world, but their music doesn't really surprise me or leave much of an impression.

Maybe it's overly polished? Lack of identity? There are just so many artists who are objectively making very well-produced music, yet I can listen to an entire album and come away feeling like I didn't experience much.

So what actually makes music "boring"? Is it predictability? Repetition? Overproduction? Lack of personality? Or is "boring" just what happens when a certain sound just doesn't click?

TL;DR: (title of post)

Edit1: Been loving the responses people. Real interesting to see all your takes on what makes music boring 🎶🥱

Edit2: Suprised to see how many comments are on this post, can't reply to all of them but I really enjoyed reading everyones opinions on what makes music boring to you! ✌️