Exactly. In the late 1980s after Shitney influenced mainstream for the worst, I waited for the 1990s for things to get better. They did, at least in the gay underground. The gay clubs were throwing down just as hard as clubs were before Shitney Houston while straight clubs were dull as hell and full of midtempo shit hop.

Well, by the mid-1990s, the type of shit hop that was dominating the straight clubs was slowly entering the gay clubs too. I did the same as the decade before, I waited for the new decade for things to get better. Except this time, it didn't get better. Instead it got worse. Then I waited for 2005 and it still got worse....all the while noticing that there was no style change in music. It was still the same stripped down midtempo shit hop that was dominating in the early 1990s. Us older people know from experience and living through the eras that there is usually a style change around every five years or so. That's not the case anymore. Why? It's because of monopolies in both radio and labels. They aren't about to let a new style of music come along that might cost more to make than shit hop. If a whole bunch of people wanted to sing acapella, I bet they would allow that though. Why? Because it's cheap.

So yeah, as long as we have these monopolies controlling what's in the mainstream, it definately would take something extreme to change the style of music that they have been so successful at keeping alive. Of course I'm happy to see people downloading and copying music for their friends. It helps the monopolies to lose money. I'd love to see them begging for a bailout from the government. And that's one bailout that better not be given because people may not be able to live without cars or banks but they sure as hell can live without new shit hop. Hell, I've lived without new funk for years, these kids will survive.
.
.
.
[Edited 2/2/09 14:10pm]

Yep and it's dangerous how they are getting laid. Internet chat rooms, gay cruising areas, or porn shops. Most people I've met in those places are usually perverts or hustlers. Give me a club for a meeting ground anytime, at least most of the dangerous closet cases won't go in there for fear of someone they know seeing them.




Not to mention that the music is too damn slow to dance to. The last few times I've been out, the club has been packed but the dancefloor has been empty. Everyone is just sitting around at the bar or at tables all night long. I feel like I'm in an old fogie "bar" like "Cheers" or something. Where's the wildness and outrageousness that used to be all over the dancefloor, not to mention the fun? It's not there anymore because everything's too damn slow. I've never seen a whole generation go completely backwards in time to the days of all slow music. Hell, it looks like the nursing homes are going to be the partying places to be when we get old while the younger generation will be the ones sitting around in rocking chairs. It's like role reversal. It's rediculous.

Whaaaaat? Wait hold the fuck up. Its time to hang up the boots goldilocks. The good ol days are long gone. Laaaaame. Such a whinger. There are plenty of places to pick up other than the clubs and raves. The thing is it’s got nothing to do with young people these days or the music that’s playing in the clubs, the problem is, and has always been, your insecurities. Log off prince.org and go find a new hobby. Maybe you just can’t pick up or maybe you just can’t relate generationally.

http://www.imeem.com/peop...e_to_fuck/

vainandy said:

Its pretty much the same scene in the straight clubs. Boys on one side; girls on the other. It seems like the MySpace generation would rather text each other than actually talk and interact with each other. I live in a large city and I see the same thing. You see everyone in cliques of people that came together. I will say this: there's a lot more "line" type dancing going on than I remember back in the day. Every rapper seems to have a dance these days and you see a lot of them in the clubs.

BlaqueKnight said:

Just what does that mean..."musical anarchy?" What in the world does that even mean? And Vainandy has been suggesting that the reason music sucks these days is because the public is being saturated with bad music - which in turn, makes it that much more difficult for good music/artists to have a say in today's musical conversation. Not only is that an entirely a groundless stance, Vainandy believes:

1. Good artists/music doesn't exist
2. If they do exist, GASP! he's got to LOOK FOR THEM! OH THE HORROR!




No it isn't. Music is harder to sell these days because it's damn near free. Why buy the cow if the milk is free? Like I said before, niche markets exists. Fans will buy music from artists they believe in. Monies made from licensing, once regarded as "selling out" is now a popular revenue stream for bands. Artists must make customers care again.





I gave Vainandy a map; he can use it to locate quality art. There is simply no excuse in today's interconnectedness for a music fan to be without good music.



Then stop getting your music from conduits that pump regurgitated crap. Whole Foods is down the street...




No disrespect, but that's blah blah generalizing blah. And the people who are going to live shows (which is the dominant cash cow for bands these days) would disagree with you. Bands make money doing live shows - so, the underground (even though I don't believe in such a thing) is apparently not hard to find. Anybody heard of Antony & The Johnsons? Check him out - see how well he's doing - (For those of you who are disinclined to doing research, Antony Hegarty's doing very well. And that dude is as niche as niche can get). Also, check out a cat named Corey Smith. Google still works, last time I checked.




And that's the problem with you and Vainandy's argument. You keep using Prince and MJ as examples to support your opinion. You can't. Prince and MJ made their millions using an old, outdated music business model. There wasn't any internet or downloading platforms in 1983. The problem is not that the meek have inherited the music business - honey, it's an entirely different mode of music business being conducted. Downloading is not preparation for anarchy - downloading (Shawn Fanning/napster) was the anarchy. Now that the dust has settled, downloading is music consumers getting down to business. Really, I think you two are a couple of lazy lima beans who want to hear good music on the radio and in the club. I'm telling you now - for the most part, you're better off looking for cheeseburgers ar Oprah's. To put it simply - look elsewhere.


There are musicians on this earth, right now, full of integrity, promise and talent, making music to heal the world...

...and for Vainandy to get some "new dick!"

I never do this but, chuckaducci...

eaglebear4839 said:

But you know what, judging from the songs I heard on his new site, it looks like he might be pandering to get on the radio again. I hate to say that especially about my purple hero, but I really do think he's trying to pull in some numbers again.

And what is that? A link to a website? As I said before, when you meet someone on the internet, you are at risk or running into someone who wants to piss or shit on you, or wear diapers, or stick a wine bottle up your ass, or even kill you. Perverts exist everywhere but the internet is full of them. As I said before, when it comes to picking up someone in the gay scene, a nightclub is still the safest bet.

I have looked for them and I have found very little. Not to mention, I'm tired of looking for them. And the fact that I have to look for them in the first place, pisses me off. I didn't use to have to look for them. Why should I now? It's the principle of the damn thing.




I could definately go for some. It seems like these days, a lot of the new dick comes with the shit hop attitude they pick up from listening to that dull shit they listen to. There's no fun and hanging out together before getting down to business anymore. Nowadays, I go straight for the zipper as soon as I meet them and tell them to not spoil it by talking.
.
.
.
[Edited 2/3/09 6:31am]

vainandy said:

laaaame. if you put the same level of commitment you do into writing your essays on prince.org into finding a mate, then maybe you'd be happy. i dont buy that bullshit that the only place for you to pick up is at the club. if your idea of going to a club is to get bumped into by random guys and groped and touched inappropriately then i dont play that. there's no green light for that type of fuckery unless you invite it.

Who wants a mate? Hell, I have enough problems already, I sure as hell don't need that problem. Hell, men are like neices, nephews, or grandchildren. They're nice to have over for a little while, but at the end of the day, they can go home and be somebody else's problem.

vainandy said:

ever tried dating a woman?

Hell, a woman ain't got no dick. They're only good for friendship.

chuckaducci said:

I typed up a full response to your post but unfortunately, it got erased.
So to summarize, Vainandy and I aren't the same person. If you read or have read my posts before, you'd already know that I have no trouble finding new music.
Not everyone can afford to have a broadband connection and pay a high ass bill every month, so people should not be criticized for being poor or not in the financial position to hit MySpace, Imeem, LastFM and places like that on the regular.

Of course I made generalizations and unless you have data on every club in every city stating every spot that plays "underground" music and defining every variation of underground, you are generalizing, too. You named a few individual bands but for every one you name, there are a hundred trying and failing. I can agree that downloading was musical anarchy but it doesn't stop there. In order for people to have true freedom, the old system has to be completely destroyed and that hasn't happened. I'm convinced it will but it hasn't yet. The same people who have been controlling shit are still controlling shit (Sumner Redstone, The Mays Brothers, Lyor Cohen, etc.); they just get more advertising money now but they are still the guiding hands behind what people consume. I mentioned Prince and MJ because they are icons who could be using their celebrity status to guide their fanbases to new artists and a better grade of music. It applies to all of the pre-90s icons but I mentioned them because they are two of the biggest from the 80s. Artists like MeShell NDegeochello do it but bigger artists need to pick up on that business model and adopt it. MJ & Prince are huge narcissists and that's what keeps them from doing it.
Still, a great number of clubs have become even more "top 40" than ever before and that's what makes it harder for people like Vainandy. And you know what, he's right about the club play. I don't know where you live but I live in a big city and clubs seem to have become more and more top 40 over the past few years. What's the fucking point of hitting the clubs if they are playing everything the radio is? Its redundant. It seems that clubs aren't "ahead" like they used to be. Whereas I can say "fuck it" and go home and web surf, people like Vainandy and those who don't have broadband or even those who don't have the internet at home are screwed and that can lead to a feeling of musical hopelessness or the belief that it doesn't exist.

The meek have definitely inherited the music business. They changed the business model. I've been talking about this stuff for years and have called a few major changes right on this site before they happened. Consumers have to take control of their choices and to do that, they must first shake the influence of the ad execs that call the shots. Unfortunately, the younger generation believes the hype every time, so that's the biggest obstacle. Top 40 radio has to go. The airwaves have been gentrified. Its time to let them go and move on. It would seem that instead, a lot of people have given up and just adapted to Clear Channel programming. The younger generation ain't looking for funk, they look for hip-hop. The older icons aren't helping guide their dwindling fanbases to better music. Club promoters aren't creating more "funk nights" at clubs to help keep the real music going. Its easy to see why Vainandy and others would believe that there's no good music. If you aren't getting it online, you aren't getting it.

Exactly! A lot of people who have these things, just assume that everyone else can afford them also. It's like this....which is more important, paying my rent and utilities, or paying for an internet service that is fast enough to show videos and download music? There's not enough money for both so a choice definately has to be made. And I be damned if I put something else in jeapordy just so I can get a high speed internet service in hopes that I will find some good music. That's like a child risking getting a whipping from his mama and staying up all night on Christmas Eve in hopes of seeing Santa Claus.



Exactly. Those clubs don't play anything these days that the radio doesn't play except some acid trance stype stuff every now and then and that trance mess is far from funk, disco, house music, or any other form of dance music.




Exactly. I've never been one to give in to something I considered weaker than before. Adapting to something funkier and better is fine but to go backwards in time and adapt to all slow or midtempo stuff, NEVER!. I didn't adapt to the Shitney Houston type singers in the late 1980s and I didn't adapt to the shit hop in the 1990s either. However, there was always great dance music in the clubs during these eras. The clubs were a completely different scene from the radio back then. Nowadays, clubs and radio are the same damn thing.

BlaqueKnight said:

Never did I criticize those who aren't financially capable of utilizing the privileges of the internet. I criticized Vainandy; who ostensibly, has not utilized the internet to placate his need for new, good music. So your attempt at plucking the heart strings and taking on the cause of those less fortunate is a straw man argument. I'll say it again - if you're online, you don't have to listen to American's Top 40 if you don't want to. There are some who do dig that shit! But, there is no excuse for any internet user to be without a music that can get you through this thing called life.



So what? Success in the music industry is not guaranteed. It never has been and never will be. The examples of successful niche market musicians making worthwhile and credible music without the aid of the "old guard" (more on that later), you took out of context, BK.



I categorically disagree. Redstone et al are hardly influential. They are the "old guard" I mentioned previously. They are panicking, frightful, uninfluential and for that, I am glad. Think about:

*MTV no longer playing music videos. TRL is dead. Youtube plays music videos for free. Google owns Youtube. Google, last time I checked, had nothing to do with the "old guard."

*Social websites are now forming record labels

*The print media is suffering as well. Subscriptions to magazines and newspapers are down. Where is the influece of the old guard? Oh...I see them...they're in the corner over there shaking in their collective boots.

*The old guard has no say with Amazon or, most importantly, Apple Inc. Sure, they may have recently forced Apple to make price adjustments, but I'm willing to bet the farm that Steve Jobs wields a greater influence on the music industry than those parties you mentioned combined.

....Now, granted, Europe is beginning to intiate and pass legislation that forces ISP providers to disconnect those downloading music illegally and yes, it may begin to make waves over here in the States (VP Biden is keen on the issue) but it would be a mistake to believe that the old guard, because of these new initiatives, are clinking champagne glasses and thanking God for righting the ship.



A post I made earlier concerning Prince missed the mark. Prince was actually one of the handful of major recording artists who shunned record labels and the big wigs and struck out on his own, utilizing the internet as the major platform in releasing music and conversing with and building a relationship with his fanbase. Yes, he already had his legion of fans, but he did have the foresight to abandon the old business model. Kudos to him. Most self-aware and DIY artists should follow suit. The old business model is a dinosaur.



What can I say to you two old bastards bemoaning the demise of your beloved club? J/K! Really, all one can offer in a response is - find a new club!



I almost agree. The "consumer" has inherited the music business and yes - it has been changed.



That is happening now. Also, I would like for you to point out the influence of the old guard's dominion and it's shot calling effectiveness.



Agreed.



1.Clear Channel is a joke and I don't know one musician or artist who cares what Sumner Deadstone thinks.

2.Hip hop has been the dominating cultural phenomenon in America for awhile now, but even that is losing it's grip.

3.Older icons are more concerned with their pocketbooks and bank accounts and adjusting to the new fangled, topsy turvy industry than trying to help out new kids on the block.

4.Club promoters - another dying breed - promoting funk nights at clubs are definitly going to lose money as funk music is not the prevailing genre of profitable music. And why does funk music own the exclusive rights to being called "real music" whatever the hell that is? What, country music isn't real? Hip hop music isn't real? Pop isn't real?

You guys are painting a dreadful picture with paints that have long lost their colourful lustre - real, good, new, quality, innovative, music exists and is readily available!

Really its a generational thing. This new generation is not accustomed to paying for music, and the generations behind them even less so since all they know are mp3's. Cd's are not the future, the business model has to change. The music industry as we know it is dead..no one wants to leave the funeral or inter the body.
The only way that I get new music or find out about any new artist is through Itunes.

chuckaducci said:

WRONG. Vainandy has said before that he doesn't have broadband. Try to load a MySpace page without broadband. I tried over at a friend's house not too long ago. Its hell. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of sites Vainandy and others have to miss out on that those of us with the luxury of broadband don't think about. Part of it is his reluctance to search; part of it is reality. I'm not tugging at heart strings, just telling the truth. You don't seem to give a damn because it doesn't affect you, nonetheless ITS REAL FOR SOME. Part of gentrification is formatting people into a middle-class mindset. That often means omitting those less fortunate and even condemning them for being so. How very Western. Hmmm, wonder why the rest of the world hates us?



Prince is one of the worst examples. Where's 1 800 New-Funk? Where's NPGMC?
Where's his new site? Isn't it down right now? Prince has notoriously failed in this area. Promotion of artists and music that never gets delivered, all out bitchiness and overly-controlling and let's not forget that he even threatened to shut this place down, too. Bowie or even NIN are better examples of fanbase/artist interaction. Sananda (TTD) has been stellar in this avenue and he was doing it before Prince was. Prince and MJ aren't the best examples. They are only two people, though.
I do agree that the old business model is on its way out but its not GONE yet. People still listen to the radio. Until radio stations start closing and Clear Channel goes out of business, they still wield a degree of power over peoples' selections.

As we speak, the RIAA is in talks with AT&T and Comcast about combating consumer piracy. Do you actually think those fools are going to roll over and take it up the rear?
http://news.cnet.com/8301...89-93.html
You're living in 2012-2016. I'm discussing things going on in 2009. We haven't "won" yet. You're counting chickens before they hatch. Its just a matter of time before they get up the balls to challenge the public.

The Mays brothers own Live Nation and Live Nation pretty much owns or is responsible for booking almost every major venue in the country. Yeah, they're irrelevant. Riiiight.[/sarcasm] Maybe the musicians you know can't get booked at a major venue.
I don't excuse "icons" for their neglegence. Its not just them but they have some accountability as well. They can do both - get used to a new business model AND feature new artists or make artist suggestions on their websites. Come on, miss me with the excuses. They are both egotists and that's why they don't do it. Its much like how Jay-Z, Puffy (excuse me, Ciroc Obama as he calls himself), Jermaine Dupri and the other current "new money" haven't been picking successors; EGO.
Funk music doesn't own the "exclusive rights" but its damn sure a good example. Its like someone saying "processed orange juice is just as good as fresh-squeezed." Since taste is subjective, it may be try for that individual BUT, I'm not going to sit here and debate it with you. If you prefer pre-packaged, sample-laden MPC grooves with a 3:30 time limit, no changes, bridges or solos that do nothing more than serve as backdrop, have at it. I'll take my orange juice freshly squeezed, thank you; made by MUSICIANS who play actual instruments.
You ain't foolin' nobody, Chucci. You probably like funk just as much as I do.


You mean, like MySpace records? Now, who owns MySpace? Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox and News Corp. Its just control changing hands, that's all.
You can't have true consumer freedom until you take the power away from the corporations.
I'm done debating you on this. What will be, will be. I find new music all of the time. I even share my findings on occasion on here.
You just do you; I'mma do meeeee....
[Edited 2/3/09 18:26pm]

I don't think that we are simply witnessing a change of a business model - we are witnissing a quite dramatic change of pop culture which might go as far as pop music (in its classic sense) fading away.

I think that there have been three milestones in the development of popular music since the 1950s (i.e., post-WWII):

1) The association of "pop" with "youth"
Elvis and all the other Rock'n'Roll artists made music for young people. All of a sudden, pop music was a way of finding personal identity for young folks rather than something played on a dancing event for middle-aged people.

2) The evolution of the album as an art form
As someone pointed out before, albums were just singles collections in the beginning, but they evolved into something bigger ca. in the 1960s - just think of "Sgt. Pepper's", "Pet Sounds" or "Beggars Banquet". This was when the current business model (the single as a teaser for the album) was more or less developed.

3) The media revolution - music videos and MTV
Ca. in the early 1980s, music videos and MTV revolutionized the music business, and the music video became an art form too - just think of "Thriller", the Peter Gabriel videos or those Anton Corbijn made for Depeche Mode. Again, MTV helped in the identification of a pop-interested youth with their music.

Now I think that we see this development being reversed. First, the music videos more or less died because MTV preferred to show Brooke Hogan trying to get a pussy piercing rather than the latest music videos. Second, records are losing their importance simply because it's difficult to make any money from them, so the good old album might be at risk. It's probably only a matter of time until the first point is killed as well, and I already see hints that that is going on. Or do you think that a youth can really relate to music which hasn't changed in 10+ years?

Anyway, there seems to be much, much more to the story than just record sales dropping imo.

In the UK, at least,CD's cost WAY less than they used to - So there is no excuse for stealing stuff off the internet (and yes, I do that too sometimes, so I am not pointing the finger)


LEGAL downloading is on the up, so that's a good sign that whilst some people just don't care much for a physical format (I prefer to have an actual CD myself, but hey), at least some of them are prepared to pay for the music they have on their PC/ iPod/ MP3 player/ fucking mobile phone at full volume through a shitty speaker whilst they are sat next to me on the bus.


And there are a lot of record companies that have either lost loads of money or gone completely, so the days of record execs creaming off huge profits are long gone.

They need to look at a new way of doing business. The artists are ahead of them in that respect, with MySpace etc helping them to reach fans for no financial outlay whatsoever.

Maybe it's time for the music TV channels to face up to the influence THEY have had, whereby a new track is played to death way before it is even released. I mean, what is the point of buying a Beyonce single, when you can hear it all the times you could possibly want just by sticking your telly on?
The broadcasters that charge these elevated prices for subscriptions need to make sure the artists are getting paid well enough for each showing of the video.
[Edited 2/4/09 2:21am]

BlaqueKnight said:

You don't need broadband to seek out new art/music on the internet. Sorry - if he's got time to post at Prince, he's got the time to find new music.

You don't seem to give a damn because it doesn't affect you, nonetheless ITS REAL FOR SOME. Part of gentrification is formatting people into a middle-class mindset. That often means omitting those less fortunate and even condemning them for being so. How very Western. Hmmm, wonder why the rest of the world hates us?

Whoa, what? I guess you're trying to score some points at my expense by going off on a socio-economic rant? - I'm amused at best. How you managed to go on that tangent after I plainly stated that anybody who is online shouldn't be complaining about the lack of good music, is beyond me.

The Mays brothers own Live Nation and Live Nation pretty much owns or is responsible for booking almost every major venue in the country. Yeah, they're irrelevant. Riiiight.[/sarcasm] Maybe the musicians you know can't get booked at a major venue.

Live Nation - another example of the old business model dying. They are concert promoters, right? When did you ever hear of recording artists signing "record contracts" with concert promoters. Anyways, earlier, I scoffed at the mentioning of Live Nation because there isn't one recording artist signed to that company that I care about. Off the top of my head, I know that Madge, U2 and Jay-Z are penciled in - yawn. I don't care about established artists with their legions already to mobilize. I care about the artists who can't get on top 40 radio. And I think that there are beginning to be more who think like me, those who would shun top 40, than those who would buy into that hype.

Its not just them but they have some accountability as well. They can do both -get used to a new business model AND feature new artists or make artist suggestions on their websites. Come on, miss me with the excuses. They are both egotists and that's why they don't do it. Its much like how Jay-Z, Puffy (excuse me, Ciroc Obama as he calls himself), Jermaine Dupri and the other current "new money" haven't been picking successors; EGO.
Funk music doesn't own the "exclusive rights" but its damn sure a good example. Its like someone saying "processed orange juice is just as good as fresh-squeezed." Since taste is subjective, it may be try for that individual BUT, I'm not going to sit here and debate it with you. If you prefer pre-packaged, sample-laden MPC grooves with a 3:30 time limit, no changes, bridges or solos that do nothing more than serve as backdrop, have at it. I'll take my orange juice freshly squeezed, thank you; made by MUSICIANS who play actual instruments.
You ain't foolin' nobody, Chucci. You probably like funk just as much as I do.

I don't know what you're getting at with this particular post. It comes across as an editorial on the musical merits of funk; since it's irrelevant to this topic, I just don't really care. I don't think funk music is the only "real music" (I really hate that term) and you're preaching to the choir.

...who owns MySpace? Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox and News Corp. Its just control changing hands, that's all.
You can't have true consumer freedom until you take the power away from the corporations.

Myspace is not the only social website forming record companies. Why does it seem like I'm the only in this thread who actually reads/researches? Well, here's a disclaimer - I am a musician/record label owner, so I do have something at stake here.

I'm done debating you on this. What will be, will be. I find new music all of the time. I even share my findings on occasion on here.
You just do you; I'mma do meeee

That's fine with me! - but, pray tell, how do you find out about new music? Please relay that information to Vainandy.
[b][Edited 2/4/09 5:13am]
[Edited 2/4/09 5:15am]

Interesting discussion,guys!

i'll join the discussion soon but im too lazy to type anything at this point. works a bitch. anyways im thinking of starting a record label and i am well aware of the pros and cons associated with the business model. chuck feel free to throw any ideas my way or give me tips.

The only, I repeat ONLY, internet access I have is at work. All the media players that play samples of music have blocks on them. All the videos such as youtube are blocked. All sites like My Space are blocked. If I did find something new that was good, I wouldn't know it because I wouldn't be able to listen to a sample of it.

Prince.org is one of the few entertainment sites that isn't blocked and the videos don't show up on the screen that people post on this site. In fact, the videos posted on this site slow the computer down. On those threads with multiple videos posted, I eventually stop entering because of that reason.

Not everyone is spoiled. Some of us have actual bills and a real life to live rather than throwing our money away on a high speed internet that we can't afford.

Well funk, or something similar that is uptempo with real drums and bass and danceable is only form of music I care about. So if there is nothing new being made that fits that description, then no, there is no good new music being made as far as I'm concerned.

vainandy said:

Ah, okay. Now, that provides a different slant to your argument. You're basically hollerin' and fussin' about the lack of good music whilst completely nescient of the wealth of good music that the internet can provide.




Vainandy, if I have offended you concering your ability to afford or utilize the internet, I apologize - I was nonplussed at the statements you about "shit hop" and "real music" and the lack of "good artists." I've said it thirty-eight times now but nobody on the internet, sufficiently so, can complain about not having access to good music (now good taste? that's another thing!). Somewhere along the way, my thoughts came across wrong - must be bad writing on my part. Also, I know that snarky bit you wrote about being spoiled and bills and real life, couldn't have been directed at me, so! - all I'll say is if you really want some avenues that will lead you to new, quality music please:

1.give me your private e-mail address
2.list bands/groups/artists you like

I'll do my best to provide you with a list of music similar to your tastes. Or, go back to one of my pithy posts(!) and check to see if you can access those websites I provided - they are invaluable when it comes to hearing new music.

EDIT:

I just read your latest post concerning funk. Um....I don't think I can help you, after all. You believe in one musical god (funk/dance) while I worship at polytheistic music church. I cannot align myself with your method of approaching music.

Thank you. I didn't think you could because, as I've said before, I have looked and have been unsuccessful at finding anything. The only person's recommendations on this site that I trust enough to buy something new without hearing it first is SoulAlive's and he himself knows that there is very little out there.

I love to party. I absolutely live to party. But it's a damn shame when there is nothing new out there that is worthy of being party material because every generation since the swing era has had some form of uptempo rhythmic dance music except this one. And as for that acid trance junk that took the place of house music, that don't cut it. I grew up on music where you had to have rhythm in your bones to dance to it (like they did on Soul Train). The only dancing you can do to that trance shit is jump around like you are on a pogo stick (like they did on American Bandstand). As for rock or country, yeah, they are live music but I don't like rock or country. And as for R&B these days, it's all so slow it reminds me of the ancient days when everyone was dorks, sitting around sipping tea, listening to classical music, and talking about how "beautiful" it is. Well, I don't like "beautiful", I like "bad".

vainandy said:

You're beyond help as you're so narrow minded.

Just a quickie.....excellent discourse, all. No matter what side you're on (I'm with Vain)....you gotta admit...The Org is home to (IMHO) some of the best pop music intellect online. Props, folks.