Are proghead nerds?

All I know is when the next new fad in music is realized, the money men will be on the scene immediately to push it on the masses, and race each other to create more of it… and then bleed it for every red cent. And the music business has been that way since Sinatra and Elvis. The masses are so easily sold. The sellers lay in wait… In mansions.

^ People are sheep in a sense, but more than that they are force fed with one type of music and have no idea about existence of most alternatives. While in the 1970's everyman was exposed to a wider variety of sounds. There's no modern equivalence to Roundabout being played on the radio or whatever. Most people don't know about the newer music they could potentially enjoy more than... godawful Drake. They wouldn't know where to find it. I do think people in general are tired of everything sounding the same though. Young people do love a lot of older songs when they are exposed to it. Anyway Diddy is the 1165th most streamed artist on Spotify just behind Cat Stevens and over 1000 spots behind Beatles, Radiohead and The Police. Things could have been even worse than it is, and better music is actively chosen than what's being served (not that Diddy is served much these days).   

Atavachron wrote: ^ No it's about what new generations like and listen to.   Nothing more, nothing less.   If you're listening to Diddy, that's on you.

Not quite as simple as that. You’ll notice that diddy said “we” control, not “I”.
Then go and have a look at the top music execs for the last 10 years you will see that there’s not much going on besides hip hop , pop, and rap . Influencers of popular culture have always, in the end, been businessmen, Not the young listeners of what’s being pushed out over social media, TV, and the airwaves. Even much of the music we love was marketed directly to us. And today, social media influencers with any clout are often paid well to push new music.

Clive Davis (92) is a star maker who has fully embraced hip hop and rap because it's very profitable, not because he likes the music. As was David Geffen, who has/had contracts on 40,575 records. As was Berry Gordy... Nothing has changed in the music business world except the music (if you want to call it that). Sure, you have choices when all is said and done, but these are billionaire moguls who care not about "The Music" and act as gatekeepers...For Money… The closest thing to Rock being pushed nowadays is “fall out boy”.   So, when Diddy says “we control” he’s’ correct to a great degree. Why wouldn’t you believe that? when literally Trillions of dollars are at stake for clowns like him?   Diddy, R.Kelly, both in jail… Many Others murdered. It’s an EXTREMELY high stakes racket.

The music I grew up listening to is re-released and re-released yearly... These moguls OWN much of these rock artist's catalogue. The Music belongs to THEM! They don't want to bring back this music for you... They only want to sell it. Because boomers still buy it.

Edited by Valdez - June 04 2025 at 10:43

Hrychu wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Earlier in this thread, you claimed you were a nerd, so I made you the king of nerds And you're still unhappy?? What ingratitude !!!! Yes. But it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that you did this as a form of passive aggressive mockery. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

you've not been the kindest of members (let's stay polite, here), making fun of others in your signature.

you reap what you sow.

He who blows the wind creates storms.

Hrychu wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Spaz, my point is that back then queer either meant odd/strange or homo. That's a valid point. Language keeps evolving. ;) Also, don't call me Spaz, ok? Call me Czyszy.

Earlier in this thread, you claimed you were a nerd, so I made you the king of nerds


And you're still unhappy??

What ingratitude !!!!



Edited by Sean Trane - June 04 2025 at 07:05

Hrychu wrote: BTW, I remember a time when queer did not necessarily mean "homo", I think you're slightly behind times. Nowadays, the term queer refers to transgender and non-binary people just as often.

Spaz, you may insukt of boomer, but I'm definitely aware of what goes around, even if I don't like much of it.

my point is that back then queer either meant odd/strange or homo.

I didn't make claims for today's meaning, though I'm even aware of queerism (which most queers aren't yet).

Edited by Sean Trane - June 04 2025 at 07:01

Saperlipopette! wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Yessss, it seemed the public was really "out there", ready to experiment and follow the counter-culture, which seemed quite un-commercial, but sold massively, precisely because the mainstream public was following suit. Fine I wasn't there, but I don't feel like seeing this from a cynical angle. Artists had bigger artistic freedom, musicians I admire could actually make a living just from making music (some, not all of course) and people were more openminded. Sure sounds good to me. I wish reality was closer to something like that for todays musicians. Don't we all?

Absofùckinglutely

David_D wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Surely there must be a certain trace of nerdism stuck in between those layers of muscle I have the impression that the world of today is quite full of nerds, of one or another kind and maybe not least food nerds.

Yess, we're in a modern world where old insults are being branded as "raison d'être"

Queer & nerd were fighting words back then (dorks & geeks as well). Nowadays they're the base of new religions.

BTW, I remember a time when queer did not necessarily mean "homo", but odd or peculiar (anchorman Less Nessman in WKRP in Cincinnati)

Atavachron wrote: ^ At the time it seemed like it would last forever.   Who'd've thought people would abandon rock and go back to dance & pop music.

Well if you were thinking that in 69, it was hardly foreseeable that disco, punk and electro-pop successively would rule by 75 to 79 to 81.

Atavachron wrote: ^ No it's about what new generations like and listen to.   Nothing more, nothing less.   If you're listening to Diddy, that's on you.

not really. when AOR became AOR (album-oriented rock & radio Vs adult-oriented rock & radio) around 75/6, it was the business taking back control of the medium.

Artistes were spending more & more money on increasingly average projects, with vastly diminishing financial returns. So the managers favored cheap projects (like the DIY punk stuff) to maximize profits and used payolas on radios to force-feed (or brainwash, if you prefer) the crowds.
Much easier for radios to make profit by sticking commercial ads between two 3-minutes single, rather than no commercial between album sides. Early 70's radios were a dead business model right from the start.
The fact that these uncommercial radios pioneered the superior-sounding FM band (and also much cheaper to broadcast over the airwaves) gave them freedom and room to exist, but soon enough the commercial AM-type of radios invaded that new hertzian continent.




Edited by Sean Trane - June 04 2025 at 03:32

Atavachron wrote: ^ At the time it seemed like it would last forever.   Who'd've thought people would abandon rock and go back to dance & pop music.

It’s about control and what’s forced on the average listener

Saperlipopette! wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Yessss, it seemed the public was really "out there", ready to experiment and follow the counter-culture, which seemed quite un-commercial, but sold massively, precisely because the mainstream public was following suit. Fine I wasn't there, but I don't feel like seeing this from a cynical angle. Artists had bigger artistic freedom, musicians I admire could actually make a living just from making music (some, not all of course) and people were more openminded. Sure sounds good to me. I wish reality was closer to something like that for todays musicians. Don't we all?

I could hope so.

Edited by David_D - June 03 2025 at 16:45

Sean Trane wrote: Yessss, it seemed the public was really "out there", ready to experiment and follow the counter-culture, which seemed quite un-commercial, but sold massively, precisely because the mainstream public was following suit.

Fine I wasn't there, but I don't feel like seeing this from a cynical angle. Artists had bigger artistic freedom, musicians I admire could actually make a living just from making music (some, not all of course) and people were more openminded. Sure sounds good to me. I wish reality was closer to something like that for todays musicians. Don't we all?