>Grimes is the new Bjork >Joanna Newsom is the new Kate

>>71243770
agree about grimes

Grimes is definitely the new Bork

>>71246947

>comparing the avant-garde, experimental, trip-hop genius that is Björk to a tumblr-feminist who makes synthpop

insulting

>>71243770
is taylor momsen the the new dorro?

File: tumblr_mxb9dc9sgd1qkofwio3_500.jpg (130KB, 500x679px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 500x679px

>>71243770
if st vincent is polly, who is patti?

>>71243770
>>Sky Ferreira is the new Madonna
lmao, Sky Ferreira isn't even a sixtheenth as famous as Madonna

>>71243770
What does Sky have in common with Madonna or Taylor with Kylie?

>>71243770
Sky Ferraro is the new Vanity.

File: kylie-minogue-ass.jpg (54KB, 339x474px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 339x474px

>>71243770
>>Grimes is the new Bjork

kek

>>Joanna Newsom is the new Kate Bush

She's better than Kate.

>>St. Vincent is the new PJ Harvey

eh

>>Taylor Swift is the new Kylie

>no ass
>new Kylie

> joanna kinda sounds like Kate if you put on earmuffs
> JOANNA NEWSOM IS THE NEW KATE BUSH

>>71246993
Implying Bjork wouldn't be a tumblr feminist if she was born a millennial

Bjork sampled Arnold fucking Schoenberg, kill yourself OP.

Debut and Post are 100% standard, dated europop

File: 879961-366881.jpg (62KB, 730x504px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 730x504px

who is the new:

-morrissey
-thom yorke
-jeff mangum
-bowie

>>71247282
>Bjork sampled Arnold fucking Schoenberg
And Grimes sampled Pergolesi. Backwards. Not that I'm a fan of the whole "X artist is the new Y artist" since that implies that a person can only appreciate a certain number/variety of artists, but what is your point?

>>71247122
Angel Olsen or Courtney Barnett

>>71243770
Nobody outside of /mu/ knows any of those "modern versions" except Taylor Swift.

>>71247331
me

>>71247417
which one?

>>71247447
all 4 baby. im the real deal

File: thom.jpg (84KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x500px

>>71247465
damn

>>71247379
Definitely courtney

>>71247392
And Grimes. I was in a store at the mall last week, and someone working there was playing REALiTi.

File: 4806944-why-so-serious-wallpaper_2.jpg (55KB, 1131x707px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1131x707px

>>71247392
Chill dude. Those were some fun comparisons, don't be so serious.

>>71243770
Bad comparisons. The older artists you're listing were much bigger in their day than the niche p4k-core artists you're listing as successors (other than Swift ofc)

File: ALBINI-PORTRAIT_SMALL-300x300.jpg (103KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 300x300px

>>71247282
>>71247356
>sampled
You mean stole, right?

>>71247556
They played World Princess Pt. II at a hockey game I was at last week. You can buy her CD at Target. Everyone is about to know who Grimes is.

>>71247619
>You mean stole, right?
Depends on how long the sampled clip is, whether or not it has been modified in some sort of substantial way, and whether or not the proper rights for its use from the recording publisher were secured desu. That's how this stuff actually works irl.

>>71247719
>Everyone is about to know who Grimes is.
Not yet. She's just a famous indie artist. Much less popular than say Ariana Grande. Most people have no idea about her.

>>71243770
lauren mayberry makes bad music

>>71247844
all sampling is stealing retard
doesn't matter how much modification is done to the sample, and if the law is your standard for judging music you must be a special kind of retard

>>71247919
spoken like a true dumbass

>>71247919
>all sampling is stealing
No it isn't.
Example, a Ferrari engine, should Enzo get a royalty? Fuck No.

>>71247919
Spoken like a true Albini

File: 1486324556035.jpg (466KB, 1990x1297px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1990x1297px

>>71246993
Read this and shut up, poser.

Common things between Grimes & Bjork:
>weird voices
>quirky, playful personalities
>strange fashion sense
>interesting live shows
>acclaimed electronic music
>dedicated fanbase
>obscure albums before the proper breakthrough albums (Grimes has Geidi Primes & Halfaxa, Bjork has S/T album from 1977)
>eclectic music taste.

File: sky-ferreira-08.jpg (148KB, 650x1002px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 650x1002px

>>71247156
>What does Sky have in common with Madonna or Taylor with Kylie?
Sky is the trashy and overtly sexual popstar, kinda like Madonna. See pic related; Sky looks like Madonna in the '80s.

Taylor is the cute and universally liked popstar, kinda like Kylie.

>>71247919
>all sampling is stealing retard
kek

>>71247919
Tell that to DJ Shadow, Beastie Boys and The Avalanches.

>>71247919
>all sampling is stealing retard
Only to someone who doesn't know what stealing means.

>>71248045
>Sky looks like madonna in the 80s
no
despite the makeup atist's best efforts, she does not

she looks like the bleached spic that she is

Madonna was kind of trashy but barely compared to Sky

>>71243770
Eh, Grimes makes generic art pop. Compare them in other ways all you want though. I agree with the rest mostly.

>>71248231
>Grimes makes generic art pop
Her main selling point is that she's unique. What is generic about her art pop? Who else did her kind of music before her?

File: SkyMadge5FI.jpg (23KB, 625x417px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 625x417px

>>71248131
You're just hating Sky, so your point is invalid. It's ridiculous to deny the blatant similarities between Sky and Madonna.

http://popcrush.com/sky-ferreira-madonna-v-magazine-music-issue/

>>71248231
>Grimes makes generic art pop.
Personally I'm not a fan AT ALL of the Grimes/Bjork comparison (which isn't even based on similarities BETWEEN THEM btw) but - I'm sorry but there's absolutely no excuse for calling her music generic (whether you happen to like what it sounds like or not) since there is NO WAY it could be mistaken for someone else's (which is what would be the case if it were generic-sounding.)

>>71248131
>Madonna was kind of trashy but barely compared to Sky
>spotted the naive
Dude, Madonna was 10x trashier than Sky. It's obvious that you never heard about her nude photoshoots, the whole Erotica era, that Sex book, etc. Dig deeper (and deeper).

>>71248314
not as ridiculous as Sky herself

>>71248355
>>71248354

Who is the next pretty-faced asian woman dancing around in a poofy purple polka-dot dress and insect wings singing about her period? I forgot her name.

>>71247972
>>weird voices
>>acclaimed electronic music

These are the only two that compare their music and many other artists share these traits as they're very broad.

>>71248348
Generic doesn't mean you can't tell who the song is by. Katy Perry makes generic music but I can recognize her voice easily.

>>71248668
>Katy Perry makes generic music but I can recognize her voice easily.
Do you mean her instrumentals?

>>71247244
There isn't a female musician in the universe with more talent than Kate Bush.

>>71248695
There is one. You know which one.

>>71248712
That blue chick from The Fifth Element?

>>71248348
Take her voice out of the equation and maybe you'd realize.

>>71248739
No. Try again. I'm going to post a hint after that.

>>71248694
No, were you referring to Grimes' instrumentals? If I gave you a blind listen of the instrumentals on Art Angels (before you ever heard it), what about the music would make you immediately tell it was Grimes?

>>71248747
Not that anon, but whatever. Let's take her voice out of the equation. What is left? Fucking great instrumentals that could stand on their own. Hear for yourself: https://clyp.it/pgk1bj2k Seriously, listen to this.

>>71243770
PJ Harvey is still litttttt no ones replacing her yet

>>71248784
>No, were you referring to Grimes' instrumentals?
No. I meant Katy Perry's instrumentals.
>If I gave you a blind listen of the instrumentals on Art Angels (before you ever heard it), what about the music would make you immediately tell it was Grimes?
She has an unique way of melding many disparate elements into something really pleasant to ears. I could recognize her instrumentals easily because of the beats, melodies, arrangements and all those little quirks that add character. Her beats sound in a certain way, hard to describe.

Example from Visions: https://clyp.it/xafy2ndg

>>71248804
This is a really poor example. There is nothing unique about this instrumental.

>>71248863
I'm saying what about her music specifically would make you realize it was hers? I'm sorry but there is no way you'd be able to recognize that instrumental as hers if you had never heard the song before. Unless Grimes is the only indie pop artist you've heard of, that could be made by anyone.

Like the other instrumental, it has no characteristics that are unique to her.

>>71248804
I don't know about "fucking great" but I was talking about Art Angels.... She left behind her original intention and what make her interesting to me.

>>71243770
>>71246947
>>71246993
>>71247356
>>71247282
>>71247556
>>71247972
actually Arca is the new Bjork his latest single pretty much confirmed this

>>71248908
>There is nothing unique about this instrumental.
Seriously? Name a similar one. I'd really like to hear it.

>>71248952
Arca is a male

>>71248952
And Arca worked on Vulnicura

>>71248908
>Like the other instrumental, it has no characteristics that are unique to her.
If you can't detect these characteristics it doesn't meant they don't exist. Listen more to her music and you'll get her style/unique features of her music.

Here's another example, this time from Art Angels: http://picosong.com/hvnB

This really sounds like Grimes and no one else. Prove me wrong.

>>71248784
>what about the music would make you immediately tell it was Grimes?
The way the individual sound elements are assembled and put together. Her music has a very distinctive feel to it (completely apart from the specific sounds used - most notably her voice) that makes it instantly recognizable to me.

I'm not even gonna pretend to be able to identify all the specific musical source elements that she weaves together in order to make her music. Nor claim that I even like all the ones I CAN recognize. It's the way those parts tend to function in concert with each other that makes her stuff instantly recognizable. She could release an entire album of instrumentals-only bluegrass music, and I would have no trouble identifying it as uniquely hers.

>>71249168
Well said, anon. She's like a conductor of sounds. It doesn't matter the source of a particular sound, she puts it in the perfect place for the maximum impact.

e.g. The way that sample used for Rasik fitted the song perfectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEety9vpf14

And the source of the sample (at 0:15): https://youtu.be/H4HdSygZrnc?t=14

File: 19gq1hq8rlpcljpg.jpg (101KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x960px

>>71243770
Grimes and Bjork occupy a similar space but Bjork was comparatively way more prolific. Bjork had a way larger pop culture footprint, also, but I'm not willing to double down on that too much because the monoculture still existed in the early 2000s, even if it was beginning to fade.
Kate Bush had pop hits on the radio...that nobody remembers. The people who love Kate Bush today and the people who knew her hit songs aren't really the same. I'm having a hard time saying that her commercial success and critical success were largely separate entities. Joanna Newsom...I don't know, I think this whole comparison is kind of apples and oranges. But they are both white women who make stuffy music with weirdo pop accessibility.

I think St. Vincent has already had a way more fruitful and commercially viable career than PJ Harvey. That's all I really have to say about that.

Sky had an indie hit with that album with her titties on the cover, but Madonna had a solid fifteen-year run of albums that had at least two radio smashes on them. You've got to be kidding with this shit my man. Sky Ferreira's entire career will never produce a body of work as compelling as Madonna's debut. Fuck that album is good!

The music scene that Chvches is in is so insular, they will never really matter. If Lauren wasn't so unique, that band would not have any pull. That band is bad, but they at least have a neat, talented member in Lauren. But anyway nobody knows who the fuck Robyn is...unless you're posting this thread from Sweden.

It took me a while to even figure out who you are comparing Taylor Swift to, and I think it's Kylie Minogue? Taylor Swift has taken some heavy blows this year politically, and I think the music community kind of collectively sighed when word was blowing around about a bunch of R&B leanings. No matter what though, I promise that she'll have hits. She is one of the most successful artists of all time in two genres. Wow.

>>71248952
Arca is just gay Autechre.

>>71248071
ah yes the three groups to use sampling, ever

Chelsea wolfe is the new pj harvey

St vincent is shit

>>71248908
>This is a really poor example
Different anon,

Fwiw the track linked to here >>71248804 comes from a collection of incomplete instrumental stems for the whole Visions album that was leaked awhile back. As such it - and other ones like it - are missing substantial portions of the instrumentals heard in the actual songs (eg. this one lacks the upper-range synth word heard in the final song, which is where most of the song's distinctiveness comes from, since it's written in a different key from the rest of the song.)

>>71249296
>Bjork had a way larger pop culture footprint
But Bjork had also a longer career. Grimes doesn't even have a decade long music career.
>But anyway nobody knows who the fuck Robyn is...unless you're posting this thread from Sweden.
Come on, she was pretty popular few years ago. She was also a blog friendly indie darling and even had a #1 hit in the UK (With Every Heartbeat).
>The music scene that Chvches is in is so insular, they will never really matter.
What are you talking about? Chvrches are ready to headline festivals, get your shit together. They're way more popular than you think. Even if their music is kinda samey, they know how to write a great pop song.

>>71249314
The most memorable ones...

>>71249296
>Bjork was comparatively way more prolific.
Over a 40-year-plus span of time. One of the major reasons why direct comparisons between Grimes and Bjork don't work is because Grimes has only existed on the professional music circuit for about 5 years.

>>71249491
>eg. this one lacks the upper-range synth word heard in the final song
Do you mean those "oohs"? If yes, then indeed, those "oohs" really add to the song's catchiness.

>>71249564
If not Bjork, then who else in her place?

>>71249496
>Come on, she was pretty popular few years ago
More casual synthpop listener chiming in. Can confirm that she's pretty much a non-entity (for better or worse) to the rest of us.

>Even if their music is kinda samey, they know how to write a great pop song.
But that's just it. eing able to write a great pop song isn't a unique trait. It might be a fairly rare one, but as soon as the next band comes along with a slightly more unique sound to them who can ALSO write great pop songs, they're potentially toast.

>>71249131
You still haven't specifically identified anything about her music that makes it sound like Grimes and no one else.

>Prove me wrong

You have to prove yourself right first.

>>71249168
>I'm not even gonna pretend to be able to identify all the specific musical source elements that she weaves together in order to make her music. Nor claim that I even like all the ones I CAN recognize

This just sounds like a cop out to be honestly. You can't identify anything about the instrumentals of her music that are unique to her.

>She could release an entire album of instrumentals-only bluegrass music, and I would have no trouble identifying it as uniquely hers

This is pure speculation. If you're adamant you could recognize something from her in a completely different genre, then you should be able to identify something specific that makes tips you off.

>>71249698
>Do you mean those "oohs"
No, since - although they are being used instrumentally - those are technically part of the vocals. I'm talking about the synths that start at the actual beginning of the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb_0LzBv894

If you think of this song as being the sum of percussion + bass + synths + vocals, that instrumental version is primarily just the rhythm section of percussion + bass.

>>71249496
Yeah, she has a seven year career, and she's produced one great album. The follow-up seemed excellent in the moment, but faded extremely fast. Art Angels plays like an album that should've came out six months after Visions, not three years.

Blog friendly indie darling and pretty popular are phrases that don't seem to work together. You got me on the UK hit, I didn't know that. I also know that a lot of guitar-based bands still make it in the UK--that seems to be where that music lives. Which I guess is how I'm going to say that a big hit in the UK, while meaningful, doesn't translate to a lot. This is a weird case where this is such a non-comparison. Robyn and Chvrches are both bigger and smaller than each other, depending on who you're talking to. Chvches headlines? Because it seems like while they appear at the big festivals, they appear at like every mid and low-mid festival. Headlining festivals isn't something that huge artists do. I don't suppose an artist with a number one record would headline a festival. From years of looking at festival rosters and then deciding to not pull the trigger on tickets, even the bands that have the biggest fonts are C-listers of their scene, unless they dropped a massive album like the month prior.

Even if Chvrches can write a great pop song, writing them in a band that can be categorized as indietronica turns it into a zero-sum game.

Now let me get myself in real trouble: I think a lot of these artists are making music in a vacuum. We talk about seapunk and witch house and vaporwave (good to see you in 2017, vaporwave! luv u) are microscenes, but how small is the scene that produces a band like Chvrches?

I think the indie music scene has been finally starting to show the signs of being in a seven-year spinout, kind of like what happened to alternative rock around the late 90s. It still exists, and people still go to Five Finger Death Punch shows--but that entire genre hasn't moved a muscle in almost two decades.

>>71243770
>>St. Vincent is the new PJ Harvey

No fuck you.

>>71248972

This is just from a quick search of 80s synthpop on youtube.

https://youtu.be/e1C7MMmxBCg?t=36s

>>71249996
Link was supposed to start at around the 35 second mark.

>>71249564
Bjork is 51. But this isn't the first time I've seen people mention Bjork's 40-year career, so just for everyones safety: Bjork's dad helped her make a record that was released when she was twelve.

And then sixteen years later she released Debut, her debut, in 1993. That's her debut. Bjork is a female icelandic musician who has been musically active for twenty-four years, not forty. That's wild.

Also I don't really buy the statement "professional music circuit", but OK.

Grimes is new Bjork

Joanna Newsom is new Robbie Basho

Julia Holter is new Kate Bush

Sky Ferreira is new Courtney Love

FKA is new Grace Jones

>>71249805
>But that's just it. eing able to write a great pop song isn't a unique trait.
I wasn't about unique traits. You said their music is bad. How their music could be bad if they know how to write good pop songs?

>It might be a fairly rare one, but as soon as the next band comes along with a slightly more unique sound to them who can ALSO write great pop songs, they're potentially toast.
>implying there's room just for one band from this category
As long they keep making good songs and as long they have Lauren in band, they're set for life. You're underrating them very hard.

>More casual synthpop listener chiming in. Can confirm that she's pretty much a non-entity (for better or worse) to the rest of us.
Keep your confirmation to yourself because you're wrong. Her s/t album was the Visions of the '00s and Body Talk was the Art Angels of that decade. I was there, I know about all that hype when those albums were released. You must be too young to remember this.

http://www.metacritic.com/music/robyn/robyn
http://www.metacritic.com/music/body-talk

>>71243770
Joanna Newsom is comparable to Kate Bush only in strong female singer/songwriter. Aside from that they make different styles of music.

Both are amazing.

>>71249877
>you should be able to identify something specific that makes tips you off.
I already told you that there is something identifiable. I'ts just primarily in terms of structural/relational things inherent to the music itself (like how ambient effects in the background of percussion sounds tend to be tuned to interact favorably harmonically with pitched instrumental parts.) The constant to her music is in the patterns of how sounds tend to relate - not what they tend to sound like.

>>71249877
Dude, if you know her music really well (like me), you could recognize her productions right away. e.g. this song produced by Grimes for Aristophanes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHmVqMISPLw

>>71250127
>Butthurt because muh flavor of the month 2007 is no longer relevant to younger people, than whilst more talented artists like Grimes and Twigs get the recognition they deserve.

Kys oldfag

>>71249930
That's right, that cool synth sound is missing from that leaked instrumental.

>If you think of this song as being the sum of percussion + bass + synths + vocals, that instrumental version is primarily just the rhythm section of percussion + bass.
Even in a stripped down form Be a Body sounds fantastic. I love this song.

>>71249950
Why are you so mad? Say why do you think Annie is not the new PJ Harvey, mr. PJ fanboy.

My thoughts are that you're wrong and that not everything in life has an analogue. Why does everything have to have an equivalent?

>>71250174
>like how ambient effects in the background of percussion sounds tend to be tuned to interact favorably harmonically with pitched instrumental parts

This is still very vague. Point to a specific example in her music.

>The constant to her music is in the patterns of how sounds tend to relate - not what they tend to sound like.

This is even more vague and still says nothing about what makes her instrumentals unique to her and no one else.

>>71250178
You're still just speculating. Again, if you can recognize her music with such confidence on a blind listen, there absolutely has to be something specific about it that allows you to identify it.

>>71249996
>>71250017
Just because the tone of that bassline is slightly similar it doesn't mean these songs are even remotely similar. There are shitload of other elements in that Grimes song (e.g. that synth melody near the end) that don't have a similar thing from Blue Monday.

Sorry, but you failed. Next time don't lump songs together just because they're from the same genre.

>>71249936
>she has a seven year career,
5 year. None of her albums prior to 2012's Visions were made or sold originally for a profit.

>The follow-up seemed excellent in the moment, but faded extremely fast.
Not sure what universe you're living in, bud, but it clearly isn't this one.

Although, having said all that, Grimes is NOT a new Bjork by any reasonable stretch of the imagination because they're too different from each other.

>>71248952
>the gay autechre is the new bjork
lol
i like arca, but he's got a meme already

>>71250340
not sinnce he went pop

>>71250302
You want a song that has all same the elements as hers? Of course I can't find a song that does, because she would be sued for copyright infringement.

You can say that about any song if you wanted. Find me a song that sounds like this, including the bridge and chorus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak0kaFy6in8

You can't but that doesn't prove anything besides the fact that copyright laws exist.

>>71250179
You're just too stupid to understand basic things. I'm not butthurt at all and I don't care that Robyn is not relevant anymore. But credit should be given where credit is due. Robyn (and The Knife) opened the path for quirky electropop artists.

>than whilst more talented artists like Grimes and Twigs get the recognition they deserve.
The irony is that I believe that Grimes is actually much better than Robyn. I'm a huge fan, I opened over 20 Grimes threads myself, ffs.

>Twigs
Too dull for me.

>>71249996
see
>>71249491
>>71249930

Also fwiw the video you linked to isn't an example of 80s synth work. It's a current musician's attempt at reproducing a classic 80s sound which is distinctly different sounding from what's heard in that Grimes song.

>>71250420
he's always been pop, so he's still the gay autechre

>>71250310
OK, my man. I'm looking forward to seeing Art Angels posted here three times a day just like Visions was for three years. We'll have to organize some raids on the board, because we're already way behind on that.

Especially rad how what used to be multiple Visions threads per day turned into a WORLDS NICEST CANUCK general that tops out at about seventy posts.

>>71250450
Grimes' music is also reproducing that same sound. It just sounds cleaner because modern production as a whole is cleaner. Surely you aren't suggesting that Grimes invented that style of music.

As for those other posts, that means that instrumental can't be used as an example of instrumental unique to her alone.

>>71250035
>Bjork's dad helped her make a record that was released when she was twelve.
Commercially (meaning that it was sold in record stores.) Which today makes her a veteran professional recording musician for 40+ years.

>>71250127
>How their music could be bad if they know how to write good pop songs?
Much like with Grimes >>71250174 it's a matter of structure versus sound. Imo CHVRCHES have a very good grasp for the sort of songwriting structures that traditionally work well in their chosen genre. However the actual sound quality of their music is pretty generic.

File: 1488071677849.jpg (50KB, 889x718px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 889x718px

>>71250521
Are you new? Maybe now there seems silence, but Art Angels was uber posted since it was released, even more than Visions. Day in, day out, for over a year. And when AA was released, half of the catalog was about this album...

>>71250620
But pretty generic =/= bad. OK, it's not really original, but it's well made. That's at very least on the average level.

>>71250620
>However the actual sound quality of their music is pretty generic.

This is super general though. You could say the same thing about Grimes and it'd be just as unsubstantiated.

>>71250127
>implying there's room just for one band from this category
Assuming that they don't diversify their sound beyond where it has so far dwelled, then essentially yes. Imo CHVRCHES are presently a very good example of what I would term a one-song band: virtually all of their songs sound like variations of a single (admittedly catchy) song.

Everyone knows about the inherent risk present in putting all your eggs in one basket. If some other artist happens to come along with a better take on THAT one song, they're in for trouble.

>>71243770
Grimes is garbage and you autists would be agreeing if she weren't attractive.

>>71250539
>Grimes' music is also reproducing that same sound.
Are you kidding me? Just because those songs relied on synths they're not the same. Synths are just instruments. No one is claiming that Aphex Twin sounds the same as Autechre just because both used synths.

>Surely you aren't suggesting that Grimes invented that style of music.
Grimes didn't invent synthpop, but she innovated it. She improved it by adding new elements and new ideas. There are genres that she used on her music that didn't even exist when Blue Monday was made (e.g. the IDM influences on that Be a Body instrumental).

>As for those other posts, that means that instrumental can't be used as an example of instrumental unique to her alone.
Really? You still didn't post a real similar song to it.* Are you going to post it?

* If you will insist that Blue Monday is the same as Be a Body I will dismiss this "argument" as trolling.

>>71250797
>Everyone knows about the inherent risk present in putting all your eggs in one basket. If some other artist happens to come along with a better take on THAT one song, they're in for trouble.
AC/DC and Motorhead did the same song for decades and that didn't really hurt their reputation. They would survive very well even if they're milking the current formula. Maybe they will have less acclaim but they will still have fans and money.

>>71250818
>Just because those songs relied on synths they're not the same. Synths are just instruments.

I'm not saying they're similar because they both use synths. Synths are a very versatile sample used to make many different sounds. Grimes is using them in the same style that many 80s pop songs did, including the one I linked.

>Grimes didn't invent synthpop, but she innovated it. She improved it by adding new elements and new ideas.

Point to something specific about her music. What IDM influences are you referring to that innovated synthpop as a genre?

>Really? You still didn't post a real similar song to it.* Are you going to post it?

The burden of proof is on you. If you claim that her music is unique to her, then you have to point to what specifically makes it so. You'd also have to have an extensive knowledge of synthpop as a whole to be able to confidently say it's unique.

File: 1487919176140.png (162KB, 503x535px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 503x535px

>>71250812
Funny how trolls are spinning the "attractive argument" depending on the context. Didn't people like you say that she's really ugly? Now she's attractive overnight?

And by the way, how about focusing on her music instead of her appearance?

>>71250441
>Robyn & The Knife
>Paves path for quirky electropop artists

What is Bjork, Kate Bush and 40% of the artists in the 80's

>>71250127
>I was there,
I wasn't, because I was attending a music conservatory studying classical music at the time. Which is my point - if an artist's relevance is dependent upon being "in the moment" of their debut, then they aren't (yet) actually much of a big deal. And as to your Art Angels/Visions relevancy comparisons, I wasn't around for those debuts either and yet Grimes still managed to pop up on my radar unbidden - because her relevancy has managed to outlive the hype of her debut.

>>71249936
>Yeah, she has a seven year career, and she's produced one great album. The follow-up seemed excellent in the moment, but faded extremely fast. Art Angels plays like an album that should've came out six months after Visions, not three years.
Just a bunch of (You)s.

>Yeah, she has a seven year career, and she's produced one great album.
Geidi Primes, Halfaxa, Visions, Art Angels. These are 4 great albums.

>The follow-up seemed excellent in the moment, but faded extremely fast.
Speak for yourself. I still listen to AA very often. And many other people.

>Art Angels plays like an album that should've came out six months after Visions, not three years.
The biggest bullshit I've read this day. Don't you notice the big difference in sound quality, singing, production and songwriting between Visions and Art Angels? Are you sure you listened to these albums?

FYI she did another album between Visions and AA, but she scrapped it. So, there are actually 2 albums in 3 years. Most artists these days are far less productive than her. Lorde still didn't release her second album...

>>71249936
>but how small is the scene that produces a band like Chvrches?
Big enough to play big festivals such as Glastonbury, Reading, Coachella, etc. You're living in a bubble, pal.

>>71251006
>if I haven't heard of it, it's bad

also

>I wasn't, because I was attending a music conservatory studying classical music at the time

*tips*

>>71250437
If you can't find a similar song to Be a Body then you can't prove your point:
>There is nothing unique about this instrumental.
>>71248908

You lost, dude. Spare me of useless explanations and excuses.

>>71250437
>You want a song that has all same the elements as hers? Of course I can't find a song that does, because she would be sued for copyright infringement.
By the way you're confusing "similar" with "identical". FYI they're not the same thing.

>>71250985
>Bjork
>Kate Bush
>electropop
Do you see the problem?

>>71243770
>>71248045
I would like to stick my prenbus in and out of her

>>71251235
the half of Post is clearly electropop

>>71251184
I'm not the one who claimed it was unique. It's on you to find something about it that is.

>You lost

Keep repeating it and it'll come true eventually.

>>71251215
Never said they were the same thing. Those two songs are similar.

>>71250273
>This is still very vague. Point to a specific example in her music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTLTXDHrgtw
Listen to the bass drum part starting at 1:18 and notice how it gets tuned down by an octave in frequency (despite the fact that it is a usually a pitchless effect) at 1:26 before being brought back up a minor 7th and then a whole step back to it's original frequency, thereby forming a miniature melodic line in tune with the rest of the song.

Stuff like this happens in her music all the time. Single percussive sounds that have a uniform rhythmic purpose have their melodic properties emphasized and then their pitches tweaked in order to add an extra melodic layer of interest to what's going on.

>>71247331
>thom yorke
21 pilots
>jeff mangum
ed sheeran
>bowie
mc ride
>morrissey
avey tare

>>71250935
>What IDM influences are you referring to that innovated synthpop as a genre?
Some specific kind of textures, drum programming and melodies, specific to IDM.

e.g. that Be a Body instrumental was influenced by Autechre:
https://clyp.it/pgk1bj2k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR8daVXq62I

Listen to them one after another.

>>71250935
>You'd also have to have an extensive knowledge of synthpop as a whole to be able to confidently say it's unique.
I actually have it. Name any synthpop artists and there a chance that I'm already familiar with their music.

>>71250437
>You want a song that has all same the elements as hers? Of course I can't find a song that does
So why did you imply that you could in the first place?

>>71247972
>a fucking grimesfaggot calling other people posers
Oh that sweet sweet irony. Do you even listen to any fucking music that isnt grimes? Can you name one fucking album that was released this month? Can you name an album released in the entirety of 2016 that wasnt called fucking art angels? Are you for fucking real dude? This is why you shitheads belong on /r/grimes and not a fucking board that isnt fucking dedicated to your shit tier waifu.

Fucking kys yourself my dude

>>71251006
Listen to those 2 Robyn's albums and notice how she was kinda like a poppier Grimes before Grimes. Don't expect Grimes level weirdness, but some solid songwriting and performing. If you like Realiti maybe you will like Robyn's music too.

>>71250940
>trolls
Or y'know, people don't universally like her.
>Didn't people like you say that she's really ugly?
I am not a hivemind of every person who doesn't like Grimes so I don't know what that's got to do with anything. Even if the people who dislike her believe that she's ugly, the point still stands because her fans think she's not.

>how about focusing on her music instead of her appearance?
Her appearance is relevant to me because there's no fucking way she'd be talked about this much here if it wasn't for all the waifufagging due to her appearance.

>stop reducing me to a hip political issue instead of talking about my actual work
Your actual work isn't interesting enough to warrant a discussion.

>>71251349
How does this innovate snythpop? Borrowing something from another genre and using in a song of yours in not innovating a genre. Especially not when it's borrowed gratuitously.

>>71251321
Are you saying that changing the pitch of a bass line and then returning it to the original is unique to Grimes?

>>71251386
I never implied that I could find a song with all the same elements.

>>71251380
If you have that knowledge, then point to something specific about Grimes' music that makes it unique to her and no one else.

>>71251422
You're really mad, douchebag.

>Do you even listen to any fucking music that isnt grimes?
Of course. From Autechre to ZZ Top.

>Can you name one fucking album that was released this month?
Rose Elinor Dougall - Stellular

>Can you name an album released in the entirety of 2016 that wasnt called fucking art angels?
Holy Fuck - Congrats

Now you have my permission to fuck off.

>>71250521
>WORLDS NICEST CANUCK general that tops out at about seventy posts.
You mean like this one? >>71133355

>>71250539
>Grimes' music is also reproducing that same sound.
It's a distinctly different synth tone. It's akin to the difference between a violin and a viola.

>>71250672
>But pretty generic =/= bad.
Hence why I never said it was bad.

>>71251602
Different tone but same style, so it isn't "distinctly different" from her instrumental.

>>71251492
>How does this innovate snythpop? Borrowing something from another genre and using in a song of yours in not innovating a genre. Especially not when it's borrowed gratuitously.
It is.
>Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal

>Are you saying that changing the pitch of a bass line and then returning it to the original is unique to Grimes?
Not that anon, but that's just one bit of what makes her music unique. All those bits put together, and voila: Grimes style.

>If you have that knowledge, then point to something specific about Grimes' music that makes it unique to her and no one else.
She's the only synthpop artist that did songs with classical, medieval, jpop, kpop, IDM, dreampop, noise pop, industrial, R&B elements. I meant all these genres in her discography or even on a single album. Name even one synthpop artist that dared to have such wide range of influences.

>>71250521
>Especially rad how what used to be multiple Visions threads per day turned into a WORLDS NICEST CANUCK general that tops out at about seventy posts.
Dude, are you taking the piss? Her threads consistently reached bump limit for a year.

>>71251653
>Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal
Stealing doesn't automatically make you great.

>>71251648
It's not the same style. Use your brain.

>>71243770
op is the current ((()))

>>71251653
>Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal

That's debatable but more importantly, that has nothing to do with whether or not she innovated synthpop as a genre.

>Not that anon, but that's just one bit of what makes her music unique. All those bits put together, and voila: Grimes style

You're going to have to point out those "bits" individually.

>>71251698
It is the same style.

File: _mg_1085_1.jpg__800x533_q85_crop_subsampling-2_upscale.jpg (75KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x533px

>>71251688
That's just a wordplay. Grimes didn't steal anything, she incorporated those influences into her music. She made them her own, she twisted them until they lost the original identity. That's the way muusic making works. Nobody is making something out of thin air.

Just to have an idea about her creative process:
>I'm always listening for interesting sounds. Like, for example, I recently took a sample of some percussion that had a lot of melodic information in it, put the verb up to 100% and then sampled the verb so that none of the original sample was there but it contained the melodic information. Sometimes I record things in the house like beads or whatever etc. Sometimes I get found samples from online bird watching communities or this or that, haha. Usually I use some combination of these methods.

>For the song “Venus Fly", for example, I had these awesome 808s, that I built using two different 808 sounds. Then I sampled a dentist drill and tuned it to the 808s and layered it very lightly on top so that they sounded a bit more savage but also wide and clean cuz I think I panned the drill hard and the 808s were mono in the center.

https://www.ableton.com/en/blog/grimes-bird-calls-and-dentists-drills/

>>71251752
>>71251765
>>71251871

>>71251895
((()))

>>71251871
do you think the band called Death Grips is innovative?
do you like this bad?

>>71249309
Gay Autechre is just Autechre.

File: A-42-1191425927.jpeg.jpg (7KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x300px

>>71251934
he's got a wife

>>71251909
((()))

>>71250709
>You could say the same thing about Grimes and it'd be just as unsubstantiated.
Correct. Me saying that CHVRCHES have a generic sound implies that I think there must be other bands out there that have a very similar sound/ethos to them. Which is indeed the case.

This is CHVRCHES:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eo84jDIMKI

This is The New Division:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beW981FRwd0

This is Gemini Club:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl6moQ-oPag

This is Labyrinth Ear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mO9MzATrqo

This is Lindbergh Palace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EREtZ0haDMM

And this is Lust For Youth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMl3PcJHE-w

Which isn't to say that I think all of these (imo cool sounding) groups sounds EXACTLY the same as each other. The point is, this is well-trod territory.

>>71252037
((()))

>>71250869
>AC/DC and Motorhead did the same song for decades and that didn't really hurt their reputation.
Yes, but that was in the days before the internet...

>>71251144
>if I haven't heard of it, it's bad
Where did I imply that I thought Robyn's music is bad?

>>71251422
>Can you name an album released in the entirety of 2016 that wasnt called fucking art angels?
>2016
Lol

>>71243770
((())) is the new everything.

>>71251492
>bass line
No, because a bass LINE is normally a melodic part of a song. A bass DRUM, however, usually isn't.

>>71251648
>it isn't "distinctly different" from her instrumental.
It is if you're the kind of person who pays attention to timbres in music.

>>71251688
No, but doing it in such a way that you can honestly get away with it does.

>>71251871
>being this frustrated over not being able to comprehend the subtleties of music being discussed ITT
Lol

>>71251096
not that anon but they play in the shit hours where low/mid tier bands play, in the afternoon

>>71243770
you did a horrible job OP.

grimes has nothing on bjork. grimes doesn't have a shred of the talent or creativity of bjork. comparing them is downright insulting.

Joanna Newsom and Kate Bush are both incredible artists but could not be more different. Their approach to music, not to mention genre is completely different. Also Joanna Newsom is popular but have never reached the pop status of Kate Bush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsCfufAp2tM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv9YoYCKNoE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2EJMd7ZN7w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIi57zhDl78

these are bjork's poppiest songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SDWFvsN2lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDbPYoaAiyc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KxtgS2lU94
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHuXpWSNa-8

I think comparing Grimes to Avril Lavigne would make more sense

>>71247331
Thom Yorke still makes music

>Morrissey
Brendon Urie
>Jeff Mangum
Dunno, Mac Demarco? I don't listen to him
>Bowie
Kanye

>>71251540
>ZZ top
>rose elinor dougall
>holy fuck
Wow dude what super important and relevant artists. Those albums that they released sure were really good, you can tell because no one fucking listened to them or gave a shit about them. What great taste you have there friendo. Super glad we have people like you on our board to push the boundaries of our collective tastes and drive interesting music discussion around here, yes sir indeed. Your outlook on music is super valuable to this board, you really do make it a better place with your dumbass poser ass shit.

Fuck. Off. Back. To. /r/grimes. Forever.

>>71253183
correct

also the last three are pure wrong - sky anywhere near as popular as madonna? lauren mayberry being as androgynous and musically interesting as robyn? kylie starting as a pop-country act?

>>71247465
hi dan