When did you guys realize you were never gonna be a famous musician?

I'm 23 and still playing shows. Each one brings my band more and more attention. I know I'll never be super famous, but I'm having fun and getting paid for my shows.

keep it up dude

wait, why can't you be a famous muscian? what's really stopping you?

i took a music business class as an elective in college and like every artist that is somewhat known is behind a huge marketing machine with lots of connections and shit. i just don't think i have the energy to be a part of something like that.

reality

there is no such thing as an album that's both a classic and innovative, since popular albums just steal ideas from the actual inventors, so don't even bother

>still working a job
what?

Finally joined a group. It works much better than solo. Shows have been getting bigger and we play better each time we perform. Though we're still small as hell a manager from another act asked us to play a few shows with his artist. It feels good and a great way to release energy.

>What is WL/WH?
>What is ITCOCK?
>What is Loveless?

>doomers itt
uh oh guys make sure you go out for your night walks before the normal people wake up

YEAH? WELL, I WILL. THANKS!

Never. Haven't given up the dream yet, hope I never do.

if i were actually good at music i'd legit probably be a minor indie buzz artist at least
i'm cute enough and know some people at college radio and blogbois

a classic doesn't have to be by a popular artist

it's 2019 man fame is way different now, it's not hard. Just reach out and network and keep making music.

>good at music
>popularity
pick one

>What is WL/WH?
The Ethix were playing noise rock first.

>What is ITCOCK?
The Nice were playing progressive rock first (also, there are a lot of ideas from ITCOCK taken from The Gun's self titled from a year earlier).

>What is Loveless?
A.R. Kane were playing shoegaze before My Bloody Valentine did.

Try again.

I can settle in on being a revolutionary obscure artist with a strong loyal cult following years after my death

im curious what you have to say about remain in light. i mean there's african infused rock that came before it but there's nothing i'm aware of that sounds like it before talking heads.

>there's nothing i'm aware of that sounds like it before talking heads
Considering that album is a rip-off of fela kuti, have you tried listening to fela-kuti?

Thoughts on Kid A, is there anything else that sounds like that record before it's release?

Bocanada by Gustavo Cerati and Zooropa by U2 (IIRC).
Still, you are approaching this the wrong way. You are thinking that being "unique" is the same as being innovative, which is not. There are thousands of "unique" albums (album that don't quite sound like others), but innovative albums aren't nearly as many. Kid A is unique (actually, not even that), just not innovative.

Kevin still pioneered glide guitar, tho
shoegays without it just isn't the same, like at all
consider it rhythm and blues to rock proper

I'm not saying it was innovative, I just wanted to know more albums that sound like it. I'm trying to discover new artists/albums.

Loveless is still not an innovative album. It was different, but it didn't innovate in any way.

>creates a guitar technique that shapes the emerging subgenre forever
>not innovative
ok

>spend 2 years learning guitar and ableton 9
>albums worth of demos
>they sound fleshed out in your head but then you hit play and it's borderline incomprehensible
I don't want or need fame I just want to be able to complete something for once in my fucking life

Attached: c4b46ooglfm01.jpg (500x486, 28K)

That isn’t that hard. Just fucking try, retard

I failed at the guitar lessons I took when I was 10

Im going to be a famous comedian

holy fuck, that's a funny joke, user

I never really was set on becoming famous but when I listen to great albums made when the artist was my age or worse, younger, I do feel bitter, not gonna lie.

I don't want to be a famous musician, I just want to make cool songs to impress my friends and/or chicks. Is that too much to ask?

>it's not hard
Tell that to the thousands of incredible bandcamp musicians that all are and always will be literally whos.

same thing here man :(

i mean its super inspired by him yeah but you must be retarded to think it sounds exactly like his music

You are confusing influence with innovation.

Yeah, and you must be retarded to think two albums can sound exactly the same too. Remain in Light is not special.

So according to you only the first album of its respective genre is qualified to be labeled as innovative? I can't tell which you don't understand, music or the english language.

Feel free to prove the albums you mentioned are innovative then. I'm waiting.

I don't want to be famous, I just want to be able to write an album's worth of material that I'm proud of. So far I can't even get a single song down that doesn't sound like complete shit. I'm probably going to give up guitar soon and kill myself. There's really nothing for me in this life.

>Kevin still pioneered glide guitar, tho
WHAT

I didn't post any albums, I'm just pointing out that you're a dipshit arguing over semantics.

how is creating a guitar technique not innovative?
what does innovation even mean for you?

>wammy bars never existed before loveless

Attached: DR7IZVoV4AAK636.jpg (645x729, 34K)

epic

I'm just saying that if the user who posted those albums did so because they invented genres that he was wrong. If there are any reasons to consider those innovative then that should be clarified. Nothing to do with semantics, just with anons talking out of their asses.

Alright then, let's assume the glide technique is innovative. That still doesn't mean Loveless was an innovative album, since it was done before on their previous recordings. Happy now? It's not like it is a particularly innovative technique anyways.

>It's not like it is a particularly innovative technique anyways.
It's not innovative to pile hundreds of guitar tracks all playing the same thing but EQd differently to make a unique wall of guitars that had never been done before in rock music?

OK

>pile hundreds of guitar tracks all playing the same thing but EQd differently
>hundreds
Neither did Loveless.

based kevin ripping himself off
not that it was fully realized on loveless or anything, right?

>if I'm pedantic, I can win
No

>A. R. Kane
>shoegaze
Trying too hard with your RYM memes buddy

again, Loveless didn't innovate anything, is that too difficult to understand?

>if I make grandiose claims it's impossible to prove me wrong
Why don't you use an accurate vocabulary instead of spouting bullshit instead?

jokes on you, i found out about A. R. Kane because of Still in a Dream.

>since popular albums just steal ideas from the actual inventors
That's OK because putting old ideas in new context or using them in new wave is also innovative.

>Why don't you use an accurate vocabulary instead of spouting bullshit instead?
Irrelevant. There were, over the course of the album, a hundred guitar tracks.

Regardless, the process and end result was innovative. Feel free to refute that.

I honest to god don’t fucking care and you need to get your head out of your ass if you think shitty dream pop by a pair of niggers is shoegaze.

It depends. Simply combining genres is not innovative.

>There were, over the course of the album, a hundred guitar tracks.
There were as many on The Beatles' Revolver, so what?

>the process and end result was innovative
>feel free to refute that
prove yourself right first

A. R. Kane are shoegaze, whether you like it or not.

According to you and whose army? Keep whining for me bitchboy.

soundcloud.com/matakills/cruise
made some synthwave

>There were as many on The Beatles' Revolver, so what?
False. But that is a good example of an innovative and popular album though.
>It depends. Simply combining genres is not innovative.
Why not?
>prove yourself right first
See >A. R. Kane
Wiki says dream pop. Nice try

>According to you and whose army?
RYM.

>False.
Wrong. They literally used over a hundred guitar tracks on that album.

>Why not?
Because combining genres has already been done before.

>See
Use proper vocabulary instead of grandiose claims if you want to prove yourself right.

>Wiki says dream pop. Nice try
Not an argument.

>RYM
Which lists shoegaze as a secondary genre on exactly 1 AR Kane album. I suppose AR Kane invented post-rock too then since it’s a secondary on that album as well.

the beatles created shoegaze
youtu.be/-QVBrIOvNwQ

>RYM.
Not an argument.
>Wrong. They literally used over a hundred guitar tracks on that album.
[citation needed]
>Because combining genres has already been done before.
But not the specific genres.
>Use proper vocabulary instead of grandiose claims if you want to prove yourself right.
Fair enough. It's innovative to pile a multitude of guitar tracks all playing the same thing but EQd differently to make a unique wall of guitars, which had never been done before in rock music.
>Not an argument.
How so? I literally gave you a source that disproves your claim.

post-rock was created by the Doors on "The End" :^)

See: Velvet Underground

pretty young, like when i was 14 or 15. i was quick to realize that i wasn't talented or creative enough to ever become successful.

and also because i wrote lyrics for a guitar part that i came up with (largely copied from another song) and posted them online and some girl in my class told me they were shit.

>Remain in Light is not special.
never said it was faggot it's just not a rip-off

>Which lists shoegaze as a secondary genre on exactly 1 AR Kane album.
And primary on more than 1 album.

>I suppose AR Kane invented post-rock too then since it’s a secondary on that album as well.
I guess they did then.

>But not the specific genres.
Alright, I will become an innovator today by making a mix of reggaeton with noisecore. Who knew being an innovative musician was that easy?

>It's innovative to pile a multitude of guitar tracks all playing the same thing but EQd differently to make a unique wall of guitars, which had never been done before in rock music.
Todd Rundgren did that on A Wizard A True Star decades earlier.

>I literally gave you a source that disproves your claim.
Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Whatever.

its all too much was recorded in 1967, before wl/wh.

>more than 1 album
The only releases by them with a primary shoegaze tag is the Lolita EP and the When You’re Sad single. Neither of which are albums. The former also has shoegaze as a secondary alongside being a primary and the primary has 23 upvotes and 19 downvotes in the genre tag. Meaning the site itself is unable to decide which one it should fall under.
>I guess they did then.
Based retard.

>Meaning the site itself is filled with MBV stans
fixed

>RYM is only reliable when i say it is
Ok kid

>I will become an innovator today by making a mix of reggaeton with noisecore.
No you won't.
Todd Rundgren did that on A Wizard A True Star decades earlier.
He did not. He didn't even have the technology to do it.
>Wikipedia is not a valid source.
It's better than RYM
Except I am referencing VU&N you dummy

bro it takes a lot more than 2 years. ive been learning guitar for about 5 years and i havent written one damn thing im happy with or something i would personally enjoy listening to

They are on shoegaze compilations, so its not just RYM.

>No you won't.
Why not? Or do we agree mixing genres is not innovative?

>He did not.
He simulated the effect of doing so by recording and re-recording the tracks one on top of each other.

>It's better than RYM
Neither are valid.

this is fucked up user fuck you
but yeah...it was recently
...and i'm wayyyy older than all you faggots here that were raised on pro tools

Attached: fu anon.jpg (330x330, 27K)

>They are on shoegaze compilations
And TVUN are on punk rock compilations too. So that makes them punk...?

I always knew but my love for creating is all I need to keep me going. Money is a bit of an issue though.

>Why not?
You are too busy shitposting on Yea Forums and I don't think you are even a musician
>He simulated
Oh you mean he didn't do the thing I was referencing? Nice try
>Neither are valid
Except when wikipedia has a citation, which in this case, it does. You lose again.

They had some punk songs, so yes.

>I don't think you are even a musician
But I am, and I don't think you know music theory, so I guess I have the high ground now.

>Oh you mean he didn't do the thing I was referencing?
He achieved the same thing with a different technology. End result is the same.

>Except when wikipedia has a citation
Fine enough. Even then, A. R. Kane being cited as dream pop does not exclude the fact that they are shoegaze too, so fuck Wikipedia regardless.

I'm still winning.

Attached: 1550351779545.jpg (640x360, 113K)

Keep telling yourself that. Being a celebrity tier musician is probably the best job in the world. You just make one hit and if you play your cards right you don't have to work for the rest of your life. Leisure, travel, business ventures, drugs, and people treating you like a god just for making tunes. If you're really worried about fame just hide behind a character like Daft Punk
Show me one (1) good bandcamp musician.

>and I don't think you know music theory
Well, been studying it for 20 years now, so I hope so
>He achieved the same thing with a different technology.
Thus, it is not what I am talking about, and is thus irrelevant.

What song can you reference that will demonstrate the similar sound?
>Even then, A. R. Kane being cited as dream pop does not exclude the fact that they are shoegaze too
Prove they are.

>They had some punk songs, so yes.
Radiohead is now jazz because they had some jazz songs. Also, literally which of TVUN’s songs are punk? If you want to play the RYM genre tag game fucking none, nada of their songs have the punk rock tag, not even the more explosive ones like WL/WH or I’m Waiting for the Man.
>inb4 le epic proto-punk is punk meme

>Show me one (1) good bandcamp musician.
Define "good"

define define

>incredible unknown bandcamp musicians.

i really don't like this meme.
these "hidden" talents always have something you can recognize as the reason why they don't make it. yes the industry has been completely debased and you're at an incredible disadvantage if you're not making pop/rap/incredibly dumbed down indie rock, but there's still people that as fans of music will support you if you're good enough.

Are you this guy

>Well, been studying it for 20 years now, so I hope so
How does it feel to be a boomer browsing Yea Forums?

>Thus, it is not what I am talking about, and is thus irrelevant.
It literally does what you described. It layers a multitude of guitar tracks one on top of each other by recording and re-recording them.

>Prove they are.
Define shoegaze and I gladly will.

Radiohead do not have any jazz songs, they just have some jazz influenced songs.

>literally which of TVUN’s songs are punk?
I'm Waiting for the Man.

>If you want to play the RYM genre tag game
RYM is not relevant.

No.

>Radiohead do not have any jazz songs
National Anthem, Life in a Glass House. At the minimum they’re jazz rock. So therefore Radiohead is a jazz rock band.
>I'm Waiting for the Man.
No punk tag on RYM, no punk tag on Wikipedia, no punk tags anywhere at all. You pulled this one out of your ass like a magician with a bunny out of his hat.
>RYM is not relevant.
Unless they vote for the genre tags you agree with like in AR Kane’s case, amirite?

>How does it feel to be a boomer browsing Yea Forums?
No feeling
>It layers a multitude of guitar tracks one on top of each other by recording and re-recording them.
Ooops you selectively dropped a part of my argument. Is this a strawman?

Also you forgot to state which song...
>I gladly will.
Go ahead

>At the minimum they’re jazz rock.
Yes, jazz rock is jazz influenced rock.

>No punk tag on RYM, no punk tag on Wikipedia, no punk tags anywhere at all.
RYM and Wikipedia are not arguments. Velvet Underground have been described as punk on many publications.

>Unless they vote for the genre tags you agree with like in AR Kane’s case
No. I just used it not as an argument, but as a way to convince you, like an analogy. Since it didn't work we can leave RYM behind.

>Ooops you selectively dropped a part of my argument.
Which is?

>Also you forgot to state which song
I did not pick any song because you asked for something that emulated their sound, while I just gave you something that fits the description you mentioned above. Don't move the goalposts.

>Go ahead
You forgot to define shoegaze first.

when did you guys realize you were gonna be a famous musician

>Yes, jazz rock is jazz influenced rock.
So you agree that Radiohead are a jazz rock band ala Steely Dan and John McLaughlin then.
>Velvet Underground have been described as punk on many publications.
Such as? Again, conflating punk rock and proto-punk won’t get you anywhere.
>as a way to convince you, like an analogy
So analogies only apply when they suit your argument and don’t when they don’t. Nice going.

>Which is?
Go back and read it
>I did not pick any song because you asked for something that emulated their sound, while I just gave you something that fits the description you mentioned above. Don't move the goalposts
No goalposts are being moved. You made a claim that a certain piece had a sound similar to what I was describing, as well as a similar process. Which song is it? What song are you talking about? It's your argument, just make it

But I don't think you'll tell me. I think you are grasping for other artists and claiming they "did it first", hoping that me or other anons havcen't heard it.

That won't work for me.
>You forgot to define shoegaze first.
Unnecessary because there is a commonly-held and agreed upon definition. Now you are stalling.

>So you agree that Radiohead are a jazz rock band ala Steely Dan and John McLaughlin then.
They are all jazz-rock bands in a different way.

>Such as?
Pitchfork.

>conflating punk rock and proto-punk
What's the musical difference between the two again?

>So analogies only apply when they suit your argument and don’t when they don’t.
Yes, that's literally what analogies are for. They help your argument, but they are not arguments by themselves. This is high-school tier knowledge by the way.

>Go back and read it
I did. Didn't miss anything. Please cite which exact part did I miss (if I did indeed miss it) so that I can address it.

>You made a claim that a certain piece had a sound similar to what I was describing
I made the claim that A Wizard A True Star suits the description you used above to describe Loveless as innovative. Nowhere does it say it had to sound similar. Stop moving the goalposts.

>hoping that me or other anons havcen't heard it
If you had never heard of AR Kane before you shouldn't be talking about the origins of shoegaze on the first place, since they are pretty well-known.

>Unnecessary because there is a commonly-held and agreed upon definition.
So, why is it so difficult for you to define it then? I thought you knew music theory? Guess I was wrong there.

>They are all jazz-rock bands in a different way.
But you agree without a shadow of a doubt that Radiohead is a jazz-rock band. Therefore songs like Creep are jazz-rock...?
>Pitchfork.
Specific articles required. Also, if you think Pitchfork and their unbearable whiteness of indie articles are a good source of journalism you need to get your head checked.
>What's the musical difference between the two again?
I dunno, what’s the difference between Beefheart and the Sex Pistols? Or Beefheart and TVUN? Or TVUN and Destroy All Monsters? Or Destroy All Monsters and MC5? Actually what does proto-punk have in common with itself other than being a bunch of rock albums that influenced a specific genre a decade later?
>Yes, that's literally what analogies are for. They help your argument, but they are not arguments by themselves.
So therefore it’s entirely reasonably for me to use analogies as well because it helps my argument. Bravo.
>This is high-school tier knowledge by the way.
Yeah, only a highschooler would resort to petty semantics like this.

>Didn't miss anything.
See: unique wall of guitars
>A Wizard A True Star
Which song on that album?
>If you had never heard of AR Kane before you shouldn't be talking about the origins of shoegaze on the first place, since they are pretty well-known.
Misdirection.
>So, why is it so difficult for you to define it then?
Misdirection.
> I thought you knew music theory?
What does theory have to do with defining shoegaze?

look at these losers writing walls of text, arguing on an anymous board with people they will never meet in their entire life, you guys arent proving anything, goddamn, go use that time you are wasting to write a song or jerk off, you wont change the other guys point of view

Loveless is the most important and innovative album in whole of shoegaze.

Attached: 1550080229660.gif (607x609, 514K)

>But you agree without a shadow of a doubt that Radiohead is a jazz-rock band. Therefore songs like Creep are jazz-rock...?
That's a non-sequitur. The Beatles made some tape music, but not all their music is tape music.

>Specific articles required.
pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17129-the-velvet-underground-nico/

>if you think Pitchfork and their unbearable whiteness of indie articles are a good source of journalism you need to get your head checked.
Pitchfork sucks, but at least its not Wikipedia nor RYM.

> what’s the difference between Beefheart and the Sex Pistols?
One is a band, and the other is a group.

>Actually what does proto-punk have in common with itself
The same as punk rock.

>So therefore it’s entirely reasonably for me to use analogies as well because it helps my argument.
But it doesn't help your argument because I'm aware that they are not arguments by themselves. They are not helping your case (which is to prove me wrong).

>See: unique wall of guitars
That's on A Wizard too.

>Which song on that album?
The medley.

>Misdirection
Those were responses to your own attempts at misdirection, so now we are even.

>What does theory have to do with defining shoegaze?
If you know theory you can define shoegaze based on objective criteria like harmony, melody, rhythm, timbre, etc. Next time you lie about knowing music theory you should know what music theory actually means first.

Loveless did not innovate in any way. Prove me wrong.

>That's a non-sequitur. The Beatles made some tape music, but not all their music is tape music.
So therefore Radiohead are not a jazz-rock band, because only an incredibly tiny amount of their output is jazz-rock, and likewise with A. R. Kane and shoegaze, because only one of their singles can be conclusively described as shoegaze.
>pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17129-the-velvet-underground-nico/
The word “punk” is mentioned exactly one time here:
>Disc four is even rawer, and removes the last bit of remaining studio refinement to expose the Velvets' primal proto-punk heart.
There it is, conflating proto-punk and punk rock, exactly what I said would happen.
>Pitchfork sucks, but at least its not Wikipedia nor RYM.
You’re right, it’s worse.
>One is a band, and the other is a group.
Way to dodge the point. And dodge every other comparison made in that paragraph as well.
>The same as punk rock.
Except punk rock has a definitive style and aesthetic. Destroy All Monsters and Beefheart have no such unifying theme.
>But it doesn't help your argument because I'm aware that they are not arguments by themselves.
“Your arguments aren’t actually arguments because I say so”
Are you done yet high school debate club member?

>The medley.
OK, listening right now. No, there is no multitude of tracks of guitar, all EQd differently, to make a wall of guitar. Sorry.
>Those were responses to your own attempts at misdirection
No, I was explaining your tactics.
>If you know theory you can define shoegaze based on objective criteria like harmony, melody, rhythm, timbre, etc.
Give ten examples.

The next post should settle it. Either the anons above know what they are talking about, or they don't.
First one has to define the difference between punk rock and proto-punk. If he can't, his arguments can be dismissed as bullshit.
Second one has to prove he didn't lie when he claimed he knew music theory. If he answers the question incorrectly or doesn't answer, its proven that he was bullshitting.
Let's see how it goes.

>therefore Radiohead are not a jazz-rock band, because only an incredibly tiny amount of their output is jazz-rock, and likewise with A. R. Kane and shoegaze, because only one of their singles can be conclusively described as shoegaze.
Alright then. In that case we can conclude that, while AR Kane are not a shoegaze band, they made some shoegaze songs before My Bloody Valentine did. We happy now?

>conflating proto-punk and punk rock
You still haven't described the musical difference. I'm still waiting.

>Way to dodge the point.
Because you were dodging the demand I made for you to describe the difference between proto-punk and punk rock. I'm still waiting.

>Except punk rock has a definitive style and aesthetic.
Define it.

I will stop replying to your posts unless you define the difference between punk rock and proto-punk.

>OK, listening right now.
So you were saying it didn't fit your description before even listening to it? I'm sorry, but I think I should stop talking with a clueless idiot like you.

>there is no multitude of tracks of guitar, all EQd differently, to make a wall of guitar
There are. That's literally what it is. Go finish the song before commenting on it, will you?

>No, I was explaining your tactics.
We are on the same page then.

>Give ten examples.
Ten examples of what? Either define shoegaze in the next post, or I will stop talking to you on the grounds of you not knowing what you are talking about.

Bonus: if you know music theory, you should know the answer to the following question:
What kind of modulation is the one from pic related?
If you answer incorrectly, or don't answer, I will stop replying to your posts on the grounds that you lied about knowing music theory. The answer is very short, so don't try to avoid answering the question.

Attached: anon test.png (639x257, 75K)

>First one has to define the difference between punk rock and proto-punk. If he can't, his arguments can be dismissed as bullshit.
More like the opposing party has to prove that the two are the same, since his claim hinges on the notion that pitchfork called the Velvets punk when they called them proto-punk.

You failed to prove that proto-punk and punk rock were different, so I will stop replying to you on the grounds that you were talking out of your ass. Better luck next time.

>More like the opposing party has to prove that the two are the same
Burden of proof is on proving the two entities are different. Proving two things are the same requires comparing by an infinite number of variables. Proving two things are different only by one.

You are a bullshitter, user.

>Alright then. In that case we can conclude that, while AR Kane are not a shoegaze band, they made some shoegaze songs before My Bloody Valentine did.
*One shoegaze song. Exactly one. Which is a totally reasonable claim because no one considers MBV to be the first shoegaze band.
>You still haven't described the musical difference. I'm still waiting.
You still haven’t proven that there is no difference considering your claim hinges on the notion that there is no difference.
>Because you were dodging the demand I made for you to describe the difference between proto-punk and punk rock. I'm still waiting.
And I did by naming bands that were clearly all very different but still classified as proto-punk.
>I will stop replying to your posts unless you define the difference between punk rock and proto-punk.
Do it. Cop out of the argument like the coward you are.

See

What do you mean? user told me we were ALL gonna make it

Attached: 1550264819640.jpg (1080x1080, 101K)

worthy of praise and fame.

just wait til I finish my protogarage EP and start paying to have it shilled on it :~>]

You are so deluded.

>on the grounds that you were talking out of your ass.
More like on the grounds you’re unable to prove that the bands I mentioned are similar in any shape or form.
>Burden of proof is on proving the two entities are different.
Wrong. Burden on proof is on you because you made the claim that they are similar from extension of claiming that the pitchfork article claims that the Velvets are punk.
>Proving two things are the same requires comparing by an infinite number of variables.
Not really. You can prove that the Sex Pistols are punk rock by their use of simplistic 4/4 structures, chromatically and pentatonically based riffs and a their use of power chords played in eighths for large amounts of their song writing. That pretty clearly defines them as punk rock.

Aaaand... You refused to answer the music theory question, despite claiming you knew music theory. You are a liar, and arguing with you is therefore a pointless exercise. Goodbye.

Are you really so delusional that you think I’m the person who claimed to have studied music theory for 20 years? Do you seriously think everyone arguing against you is one person? Not going to address a single point in my post at all? You really are a coward.

long path, bro

When I turned 30 years old

Honestly who gives a shit about fame, I just wanna make something I can be proud of. If it only ends up being enjoyed by one person (that one person being me) then I don't need much else.

Everyone in this thread who thinks all it takes to gain a little fame is to try has a hard truth coming to them.

Did any of you actually try? like sending demo's out, and playing shows?

I made the claim Velvet Underground were punk rock. You were the one who brought up proto-punk, so burden of proof is on you to define the difference. I'm waiting.
Again, you were the one who brought proto-punk into the discussion, so again, prove yourself right.

>I made the claim Velvet Underground were punk rock.
...and used a Pitchfork article calling them proto-punk to prove your claim. Do you not see how your own article calls them proto-punk and therefore it’s up to you to prove now that your article legitimizes your claim?

oh sorry I didn't see this. yeah just listen to this guy and do nothing.

I only came up with the article AFTER you brought up proto-punk, so burden of proof remains on you. But if you want me to define the difference for you, I will gladly do so: there is no difference, proto punk is just punk rock before 1976, but musically they are the same.

i sent my soundclod to graveface records and was told I needed to work on structure of the songs. I didn't think I'd get anything back.

honestly sometimes i want to kms for not picking up an instrument as a teen

>I only came up with the article AFTER you brought up proto-punk
Me bringing up proto-punk doesn’t really matter because your own article brings it up anyways.
>but musically they are the same.
Prove it.

Stop arguing with yourself.

im not saying do nothing, in fact doing nothing is unacceptable, just don't expect anything

life isnt worth living if i dont make it as an artist

and that's why you got nowhere in life.

not user you were talking to, is it just chromatic movement with secondary dominants?? I can see/hear what's going on but am shite with naming.

Any rec's for resources to study up? Any good examples you'd suggest analyzing?

And the guy who got caught lying about knowing music theory disappeared when called out on his bullshit lmao

>Me bringing up proto-punk doesn’t really matter
But it does, since the discussion followed that. Prove yourself right. The discussion should have stopped until you defined the difference, so burden of proof remains in you.

>prove it
It's not possible to prove to things with an infinite amount of variables are the same, only that two things are different.
You only need ONE different variable to prove yourself right. If you can't come up with ONE musical difference between punk rock and proto punk I will stop replying to your posts.

or is it just more of a common note kind of thing??

>But it does, since the discussion followed that.
But your source on the Velvets being punk is independent from me calling them protopunk. You’re just running around in circles to avoid the point.
>It's not possible to prove to things with an infinite amount of variables are the same
I already disproved this by saying how the Sex Pistols were punk. Keep repeating it though, maybe one day it’ll come true.

Alright bud, have fun expecting to make it and never getting there.

People told Will toledo that and look where he is.

Will has talent, and if you have talent you might be able to achieve something similar to him, but that doesn't gaurentee you anything. I'm sure there were tons of guys just as talented as Will that unfortunately never got anywhere with it, just the way things are.

Considering it has been over 30 minutes since I made the question, I guess it's okay to say it now: that's common-tone modulation.
As for resources, there are more than you need all over the internet.

He won't be remembered a hundred years into the future, so who gives a shit about that talentless hack.

You're a fucking downer man.

I went to look at the wiki and saw you lifted the schubert example hahaha, thanks for posting something not shit on this board
>so who gives a shit about that talentless hack.
based

instead of saying all of your goodbyes
let them know
you realise :^)

i'm not?
fuck, well right now i guess

Sorry I guess, was just giving some insight. And i'm still in uni so i'm not some failed musician who didn't accomplish anything, just someone who knows not to expect anything. The road i'm taking as a musician wouldn't bring me much fame anyways should i get lucky.

I am gonna be tho, I say ironic meme shit all the time and just waiting for an A&R to pick me up, i still focus on music but juggle between music and mArketing a lot, i am gonna be an industry plant, jus watch

>rich people aren't happy I swear, you're deluded

Attached: gabrkqj5vaw11.png (1228x1150, 174K)

It's not as one dimensional as you think. Unrelated to fame but I have a friend who's rich as fuck and suffers with a lot of emotional issues, and a lot of what he goes through have similarities to what someone who's famous goes through (living up to expectaions, constantly being watched, etc.)

>tfw only just started believing that I CAN be a famous musician
Feels good to be whitepilled.

Attached: 1543060122921.png (187x187, 62K)

In the meme era, you just needa get high on xanax and do/spout the most retarded shit you can, e,g, Jumex smoking weed in class

Attached: 02 dab.png (1000x1000, 460K)

mirin the dubz

is that you avant math god?

>with a strong loyal cult following years after my death
only one thing left to do...

>wanting to be a famous musician
making music is spiritual to me
i've never considered myself a musician

it most likely is

only one person could be so genre cucked

If you believe in inspiration you have to put yourself in situations where you'll experience something worth writing about. Though that's a prerequisite to writing in general, really what's needed is to put your brain in a creative mode, which requires you to constantly create in general, your brain won't attempt to solve a problem you haven't already presented to it, you're not going to have something "come to you" without already constantly writing music in an attempt at finding "it." If you examine your life I'm sure you'll see that every time something happened, good or bad, you weren't on autopilot with things just out of nowhere coming towards you as if you were nothing but a magnet, it took action on your part, for every action an equal reaction, the idea of karma, you reap what you sow etc. only in modern monotheism do you find this absurd concept of life on autopilot, determinism in the sense of puppeteer strings held by an invisible entity pulling your limp body towards its grand destiny, etc. for your dream to come true you have to exert yourself and realize it, create it, or it will remain a dream.

When i was 18-19 i wanted to be a famous rockstar until i realized that even if in the smallest chance i managed to become famous i'd hate it anyway. Now i onlycare about making great music that people will enjoy listening to. Don't let the industry define your idea of success as an artist

Unbelievably based theorist shitting on the plebian faggots. I have my own list of beginner material for music theory but is any author or book series in general one you would prefer?

>beatles
>innovative
o i am laffin

this, i don't know how my assburgers ass would handle interview's when sober

Why would I want to be a famous person? Fame is hell. I enjoy being able to walk down the street without being swarmed by paparazzi.

Joke's on you, my EP is gonna slap, and my follow-up is both already written and objectively better. I've been getting some comedy/film stuff done, too. Literally just make your dreams happen lol.

i'm about to start myself

If you make music to be famous, you'll never be famous
If you already know you won't be famous, you won't be famous
Pretty simple

I'm not dead yet.

Tell that to literally every rapper and Billie Eilish.

Addendum
>If you have money and want to be famous, you will be famous

I was never a delusional narcissistic faggot

About 5th grade when some of my classmates were making fun of me for playing checkers by myself

Attached: 1464875551796.png (657x527, 11K)

based mindset

>There are.
There are not. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Simply stating it and then changing the subject when Ic all you out is not enough
>Either define shoegaze in the next post
Or rather, stop stalling and just prove that AR Kane is shoegaze.

I can't believe anons are falling for your shit.

>never gonna be a famous musician
I will be in about a year.

Attached: 1550401829677.gif (511x512, 105K)

> he still makes music in the current era

not if you keep clownposting

Attached: dog2.jpg (683x683, 68K)

When I realized I can't sing for shit.
Sure I could always just play songs without vocals, but normos don't listen to these.

This is the dream. I'm pretty jealous bro.

if fame is your goal you wont make good music

I just want easy money, okay? and usually fame comes with that.

if you want easy money youre an idiot for wanting to do music. go be some prick ideas man and get paid to sit on your ass and talk.

You should study form. Take a look at all the simple musical forms, look at some classical era music, learn the sonata form, and listen to some of your favorite songs and specifically listen for how the music is structured

just show us your work, who knows, maybe it's not even that bad?

this is totally possible, it really just cant be your only source of income in this day n age fren. plus it's always cool to hear stories of musicians like Dwyer from Oh Sees being a carpenter on the side

Post what you sent them.

Jesus & Mary Chain were playing shoegaze before A.R. Kane.
youtu.be/7EgB__YratE

this

Cringe gatekeeper