Precisely why it's good to have something of an interest in moldy old music - it's always there for you, like an old friend. Of course, at eMu it can be there for you several times over with different distributors, different slice and dice compilations, re-do ripoffs and the like. Come to think of it that was why I liked eMu at first way back - they didn't have the majors or the shiny new but they did have lots of dirt cheap moldy old music like folk, blues, jazz, world. It's actually discouraging to me to browse through new repackaging of said music bereft of dirt cheapness that has questionable provenance with low track yields and less than bargain prices. Still it puts the knife between my teeth to find those occasional treasures. Arrgh.
You know, I think I am actually going to do it. The difference between the total price of what I have left on my main SFL at emusic and the monies in my account is $4 and something. Next refresh and I will be able to clear it completely. First time since 2004 with an empty SFL.
Admittedly I have a few secondary lists, but they are not long and are eminently clearable also. I am still not totally sure what this means - what the exact proportions are between (i) having downloaded a lot of music in the last couple of years and entering a lull, (ii) emusic being unbrowsable and basically an experience of not discovering music any more, (iii) possibly nearing the end of a genre phase and needing new pastures (I can see my jazz list maybe growing), (iv) shopping elsewhere more (ironically with the growth of bandcamp, netlabels etc I think I am actually more often finding that emusic doesn't have something than in the pre-major label days), and (v) actually quite looking forward to the possibility of a few months of random downloading on impulse without just picking from an already carefully sorted list.
I tried to leave GP but quickly went back when I saw that emusic had a big Real World drop, but yesterday I spent what I can only call a wasted hour or two, trying to spend the rest of this month's monies (deliberately used for Jonah). It was just so slow and ponderous, another hold coming up very soon. What's worse is that there are a couple of albums, both on labels that emusic UK has, that I want, are available at Amazon and itunes, and probably elsewhere too, but emusic does not have, so I was searching in vain. Maybe they do have them, but I just can't find them! When I factor in my time, emusic really is not worth it much of the time these days.
Well, my youngest has magically become old enough for a large chunk of her birthday list to be specific music. And is fine with MP3s. And the best way to get a chunk of it is going to be an emusic booster. This is so going to screw up my personal recommendations for the next 6 months.
Then again they were screwed up already, apparently mostly influenced by some emusic web demon that is doggedly determined to get me to download Rush and Fairport Convention and some hip hop thing in order to continue my ambient and jazz explorations, so maybe it will be no loss, except for making it harder to complain. Which may be a good thing.
I don't even bother looking at my personal recommendations anymore. They had some promise at first, but now the recs fall into one of two categories: 1) Redundant (rec'ing stuff I own or by artists I just recently bought something of, so, no thank you, I don't need help discovering artists I've already discovered on my own), and 2) Inexplicable (rec'ing stuff that makes no sense to rec to me based on my purchases, ie allo darling and beach house, etc).
It's really too bad, because it was a feature that used to keep me on the site for hours, just browsing.
I will say, however, that the Similar Artists feature (or whatever it's called) has been pretty reliable, and have no complaints of it, both as standing on its own merits and also in comparison to the "previous" version.
It's really too bad, because it was a feature that used to keep me on the site for hours, just browsing.
Exactly. That for me is the single biggest change since the make(everythingbroken)over - I just don't browse any more, even though I'd like to. A small glimmer of progress is that my recommendations have increased today from 8 to 18, and one of them is kind of interesting.
Recently I've been enjoying the recommendations on last.fm. A lot of them are ridiculous (I listen to a lot of The Replacements so you think I'll like Paul Westerberg? Fascinating), but a handful are actually interesting and have introduced me to some good bands I hadn't otherwise heard of. One of those introductions was to The Deeep which I posted on the WAYLTRN thread yesterday and am absolutely loving.
Hey, you're right, mine also jumped from 8 to 18. However, they all still fall into the above 2 categories, so it's still no incentive to check it out.
They're way over-complicating the rec thing. The best way to do it is the formula amazon uses; people who buy x also buy a-w, minus what I know you already have, and give you a button to let me know what you already have and delete what you really don't like, which, come to think of it, sounds like the emusic of long ago, which was a really fun way to spend hours and hours.
The new emusic slogan should be - we work hard every day to stop you from wasting your valuable time here.
@Cafreema - I agree, last.fm is the best way (for me) to discover new music. In addition to the suggested artists, I usually look at the recent listeners, see what they listen to. The person a recs work better the more music you have scrobbled, obviously.
I with Craig and Plong, the recs on Last.fm work well. So does seeing what your friends on there are listening to.
I use its events feature to keep track of upcoming tours, which helps. I've also found liking or friending (?) UndertheRadarMagazine on Facebook helps in this way too.
I think I commented once before that I somehow missed the 90s (probably a combination of early-career, early-family). Emusic has a 90s essentials sale today, and I don't think I have ever heard a single song from any of the records in the list. (And I've never heard of a third of the artists).
Faith No More - "Angel Dust" (back when electronics in rock and rap elements were a new thing; album totally rocks)
Alice in Chains - "Unplugged" (nice live performance from the grunge band; always thick w/lethargy and sludge)
Verve - "Urban Hymns" (not their best album, but one of the best on the list; space rock w/mod grooves)
Butthole Surfers - "Electric Ladyland" (again, not their best, but real good thrash rock; both fun and smart)
Breeders - "Last Splash" (semi-lo-fi chick rockers; Well-known song "Cannonball"; still listen to, today)
Radiohead - "The Bends" (their pre-drone days; decent fuzz rock, good album)
Bjork - "Homogenic" (I just think Bjork is really good and can't see anything wrong with picking up her stuff)
The rest of the stuff, meh.
The only albums from the above that I think are must-have are the Faith No More and Alice in Chains. A better Butthole Surfers albums is the one that has a title like "Independent Worm Saloon" (or something like that), and a better Verve album to get is "Storm in Heaven". Better Pearl Jam album to get is "Ten" and Stone Temple Pilots is "Purple", both of which are essential 90s Grunge albums.
I was totally prepared to lambast the choices in the 17 dots comments, but then I read what the various editors wrote... and most of them were pretty well thought out. The write-up for the Verve album was spot-on... including the noticeably bitter remark how calling the Verve a one-hit-wonder is a mushbrained thing to say, and the wistful comment how things went south for them after that album. The FNM and STP comments were also really good, and so was the Butthole Surfers one.
Between the title use of Essential, the selections made, and the comments on each album, it's all sort of incongruous. If I had to guess, this is what happened... eMusic went to the labels or bands or producers (whoever the fuck decides these things) with the premise of an Essential 90s albums sale. The labels/bands/producers said, sure, but here's the albums you have to sell. IMO, these, for the most part, aren't essential, probably don't sell much (Pearl Jam's "Vitology"? Really?), and that's why the bands/labels/producers gave the right to sell those particular albums at a deal price... because why sell the better albums at the lower price when they still sell at normal prices? (again, more assumptions on my part... big time). eMusic didn't want to say no, so put 'em on sale anyways, even if they weren't the albums they'd originally envisioned. The editorial staff, perhaps making the same assumptions I'm making and thinking, perhaps, some of the same thoughts that many of you have expressed here, just gave their honest assessments of the albums, and that's where things are at.
But again, I'm just guessing. I feel like I need to emphasize that in case anybody still thinks I have any insight into what goes on around there just because I write a weekly column for them. I live in Kentucky. I exchange two emails a week with emu. One says "I'm here and starting on the article." The other says, "I'm done, here's my article." I have no more insight into that place than anybody here or anybody who lurks here.
i now realize there were some interesting things happening in the 90s, e.g., the pastoral-rock vibe of yo la tengo; the continuation of the 80s snarl of dinosaur jr.; obviously the "everybody-knows-this-but-it-is-still-godhead-great" nirvana (tho i never have a desire to listen to nirvana now); other stuff. but overall, attempts to label the 90s the "golden age" of indie and/or rock seem absurd to me.
give me the 70s, the 80s and the 00s, not necessarily in that order.
There were some great albums that came out in the 90s, many which I still listen to and/or think fondly of. Ignoring that decade of rock/pop/alternative/indie would be unfortunate for you, but not as unfortunate as thinking that that emu list is in any way representative of the best of what that decade had to offer.
I don't buy the existence of a golden age for any genre.
well, i'm open to being introduced to great albums of the 90s. i'll grant you a few yo la tengos are hot stuff. maybe pavement? they've never really been my thing, except for that one amazing ballad, which is the sound of beauty collapsing. wait, low, too! they began in the 90s, yes?
somehow my annual numero group subscription lapsed, which kills me, 'cuz they are the world's best label. they're reissuing some 90s codine albums. like low, codine was a "slowcore" band. i think i have tose early albums, but i've rarely listened to them.
and maybe electronic stuff, e.g., daft punk? i dunno.
Comments
i know, right?
btw, i'm not really disagreeing. the day's new-releases should generally go up like clockwork.
Admittedly I have a few secondary lists, but they are not long and are eminently clearable also. I am still not totally sure what this means - what the exact proportions are between (i) having downloaded a lot of music in the last couple of years and entering a lull, (ii) emusic being unbrowsable and basically an experience of not discovering music any more, (iii) possibly nearing the end of a genre phase and needing new pastures (I can see my jazz list maybe growing), (iv) shopping elsewhere more (ironically with the growth of bandcamp, netlabels etc I think I am actually more often finding that emusic doesn't have something than in the pre-major label days), and (v) actually quite looking forward to the possibility of a few months of random downloading on impulse without just picking from an already carefully sorted list.
God bless ya. It still makes me bubble over with laughter.
Then again they were screwed up already, apparently mostly influenced by some emusic web demon that is doggedly determined to get me to download Rush and Fairport Convention and some hip hop thing in order to continue my ambient and jazz explorations, so maybe it will be no loss, except for making it harder to complain. Which may be a good thing.
It's really too bad, because it was a feature that used to keep me on the site for hours, just browsing.
I will say, however, that the Similar Artists feature (or whatever it's called) has been pretty reliable, and have no complaints of it, both as standing on its own merits and also in comparison to the "previous" version.
Exactly. That for me is the single biggest change since the make(everythingbroken)over - I just don't browse any more, even though I'd like to. A small glimmer of progress is that my recommendations have increased today from 8 to 18, and one of them is kind of interesting.
Craig
The new emusic slogan should be - we work hard every day to stop you from wasting your valuable time here.
I use its events feature to keep track of upcoming tours, which helps. I've also found liking or friending (?) UndertheRadarMagazine on Facebook helps in this way too.
Craig
Faith No More - "Angel Dust" (back when electronics in rock and rap elements were a new thing; album totally rocks)
Alice in Chains - "Unplugged" (nice live performance from the grunge band; always thick w/lethargy and sludge)
Verve - "Urban Hymns" (not their best album, but one of the best on the list; space rock w/mod grooves)
Butthole Surfers - "Electric Ladyland" (again, not their best, but real good thrash rock; both fun and smart)
Breeders - "Last Splash" (semi-lo-fi chick rockers; Well-known song "Cannonball"; still listen to, today)
Radiohead - "The Bends" (their pre-drone days; decent fuzz rock, good album)
Bjork - "Homogenic" (I just think Bjork is really good and can't see anything wrong with picking up her stuff)
The rest of the stuff, meh.
The only albums from the above that I think are must-have are the Faith No More and Alice in Chains. A better Butthole Surfers albums is the one that has a title like "Independent Worm Saloon" (or something like that), and a better Verve album to get is "Storm in Heaven". Better Pearl Jam album to get is "Ten" and Stone Temple Pilots is "Purple", both of which are essential 90s Grunge albums.
Cheers.
I was totally prepared to lambast the choices in the 17 dots comments, but then I read what the various editors wrote... and most of them were pretty well thought out. The write-up for the Verve album was spot-on... including the noticeably bitter remark how calling the Verve a one-hit-wonder is a mushbrained thing to say, and the wistful comment how things went south for them after that album. The FNM and STP comments were also really good, and so was the Butthole Surfers one.
Between the title use of Essential, the selections made, and the comments on each album, it's all sort of incongruous. If I had to guess, this is what happened... eMusic went to the labels or bands or producers (whoever the fuck decides these things) with the premise of an Essential 90s albums sale. The labels/bands/producers said, sure, but here's the albums you have to sell. IMO, these, for the most part, aren't essential, probably don't sell much (Pearl Jam's "Vitology"? Really?), and that's why the bands/labels/producers gave the right to sell those particular albums at a deal price... because why sell the better albums at the lower price when they still sell at normal prices? (again, more assumptions on my part... big time). eMusic didn't want to say no, so put 'em on sale anyways, even if they weren't the albums they'd originally envisioned. The editorial staff, perhaps making the same assumptions I'm making and thinking, perhaps, some of the same thoughts that many of you have expressed here, just gave their honest assessments of the albums, and that's where things are at.
But again, I'm just guessing. I feel like I need to emphasize that in case anybody still thinks I have any insight into what goes on around there just because I write a weekly column for them. I live in Kentucky. I exchange two emails a week with emu. One says "I'm here and starting on the article." The other says, "I'm done, here's my article." I have no more insight into that place than anybody here or anybody who lurks here.
Two words: Jesus Jones.
give me the 70s, the 80s and the 00s, not necessarily in that order.
I don't buy the existence of a golden age for any genre.
somehow my annual numero group subscription lapsed, which kills me, 'cuz they are the world's best label. they're reissuing some 90s codine albums. like low, codine was a "slowcore" band. i think i have tose early albums, but i've rarely listened to them.
and maybe electronic stuff, e.g., daft punk? i dunno.