Petrarchive – /mu/core

Lapsed /mu/tant; it was trinkle-down taste. The preferences of the board was filtered through osmosis on the Internet. That being said, I did post a couple times (Stuff like "ITT: Albums that peaked at the first track (pic: I Trawl The Megahertz, Music For Airports.))

Also, this is a good website, carrying the (proverbial) baton of /mu/ charts:www.musicgenretree.org/index.html

A year ago or so there was a topster thread and it was straight /mu/-core, and not even the slightly B-tier original imageboard material like OP's pic but literally hand-me-down Fantanocore. I made fun of it then, but I'd take that conformist millennial taste over whatever schizophrenic undeveloped taste the rightoid zoomers that now peruse this place have.

I personally have never suffered this issue, I guess it has always come effortlessly to me to dig further into music and develop my taste, even with regards to genres that often have a very rigid orthodoxy like metal.

People used to name their microgenres with "wave" (vaporwave, chillwave) and now they name them with "core" (dariacore, incelcore).

"-core" stems from hardcore which goes back to the 80s. "Wave" also comes from the 80s-- "new wave". Nothing new, both are contemporaries of that time and both are abused for today's tongue-in-cheek microgenres

I've been into Kirinji recently, they're really great
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-xmdIgcEfU

>>10072 (OP)
I don't get the impression that anybody adjacent to the threads I used to browse on /mu/ is around on here, and odds are I've met more ex-/mu/tants at shows by now. I shed a little tear every time I have to bump my own guitar music thread.


You ever listened to Singers by Mount Eerie? Bunch of recordings from friends done impromptu at various points, I think. Probably my favourite Mount Eerie release. When all the other vocalists come in on the first track is great.

And I've got you another live performance for you (from Jordaan Mason & the Horse Museum):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mloBFYwrJsk
Bonus is that the full set is elsewhere on YouTube, though I haven't listened to the full thing yet.

Divorce Lawyers I Shaved My Head was something I listened to tons the fall I started university, and returned to it recently. It was definitely /mu/core when I was browsing back then (~10 years ago), but on a lesser echelon. I can't spot it on any charts while skimming, but it was part of /mu/chella, though that was before my time there. Was insane for me to find out recently that some guys from /mu/ got Jordaan Mason, Jamie Stewart, and Anthony Fantano all to agree to an interview (another thing I haven't listened to in full):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Sihqt4D4Y


Besides all that, the /mu/ guide to suicide chart was a huge thing for me when I was getting into music. Was probably my first proper introduction to a lot of these albums, and a jumping off point. The circa-2015/2016 re-discovery of Duster was huge for me too. That sort of digging around for lost and unknown classics formed how I approached music discovery, though nowadays I'm far more forward-looking.

One thing I appreciate about (old) /mu/ vs. /lit/ is that /mu/ cared about finding good contemporary music, while /lit/ has been largely allergic to it all the time I've browsed there.


>>10075
>>10076
>>10077
Post music and learn to quote.

"No"

/mu/ "classics" are over inflated (especially Radiohead shit). that said, whenever just browsing random threads I always found things I like that aged well.

>>10080

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxpDa-c-4Mc

>>10074
I remember this guy spamming his stuff on /mu/ a couple years ago. I got him to swap out Red Krayola for Can in the Krautrock, category, lol

>>10080
I went to a duster show in London, several hundred people and actually it was largely zoomers but even so it was surreal to think 'an image board did this'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC_hUuZKC-E

>>10087
Yeah, same thing when I saw them in Montreal in 2024, though it felt like anyone older than that I could identify as a /mu/tant.

There's a lot of slow mid-late-2010s music I think took influence from that era of interest in Duster and slowcore in general. Seemed to be a lot of guys doing it in New York (state) especially. Early Ylayali and 22º Halo, Lung Cycles, no friends/David Attias.
A New York release from that time that got posted to /mu/ was the ylayali / lung cycles split, though I only got into both acts years later:
lilytapesanddiscs (dot) bandcamp (dot) com/album/ylayali-lung-cycles
ylayali at that time was more of a bedroom sadcore/folk project at the time (but became much darker and slower in his next few releases), while the lung cycles part is easier to identify as "slow" music.

As a Canadian it's interesting to see that slowcore of that kind never took off here in that time, maybe because all the indie bands were preoccupied with Women, while I imagine any attempts at post-rock (since a lot of good slowcore is a variety of slow post-rock in my mind) was still taken by the influence of Godspeed. The one exception to the lack of Duster/slowcore influence in Canada back then might be the first EP from the band Melrose, which is phenomenal but never got too similar of a follow-up:
melrosee (dot) bandcamp (dot) com/album/melrose
This I came across because he was posting it on /mu/.

Nowadays Canada has some cool slow projects appearing, like Fencing (Winnipeg), Tarp (Winnipeg), Welted (Toronto), Goldenstar (Montreal), and Stitch (Vancouver).

I simply cannot relate to people who desperately seek slightly better noises in their ear to the point of hipster taste. I like music, even appreciate refined taste in the abstract, and understand the appeal of sense pleasures, but how do music people not notice the hedonic treadmill on their way to these depths of obscurity? By the time you are posting on /mu/ you are already the ear noise equivalent of Nicholas Hoult's foodie character in The Menu.

>>10091

All "taste" is just about your position on this infinite ladder. There isn't really an opt-out option

>>10091
Is it possible for you to make an argument that doesn't involve:
A) referencing a fictional character
B) implying you have better taste
C) talking like a fag

You're already taking for granted that people you're talking about like what they're listening to, so you can't switch to saying this is about people who only like obscure things for obscurity's sake. So, if someone has music they enjoy, why not seek out more that they might enjoy more? why not seek out something they'll enjoy much more? and someday they may not enjoy it as much as they did initially, so they seek out more that they like, etc. This includes a lot of "slightly better noises" but leads to the occasional personally important album. Would you make your same argument if this had been about people who explore different pieces and styles of writing?

Then if you look at it from the perspective of the people making the art, it's a matter of expression, experimentation, and refinement. And people like it for those reasons. Can you form an argument for why it shouldn't be made? and if it's being made and people like it then why shouldn't said audience listen and seek out more? Is it such a problem that it's not popular enough for you to know it?

>>]I] understand the appeal of sense pleasures

>>10093
The argument didn't rely on the character reference. There was no implication of better taste. It's possible for the thing that makes people like the music they like to be the obscurity for obscurity's sake. I think the argument is actually pretty unique to music though. Sex addicts with incredibly specific fetishes are probably the second place finisher, here. You're only now starting to see a gooner culture that comes anywhere close to music hipsterdom. Why the fuck would I be arguing it shouldn't be made? Reread the part that goes, "I like music." Shit, didn't even say it was a "problem." All I said was that I couldn't relate to it. I'm sorry that plainly stating your excess made you feel threatened.

>>10091

Obscurity is actually a pretty solid heuristic for finding good music because every household-name artist of the past 15 years is a product of algorithmic manipulation and manufactured discourse. The whole Geese psyop thing is truly only the tip of the iceberg. The millennial hipsters were genuinely right about the "mainstream" label being a black mark.

Tasteful people should use often the following heuristic: "If your music is so good, then why do my coworkers like it?" This will stop algo artifacts like Geese or 2Hollis from entering into your life in the first place.

>>10091

Also are you the polish guy? I feel like I recognize your writing style

>>10096
That can just as easily tell you that non-obscurity with age (classics) are a great heuristic for quality. Indeed I'd argue it's a better one. But it doesn't tickle the same itch, so it's not what those people do.
>>10097
? (This is a deep cut. You probably wouldn't get it. But also, no.)

>>10095
>>10098
>classics
I'm not the guy arguing popular = bad, but what you're suggesting doesn't give a good answer for how to find contemporary music you like. And classics are at least partly established by those that seek out and explore lots of contemporary music. It takes time for an album to gain an audience and be established as a capital-C Classic, and there are many circumstantial factors that lead to very good albums not making it to that stage.

You're also missing the fact that /mu/core itself is literally a primer of classics, with the whole point being that you listened to them then found your way from there based on which you liked the most. You liked Loveless? then look for more shoegaze from lesser-known bands (which is pretty much any band that isn't My Bloody Valentine). Classics are a starting point for those that want to find more music they enjoy.

There are fun secondary elements to seeking out music like this, in that you can learn something about the histories and trajectories of genres and scenes and people. But the goal is still to find albums you enjoy more than classics. It's not to say you don't like the classics, but that on a personal level there may be music you enjoy more than some of them. It's a process of understanding what one likes and why.

>Why the fuck would I be arguing it shouldn't be made?
I'm saying it's a corollary of your earlier point: claiming that listening to music that isn't large-scale popular isn't worthwhile is tantamount to saying that music that isn't popular doesn't deserve or need an audience. And I consider music and all art is in part a matter of communication, meaning an audience is an important component to it.

>>10099
>contemporary
Begging the question.
>corollary
I'm not arguing unpopular = bad. I'm saying that you squeezing music for that little juice looks to me the same way someone with an absurdly specific sexual fetish looks to you. A lot of judgment is being read into that but it's more of a head tilt on my end.

>>10101

how can someone not read judgment into that lol?

>>10101
>Begging the question.
I don't know what this means. I'll assume it just means you don't have an answer.
>etc. btw sex
I'm not saying you're calling unpopular music bad, I'm saying that there are reasons for people who seek out less popular music that directly have to do with their true enjoyment of the music. The juice is worth the squeeze for plenty of people that aren't you, and I've said why. We can both agree you don't like searching for music, and it's not worth it for you. Surely you can imagine some people feel differently without it being a matter of deviancy. It's weird that you think the next closest thing to having specific musical tastes is being a fetishist rather than having specific tastes in any other type of art.

With what I've said with respect to contemporary music and classics, I think you can see my point that people having sought out unheard-of music is necessary for your ability to have a ready list of classics. You haven't really responded to anything I said in that last post, so I'll leave it at that.

>>10102
Try not being a sensitive little bitch I guess.
>>10103
>that directly have to do
I don't agree they directly have to do with it in the same way you mean. That's the thing. It's like saying your hobby is fishing when your hobby is more accurately shopping for the best shipping gear by a mile if we're looking at everything from time spent to your brain scans. When you actually go fishing you are genuinely enjoying it more because you're constantly saying "look at this new rod!" or whatever every 30 seconds and I don't doubt that it's really making you enjoy (actual) fishing more. I just find it odd, because you could just shut the fuck up and take some breaths and have a more attentive experience of it.
>I'll assume... You haven't really responded.
Okay. You do that.

Thinking of forgotten/lower-echelon /mu/core again, was anyone here ever into Attic Abasement? I must have heard of Dancing is Depressing on /mu/. Supposedly 2016 was when I bought it, and it's probably been one of my most listened to albums since then considering it's been part of my morning routine on and off since I got into it. It took me years to listen to the other Attic Abasement albums, but they're all great, and all pretty varied.
>Attic Abasment - Dancing is Depressing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O2JdoFMIwk

It's also interesting from the "slow New York" stuff I was on about here >>10090, since Attic Abasement is from Rochester and predates that specific slow scene by a few years (besides Dream News that came out in 2016). Don't Hate Fuck certainly feels like a logical predecessor to something like the ylayali & lung cycles split.

Also reminds me of UTAH, who're neat for being slow country-tinged music (again from New York) from 2018, well before slow country became a big thing in the last few years. Also has a direct connections with ylayali, and possibly 22º Halo too.
>UTAH - Reaper's Gain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWOf6EKTenQ

>>10105

Willis Earl Beal and David Thomas Broughton do this vibe better - they are sans that sophomoric malaise I expect of, like, dandelion hands or Elvis depressedly.

>>10104

I'm not part of this and I'm not super keen on convincing anyone of anything, but the missing piece here is that music taste is an incredibly social thing. There isn't such thing as a pure, uncontaminated enjoyment of music as you advocate. We are all gearheads of the soul

>>10104

And as always, anytime an argument gets this heated you have an obligation to provide at least one position you hold (e.g. what music do you like?)

>>10105

Man, as an attendee of a midwestern college in 2018, Attic Abasement puts me into a fight-or-flight state. So many hot, humid basements filled with lightly swaying wypipo. BYOB, so a waste of a Friday night. Just bored and mad and sweaty. Wondering why I can't enjoy things like other people can.

This kind of music dispels my nostalgia, remembering how much of my adolescence was just spent waiting for bio class to be over and trying to get girls to send nudes on snapchat. Why isn't ISIS better? Office job adulthood is an unqualified improvement. I can listen to Bladee and just ignore everything

>>10108
>There isn't such thing as a pure, uncontaminated enjoyment of music as you advocate.
Believing this would sure explain the difference, but holy shit is that just wrong.
>>10109
Classic rock (60s and 70s), 00's electronic, 10's alt. I will grant that this decade one might need to dive deeper because the pop is truly repulsive (like the 80s).

>>10119

I will not say anything disparaging about your music tastes because I recognize it is all relative and we are different people