Grimes is the new Bjork

>Grimes is the new Bjork
>Joanna Newsom is the new Kate Bush
>St. Vincent is the new PJ Harvey
>Sky Ferreira is the new Madonna
>Lauren Mayberry is the new Robyn
>Taylor Swift is the new Kylie

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

popcrush.com/sky-ferreira-madonna-v-magazine-music-issue/
clyp.it/pgk1bj2k
clyp.it/xafy2ndg
picosong.com/hvnB
youtube.com/watch?v=cEety9vpf14
youtu.be/H4HdSygZrnc?t=14
youtube.com/watch?v=Fb_0LzBv894
youtu.be/e1C7MMmxBCg?t=36s
metacritic.com/music/robyn/robyn
metacritic.com/music/body-talk
youtube.com/watch?v=BHmVqMISPLw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

agree about grimes

Grimes is definitely the new Bork

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

insulting

is taylor momsen the the new dorro?

if st vincent is polly, who is patti?

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

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

Sky Ferraro is the new Vanity.

>>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

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

who is the new:

-morrissey
-thom yorke
-jeff mangum
-bowie

>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?

Angel Olsen or Courtney Barnett

Nobody outside of Sup Forums knows any of those "modern versions" except Taylor Swift.

me

which one?

all 4 baby. im the real deal

damn

Definitely courtney

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

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

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)

>sampled
You mean stole, right?

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.

>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.

>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.

lauren mayberry makes bad music

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

spoken like a true dumbass

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

Spoken like a true Albini

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.

>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.

>all sampling is stealing retard
kek

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

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

>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

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

>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?

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

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

>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.)

>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).

not as ridiculous as Sky herself

...

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.

>>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.

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.

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

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

There is one. You know which one.

That blue chick from The Fifth Element?

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

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

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?

Not that user, 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: clyp.it/pgk1bj2k Seriously, listen to this.

PJ Harvey is still litttttt no ones replacing her yet

>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: clyp.it/xafy2ndg

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

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.

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.

actually Arca is the new Bjork his latest single pretty much confirmed this

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

Arca is a male

And Arca worked on Vulnicura

>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: picosong.com/hvnB

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

>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.

Well said, user. 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: youtube.com/watch?v=cEety9vpf14

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

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.

Arca is just gay Autechre.

ah yes the three groups to use sampling, ever

Chelsea wolfe is the new pj harvey

St vincent is shit

>This is a really poor example
Different user,

Fwiw the track linked to here 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.)

>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.

The most memorable ones...

>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.

>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.

If not Bjork, then who else in her place?

>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.

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.

>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.

>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: 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.

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.

>>St. Vincent is the new PJ Harvey

No fuck you.

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

youtu.be/e1C7MMmxBCg?t=36s

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

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

>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.

metacritic.com/music/robyn/robyn
metacritic.com/music/body-talk

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.

>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.

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: youtube.com/watch?v=BHmVqMISPLw

>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

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.

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?

>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.

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.

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.

>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.