Why it's so hard to start a forum nowadays

[Retro]

The difference in the dopamine rushes is that on websites like NZ you are expanding your mind, writing great masterpieces, training your brain and learning great nerd stuff..... ....when you are on Tiktok you are like a hamster in a maze, looking for that button to press to raise your happy meter a bit until you find the next button.

Yeah, precisely so Tiffs. You can see how this training of the populace also applies to the noise that is modern pop music, hitting that spot in the brain so that the trained hamsters rush out and but the next single to continue their dopamine hit. Heck, one can buy it straight from their smartphone nowadays, even quicker and more convenient. Pathetic.

"Happy meter". Love it.

 

[Arantor]

Why is it a problem that people can purchase music from their mobile phone? iTunes, Google Play and Amazon Music have very large libraries and you’d be surprised how many indies are on these platforms too.

A much more significant problem are the likes of Spotify where unless you’re already famous, you make next to nothing, and it eats into the sakes you would have had otherwise.

 

[Retro]

Why is it a problem that people can purchase music from their mobile phone?

It's not.

I think you've missed my point about much of the commercial music being produced today being engineered for that additive hit and sounds like garbage. Being able to then buy said "product" more conveniently on a smartphone only enhances that effect.

 

[Arantor]

Right, but you’re making it sound like buying on a smartphone is inherently a problem by design, when it’s not.

What it does reflect, though, is that consumption habits have changed because people don’t have Walkmans or Discmans any more, but do have their phone with them.

As for mass produced pulp music, you can’t convince me that the music produced now for “the pop audience” is significantly worse than it was in the past when comparing it to the same target audience.

People complain, for example, about the repeatability of modern songs and so on, but give The Beatles‘ She Loves You a complete free ride despite it having many of the same issues structurally. In fact a number of the Beatles’ earlier hits have that same problem - and for the same reason, it’s produced for a mass audience who want it simple and catchy.

Stock, Aitken, Waterman were one of the serial “offenders” of the 80s of this but honestly… if people didn’t want it they wouldn’t buy it.

 

[Retro]

Right, but you’re making it sound like buying on a smartphone is inherently a problem by design, when it’s not.

No I'm not. Reading over my posts, I don't see how I can explain it any more clearly and I don't understand where your disagreement comes from. Quite puzzled, actually. I'd have thought we'd be in agreement.

As for mass produced pulp music, you can’t convince me that the music produced now for “the pop audience” is significantly worse than it was in the past when comparing it to the same target audience.

"Pulp" music. Yeah, you could call it that. This is a subjective comment just like my original is, but there is a general consensus by people I've spoken with over time that the commercial music created today is generally poor quality in the way that I've described, especially from people who create it. I even saw a documentary about this a while ago explaining in more technical terms why much of today's music just isn't as good as that of yesteryear, basically why it's garbage. Musicians were interviewed saying this, too. Sorry, I can't remember specific details from that program, but this was the message from it and it agreed with my experience and discussions of modern music.

And as I've said previously here, there is quality music being created today, loads of it in fact, just as at any other era, but it doesn't see the same commercial success as what ends up in the top 40 unfortunately, hence I gave up on music radio almost two decades ago. The few times I do catch some of it, it's the same old pap.

 

[Arantor]

I see the sentences, "Heck, one can buy it straight from their smartphone nowadays, even quicker and more convenient. Pathetic." I can *only* conclude that buying music on a smartphone is pathetic. Especially when I buy the majority of my music from a mobile device - even if I don't necessarily listen to it on the same mobile device.

I will note that the mastering process is technically inferior today, which is mostly around ramping the gain and volume up to 'just loud enough to not clip' and that's also a symptom of the fact that people inevitably buy their music in a digital compressed form rather than any physical uncompressed form (i.e. MP3/M4A vs CD), and because a sizeable number of consumers are listening on mobile devices with tinny little speakers or earbuds with tinny tiny little speakers.

And yes, you're absolutely right that there is quality music being created today - but just as it has been for the last 50 years, what is popular is not necessarily what is good. And every generation feels the previous generation's culture was better - because they're only seeing the things that naturally rose to the top in that time. There was always a large swathe of rubbish music being played, a large swathe of *rubbish* music being played.

I find it interesting to go back and look through 'songs that were number 1 for more than a week' and see how many cringe inducing songs that includes.

The Christmas number 1's list is particularly weird - but no-one is going to tell me that all current music is objectively and unambiguously worse than 1993's wonderful Christmas joy for example. Or, for that matter, 1971's Ernie (Fastest Milkman In The West)

My dad was born in the late 1940s, and was a strong fan of stuff from the 1950s and 1960s, the end of the big band sound; my mother born at the start of the 1960s, and thinks that all music stopped being worth listening to if it was made after about 1993. Me, I'm from the start of the 1980s, so naturally my era is the 1980s and 1990s with some stuff from the 1970s - and for me, much of what came after 2005 or so isn't that interesting.

My sister on the other hand is 10 years younger than me, and her tastes in music run correspondingly later too.

This stuff is a lot more complicated than we give it credit for.

 

[Retro]

I see the sentences, "Heck, one can buy it straight from their smartphone nowadays, even quicker and more convenient. Pathetic." I can *only* conclude that buying music on a smartphone is pathetic. Especially when I buy the majority of my music from a mobile device - even if I don't necessarily listen to it on the same mobile device.

Reading that out of context, yes it can look like that. In the proper context that I've written it however, you should understand that I'm calling pathetic the nasty way that these record companies milk money by abusing it even further with easy purchases.

And yeah, the loudness wars, don't get me started on that. What an efficient way to offend one's ears.

People in general might like the music from their era as it's what they grew up with, but not me. I like many different types of pop, rock, metal and electronic music from all eras from the 70s onwards. I especially love electronic music as you'll know from my Retro's Music forum and that spans around 50 years or so to today. Most of those tracks will never go near a radio and can only be found online, though.

I wish I could point you to that fascinating documentary that took apart modern music, explaining why it's so much poorer overall, but I just don't remember enough about it unfortunately, not even its name, being simply one of many programs one casually watches. I think it was on Channel 4 or Channel 5 though, not certain.

This stuff is a lot more complicated than we give it credit for.

Yeah, totally. Why we like music in the first place isn't fully understood by science, either. Think, exactly why was it pleasurable to listen to any particular song? Why is this kind of mental stimulation required at all? Hard to explain these things, isn't it?

 

[Crims]

Reading that out of context, yes it can look like that. In the proper context that I've written it however, you should understand that I'm calling pathetic the nasty way that these record companies milk money by abusing it even further with easy purchases.

Music is an art in the same sense that fine art is. Similarly, how art is devalued at the moment it makes sense to reward quality songs with more money at concerts. There's an abundance of pop at the moment and very little music.
Gen Z is awkward as fuck n could benefit from less sharing.

 

[Tiffany]

Do we even have a Mozart, Bach, Chopin, Wagner, Beethoven et al. of our century for classical music? Maybe John Williams? I wouldn't even know where to start with pop music, but if I was asked for the first band to come to mind, it would be Queen, because, their instrumental melodies and supporting background to their vocals were complex and original. Look at Bohemian Rhapsody.

 

[Arantor]

People either point to Williams or Hans Zimmer in that category but honestly Williams pulls a lot from other classical music with a wink and a nod.

You could make the case for Queen, sure, not many bands where all members individually wrote a top ten single in their home country. (Mercury - Bohemian Rhapsody, May - We Will Rock You, Taylor - Radio Ga Ga, Deacon - I Want To Break Free)

I think we can also make a valid inclusion for Jim Steinman (writer of most of the biggest Meat Loaf songs, but most notably Bat Out Of Hell, Anything For Love, Two Outta Three Ain’t Bad, Paradise By The Dashboard Light; also wrote for Bonnie Tyler - Total Eclipse of the Heart and Holding Out For A Hero come to mind)

Of course we should include the Beatles - not so much the earlier stuff that was fairly typical, but think about Revolver or Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, hard to deny this was pushing forward the genre.

I‘d also make the case for Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits, for being one of the finest guitarists going, but also as a master storyteller.

It’s also hard because I have my personal favourites that really don’t belong in the discussion of “this generation’s Mozart”, e.g. Pink Floyd (before The Final Cut, anyway), Yes, Elton John, ELO, Alan Parsons Project, NIN, though they all in their own way pushed the genre forward. And then there are the people that everyone else liked - what do we say about, I dunno, Michael Jackson? Guns and Roses? Status Quo? David Bowie? The Who? The Stones? There’s any number of artists/groups that could be argued as being up there.

Except not Nickelback. Remaking the same base songs over and over isn’t innovative, though it sells surprisingly well.

I think it’s also very hard to see what will stand the test of time - I would *love* to know what still resonates and thrives in another hundred years. I think some songs become timeless, they become milestones for people, but it’s hard to know what.

 

[Arantor]

honestly Williams pulls a lot from other classical music with a wink and a nod.

For example,

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[aussiefooty]

I always pre plan it and if my idea doesn't work i am then prepared to do an aggressive reset on it.
That's the fun part about being able to run a forum.
I recently had to get things like my logo from being copyrighted because some trolls who thought it was funny to use my stuff thought they would get away with it.
Recently found out that the site is doing the same thing again.
So they're going to be in for a big shock when i'm the one who has everything copyrighted and is copping it from others who think it's funny.

 

[Retro]

Man, I hate trolls and we've had our fair share of them here too.

 

[Tiffany]

I always pre plan it and if my idea doesn't work i am then prepared to do an aggressive reset on it.
That's the fun part about being able to run a forum.
I recently had to get things like my logo from being copyrighted because some trolls who thought it was funny to use my stuff thought they would get away with it.
Recently found out that the site is doing the same thing again.
So they're going to be in for a big shock when i'm the one who has everything copyrighted and is copping it from others who think it's funny.

Glad you copyrighted your logo, a long process. Sorry you have them going after your logo again.

Man, I hate trolls and we've had our fair share of them here too.

I second that!

 

[aussiefooty]

It's hard because people who you used to post with mess around with everyone's minds and posts up things about you online.
But if you persist and keep making it look good you'll get more members

 

[Geffers]

The days of Lycos and Alta Vista are long gone. The old BBS fidonet groups were where subject related questions could be posted for answers, ideas and discussions, some BBS used to cross post the fidonet traffic addressing a wider audience.

Sadly today many have got used to Google type searches but even better for questions chat GPT as well as Google's (who else) bard.google.com - you can ask in normal speech and answers are phenomenal. Both will do python or bash programming and returning code is impressive.

No easy answers, I satyed using arcade.demon.co.uk (Arcade BBS) for some time after the initial popularity declined but visitor numbers fell. Must be disheartening but guess similar to popular shop slowly losing custom to different competitors.

Geffers

 

[Retro]

Indeed Geffers, forums as an information source are very second best now compared to all those other ways you've mentioned, and social media is a multimillion dollar business nowadays that homebrew forums just can't compete with, hence much less traffic. Forums are much better for wittering on about things and making online friends - kinda like we're doing right now. I think there's still a market for them there.

 

[eidairman1]

Indeed Geffers, forums as an information source are very second best now compared to all those other ways you've mentioned, and social media is a multimillion dollar business nowadays that homebrew forums just can't compete with, hence much less traffic. Forums are much better for wittering on about things and making online friends - kinda like we're doing right now. I think there's still a market for them there.

The 1 page Retro came from has become nothing but kraut ran.

 

[Crims]

With the flip floppy nature of most stuff (people, news), I find forums the closest to a actual hangout where people can call you out on nonsense. The majority of my news comes from forums.

 

[petermarkley]

There’s nothing good about Discord or Facebook but the new generations use them because it’s one trendy and two easy to use for lazy people.

Not sure if it’s usual to reply on an old thread like this (especially since I’ve only read page 1), but I just had to express my puzzlement at your inclusion of Discord here.

Ever since humans invented writing, there’s been a spectrum of, shall we say, “synchronousness” between modes of communication. Speaking face-to-face is an example of synchronous communication; sending letters in the mail or writing a journal entry are examples of asynchronous communication. One provides immediate feedback & response, while the other might have any amount of delay. But importantly, each of these has its place in life and the two ends of the spectrum are non-interchangeable.

To me it seems that, among the plethora of social apps these days, Discord specializes in communication close to the synchronous end of the spectrum, more like talking face to face and less like having pen pals. This specialty alone does not make it either “trendy” or “lazy.” (Even the Ancient Roman namesake of the “forum” was more on the synchronous side, if I’m not mistaken. The general existence of synchronous communication is pretty much as old as it gets.) And in fact, it’s been on Discord specifically that I’ve seen some of the most lively and social online interaction in a long, long time.

I bring this up not because I’m a big fan of Discord or anything; I’m trying to clarify, not really defend. I’ve had both pleasant and unpleasant interactions there. It was on Discord that I got kicked from an online community for the first time in my life; and also on Discord that I met the woman who is now my wife; and also on Discord where I have received some of the worst online bullying. And the funny thing is, I don’t even consider myself to be a very heavy user of Discord. My usage of the app has waxed and waned (especially due to the aforementioned bullying), and right now I look at it maybe once a day (compared to dozens of times per day for some other social apps).

All that to say, I think a mention of Discord really seems out of place in a discussion of the evils of Facebook and smart phones in killing forums. In fact, in the last couple years Discord rolled out its own “forum topics” feature, essentially revitalizing this old concept to a new audience. So I think blaming Discord is equal parts misplaced and comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Retro]

Not sure if it’s usual to reply on an old thread like this (especially since I’ve only read page 1)

Oh, it's perfectly fine and I explain this in the Forum Rules. Check 'em out. In short, there's no off limits "necro" threads here. As long as a thread is still physically open, then its fine to post in it.

Forum Rules

Your continued use of the site constitutes acceptance of these Forum Rules.

nerdzone.uk

 

[Geffers]

Forums have splintered somewhat over the years.

Back in the days of Bulletin Boards fidonet was the popular way to ask questions, many BBSs managed to co-ordinate messages so that questions asked on one BBS could be seen and responded to on a different system. This of course has its own problems as if sites get too busy questions or answers get missed.

One issue that has often puzzled me is when users get irked when someone asks an innocent question, often hostile responses result, RTFM., have you not read the FAQs, have you Googled it. Can you imagine being in a synchronous scenario as @petermarkley describes, say a pub, and you ask a mate, who happens to be a mechanic, about an issue with your car. He's not going to fire back at you and order you to RTFM or read FAQs before bothering him. It is the anonymity of being hidden from view that makes people respond in ways they would not generally do so face to face.

Times have moved on, search engines and now A1 can resolve many issues so can forums survive, not sure, we don't know what is round the corner.

Geffers

 

[Retro]

One issue that has often puzzled me is when users get irked when someone asks an innocent question, often hostile responses result, RTFM., have you not read the FAQs, have you Googled it. Can you imagine being in a synchronous scenario as @petermarkley describes, say a pub, and you ask a mate, who happens to be a mechanic, about an issue with your car. He's not going to fire back at you and order you to RTFM or read FAQs before bothering him. It is the anonymity of being hidden from view that makes people respond in ways they would not generally do so face to face.

Interesting point and a bit of a grey area really as there's valid arguments both for and against these sorts of testy, unhelpful replies.

The difference is that on an internet forum, a member has the power of the internet at their fingertips, so it may be reasonable to expect them to Google the issue first, search the forum, FAQs etc, ie make some effort to resolve the problem or get more info before asking a question. It can be seen as disrespectful to the community to not do that first, too. On the other hand, that person may be totally clueless about the subject and feel totally lost so doesn't even know where to start, in which case it's reasonable to just ask the question, but read on.

Both scenarios are valid and also most of the time, people are all strangers to each other, so it's best to give some context when asking a question, or the default expectation may well reasonably be for members to be expected to do some homework first, especially if it's a common question.

Being open and honest is important here, therefore, what I do if I have to ask a question is to state that I've done the homework, perhaps going into a little detail and then explain that I still don't know the answer, or have only a rudimentary knowledge of it that's still not enough to solve the problem, hence asking for help. If I have no idea what to do to even start to approach how to solve the problem, then I state that too. I would then not expect other members to give me that testy response if they're reasonable people and to actually help me out.

When the situation is face to face in a social scenario like the pub, it is indeed different as it's realtime offline interaction. The conversation may turn towards a subject which the member may need help with, so it would be reasonable to ask. Imagine one member has a car fault problem and there's a mechanic in the group, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask them for some help and advice about it and expect a helpful answer, even if it only results in info for which direction to go in to solve the problem, perhaps.