99% of trip-hop is a shitty fad riding off the success of Portishead and Massive Attack
Prove me wrong
neither of those bands were trip hop
>>66205231
absolutely true.
>>66205231
you're pretty much right
but there are a few gems out there from little known bands such as Canidas or Outcast (no not Outkast)
>>66205231
https://www.discogs.com/Tactile-Gemma-Tactile-Gemma/release/1958780
https://www.discogs.com/Canidas-Golden/release/1562500
Since I legitimately can't find any other trip-hop outside of those two, DJ Shadow, and Bowery Electric, I don't know what you're talking about.
>>66205287
Sneaker Pimps is one that comes to mind, but as much as I enjoy them they were never as mind-blowing as the bands you mentioned
99% of [genre] is a shitty fad riding off the success of [seminal genre artist] and [other seminal genre artist]
There, now you can stop listening to music altogether.
>>66205321
this is true for most sub-genres
trip hop is shit like La Funk Mob and RPM
you could maybe call DJ Shadow trip hop
but not portishead or massive attack or sneaker pimps or fucking morcheeba or lamb or any of that shite
>>66205736
please be bait
>>66205764
no it's not bait
actual trip hop was (for a while) just another word for 'music on mo wax'
james lavelle came up with the term
and it was always basically another way of saying 'instrumental hip hop' (usually made by non-black-americans)
it never meant 'standard pop songs with a bit of a hip hop beat', despite lazy journalists not knowing wtf to call massive attack etc
ask any of the bristol crew, they would back me up
>>66205821
Yet Massive Attack started as a Bristol sound system crew and Portishead is just down the road.
Most of Mo' Wax was similar to them both.
I agree on Sneaker Pimps, Morcheeba etc, they're just downtempo, trip hop was dead by '95
>>66205849
most of mo wax didn't have singing
but yeah basically
>>66205821
All of the Bristol crew is either dead or starving because their lack of popularity and talent.
Record label owners do not get to define genres, especially not based on "those on my label".
>>66205867
apart from mark stewart
which is ok really when you think about it
