I love how every generation claims that rock died shortly after said generation aged a little bit and is no longer a teenager -precisely the age when they were at their most temotionally vulnerable and thus the most receptive to rock music.
I'm pretty sure aging hippies cried when Jimi Hendrix and The Animals stopped making records.
I'm pretty sure guitar-spanking burnouts cried when Peter Frampton and Deep Purple stopped making records.
I'm pretty sure safety-pin punks cried when The Clash and The Sex Pistols stopped making records.
I'm pretty sure mascara-wearing lushes cried when Ratt, Whitesnake, White Lion, Winger, Warrant, and Def Leppard stopped making records.
I'm pretty sure I cried when Stone Temple Pilots, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, The Mr T Experience and Green Day stopped making records.
I'm pretty sure wussies that loved hearing guys with their hair perms sing about their daddy issues cried when Nickelback stopped making records.
I'm pretty sure that soon enough hipsters will cry when ...whoever... stops making records.
Greenday never stopped making records? That just read like an elaborate hipster post compiled via the medium of Google to impress me via musical knowledge.
mattyrm wrote:Greenday never stopped making records? That just read like an elaborate hipster post compiled via the medium of Google to impress me via musical knowledge.
mattyrm wrote:Greenday never stopped making records? That just read like an elaborate hipster post compiled via the medium of Google to impress me via musical knowledge.
It failed.
Also... Whitesnake.
This.
Not sure where he was going with that.....
I was wondering the same. It sounded like wishful thinking to me.
(I'm just kidding, some of their stuff is alright.)
Rock just isn't in the spotlight like it used to be, and perhaps that is simply its natural place in the order of things now that it has been thoroughly explored. For me it will likely always be my main genre of listening.
I think most people decide that rock is currently dying when they reach their late twenties. It's when they enter their 'Damn Kids And Their Music' phase.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm pretty sure wussies that loved hearing guys with their hair perms sing about their daddy issues cried when Nickelback stopped making records.
I wish this was true.
I love that Tasebuds.fm voted them #1 musical turnoff, beating both Gaga and that Justin Baby kid(who I've yet to actually hear a song from on anything other than the tv when they talk about him, how is he actually famous/successful if his stuff never gets played?).
htj wrote:I think most people decide that rock is currently dying when they reach their late twenties. It's when they enter their 'Damn Kids And Their Music' phase.
See, I've been moving away from rock since hitting my twenties, but instead of being 'Damn Kids and their Music,' I've really come to appreciate electronic music. From early stuff like Kraftwerk in the 70's to guys like James Blake today.
azazel the cat wrote:
I'm pretty sure wussies that loved hearing guys with their hair perms sing about their daddy issues cried when Nickelback stopped making records.
I wish this was true.
I love that Tasebuds.fm voted them #1 musical turnoff, beating both Gaga and that Justin Baby kid(who I've yet to actually hear a song from on anything other than the tv when they talk about him, how is he actually famous/successful if his stuff never gets played?).
He's famous because of the thousands of tween girls that care more about looks than actual music.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Marylin Manson totally called this in the late 90s.
Dude...this may be off topic, but I love your sig. I can watch it forever
Monster Rain wrote:Marylin Manson totally called this in the late 90s.
Being one of the primary assassins, that twenty-years-too-late Alice Cooper wannabe....
I respectfully disagree. Also Cooper<Manson.
Both used semi-goth makeup, and shock tactics for publicity. Manson could take it farther, since he came along 20 years later, but Alice was there first.
As far as Cooper</>Manson, that's going to be a judgement call. I was merely pointing out that Manson was being... a bit of a copycat.
mattyrm wrote:Greenday never stopped making records?
Yes they did
I refuse to acknowledge that greenday produced any music after (and including) American Idiot.
They didn't stop making records, they just started making crappy emo songs when the american punk stuff stopped writing cheques...
I won't use quite that much vitriol, but yeah, you got my point loud and clear. -Although I didn't mind American Idiot. I actually thought that Jesus of Suburbia & She's a Rebel were pretty solid. Unfortunately, it was a pretty accurate portent of their new direction; and I thought that 21st Century Breakdown was just terrible, as I do all rock-opera albums.
Despite this, they are still my favourite band. And I'm glad I got to see them live before they started wearing eyeliner.
Fafnir wrote:Mylo already did the job a while ago.
That was meant to be jokingly named though, if you listen to the track with the same name it's some proselytising church guy reading out a list of bands which are an 'affront to God' or some such nonsense.
Rock will never die, it just peaks and troughs in terms of popularity! In some ways it might well be heading towards a rise again - album sales have reached such a low (and single sales have been practically non existent for the last 20 years or so anyway) that I've read live shows are becoming a bigger and bigger revenue stream for bands these days. Someone like Muse who can pack out 50,000 people into Wembley Stadium will make a lot of money for it, pop acts which rely more on the album sales don't really have this kind of option open to them.
So, I think there is always going to be an opening for people who can play an instrument, and Rock is one permutation of that.
Jubear wrote:True but punk peaked in the early to mid nineties1977 so it wont die but it sure as hell not any getting better.
FTFY
I hear this a lot, and I just never understand it. The 1970s punk movement was largely a counter-culture to the refined sounds of pop and disco music, wherein punk-rock musicians could barely even play their own instruments. To paraphrase Debbie Harry: it was a self-defeating movement, as the artists would simply improve as musicians as time progressed, and they would naturally sound more refined themselves.
And as much as I like Give 'em Enough Rope, The Clash didn't start putting out their best work until '79.
Jubear wrote:True but punk peaked in the early to mid nineties1977 so it wont die but it sure as hell not any getting better.
FTFY
I hear this a lot, and I just never understand it. The 1970s punk movement was largely a counter-culture to the refined sounds of pop and disco music, wherein punk-rock musicians could barely even play their own instruments. To paraphrase Debbie Harry: it was a self-defeating movement, as the artists would simply improve as musicians as time progressed, and they would naturally sound more refined themselves.
And as much as I like Give 'em Enough Rope, The Clash didn't start putting out their best work until '79.
I largely prefer the mid-1990s.
Other then The Clash I almost no time for 70s era punk its slow boring and more focused on trying to be shocking rather then music for the sake of music.
chromedog wrote:I wish that Kiss stopped though. Their time has passed.
I don't know, I thought 'Modern Day Delilah' was pretty good. And the classics redone for the bonus CD were the best I've heard yet. KISS has refined it's sound a lot over the years as well.
Again. reasons for many of you to not to coexist with Disco freeks and to become a bane to them. ?
azazel the cat wrote:
English Assassin wrote:
Jubear wrote:True but punk peaked in the early to mid nineties1977 so it wont die but it sure as hell not any getting better.
FTFY
I hear this a lot, and I just never understand it. The 1970s punk movement was largely a counter-culture to the refined sounds of pop and disco music, wherein punk-rock musicians could barely even play their own instruments. To paraphrase Debbie Harry: it was a self-defeating movement, as the artists would simply improve as musicians as time progressed, and they would naturally sound more refined themselves.
And as much as I like Give 'em Enough Rope, The Clash didn't start putting out their best work until '79.
I largely prefer the mid-1990s.
And do Punk fans declare themself a bane to all Disco fabulousness?
And which side of an arguements will you be?
Why do so many people like Fething dubstep? It sounds like when my computer had dial-up back in the 90's and made all sorts of screeching noises. Seriously, I could make way better music than "bands" like Skrillex on my freaking macbook.
Lone Cat wrote:^ so Do it if you think you are a deejay.
L.
Yes because it take heaps of skill to use cakewalk and a set of tables....DJing is just for folk that tried to learn a real instrument and went "feth this is hard I know I will just become a DJ" Zero respect for 99% of DJs. Every now and then you will hear one that actaully has some real musical skill and surprise surprise he has a background with real instruments...
GalacticDefender wrote:Why do so many people like Fething dubstep? It sounds like when my computer had dial-up back in the 90's and made all sorts of screeching noises. Seriously, I could make way better music than "bands" like Skrillex on my freaking macbook.
Go on then...
I like the way some of it sounds.
If you can make something you think sounds better i'll listen to that as well...
"American" rock is a dying animal.... as The Ramones put it, "Lately it all sounds the same to me."
Corporate influence has been killing the recording industry for the last 40 years. Executives with little to no music experience or knowledge have been making decisions about what gets recorded and played. When the "people" find something different, the industry runs it into the ground, producing crap that sounds just like every other group from that style.
Which is part of the reason they hate the internet. They have zero control over what gets put out over web.... and they want that control.
GalacticDefender wrote:Why do so many people like Fething dubstep? It sounds like when my computer had dial-up back in the 90's and made all sorts of screeching noises. Seriously, I could make way better music than "bands" like Skrillex on my freaking macbook.
Go on then...
I like the way some of it sounds.
If you can make something you think sounds better i'll listen to that as well...
Nah, I'll stick to actually playing my Bass Guitar instead of twisting some knobs and adjusting settings.
GalacticDefender wrote:Why do so many people like Fething dubstep? It sounds like when my computer had dial-up back in the 90's and made all sorts of screeching noises. Seriously, I could make way better music than "bands" like Skrillex on my freaking macbook.
Go on then...
I like the way some of it sounds.
If you can make something you think sounds better i'll listen to that as well...
Nah, I'll stick to actually playing my Bass Guitar instead of twisting some knobs and adjusting settings.
Rock isn't dying, Music in general is. I know alot of people say that, but listen to this. Just fething LISTEN to this song for it's full duration.
I can not beleive I am giving this song publicity, but here you are:
It is NOTHING but a Chorus and a Doo-de-doo-de-doo-de-doo-de-doo-de for FOUR minutes. And then go to this page and see how many likes and comments it has. AND take into account that it's played on the radio EVERY. FETHING. HOUR.
Dubstep, when done well can be pretty good, but it's far from the best that electronic music has to offer, not even in the same ball park as the likes of squarepusher and AFX.
Rock will always evolve, although I think we may be at a crossroads, where its become very difficult to make it when labels are only supporting "safe investments." Hopefully with all this "talent" show dirge we will soon see a backlash on par with '76/'77.
I would like to comment about how hilarious it is that almost all of the American Idol winners never do anything, but the runner ups have multiple records out.
Wasn't the first winner the only one whose done anything after the show?
Whenever I hear the song "boyfriend" by JB (or any other similar song, because 70 percent of musioc these days sounds as bad), I feel the unshakable urge to FETHING KILL SOMEONE.
Slarg232 wrote:Rock isn't dying, Music in general is. I know alot of people say that, but listen to this. Just fething LISTEN to this song for it's full duration.
I would say that music is like the ocean.... We may be just going through a "low tide" of sorts. I know my own musical tastes do this. Right now, I'm on a real metal kick.. So my playlist includes Lamb of God, Mastodon, Nile, Born of Osiris, Witchery, Slayer, Pantera, Megadeth, Dethklok (funnily enough, they made some decent sounding metal), and still more besides.
I know that people hate on dubstep, but I still think that rap is by far and away the worst "musical" form in existence. By and large it doesn't follow ANY musical rules, and by that I mean, there are no discern-able differences between melody, harmony, key.. none.. it's literally some d-bag TALKING with some drums and random techno noise in the background. I could be a better rapper by reading Dr. Seuss with GalacticDefender's Macbook
Whenever I go on a techno binge, I do try to experience as much different stuff as I can, previous to my latest metal kick, I was really diggin' Deadmau5, and basically any other house music I could find that was decent.
And anyone who would say that they hate Rock Operas, I would strongly suggest they check out Ayreon, i personally think its some amazing stuff.
helgrenze wrote:"American" rock is a dying animal.... as The Ramones put it, "Lately it all sounds the same to me."
Corporate influence has been killing the recording industry for the last 40 years. Executives with little to no music experience or knowledge have been making decisions about what gets recorded and played. When the "people" find something different, the industry runs it into the ground, producing crap that sounds just like every other group from that style.
Which is part of the reason they hate the internet. They have zero control over what gets put out over web.... and they want that control.
Hackers always wins.
For you. what consitiutes 'American Rock'. and do the following counts?
1. Linkin Park
2. Bon Jovi
3. Aerosmith
4. The Calling
And what do you think of an emerging Korean pop? is it also score a big hit anywhere in the US? anywhere outside Asian collective settlements.
Honestly, I don't mind Rap. Rap artists aren't terrible, and Rap IS the best form of music to get a point across; they would easily be able to get the most lyrics per minute over any other genre if they wanted to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And anyone who would say that they hate Rock Operas, I would strongly suggest they check out Ayreon, i personally think its some amazing stuff.
You sir, are a god walking amongst mere mortals. Ayreon is fething awesome.
Slarg232 wrote:Rock isn't dying, Music in general is.
NO.
There was crap music in every generation. You're just viewing the past through rose tinted glasses. The styling may have changed, but there's been crap everywhere all the time.
I know alot of people say that, but listen to this. Just fething LISTEN to this song for it's full duration.
I can not beleive I am giving this song publicity, but here you are:
It is NOTHING but a Chorus and a Doo-de-doo-de-doo-de-doo-de-doo-de for FOUR minutes. And then go to this page and see how many likes and comments it has. AND take into account that it's played on the radio EVERY. FETHING. HOUR.
That's one example of one mediocre song.
I can list tonnes of fantastic music that's come out within the past three years. If you're willing to dig deep enough, there are plenty of musicians out there who are pushing music as a whole into new places that it's never gone before, and was never thought to have been able to go before. Beyond the thick layer of gak that fills every generation, the future of music is looking brighter than ever, and the breadth of genres and styles to choose from is only getting deeper.
Jubear wrote:
Lone Cat wrote:^ so Do it if you think you are a deejay.
L.
Yes because it take heaps of skill to use cakewalk and a set of tables....DJing is just for folk that tried to learn a real instrument and went "feth this is hard I know I will just become a DJ" Zero respect for 99% of DJs. Every now and then you will hear one that actaully has some real musical skill and surprise surprise he has a background with real instruments...
Many electronic artists also DJ. There's a big difference between a good DJ and a bad one. A good DJ will alter the music that's being played live to create a completely original performance.
I don't know if rock is dying so much as it's getting a lot harder to find the really good bands that are out there. In my area, we have lots of rock bands (for some reason the south seems to bring out the hard rock in people) and a couple are really good. The biggest problem is both exposure and finding venues that will support a thriving rock community, which is harder than it sounds. I work a lot with bands and the music industry in general (I do sound setup, loadout, roady, you name it) and that's the number one complaint among bands. They need more places to PLAY.
The other problem I hate is the rise of autotuning and over production in general. Rock music is about being loud, raw, aggressive, in your face. It's supposed to make you feel pumped up and alive. When you sit there and clean up every guitar line, every slightly off key vocal, every slight variation to the beat on a drum kit, you effectively kill any chance that band had of recording an awesome song. Black Stone Cherry, a hard rock band from a town not too far where I live in KY, had this happen to them HARD. Their first album felt like a real rock album, although some songs were a little too clean. However, their newest album has been cleaned up to the point where it doesn't even sound like the same band anymore. Which really depresses me, because I know they don't play like that live. If I recall correctly, Nickleback fell victim to the same thing, only they didn't bother to fight it.
If you need help finding good new rock music, just get on pandora for a few hours and let it start digging for cool stuff. The Muggs, Bang Camaro, the Answer, The Black Keys, Cage the Elephant, Airborne, Clutch, The black crowes, Charm City Devils, The Hives, The Hellacopters, The Raconteurs/White stripes, Tenacious D, Them Crooked Vultures, etc. etc. etc. I'm sure I left out tons of great bands, and that was with me just listing them off the top of my head. I was kind of liberal with "new" but anything after 1990 feels like the new "wave" of rock music to me.
Seriously, if you can't find good rock music, you aren't looking hard enough. It's everywhere, just gotta know where to look.
I know that people hate on dubstep, but I still think that rap is by far and away the worst "musical" form in existence. By and large it doesn't follow ANY musical rules, and by that I mean, there are no discern-able differences between melody, harmony, key.. none.. it's literally some d-bag TALKING with some drums and random techno noise in the background. I could be a better rapper by reading Dr. Seuss with GalacticDefender's Macbook .
MrMoustaffa wrote:I don't know if rock is dying so much as it's getting a lot harder to find the really good bands that are out there. In my area, we have lots of rock bands (for some reason the south seems to bring out the hard rock in people) and a couple are really good. The biggest problem is both exposure and finding venues that will support a thriving rock community, which is harder than it sounds. I work a lot with bands and the music industry in general (I do sound setup, loadout, roady, you name it) and that's the number one complaint among bands. They need more places to PLAY.
The other problem I hate is the rise of autotuning and over production in general. Rock music is about being loud, raw, aggressive, in your face. It's supposed to make you feel pumped up and alive. When you sit there and clean up every guitar line, every slightly off key vocal, every slight variation to the beat on a drum kit, you effectively kill any chance that band had of recording an awesome song. Black Stone Cherry, a hard rock band from a town not too far where I live in KY, had this happen to them HARD. Their first album felt like a real rock album, although some songs were a little too clean. However, their newest album has been cleaned up to the point where it doesn't even sound like the same band anymore. Which really depresses me, because I know they don't play like that live. If I recall correctly, Nickleback fell victim to the same thing, only they didn't bother to fight it.
If you need help finding good new rock music, just get on pandora for a few hours and let it start digging for cool stuff. The Muggs, Bang Camaro, the Answer, The Black Keys, Cage the Elephant, Airborne, Clutch, The black crowes, Charm City Devils, The Hives, The Hellacopters, The Raconteurs/White stripes, Tenacious D, Them Crooked Vultures, etc. etc. etc. I'm sure I left out tons of great bands, and that was with me just listing them off the top of my head. I was kind of liberal with "new" but anything after 1990 feels like the new "wave" of rock music to me.
Seriously, if you can't find good rock music, you aren't looking hard enough. It's everywhere, just gotta know where to look.
There are a few decent groups out there, but hardly any of them are even comparable to the greats of the 60s and 70s.
Lone Cat wrote:And what do you think of an emerging Korean pop? is it also score a big hit anywhere in the US? anywhere outside Asian collective settlements.
I know some people that like K-Pop (specifically SNSD), but it's far from mainstream. I know SNSD did some US appearances (and had an English album?), but I don't think it really caught on.
"Rock and roll" as a genre has really been dead for a while.
"Rock" as a super-genre, which includes pretty much anything with a guitar/bass (preferably electric) playing blues rhythms with a backbeat, isn't going to go away anytime soon. I mean, the current #1 song (according to Billboard) is Gotye's "Somebody that I used to know," which is very clearly rock. A lot people seem to associate rock with a particular style of music, lifestyle, subject matter, or performance. But in reality it's a very broad classification that is heavily prevalent in both mainstream and "underground" music.
Edit: BTW, it seems that most people didn't bother to watch the video, as it states that Rock is just as alive as it ever was. This was NBC making fun of themselves because one of their co-anchors predicted rock was dying in 1961, just before the British Invasion.
@purplefood That guy you posted was absolutely not what i expected. It's quite refreshing to hear something that is "out of the norm" for a given genre...
elrabin wrote:
"Rock" as a super-genre, which includes pretty much anything with a guitar/bass (preferably electric) playing blues rhythms with a backbeat...
Hi.
I'm going to have to disagree there. The broad definition you gave also encompasses soul, which isn't rock music. I would also argue that 'rock' is a style (as with jazz), and not a genre. Also, not all music in the rock style utilises blues tonality or rhythm.
isn't going to go away anytime soon. I mean, the current #1 song (according to Billboard) is Gotye's "Somebody that I used to know," which is very clearly rock.
Not according to your definition.
A lot people seem to associate rock with a particular style of music, lifestyle, subject matter, or performance. But in reality it's a very broad classification that is heavily prevalent in both mainstream and "underground" music.
Which is probably why it's dying. When a style or form loses its means of signification it ceases to be. To put it another way, when 'rock' no longer refers to 'a particular style of music, lifestyle, subject matter, or performance' then the classification has no meaning. When it has no meaning, it ceases to be an identifiable style in it's own right.
Basically, Rock has been interpellated into the mainstream. Rock is not even remotely 'edgy' any more, all possible transgressive gesturing having been bleached out of the form during the 1990s' corporate craze for Gen-X marketing. Whether you're selling rebellion or acquiescence, you're still just selling. Rock's just another annexe of pop now. Of course, there are some who would argue that this has always been the case, but that's another argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I know that people hate on dubstep, but I still think that rap is by far and away the worst "musical" form in existence. By and large it doesn't follow ANY musical rules, and by that I mean, there are no discern-able differences between melody, harmony, key.. none.. it's literally some d-bag TALKING with some drums and random techno noise in the background.
That's not a a statement of fact, it's an opinion. And hip-hop certainly does follow musical 'rules', even if we only consider rhythm. I have yet to encounter a hip-hop record that doesn't use some form of tonality.
I know that people hate on dubstep, but I still think that rap is by far and away the worst "musical" form in existence. By and large it doesn't follow ANY musical rules, and by that I mean, there are no discern-able differences between melody, harmony, key.. none.. it's literally some d-bag TALKING with some drums and random techno noise in the background.
That's not a a statement of fact, it's an opinion. And hip-hop certainly does follow musical 'rules', even if we only consider rhythm. I have yet to encounter a hip-hop record that doesn't use some form of tonality.
hence why I said "i think..." I know that there are a good chunk of people who like rap for whatever reason that they do, I just cannot stand the bulk of rap, especially "mainstream" rap.
Of course, I also don't like very much of the rock that is on the radio (probably a good reason I don't listen to any radio stations very often)
But, as with most things "rock" doesn't die... sure Hair bands are by and large "dead" (there are still some out there, but its hey-day is long past), same goes for numetal, grunge and a host of other "genres" but out of each movement is spawned another group of bands who were inspired by something and are ready to show their talent and inspiration.
I know that people hate on dubstep, but I still think that rap is by far and away the worst "musical" form in existence. By and large it doesn't follow ANY musical rules, and by that I mean, there are no discern-able differences between melody, harmony, key.. none.. it's literally some d-bag TALKING with some drums and random techno noise in the background.
That's not a a statement of fact, it's an opinion. And hip-hop certainly does follow musical 'rules', even if we only consider rhythm. I have yet to encounter a hip-hop record that doesn't use some form of tonality.
hence why I said "i think..." I know that there are a good chunk of people who like rap for whatever reason that they do, I just cannot stand the bulk of rap, especially "mainstream" rap.
That's your right, of course. I was referring to the 'it's literally some d-bag TALKING with some drums and random techno noise in the background' thing. That is not a literal statement, because the meaning of the statement was not directly denoted by the words, but rather connoted, the actual meaning being 'I don't like hip-hop'. What you actually said implied a factual statement about the composition of hip-hop music; as this statement was factually incorrect, your statement couldn't have been literal. Just wanted to clear that up.
For what it's worth, I'm not a huge fan of hip-hop either. I like some of it.
Amaya wrote:There are a few decent groups out there, but hardly any of them are even comparable to the greats of the 60s and 70s.
Forgive me, but I just find it really tiring to always hear people talk with such reverence about overrated bands. Let's take a look at the most likely groups what you are referring to:
The Doors - if you combine their entire catalogue of songs, they have about eight minutes of worthwhile music, and then about nine hours of spanking out on repetitive instrumentals. Riders on the Storm is more than 7 minutes long, and yet it only has 2 verses and a refrain. I mean, the last three minutes is just Jim Morrison repeating the title again and again and again. Similarly, L.A. Woman is almost eight minutes long, manages to say absolutely freakin' nothing in that time. A significant portion of the song is literally dedicated to Jim Morrison shouting an anagram for his own name. The Doors are what happens when an extremely egotistical artist is given free reign to spank-out for as long as he wants without restraint.
The Beatles - I recognize that many people will immediately place me on an 'ignore' list for this, but it's worth it: they suck. They always sucked. They made music that was barely of a higher order than nursery rhymes. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Maxwell's Silver Hammer are wonderful examples (though by no means exclusive) of this, in that both lack any deeper meaning than what it says on the tin. John Lennon himself described the latter of these two turds as "more of Paul's 'granny music'." And I'm sure that lots of people will talk about how great the band was and that's why lots of albums were sold- however, by this logic, those people must also think that Justin Bieber is also awesome. There will also be counter-points about how Bieber's popularity is merely a product of marketing: but the same will hold true for The Beatles.
Led Zepplin - From time to time these guys rocked everyone's faces off. Except live when many people learned that they couldn't replicate their studio sound on stage. Then you have to discount all those songs that they didn't actually write. I'm not going to say that Led Zepplin is a crappy band the way I have with the aforementioned two, because they are not a crappy band. Led Zepplin had moments of greatness. However they are by no means better than, say, Metallica (just an example). However, Led Zepplin is highly overrated, merely because nobody could live up to the accolades poured upon these guys.
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - I'm not gonna knock Hendrix, because I'm not an idiot. I know he was incredible, for the short time he was on the charts. But keep in mind that in hindsight he gains the benefit of the 'James Dean' effect: he died before anyone could tell whether or not he was merely one-dimentional, and thus we naturally assume that he would have always been as awesome as he was for his brief time. However, it's not fair to assume that he would have continued as such. For all we know, he could have ended up just like Jefferson Airplane.
Oh, and to whoever thinks that rap has no meaning, or style, or whatever: I can only assume that you are not a fan of poetry.
mattyrm wrote:Greenday never stopped making records?
Yes they did
I refuse to acknowledge that greenday produced any music after (and including) American Idiot.
They didn't stop making records, they just started making crappy emo songs when the american punk stuff stopped writing cheques...
I won't use quite that much vitriol, but yeah, you got my point loud and clear. -Although I didn't mind American Idiot. I actually thought that Jesus of Suburbia & She's a Rebel were pretty solid. Unfortunately, it was a pretty accurate portent of their new direction; and I thought that 21st Century Breakdown was just terrible, as I do all rock-opera albums.
Despite this, they are still my favourite band. And I'm glad I got to see them live before they started wearing eyeliner.
Those weren't emo songs, the songs you're referring to were ballads, just very poorly done. In general, 21CB was poorly done, although there were some good songs (know your enemy, the title track, and american eulogy).
I'm also starting to get tired of the 'you aren't doing punk right' argument...generally, any music that is written and performed primarily off of emotion rather than music theory and the like, doesn't use electronic elements, and is typically loud and fast, is punk.
Oh, and keep in mind...emo is a subgenre of punk rock, as is alternative rock. Or, atleast, it started out that way. But anyway, punk rock has atleast gone underground for a while; the only remotely popular punk band in the mainstream I can think of right now is Rise Against.
The Beatles - I recognize that many people will immediately place me on an 'ignore' list for this, but it's worth it: they suck.
Hey, look! You were right!
You're an idiot. Good-bye.
Going to side with azazel on this one. the Beatles are probably one of, if not the number one, most overrated bands to ever exist. If you disagree, cool, that's your opinion, but I still believe they are huge reason bands like the jonas brothers and justin beiber exist today. They were one of the first manufactered pop bands, and although they had moments of brilliance (hey jude, paperback writer, etc.) most of what they did was just... well... mediocre. A lot of people flaunt John Lennon as a genius, but in all honesty, the dude was't that great of a song writer. or that great a musician either. And the less said about Yoko the better. The beatles did have a huge impact on popular music in general, and are easily one of the most influential bands to exist, but I dont think they realy contributed much to acual rock music.
Other bands like the Rolling Stones and the Who, did way more to influence rock music the way we think of it today. The rebellious image, loud stage performances, bucking trends etc all are what made rock, for lack of a better term, rock. The beatles merely proved that if you got 4 guys, claimed they were attractive and marketed the hell out of them, then you could make millions in the record industry, now why does that sound so familiar...
To be fair, i have always been a stones and who kind of guy. i've never cared for bands like the doors and the beatles and you can probably tell just from those two paragraphs above. And although the who and the stones both eventually fizled out as well, they did far more for "rock" music than the beatles ever did.
"Rock and Roll" is as important for what it stood for and represented as much as it's actual form and sound: mainly it set out to shake things up and break away from the musical (and societal) status quo.
The original spirit of rock and roll is still very much alive, and that is far more important then a bunch of clone band endlessly rehashing dated sounding music and claiming to be "real rock music" or whatever...
playing a guitar alone des not make you "rock" nor does citing certain cliched influence or wearing a paint by numbers rock ensemble...
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I know that people hate on dubstep, but I still think that rap is by far and away the worst "musical" form in existence. By and large it doesn't follow ANY musical rules, and by that I mean, there are no discern-able differences between melody, harmony, key.. none.. it's literally some d-bag TALKING with some drums and random techno noise in the background. I could be a better rapper by reading Dr. Seuss with GalacticDefender's Macbook
I'm sorry, but spoken word has potential to be fantastic.
Rap is just another form of spoken word. There's some bad stuff out there, but also some really good stuff.
Albatross wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
The Beatles - I recognize that many people will immediately place me on an 'ignore' list for this, but it's worth it: they suck.
Hey, look! You were right!
You're an idiot. Good-bye.
Although I'd have to say that's kind of harsh, Azazel pretty much lost any validity by saying they straight out suck. I'm not a fan of the Beatles, especially not of their early work, but their influence is huge for a reason. They may have been overrated, but they definitely made quality music towards their later years. I would argue that most of their early stuff is unremarkable, but it's certainly competent.
The Beatles - I recognize that many people will immediately place me on an 'ignore' list for this, but it's worth it: they suck.
Hey, look! You were right!
You're an idiot. Good-bye.
Going to side with azazel on this one. the Beatles are probably one of, if not the number one, most overrated bands to ever exist. If you disagree, cool, that's your opinion, but I still believe they are huge reason bands like the jonas brothers and justin beiber exist today. They were one of the first manufactered pop bands, and although they had moments of brilliance (hey jude, paperback writer, etc.) most of what they did was just... well... mediocre. A lot of people flaunt John Lennon as a genius, but in all honesty, the dude was't that great of a song writer. or that great a musician either. And the less said about Yoko the better. The beatles did have a huge impact on popular music in general, and are easily one of the most influential bands to exist, but I dont think they realy contributed much to acual rock music.
Just because something is overrated doesn't mean it sucks. It means that it is rated higher than it should be...
I agree that the Beatles are overrated, but only in the sense that they are 'the greatest band ever.' Saying that the Beatles flat out suck is incredibly ignorant.
The Beatles - I recognize that many people will immediately place me on an 'ignore' list for this, but it's worth it: they suck.
Hey, look! You were right!
You're an idiot. Good-bye.
Going to side with azazel on this one. the Beatles are probably one of, if not the number one, most overrated bands to ever exist. If you disagree, cool, that's your opinion, but I still believe they are huge reason bands like the jonas brothers and justin beiber exist today. They were one of the first manufactered pop bands, and although they had moments of brilliance (hey jude, paperback writer, etc.) most of what they did was just... well... mediocre. A lot of people flaunt John Lennon as a genius, but in all honesty, the dude was't that great of a song writer. or that great a musician either. And the less said about Yoko the better. The beatles did have a huge impact on popular music in general, and are easily one of the most influential bands to exist, but I dont think they realy contributed much to acual rock music.
Just because something is overrated doesn't mean it sucks. It means that it is rated higher than it should be...
I agree that the Beatles are overrated, but only in the sense that they are 'the greatest band ever.' Saying that the Beatles flat out suck is incredibly ignorant.
True, I didn't really read into what he was saying too much. I've never really cared for the beatles either, and it's a rare moment indeed when I meet someone who doesn't just stare at me like I'm insane, so I kinda just jumped in .
That said, I've always been confused with how they became so famous. I'm being serious, I never got why people liked them so much. Their stuff always just sounded mediocre to me. Perhaps I'm missing some amazing beatles song that will change my life or something, but unless it's "hey jude" I doubt it. Of course, one could easily use the reasons I just gave to dislike AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Black Sabbath, etc. aka, everyone has their own opinion. I'll probably always think of the Beatles as a mediocre band at best, that's just how I am. However if other guys love Beatles all the power to them, you could be listening to much worse music than them.
Solid production, catchy, easy to remember lyrics with catchier tunes, material provocative to get the teens interested while not making the parents rage, and some of the best marketing in human memory. Brian Epstein never really got the credit he deserved.
Fafnir wrote:Solid production, catchy, easy to remember lyrics with catchier tunes, material provocative to get the teens interested while not making the parents rage, and some of the best marketing in human memory. Brian Epstein never really got the credit he deserved.
Pretty solid reasoning right there. I remember being a kid watching the Beatles when they first appeared on Ed Sullivan. My father was saying he'd like to have 10 minutes cutting their hair, while my mother was equally appalled. In the meantime, my sisters were going nuts over these guys.
They appeared in a perfect time for what they were. Elvis was temporarily derailed by the army, there was really no one of note for the kids and teenagers to latch onto, and it did seem like rock was in decline. The Beatles came at a time when new life was needed and from what I saw living back then, really shaped a good part of opinions and attitudes for the 1960's.
When they reinvented themselves with Sgt. Pepper, it was a major musical event that pretty much blew everyone else out of the water. I've been around a while and have never seen an album generate the excitement that one did when it first came out.
Amaya wrote:I agree that the Beatles are overrated, but only in the sense that they are 'the greatest band ever.' Saying that the Beatles flat out suck is incredibly ignorant.
This word you used... "ignorant"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Beatles were influencial. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (the Sex Pistols were also very influencial, but nobody ever thinks of them as talented musicians)
The Beatles were popular. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (Justin Bieber is popular, but nobody ever things of him as being a talented musician)
The Beatles were very skilled musicians. This does not necessarily correlate to whether or not the band is any good. (Lots of people can play many instruments well, but that doesn't mean that the talent isn't being wasted.)
Lyrically, the Beatles find themselves on the same shelf with Raffi and Sharon, Lois & Bram. Again, even John Lennon himself suggested that much of McCartney's songwriting was terrible. While many of The Beatles' arrangements are quite complex, their lyrics are shallow and vapid. (again, see Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Maxwell's Silver Hammer)
So, here is why I think they suck:
1) Vapid lyrics
2) Boring
3) Dishonest & pretentious. (Lennon was even killed over this -I'm not saying he deserved it, I'm just saying that it was so pronounced that a crazy man acted on it.)
4) So Goddamned boring
Jihadnik wrote:Phew, I thought this title was about 'The Rock'
Thankfully he's still okay...
Same....
Also Punk and Ska will never die so I am fine
True but punk peaked in the early to mid nineties so it wont die but it sure as hell not any getting better.
Punk evolves and will always stay mostly in the underground, with bands popping out into the mainstream every once in a while.
@Johnny... I enlisted in the two tone army early, I think I may be a general by now...
Gonna add this... Next weekend, here in Detroit will be a wonderful and amazing music festival. Movement (formerly known as The Detroit Electronic Music Festival) features Public Enemy as the headliner, and I cannot wait to see them live again.
Amaya wrote:I agree that the Beatles are overrated, but only in the sense that they are 'the greatest band ever.' Saying that the Beatles flat out suck is incredibly ignorant.
This word you used... "ignorant"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Beatles were influencial. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (the Sex Pistols were also very influencial, but nobody ever thinks of them as talented musicians)
The Beatles were popular. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (Justin Bieber is popular, but nobody ever things of him as being a talented musician)
The Beatles were very skilled musicians. This does not necessarily correlate to whether or not the band is any good. (Lots of people can play many instruments well, but that doesn't mean that the talent isn't being wasted.)
Lyrically, the Beatles find themselves on the same shelf with Raffi and Sharon, Lois & Bram. Again, even John Lennon himself suggested that much of McCartney's songwriting was terrible. While many of The Beatles' arrangements are quite complex, their lyrics are shallow and vapid. (again, see Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Maxwell's Silver Hammer)
So, here is why I think they suck:
1) Vapid lyrics
2) Boring
3) Dishonest & pretentious. (Lennon was even killed over this -I'm not saying he deserved it, I'm just saying that it was so pronounced that a crazy man acted on it.)
4) So Goddamned boring
Yet here we are, 40 years after their last recorded albulm and without any major marketing on their part, still talking about them and buying their albums with most people liking or even loving their music.
Amaya wrote:I agree that the Beatles are overrated, but only in the sense that they are 'the greatest band ever.' Saying that the Beatles flat out suck is incredibly ignorant.
This word you used... "ignorant"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Beatles were influencial. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (the Sex Pistols were also very influencial, but nobody ever thinks of them as talented musicians)
The Beatles were popular. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (Justin Bieber is popular, but nobody ever things of him as being a talented musician)
The Beatles were very skilled musicians. This does not necessarily correlate to whether or not the band is any good. (Lots of people can play many instruments well, but that doesn't mean that the talent isn't being wasted.)
Lyrically, the Beatles find themselves on the same shelf with Raffi and Sharon, Lois & Bram. Again, even John Lennon himself suggested that much of McCartney's songwriting was terrible. While many of The Beatles' arrangements are quite complex, their lyrics are shallow and vapid. (again, see Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Maxwell's Silver Hammer)
So, here is why I think they suck:
1) Vapid lyrics
2) Boring
3) Dishonest & pretentious. (Lennon was even killed over this -I'm not saying he deserved it, I'm just saying that it was so pronounced that a crazy man acted on it.)
4) So Goddamned boring
Yet here we are, 40 years after their last recorded albulm and without any major marketing on their part, still talking about them and buying their albums with most people liking or even loving their music.
See, this is ignorant. Here's two reasons why:
1) "without any major marketing on their part". My friend, you may not be aware of this, but The Beatles were the most-marketed band in the world.
2) "most people" is hyperbole, what you mean to say is "a lot of people". And I addressed this in the post that you even quoted, wherein I stated that popularity does not necessarily correlate to being a good band. If you think it does, then you must admit that Justin Bieber is, too.
Amaya wrote:I agree that the Beatles are overrated, but only in the sense that they are 'the greatest band ever.' Saying that the Beatles flat out suck is incredibly ignorant.
This word you used... "ignorant"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Beatles were influencial. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (the Sex Pistols were also very influencial, but nobody ever thinks of them as talented musicians)
The Beatles were popular. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (Justin Bieber is popular, but nobody ever things of him as being a talented musician)
The Beatles were very skilled musicians. This does not necessarily correlate to whether or not the band is any good. (Lots of people can play many instruments well, but that doesn't mean that the talent isn't being wasted.)
Lyrically, the Beatles find themselves on the same shelf with Raffi and Sharon, Lois & Bram. Again, even John Lennon himself suggested that much of McCartney's songwriting was terrible. While many of The Beatles' arrangements are quite complex, their lyrics are shallow and vapid. (again, see Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Maxwell's Silver Hammer)
So, here is why I think they suck:
1) Vapid lyrics
2) Boring
3) Dishonest & pretentious. (Lennon was even killed over this -I'm not saying he deserved it, I'm just saying that it was so pronounced that a crazy man acted on it.)
4) So Goddamned boring
Yet here we are, 40 years after their last recorded albulm and without any major marketing on their part, still talking about them and buying their albums with most people liking or even loving their music.
See, this is ignorant. Here's two reasons why:
1) "without any major marketing on their part". My friend, you may not be aware of this, but The Beatles were the most-marketed band in the world.
2) "most people" is hyperbole, what you mean to say is "a lot of people". And I addressed this in the post that you even quoted, wherein I stated that popularity does not necessarily correlate to being a good band. If you think it does, then you must admit that Justin Bieber is, too.
Good point sire. but I don't understand why certain groups (or majority of) Grognards villify pop and any Dancefloor musics originated from Discotheca Fabulousness and says that real man DON'T listen to that kind of musics and 'force' other 'nards who listening to anything the said groups says true wargamers must listening to and what's not?
And will you exclude me from this wargaming society if I still stick with Kylie Minogue and not accepting Rocks and its 'derivatives'?
Amaya wrote:There are a few decent groups out there, but hardly any of them are even comparable to the greats of the 60s and 70s.
Forgive me, but I just find it really tiring to always hear people talk with such reverence about overrated bands. Let's take a look at the most likely groups what you are referring to:
The Doors - if you combine their entire catalogue of songs, they have about eight minutes of worthwhile music, and then about nine hours of spanking out on repetitive instrumentals. Riders on the Storm is more than 7 minutes long, and yet it only has 2 verses and a refrain. I mean, the last three minutes is just Jim Morrison repeating the title again and again and again. Similarly, L.A. Woman is almost eight minutes long, manages to say absolutely freakin' nothing in that time. A significant portion of the song is literally dedicated to Jim Morrison shouting an anagram for his own name. The Doors are what happens when an extremely egotistical artist is given free reign to spank-out for as long as he wants without restraint.
The Beatles - I recognize that many people will immediately place me on an 'ignore' list for this, but it's worth it: they suck. They always sucked. They made music that was barely of a higher order than nursery rhymes. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Maxwell's Silver Hammer are wonderful examples (though by no means exclusive) of this, in that both lack any deeper meaning than what it says on the tin. John Lennon himself described the latter of these two turds as "more of Paul's 'granny music'." And I'm sure that lots of people will talk about how great the band was and that's why lots of albums were sold- however, by this logic, those people must also think that Justin Bieber is also awesome. There will also be counter-points about how Bieber's popularity is merely a product of marketing: but the same will hold true for The Beatles.
Led Zepplin - From time to time these guys rocked everyone's faces off. Except live when many people learned that they couldn't replicate their studio sound on stage. Then you have to discount all those songs that they didn't actually write. I'm not going to say that Led Zepplin is a crappy band the way I have with the aforementioned two, because they are not a crappy band. Led Zepplin had moments of greatness. However they are by no means better than, say, Metallica (just an example). However, Led Zepplin is highly overrated, merely because nobody could live up to the accolades poured upon these guys.
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - I'm not gonna knock Hendrix, because I'm not an idiot. I know he was incredible, for the short time he was on the charts. But keep in mind that in hindsight he gains the benefit of the 'James Dean' effect: he died before anyone could tell whether or not he was merely one-dimentional, and thus we naturally assume that he would have always been as awesome as he was for his brief time. However, it's not fair to assume that he would have continued as such. For all we know, he could have ended up just like Jefferson Airplane.
Oh, and to whoever thinks that rap has no meaning, or style, or whatever: I can only assume that you are not a fan of poetry.
Albatross wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
The Beatles - I recognize that many people will immediately place me on an 'ignore' list for this, but it's worth it: they suck.
Hey, look! You were right!
You're an idiot. Good-bye.
OK well that was a bit uncalled for. Ignoring someone just because they dont like the Beatles. I personally dont care for them either, sure they made some good tunes, but thats as far as Ill go with them.
Monster Rain wrote:This thread really has been useful as far as gauging whether or not someone's opinions are worth listening to.
Agreed, jeez, last I knew, opinions were like donkey-caves, everyone has one, and they both do the same thing.
SAYING THAT.
Totally disagree about the Doors. They were a fantastic band with very talented musicians. Not to mention, their style was more like free formed Jazz, where you just kindda GO with the music. Led Zeppelin - Disagree there as well. They were and still are, one of those greats. They put on one hell of a live show, and made many MANY excellent tunes. Jimi Hendrix - Now I know your fething trolling. Hendrix?! REALLY?!?!? The guy LITERALLY changed the face of rock. Before he picked up his guitar and started doing his thing, it was done totally different. You simply cannot say Hendrix sucked, or was over rated. I have a CD where it plays all acoustic and plays all types of blues and songs of his own, and its fantastic. He definitely isnt 1 dimensional.
yep. actaully my favorites of Kylie songs are mainly from Parlophone era.
There's many album left for me to collect.
ones fron 1997 album (her fans called it 'Impossible Princess') are a 'hard' music compared to today pop standard. the 'X' ;which released a decade later, has a considerable variety of musics, while the Aphrodite (released 2011... my Avatar is made after the album cover) seems to favor Ibiza and half of the album (Including 'Get out of my way!') shares the same genre.... (Alcazar thigns??) to the point that ones can sing a song in question in another one! ! !
Anyhow, I didn't put whatever-his-name-is on ignore because he doesn't like the Beatles - that WOULD be a little harsh. I put him on ignore because his opinions on music aren't worth gak. Seriously not worth taking the time to read.
Better?
Of course I get that some misguided souls may not appreciate the Beatles's music - that's their right. Poor taste is not a crime. I freely admit to having awful taste in film, and sub-par taste in literature, for example. But, to say that the Beatles suck? That's just an ignorant statement. Didn't he also say that punk-rock peaked in the '90s? I mean, really? Wow. I'm pulling the rip-cord on this one, I think.
Anyhow, I didn't put whatever-his-name-is on ignore because he doesn't like the Beatles - that WOULD be a little harsh. I put him on ignore because his opinions on music aren't worth gak. Seriously not worth taking the time to read.
Better?
Of course I get that some misguided souls may not appreciate the Beatles's music - that's their right. Poor taste is not a crime. I freely admit to having awful taste in film, and sub-par taste in literature, for example. But, to say that the Beatles suck? That's just an ignorant statement. Didn't he also say that punk-rock peaked in the '90s? I mean, really? Wow. I'm pulling the rip-cord on this one, I think.
Nope I made the qoute about punk rock peaking in the early nineties (and I like the Beetles) Bands like screw32, strung out etc came out of that era and they were fething good as opposed to gak old skool punk like the sex pistols and the buzzcocks and other arty farty drivel. late eighties stuff is okay DK and RKL beingfavourites but for the most part I prefer skate punk it was honest it was fast and to me thats what punk rock should be.
Jihadnik wrote:Phew, I thought this title was about 'The Rock'
Thankfully he's still okay...
Same....
Also Punk and Ska will never die so I am fine
True but punk peaked in the early to mid nineties so it wont die but it sure as hell not any getting better.
Punk peaked in 1979 when The Clash released London Calling.
Not sure about the genre as a whole but yes that was a fine album and really to me atleast the only good first wave punk band. However there is so much ska and reggae on that album I am not sure if it counts.
Anyhow, I didn't put whatever-his-name-is on ignore because he doesn't like the Beatles - that WOULD be a little harsh. I put him on ignore because his opinions on music aren't worth gak. Seriously not worth taking the time to read.
Better?
Of course I get that some misguided souls may not appreciate the Beatles's music - that's their right. Poor taste is not a crime. I freely admit to having awful taste in film, and sub-par taste in literature, for example. But, to say that the Beatles suck? That's just an ignorant statement. Didn't he also say that punk-rock peaked in the '90s? I mean, really? Wow. I'm pulling the rip-cord on this one, I think.
I understand and appreciate what the Beatles have done. I just don't like them, never have. With that said, There is a reason Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors of ice cream. Not everyone likes vanilla. I was a club DJ for years, I have very eclectic musical tastes (for evidence here is my You Tube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/treadhead1945?feature=mhee) I know that a lot of what I like is on the "fringe" side of things. I know a lot is on the "Pop" side of things. And there is Rock and Rap and Hip Hop too. All with one common thread. I like it. I don't like the Beatles, you do. We both like Kylie Minogue. We both don't like Keith Urban (guess on my part). You consider something to be good taste. I consider something to be bad taste. OH NOES!!11!! It's the same thing! What do we do?
Agree to disagree, give each other play lists to try to convince each other of our inherent rightness. And the sun will still set in the West and rise in the East.
Anyhow, I didn't put whatever-his-name-is on ignore because he doesn't like the Beatles - that WOULD be a little harsh. I put him on ignore because his opinions on music aren't worth gak. Seriously not worth taking the time to read.
Better?
Of course I get that some misguided souls may not appreciate the Beatles's music - that's their right. Poor taste is not a crime. I freely admit to having awful taste in film, and sub-par taste in literature, for example. But, to say that the Beatles suck? That's just an ignorant statement. Didn't he also say that punk-rock peaked in the '90s? I mean, really? Wow. I'm pulling the rip-cord on this one, I think.
Nope I made the qoute about punk rock peaking in the early nineties (and I like the Beetles) Bands like screw32, strung out etc came out of that era and they were fething good as opposed to gak old skool punk like the sex pistols and the buzzcocks and other arty farty drivel. late eighties stuff is okay DK and RKL beingfavourites but for the most part I prefer skate punk it was honest it was fast and to me thats what punk rock should be.
I would respectfully disagree. For me, punk is about societal transgression, iconoclasm and equality of access. Three chords and the truth, or rather a specific version of it. Socially, punk has never been as important as it was in the late '70s, therefore I can confidently state that this is the period in which the form peaked. It still had the shock of the new - without that, and absent the original social context, punk is just badly-played pop music and a series of pseudo-'edgy' aesthetic gestures.
Amaya wrote:I agree that the Beatles are overrated, but only in the sense that they are 'the greatest band ever.' Saying that the Beatles flat out suck is incredibly ignorant.
This word you used... "ignorant"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Beatles were influencial. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (the Sex Pistols were also very influencial, but nobody ever thinks of them as talented musicians)
The Beatles were popular. This has no correlation to whether or not the band is any good. (Justin Bieber is popular, but nobody ever things of him as being a talented musician)
The Beatles were very skilled musicians. This does not necessarily correlate to whether or not the band is any good. (Lots of people can play many instruments well, but that doesn't mean that the talent isn't being wasted.)
Lyrically, the Beatles find themselves on the same shelf with Raffi and Sharon, Lois & Bram. Again, even John Lennon himself suggested that much of McCartney's songwriting was terrible. While many of The Beatles' arrangements are quite complex, their lyrics are shallow and vapid. (again, see Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and Maxwell's Silver Hammer)
So, here is why I think they suck:
1) Vapid lyrics
2) Boring
3) Dishonest & pretentious. (Lennon was even killed over this -I'm not saying he deserved it, I'm just saying that it was so pronounced that a crazy man acted on it.)
4) So Goddamned boring
Yet here we are, 40 years after their last recorded albulm and without any major marketing on their part, still talking about them and buying their albums with most people liking or even loving their music.
See, this is ignorant. Here's two reasons why:
1) "without any major marketing on their part". My friend, you may not be aware of this, but The Beatles were the most-marketed band in the world.
2) "most people" is hyperbole, what you mean to say is "a lot of people". And I addressed this in the post that you even quoted, wherein I stated that popularity does not necessarily correlate to being a good band. If you think it does, then you must admit that Justin Bieber is, too.
Gotta be something there if people like them so many years later.
KingCracker wrote:Totally disagree about the Doors. They were a fantastic band with very talented musicians. Not to mention, their style was more like free formed Jazz, where you just kindda GO with the music.
Two things about this: The first is an anecdote. One time, while getting ready to begin their set at CBGB, the Ramones each began playing a different song. They then threw their instruments down in disgust with themselves and left. Some people would argue that this was their first and only attempt to play free-flow jazz.
The second thing is a joke, but not really:
Q: What's the difference between free-flow jazz, and a group of autistics falling into a pile of musical instruments?
A: donkey-caves rarely pay to see autistics.
KingCracker wrote:Jimi Hendrix - Now I know your fething trolling. Hendrix?! REALLY?!?!? The guy LITERALLY changed the face of rock. Before he picked up his guitar and started doing his thing, it was done totally different. You simply cannot say Hendrix sucked, or was over rated. I have a CD where it plays all acoustic and plays all types of blues and songs of his own, and its fantastic. He definitely isnt 1 dimensional.
I love Jimi Hendrix. You should read exactly what I said. Let me repeat myself:
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - I'm not gonna knock Hendrix, because I'm not an idiot. I know he was incredible, for the short time he was on the charts. But keep in mind that in hindsight he gains the benefit of the 'James Dean' effect: he died before anyone could tell whether or not he was merely one-dimentional, and thus we naturally assume that he would have always been as awesome as he was for his brief time. However, it's not fair to assume that he would have continued as such. For all we know, he could have ended up just like Jefferson Airplane.
Relapse wrote:Gotta be something there if people like The Beatles so many years later.
New Kids On The Block also sold out stadiums recently, despite the fact that they are all in their late 40s by now. Do you think they were great musicians?
My god this thread is starting to look /mu/ The musical elitism is getting so think you can cut it with a knife
Come for the rock, stay for people arguing over what is "Good music"
Just because someone doesn't like a band doesn't make them an idiot, ignorant, or worthless human being. Everyone has their own preferences, and it doesn't matter what you're listening to. As long as you're not forcing your choices on others, then you could be listening to barney's "I love you" on loop and I wouldn't care. This arguing is what scares many people away, thinking we're all insane music snobs. If I was a guy who didn't listen to much rock music and stumbled across this thread, I know it would definitely make me think twice about my choice of music.
With the whole disagreeing with people about what bands are "good" and "bad", just chill out guys. It's friggin music, if they want to or not listen to something that's their choice. I don't like the beatles, so I don't listen to them. I don't care about them, and don't really look into them. That doesn't make me an idiot or some sort of insane person who hates music, I just don't like the Beatles. Everyone has that one band they don't care about. I know guys who call themselves metalheads who don't care for Black Sabbath. I've met guys who listen to hard rock and don't listen to AC/DC, etc. That's their choice. If I really like the band they don't care for, I may offer to play a more obscure song that I really like, but I never try to force it down their throats.
Besides, we're all here because we love Rock in one form or another, what's the point in being so hostile to each other? We should be saving that energy for the next time a guy tells us to turn it down.
Besides, we're all here because we love Rock in one form or another, what's the point in being so hostile to each other? We should be saving that energy for the next time a guy tells us to turn it down.
KingCracker wrote:Totally disagree about the Doors. They were a fantastic band with very talented musicians. Not to mention, their style was more like free formed Jazz, where you just kindda GO with the music.
Two things about this: The first is an anecdote. One time, while getting ready to begin their set at CBGB, the Ramones each began playing a different song. They then threw their instruments down in disgust with themselves and left. Some people would argue that this was their first and only attempt to play free-flow jazz.
The second thing is a joke, but not really:
Q: What's the difference between free-flow jazz, and a group of autistics falling into a pile of musical instruments?
A: donkey-caves rarely pay to see autistics.
KingCracker wrote:Jimi Hendrix - Now I know your fething trolling. Hendrix?! REALLY?!?!? The guy LITERALLY changed the face of rock. Before he picked up his guitar and started doing his thing, it was done totally different. You simply cannot say Hendrix sucked, or was over rated. I have a CD where it plays all acoustic and plays all types of blues and songs of his own, and its fantastic. He definitely isnt 1 dimensional.
I love Jimi Hendrix. You should read exactly what I said. Let me repeat myself:
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - I'm not gonna knock Hendrix, because I'm not an idiot. I know he was incredible, for the short time he was on the charts. But keep in mind that in hindsight he gains the benefit of the 'James Dean' effect: he died before anyone could tell whether or not he was merely one-dimentional, and thus we naturally assume that he would have always been as awesome as he was for his brief time. However, it's not fair to assume that he would have continued as such. For all we know, he could have ended up just like Jefferson Airplane.
Relapse wrote:Gotta be something there if people like The Beatles so many years later.
New Kids On The Block also sold out stadiums recently, despite the fact that they are all in their late 40s by now. Do you think they were great musicians?
I love how you left out the part where I was talking about how he WASNT 1 dimensional. Jeez, gotta love internet jerk offs. As to the Doors, Im not making the connection between them and the Ramones at all. Would try and at least clear up what ever point you were trying (and failing) to make?
Besides, we're all here because we love Rock in one form or another, what's the point in being so hostile to each other? We should be saving that energy for the next time a guy tells us to turn it down.
Well said.
Well some people may be here because they hate rock and wanted to see how it was dying...
KingCracker wrote:Jimi Hendrix - Now I know your fething trolling. Hendrix?! REALLY?!?!? The guy LITERALLY changed the face of rock. Before he picked up his guitar and started doing his thing, it was done totally different. You simply cannot say Hendrix sucked, or was over rated. I have a CD where it plays all acoustic and plays all types of blues and songs of his own, and its fantastic. He definitely isnt 1 dimensional.
I love Jimi Hendrix. You should read exactly what I said. Let me repeat myself:
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - I'm not gonna knock Hendrix, because I'm not an idiot. I know he was incredible, for the short time he was on the charts. But keep in mind that in hindsight he gains the benefit of the 'James Dean' effect: he died before anyone could tell whether or not he was merely one-dimentional, and thus we naturally assume that he would have always been as awesome as he was for his brief time. However, it's not fair to assume that he would have continued as such. For all we know, he could have ended up just like Jefferson Airplane.
Hendrix was a Bluesman. Bluesmen don't sell out, except to the devil for the ability to play guitar
Azazel's pretentiousness is really quite annoying. I hardly listen to the Beatles and the Doors. I don't even listen to or remotely like Led Zeppelin. Jimi Hendrix is without a doubt one of the greatest guitarists AND singers in the history of rock.
Limiting it those four bands is just ignorant. There are dozens of bands from the 60s, 70s that are better than post 2000~ groups. Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Ill agree to that., though personally I like Zeppelin and the Doors. Also agreed, you cant really use only 4 groups in a genre as your example as to why its good/bad. There were MANY groups that made rock what it is, and those groups seemed to change from one decade to another. I still think on the top of my list though, is Pink Floyd. Good lord that was a fantastic band. Hendrix wasnt that great of a singer though, Ill admit. His voice worked well for his sound though, you can give him that
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Rage Against the Machine was pretty decent as well.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
It's a Bob Dylan song, but he actually said he prefers Jimi's version and plays it as a tribute to him now.
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Tool's arguable peak came in 96 with Aenima (I actually like all of their stuff, 10,000 Days was a brilliant album), So there are still a few diamonds out there for us in recent years for "mainstream rock"... If you go down the heavy metal path, there are bands like Lamb of God that are more recent than the mid 90s, and I really dig them.
....Wait, Bob Dylan prefers the Hendrix version to his own song? I'm slightly confused there.
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Rage Against the Machine was pretty decent as well.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
It's a Bob Dylan song, but he actually said he prefers Jimi's version and plays it as a tribute to him now.
hell yes to Rage. Jimi's version of Sunshine of your love is better than Cream's too.
edit: and tool , and perfect circle, and screaming trees. and mogwai. struggling to think of anything formed post 2000.
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Rage Against the Machine was pretty decent as well.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
It's a Bob Dylan song, but he actually said he prefers Jimi's version and plays it as a tribute to him now.
hell yes to Rage. Jimi's version of Sunshine of your love is better than Cream's too.
edit: and tool , and perfect circle, and screaming trees. and mogwai. struggling to think of anything formed post 2000.
Electric Six! C'mon I dare someone to not smile whilst watching this
Amaya wrote:Azazel's pretentiousness is really quite annoying. I hardly listen to the Beatles and the Doors. I don't even listen to or remotely like Led Zeppelin. Jimi Hendrix is without a doubt one of the greatest guitarists AND singers in the history of rock.
Limiting it those four bands is just ignorant. There are dozens of bands from the 60s, 70s that are better than post 2000~ groups. Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
I believe I have justifed every claim that I have made within my posts. You may disagree with my justifications, however they are still present. Ergo, your are incorrectly using the term 'pretentiousness' here. And I believe I rattled off the top 4 most likely culprits in my original post; at no point did I claim that list to be complete or all-encompassing.
But thanks for showing up.
KingCracker wrote:I love how you left out the part where I was talking about how he WASNT 1 dimensional. Jeez, gotta love internet jerk offs. As to the Doors, Im not making the connection between them and the Ramones at all. Would try and at least clear up what ever point you were trying (and failing) to make?
Maybe you're right, and Jimi Hendrix wasn't one-dimensional. My point is that he didn't hang around long enough for us to see how well he would have progressed and evolved. For all we know, he may have turned out like the Rolling Stones, who absolutely gave up even trying to create decent music after 1974. (I'm not trolling; I'm just still bitter that they weren't arrested for stealing everyone's money when they sold their "Voodoo Lounge" album.)
Anyways, regarding free-flow jazz: my point was mostly hyperbole, but the general idea that I was trying to convey is that every time a musician is incapable of maintaining any consistency, or produce anything of quality, they may as well call it free-flow jazz.
Because free-flow jazz is what happens every time someone is terrible and fails.
This is what almost all free-flow jazz sounds like to me:
Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.
Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.
Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.
Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
azazel the cat wrote:Anyways, regarding free-flow jazz: my point was mostly hyperbole, but the general idea that I was trying to convey is that every time a musician is incapable of maintaining any consistency, or produce anything of quality, they may as well call it free-flow jazz.
Because free-flow jazz is what happens every time someone is terrible and fails.
Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Django Reinhart, Nels Cline, Sonic Youth, Stockhausen and John Cage called, they'd like a word.
Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.
Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.
Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Funny, you're the one who made that claim in this discussion to begin with.
azazel the cat wrote:Anyways, regarding free-flow jazz: my point was mostly hyperbole, but the general idea that I was trying to convey is that every time a musician is incapable of maintaining any consistency, or produce anything of quality, they may as well call it free-flow jazz.
Because free-flow jazz is what happens every time someone is terrible and fails.
Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Django Reinhart, Nels Cline, Sonic Youth, Stockhausen and John Cage called, they'd like a word.
Sonic Youth's claim to fame is playing every note at the same time, and John Cage's most famous work involves him sitting silently at a piano for four minutes.
Amaya wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.
Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.
Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Funny, you're the one who made that claim in this discussion to begin with.
No, I'm not. I'm the one who made the assumption that someone was talking about the Beatles as being one of greatest bands ever from the 1960s, and who would never be surpassed. I merely refuted the statement that the bands of 1960s were the greatest ever.
treadhead1944 wrote: If I recall they came out post 2k. And as a bonus the lead singer's sister works at Charm City Cakes (Mary Alice if you ever watched Ace of Cakes)
Excellent choice of band, AND your from Michigan? Im in love But your correct, they came out in the early 90s originally. Easily one of my fave bands there, they just always kick ass
Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.
Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.
Rage Against the Machine was pretty decent as well.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.
considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.
It's a Bob Dylan song, but he actually said he prefers Jimi's version and plays it as a tribute to him now.
hell yes to Rage. Jimi's version of Sunshine of your love is better than Cream's too.
edit: and tool , and perfect circle, and screaming trees. and mogwai. struggling to think of anything formed post 2000.
Audioslave formed in 2001, and they were pretty good. As far as 80s and 90s bands that are still around go, Soundgarden is really good. Primus is great as well. They just came out with a new record last September. A lot of other artists are have been doing some really cool side projects post 2000, like Maynard James Keenan's stuff in Puscifer, and Zach de la Rocha and Jon Theodore's stuff in One Day as a Lion.
@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.
dæl wrote:@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.
And then you get something like Audioslave. Tom Morello. Rage Against the Machine, blow your ears off power rock with a message. Chris Cornell. Soundgarden, raw powerful sonic attack. Audioslave... Meh
dæl wrote:@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.
And then you get something like Audioslave. Tom Morello. Rage Against the Machine, blow your ears off power rock with a message. Chris Cornell. Soundgarden, raw powerful sonic attack. Audioslave... Meh
This is what im trying to get at, there are some good bands around but no great ones. When was the last "this band will change your life" moment anyone had? The world is falling prey to focus groups and marketing men deciding everything, and while it can be argued that may work for certain areas of commerce, in the area of art then it's never a good idea. Music just ends up with rehashed gak that isn't even as good as the original stuff.
dæl wrote:@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.
And then you get something like Audioslave. Tom Morello. Rage Against the Machine, blow your ears off power rock with a message. Chris Cornell. Soundgarden, raw powerful sonic attack. Audioslave... Meh
This is what im trying to get at, there are some good bands around but no great ones. When was the last "this band will change your life" moment anyone had? The world is falling prey to focus groups and marketing men deciding everything, and while it can be argued that may work for certain areas of commerce, in the area of art then it's never a good idea. Music just ends up with rehashed gak that isn't even as good as the original stuff.
Honestly the last life changing music moment for me was when Grunge hit. Since then I have had some minor ones (Mumford and Sons, and please forgive me, Gotye come to mind right now as they are the most recent) but nothing major has driven me to a record store, or amazon, or i tunes. I don't know if this is because of my age (42 Saturday, same day as Pete Townshend) or lack of talent, or both.
Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.
Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.
Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Not a red herring, really. Most people I know that have strong opinions about anything such as what you've put forward are involved in some degree in whatever it is they're so passionate about, be it art, politics, cars, etc. I merely thought you might be some kind of musician.
As far as refuting anything, I'm not. You don't like the Beatles, I do. Tomato,tomato, doncha know.
treadhead1944 wrote: If I recall they came out post 2k. And as a bonus the lead singer's sister works at Charm City Cakes (Mary Alice if you ever watched Ace of Cakes)
As long as Clutch is around, Rock will rock. I freaking love that band. They've changed their style so many times, and yet it always sounds great. One of my friends asked me to describe their music, and I literally couldn't find words. I think said something along the lines of "Well, they're progressive blues now, but they used to play electronic styled metal (Robot hive/exodus) and before that they were stoner metal (Self titled "clutch" their second album) and they've done pretty much everything else in between.
Also, if you can't headbang to this song, you can't headbang to anything
How these guys aren't one of the biggest bands out there right now will always confuse me. These guys can curb stomp just about any other modern "rock band" out there right now. And for the one guy who said "when's the last time a band changed your outlook" check these guys out. They're cut from a completely different cloth than most bands these days. Wish there were more bands like these guys
Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.
Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.
Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Not a red herring, really. Most people I know that have strong opinions about anything such as what you've put forward are involved in some degree in whatever it is they're so passionate about, be it art, politics, cars, etc. I merely thought you might be some kind of musician.
As far as refuting anything, I'm not. You don't like the Beatles, I do. Tomato,tomato, doncha know.
Ah, fair enough. I was probably a little quick to go on the defensive there.
To answer your question: I can play piano (poorly), guitar (also poorly), Trombone (poorly again) and I can sing about half as good as Leonard Cohen. To my knowledge, I am not and have never been part of any rock bands, amateur or professional.
The truth of it is, that I've heard the same preaching about how the Beatles are the greatest band ever, but nobody can ever seem to explain why, aside from citing sales numbers and popularity. But that in itself is a fallacy, unless popularity is what determines talent, in which case those same people would have to begrudgingly admit that Justin Bieber is fantastic, too. Personally, I think the Beatles overall are kind of a sucky band, because for every Hey Jude they wrote, they also recorded a dozen Maxwell's Silver Hammers. Normally, I wouldn't think twice about ignoring the statements about how fantastic the Beatles are; even just writing those preachings off as the hyperbole of fans about their favourite band. But what bothers me is how it has become such a taboo to even suggest that the Beatles are not the greatest band ever, despite the fact that much of the lyrics in their catalogue are little better than nursery rhymes, and overall I find their songs to be painfully boring and impossible to listen to when sober (which, in my case, is always). While this latter bit is just personal opinion, the concept that the bulk of the Beatles' songs lack any real lyrical depth is more easily put to test. I've found that their lyrics generally do exactly what it says on the tin, and what it says is typically uninteresting. I also don't care for how manufactured they were (they cleaned up their image very well at the behest of Epstein after smelling EMI's money). Between the vapid lyrics and the marketing transormation of their image, I find the band to be somewhat dishonest, and lacking any soul.
But again, that's me. I think the Beatles kinda suck. I've never made any claims that suggest other people should not like the Beatles. I've only made claims that they are not the greatest band ever, and should not be lauded as such. I haven't made any claims about anyone else being the greatest band ever either, because such a title is foolish. Truth be told, I've grown quite bored having to explain this to zealous Beatles fans.
Moving on, I'll try to catch up on the rest of the thread:
Personally, my favourite band is Green Day (despite their last album). I appreciate their sound, and they (typically) write honest and heartfelt songs. And there's also the nostalgia factor; as I was probably just the right age when Green Day hit their stride. As far as true "rock" goes, I think CCR might get my vote for the best band of that era (and to a small degree this may even make me somewhat of a hypocrite). Strung Out writes the best lyrics. Boston had the best guitar sound. Chuck Berry is probably the most influential musician of all time. And I think that from 1958-60, Elvis was not 'sidelined' in Germany; he was becoming even more awesome:
Doesn't matter if you play poorly. At least you play.
For me, the Beatles are more about sitting by a breezy window on a fine summer day, just listening and letting my mind wander a tad.
dæl wrote:@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.
And then you get something like Audioslave. Tom Morello. Rage Against the Machine, blow your ears off power rock with a message. Chris Cornell. Soundgarden, raw powerful sonic attack. Audioslave... Meh
This is what im trying to get at, there are some good bands around but no great ones. When was the last "this band will change your life" moment anyone had? The world is falling prey to focus groups and marketing men deciding everything, and while it can be argued that may work for certain areas of commerce, in the area of art then it's never a good idea. Music just ends up with rehashed gak that isn't even as good as the original stuff.
Funny, because that sounds exactly what music was like during the every other decade too. By and large, mainstream music has always been an attempt by major labels to cash in on what's hot at the moment, or something from the hidden depths that has risen to mainstream success and will soon be the template for what will be cashed in on next. Just look at the Monkees. Horrendous band that was put together to capitalize on the Beatles popularity, everything about them was manufactured from the ground up, hell, they didn't even play their own instruments. And they were incredibly successful, in the 60s. This has been going on forever.
Remember surf music in the 60s? Or glam rock after it lost its novelty in the 70s (and 80s... and 90s...)? Or hair ...anything... in the 80s?
Really, this generation of music isn't so bad. It's just as mechanical and uninspired as it's always been, it's just not what you grew up with. And when you consider just how good some of the good stuff is, it does a hell of a lot more than just make up for it. I have to say, some of the very best music in my collection has come from the last 15 years, but you'll hear none of it on the radio or top 40.
Just off the top of my head here are a few very different bands (and one crazy artist) that are all proof that rock is alive and well, and more than that, growing and evolving. Rock sounds different than it did five years ago, ten years ago, three decades ago. People are making new music, not just rehashing old songs. If all you're looking for is new people singing the same songs, you're better off just listening to the old stuff. Just 'cause it's changed doesn't mean rock is dead.
Kim Churchill is pretty good, hadn't seen him before. Interpol I was actually considering referencing in my post about music being rehashed by comparing them to Joy Division, a comparison Interpol don't do to well out of. As I said there is good stuff around just none that is amazing, groundbreaking or lifechanging. Bloc Party, Mumford and Sons, Laura Marling, 65 days of static, Four Tet, all really good, but they aren't in the same league as The Pixies. Unless we go outside of rock/guitar music and then things look a bit rosier with labels like Warp and Planet mu really looking for something new and you get things like Aphex Twin, Squarepusher and Venetian Snares which are truely groundbreaking.
dæl wrote:Kim Churchill is pretty good, hadn't seen him before. Interpol I was actually considering referencing in my post about music being rehashed by comparing them to Joy Division, a comparison Interpol don't do to well out of. As I said there is good stuff around just none that is amazing, groundbreaking or lifechanging. Bloc Party, Mumford and Sons, Laura Marling, 65 days of static, Four Tet, all really good, but they aren't in the same league as The Pixies. Unless we go outside of rock/guitar music and then things look a bit rosier with labels like Warp and Planet mu really looking for something new and you get things like Aphex Twin, Squarepusher and Venetian Snares which are truely groundbreaking.
Aphex Twin makes my brain hurt. The dude makes music you can watch. If you run His song Equation through a spectrogram his face shows up. WTH? who thinks of that?
treadhead1944 wrote:Aphex Twin makes my brain hurt. The dude makes music you can watch. If you run His song Equation through a spectrogram his face shows up. WTH? who thinks of that?
Spoiler:
The face shows up at 5.30
Edited to fix link
Venetian Snares has done it too, but with pictures of his cats.
some AFX is quite pretty, check out the album Druqks.
dæl wrote:Kim Churchill is pretty good, hadn't seen him before. Interpol I was actually considering referencing in my post about music being rehashed by comparing them to Joy Division, a comparison Interpol don't do to well out of. As I said there is good stuff around just none that is amazing, groundbreaking or lifechanging. Bloc Party, Mumford and Sons, Laura Marling, 65 days of static, Four Tet, all really good, but they aren't in the same league as The Pixies. Unless we go outside of rock/guitar music and then things look a bit rosier with labels like Warp and Planet mu really looking for something new and you get things like Aphex Twin, Squarepusher and Venetian Snares which are truely groundbreaking.
See, I'd agree with this. It seems that electronic music is where the innovation is these days. 'Guitar music' is dead - it's all just a re-hash of a re-hash, sadly.
dæl wrote:Kim Churchill is pretty good, hadn't seen him before. Interpol I was actually considering referencing in my post about music being rehashed by comparing them to Joy Division, a comparison Interpol don't do to well out of. As I said there is good stuff around just none that is amazing, groundbreaking or lifechanging. Bloc Party, Mumford and Sons, Laura Marling, 65 days of static, Four Tet, all really good, but they aren't in the same league as The Pixies. Unless we go outside of rock/guitar music and then things look a bit rosier with labels like Warp and Planet mu really looking for something new and you get things like Aphex Twin, Squarepusher and Venetian Snares which are truely groundbreaking.
See, I'd agree with this. It seems that electronic music is where the innovation is these days. 'Guitar music' is dead - it's all just a re-hash of a re-hash, sadly.
I would respectfully disagree about "Guitar Music" being dead. Sick yes, but not dead. Tom Morello has done, and is doing some amazing things with the guitar. Others are as well, but they are doing it quietly and on the margins. Electronic music is where innovation seems to be, and I love what the kids are calling "EDM". In fact next weekend is the Movement Festival here in Detroit, which used to be known as the Detroit Electronic Music Festival. A friend is even going to be playing on one of the stages. The best part? The headliner is Public Enemy.
Here is a video of my friend, aka DJ Psycho of the Detroit Techno Militia
treadhead1944 wrote: If I recall they came out post 2k. And as a bonus the lead singer's sister works at Charm City Cakes (Mary Alice if you ever watched Ace of Cakes)
As long as Clutch is around, Rock will rock. I freaking love that band. They've changed their style so many times, and yet it always sounds great. One of my friends asked me to describe their music, and I literally couldn't find words. I think said something along the lines of "Well, they're progressive blues now, but they used to play electronic styled metal (Robot hive/exodus) and before that they were stoner metal (Self titled "clutch" their second album) and they've done pretty much everything else in between.
Also, if you can't headbang to this song, you can't headbang to anything
How these guys aren't one of the biggest bands out there right now will always confuse me. These guys can curb stomp just about any other modern "rock band" out there right now. And for the one guy who said "when's the last time a band changed your outlook" check these guys out. They're cut from a completely different cloth than most bands these days. Wish there were more bands like these guys
Agreed completely. I tell people when they ask what they sound like I say "Uhm.....kindda bluesy smooth rock metal?"
What radio/TV/interwebs stations are you guys n gals listening to?
*mind boggle*
Rock is dying?
Depends on where you are looking peeps
Jaysus even Itune radio stations (and I say itunes because its about as - am I aloud to use the word "mainstream here? - as it gets) have a literal myriad of stations that play rock.
Seek and ye will find. Facetious, not by a long shot.
Your gonna have to help me out here.
