Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/15 17:49:43
@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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/15 21:49:03
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.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
"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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/16 01:40:05
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.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/16 12:07:59
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/16 16:20:57
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/16 21:47:32
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.
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.
5th Company 2000 pts
615 pts
