are there any new rock groups that we will be playing in twenty or thirty years from now?, like we still hear Led Zeppelin, the Stones, Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, the Beatles, thats why I say rock & roll is dead

"real" rock'n'roll is still out there, but the mainstream doesn't allow for anything that isn't pretty and airbrushed within an inch of its life. led zep would NEVER be successful if they started now. too weird. too ugly. too hairy and skinny. they'd have to shave their heads, wear mascara, start wearing hoodies and sing about the girl at the mall if they wanted to make it now.

Little Steven just announced his own record label to address this need.

Rock isn't dead but it's sure in hiding. However, you can hear some pretty good new stuff on satellite radio. XM's TheVerge channel, for instance.

Anx said:

I blame Nirvana for that. Up until then, rock was about having fun and meeting girls. Nirvana turned it into about how much life sucks. With all due respect, I fail to see even one iota of "genius" in Kurt Cobain's work.

Anx said:

I agree. Rock is so neutred. I mean, Nickelback would've been like on the soft rock station....but that's the only thing that passes for rock...they are like the 2000 equivalent of Looking Glass (the guys who sang "Brandy"). And shit like Hinder or whatever!

RodeoSchro said:

No, because Nirvana could rock hard AND had great songs! I mean, the Pixies begot Nirvana. I do think the shit bands out there were sadly influenced by Nirvana.

RodeoSchro said:

LIttle Steven also has a Sirius channel. Rock is clearly a favorite genre when it comes to sattelite radio (there are only two real R&B stations on Sirius). So rock isn't dead but long on life support. Let's hope when rock comes back, it doesn't have to be fused with rap again....remember Limp Bizcuit?

Anx said:

Not true.

RodeoSchro said:

i think they were the last anti-authoritarian rock group to enjoy mainstream popularity, and i also think it's no coincidence that good mainstream rock/alternative music went down the pooper after kurt died.

chuckaducci said:

actually, neither of us can prove the truth of my statement since we can't go back in time, kidnap led zep from the late '60s, and have them start their career in 2006. but. let's say we could. how would my theory be proven untrue?

I believe we will continue to hear music from Jack White whether it's with The White Stripes or the Racontuers or whoever because he is very talented. I could potentially see My Chemical Romance being a round now that they've ripped off Queen and Green Day will be around. I hope Nickelback will evtually drop off the face of the earth.

RodeoSchro said:

I couldn't have said that better. I really think nirvana and Kurt Cobain are so oever hyped it's not even funny. I liked them when they were around but I quickly lost interest once people starting praising him like he's jesus christ. I honestly prefer hair metal to grunge because at least it was fun music. also, notice how grunge didn't even last that long.

dancerella said:

i think nickelback has the shelflife of twinkies, i'm afraid.

plus many of the same ingredients.

its strange to me how the mainstream embraced Nirvana but never took time to notice the punk scene that spawned the band in the first place. Nirvana at the heart of it all was really just a punk band.

then again punk was never meant for the mainstream, don't mind me just rambling to myself

Green Day, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, No Doubt (once Gwen gets herself together),
Nine Inch Nails, etc.

I can see all these groups (who have all been making music for 10+ years), continuing for many more years.I mean Green Day has been out for how long? and thay just had the biggest years of their career!

Modifying a classic Frank Zappa quote...

Rock & Roll isn't dead. Currently, it just smells funny.

...


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

VinnyM27 said:

Maybe I haven't heard enough Nirvana songs, but all the ones I can think of are about how much life sucks. Last night, for instance, I heard "Rape Me". Talk about depressing...

Plus, Cobain spawned the low-register growling that passes for singing these days. Guys like him, Eddie Vedder and whoever sings for Nickleback are just not good rock singers. They cannot convey any happiness when they sound like four-pack-a-day'ers who just found out they're getting audited by the IRS...

There is one aspect of rock's current odor that I can't fully blame on Cobain, and that is guitar sound. I know Paul Reed Smith guitars are quality instruments, but their sound has really contributed to rock's ruination. Maybe it's just the set-up, but everyone who uses a PRS guitar seems to be able to play nothing but over-distorted power chords. There is no musicianship in the guitar parts of almost every rock song these days, and I think it's because of the sound these alleged players are getting out of their PRS guitars.

I know musicians write about what they know, and obviously (tragically), Cobain knew a lot about pain and rejection. But from where I sit, he put rock on the road to mediocrity, and it's just a shame the public bought his songs of sorrow.

The more I type about this subject, the more I want to start blaming record companies for marketing all the wanna-be's. These are the same companies that foisted rap and hip-hop on us, and we were stupid enough to buy into it.

Prince seems smarter and smarter all the time, at least when it comes to how music should (or should NOT) be marketed...

Anx said:

You're kinda right; I should've posted "prove it" or "I disagree" as opposed to "not true." However, the burden of proving that statement rests upon you, Anxiety. There are plenty of rock bands today that utilize the very same blueprint Zeppelin did (SEE: Wolfmother). Even a cursory glance on Myspace would point that out (Earl Greyhound). Also, today's music scene is built of hundreds of niche artists and much more broader than what existed in the '70s - I think a band like Zeppelin could find a comfortable section and succeed.

dancerella said:

Nirvana certainly did not suck...they did have a few pretty good songs...however in the last 40-50 years, a million other groups also had a few pretty good songs so that's nothing special...Nirvana was anointed as "Nirvana" by the critics who have in common with Nirvana that they too can't dress and don't get laid by anyone better looking than Courtney Love.

Anx said:

I'm not a fan of Nirvana and I also think they are quite overrated. But Nirvana is not responsible for rock sucking. Also, Nirvana is NOT the first band whose lead singer/songwriter focused his lyrics on inner turmoil. And Anxiety...man, talk about putting Cobain on a pedestal!! When Kurt died, good rock/alt died with him? So the heavens decided to bless humankind with one sterling rock songwriter the past 15 years?

Rock and Roll was dead when the Brothers got OUT the game.
U know the ones.....the ones who INVENTED it.
[Edited 12/8/06 14:16pm]

chuckaducci said:

i think you're confusing artistry with industry. if we cut the music industry and the way it manipulates mainstream tastes out of the picture, we'd probably be having a more harmonious conversation. yes, i do believe kurt's suicide prompted a HUGE turn in what was churned out to the radio-listening mainstream. i think the industry turned more to safe, careerist artists and performers because it became too risky to go with edgy "artist" types, for the fear of having another kurt on their hands. or another shannon hoon. or another kristen pfaff. or another layne from alice in chains. and so on. that whole scene self-destructed, and i think the idea was to turn to a shinier, happier mode of 'professional' musicians who were more interested in going to the top of the pops than in opening a vein in their music, so to speak. that's my theory. kurt and his ilk were a money maker, but when their baggage started to get in the way of their profit-making potential, we got britney and the mall-punk scene. cute, far less disaffected, and perfectly malleable.

now, if we want to talk about artists who still exist and create good rock music despite mainstream success, i can go that route and i'm sure we'd come to more of an agreement.

Meloh9 said:

A little off subject but I remember watching a documentary on the punk scene and when Blondie would should up to do a radio program, the people that would worked in the studio were actually afraid of Debbie cause of all the rumors they had heard bout how crazy she was

The point is that mainstream was actually I think more afraid of Punk. There wasn't really anything to be afraid of when it came to Grunge, well except for the smell of unwashed flannel.
[Edited 12/8/06 15:54pm]

I think we'll still hear:

Rammstein
Little Killers
White Stripes
Dandy Warhols
Pulp/Jarvis Cocker
Nine Inch Nails

being played in 20 years.
[Edited 12/9/06 6:04am]

Anx said:

Oh no.

pezdispenser said:

I just got tickets this morning to see Jarvis Cocker in Amsterdam next month!!!

To say I'm excited would be an understatement. I love that man and his music!

minneapolisgenius said:

again, if i was talking about MY barometer of pretty vs. ugly, my opinion would most likely be closer to yours.

Anx said:

I do think music today is mostly based on looks, but then you have people like Pete Doherty. -----> How'd he pull THAT one off?!

I'm missing something here.

RodeoSchro said:

omg not to sound gay but i love you! hah...you hit it right on the head with the Nirvana comments!