New topic
Printableminneapolisgenius said: Anx said: again, if i was talking about MY barometer of pretty vs. ugly, my opinion would most likely be closer to yours. 
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. yeah, but he's just famous for being a trainwreck. how popular is his band or his music? i couldn't hum you anything he's done. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
people have been saying this forever...Rock & Roll will never die...it reinvents itself and comes back in style on a cycle...look at how popular ACDC still is even after losing the great Bon Scott, that's proof to me...
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anx said: "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.
Once again Anx has spoken true words The real rock and roll is still out there, salvaged from the maintream. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anx said: 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.
I'm not sure I follow you here... 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.
Not a theory I can get behind. Artists have been committing suicide as long as artists have been on this Earth. The music industry didn't shy away from great guitarists when Hendrix died tragically - on the contrary, it profitted from his death, the same as some suit definitely profitted off of Cobain's death (you mention that below as well). There is no such thing as an avuncular record label exec who cares about the general well being of an artist. Besides, there were more dreary recording artist before and after Cobain who were also insanely popular. 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.
I disagree. The proliferation of pop music that was popular after grunge can be attributed to the cylical nature of the industry and music purchasers. I find it hard to swallow that the presidents of record labels, fearing the awful repercussions of a dead rock star and how it would affect their bottom line, singlehandedly destroyed a music scene. No - when Nirvana started out selling Michael Jackson back in '91-'92, it was because the changing of the guard that had been swelling underground finally surfaced. After grunge, another changing of the guard took place. 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.
True dat! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
chuckaducci said: Anx said: 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.
I'm not sure I follow you here... I disagree. The proliferation of pop music that was popular after grunge can be attributed to the cylical nature of the industry and music purchasers. I find it hard to swallow that the presidents of record labels, fearing the awful repercussions of a dead rock star and how it would affect their bottom line, singlehandedly destroyed a music scene. No - when Nirvana started out selling Michael Jackson back in '91-'92, it was because the changing of the guard that had been swelling underground finally surfaced. After grunge, another changing of the guard took place. 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.
True dat! you're taking a whole lot of what i'm saying out of context. i don't mind if you wanna be right, just BE right and i'll gladly be wrong. i do think that kurt's death signaled the changing of the guard in terms of what was the dominant influence in mainstream pop, but i don't think his suicide was the SINGULAR incident that caused it. there were a whole lot of other deaths in that whole scene leading up to kurt, but the names weren't quite as big. i think it took the death of one of the flagship figures in the scene to show the industry, 'whoa, these aren't people we can base a steady meal ticket around, let's go troll the mickey mouse club instead.' i think the coming of nirvana and the whole outselling of MJ came at a time when the culture was hungry to be shaken up, and that whole change was more organic, though certainly egged on by the industry seeing that there was money to be made from a 'grunge invasion' or a mainstreaming of the alternative scene. i think that there'd be a switch back to bubblegum pop anyway even if kurt hadn't died, but i think the switch would be more integrated and gradual than what we actually saw happen. i know you want to think that i consider kurt to be this big uber-influential rock music god figure who changed everything with his rise and fall, but really that's only about 25% accurate in terms of how i really feel. YES, i do believe he and nirvana were indeed influential, and my SUBJECTIVE opinion is that their legacy was deserved - but even if it wasn't, i think from an industry standpoint, they were not without credit for helping to bring the underground to the mainstream, if only for a couple of years. were they solely responsible for this happening? no. was kurt's death solely responsible for the rise of britney and the boy bands soon after? no. but those things were indeed influential, whether you think he was genius or crap. and as for the deaths of jimi, janis, jim morrison, etc....well, take a look at the music that became popular in the early '70s after their deaths. not exactly the most countercultural stuff in pop music history. i think when we let the mainstream get too 'deep' and it closes in on itself, the trend is to shy away from the 'deep' stuff and go back to the feel-good cheesy-ass stuff that poses no danger. until everyone gets bored again... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anx said: minneapolisgenius 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. yeah, but he's just famous for being a trainwreck. how popular is his band or his music? i couldn't hum you anything he's done. Me neither. Although, the other day I had on the British version of MTV2, which I tend to keep on in the background a lot, and this song came on that was pretty good and I walked over to the tv to see who it was: it was Babyshambles. "I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
cutn said: 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
Sadly, very..very,Sad to say NAY!!!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
To ad to that, there are bands out there ready to impact the globe.
TRUE, Rock will never DIE!!!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dancerella said: RodeoSchro 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. 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. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |