New topic
Printable728huey said: NDRU said:
Nirvana was no different than any other great band. Bad trends always follow great bands.
Nirvana didn't wear flannel as a fashion statement, they wore it because it was cold in Seattle, and they didn't sing depressing music because it was cool, but because Kurt Cobain was a miserable sod. What was great was that they were not following a huge trend and it was refreshing. But it becomes popular and then it's in the Gap. Same with Metal, Van Halen was great early on, but it led to Cinderella. Same with Hip Hop. Same with funk eventually fizzling out with disco. Same with The Beatles and ever other mop top group after them. There can only be so many great artists, and the followers are just followers. What rock needs is another great artist, but when that person/band comes, what follows will most likely suck. Thanks for posting that. I was just about to state that rock and all other musio trends go through cycles and pendulum swings, and that you have three different groups of artists that latch on to a trend. The Innovators: These people are at the forefront of a musical trend and often set the sound, look, and feel of the trend that blows up in front of them. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, and The Who come to mind in the early 1960's; Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Black Sabbath did this for guitar rock in the late 1960's and early 1970's; Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, and Motley Crue did this for 80's metal; Prince, Michael Jackson, and Madonna did this for 80's pop, Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, and Smashing Pumpkins did this for grunge in the 1990's; Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey set the tone for all future American Idol wannabes in the 1990's; and Public Enemy, NWA, 2Pac, and Biggie Smalls laid the foundation for all gangsta rappers in the 1990's. The Copycats: These people often follow the innovators. They are often quite good musically on a technical level (play good instruments, play catchy hooks, write decent songs), but they play it safe and don't make anything that stands out. Scorpions, Night Ranger, Sammy Hagar, Lenny Kravitz, Stone Temple Pilots, Bush, Creed, and Nickelback come to mind here The Wannabes: These artists often aren't very skilled and take onto a trend towards the end of its lifecycle. They usually focus more on image to cover up their lack of skills. Poison, Cinderella, White Lion, Winger, and Trixter come to mind from the hair metal days, and Seven Mary Three, Tracy Bonham, and Candlebox come to mind from the grunge period. I've been trying to figure out exactly where the current emo bands stand out, but if seems like the biggest emo bands like Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, and Fall Out Boy actually stole from other bands that were previously grunge wannbes or nu-metal acts like Linkin Park. Linkin Park was considered Nu-Metal since they had a hip-hop guy on board, but a lot of their lyrics were emo based.  that's a good distinction between the Innovators & the Copycats. The copycats may have technical skill that equals (or even surpasses) the innovators. They just don't have the artistry. That makes an argument difficult because how do you argue something subjective like artistry over something more concrete like technical skill? My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
guitarslinger44 said: vainandy said: Very true. It goes from R&B to rock to even television. They have sold a "simple" and "everyday" image to people and have raised a whole new generation that is actually entertained by "simple" things. When I was growing up, it was boring as hell to see someone that looked and acted like the average joe on TV. Nowadays, they take four or five average joes, put them in a house together, and film it. The entire plot for one episode can be that Jimmy tripped over his untied shoe lace. Then, the rest of the cast members will take turns going into a private room and telling the camera about Jimmy tripping over his shoe lace. And if that ain't enough, then the cast members will call a meeting to discuss Jimmy tripping over his shoe lace and whether or not he should be thrown out of the house for it. And these dull asses today actually find that shit entertaining. And it's the same with music. On the R&B side, these dull asses have been raised to like music that is stripped of all music and just have some either singing or talking over a slow beat. They even dress the artists up like average joes so the audience can relate. The same with rock, as far as image goes. They find folks that look like your next door neighbor that you can relate to. Well, hell, my neighbors are boring and always have been. And average joes are boring, always have been, and always will be. That's why they are called "average". Freaks, weirdos, sluts, and whores are entertaining. Let's get back to those images. And I said "whores", not "ho's". There's a difference.  Nobody has their own image anymore because they don't know anything else other than "normal". That's all they have been raised on for so long.The things is, and I forgot to mention this when i quote Blaque's post, is that rock has ALWAYS been about average joes being elevated to god-like status. Look at U2, Coldplay, Springsteen, Mellencamp, Bill Withers, Black Sabbath, etc. I could go on forever. All of these folks were regular joes before they got their contracts. They weren't rich, they weren't famous, they WERE your next door neighbors. Granted they had a modicum of talent but they were still regular. Freaks and sluts are what we have right now with all this evanescent pop garbage that's all over the radio and internet. Give me regular people with talent over some freak who thinks he can sing but can't any day. I have another theory too. Back in the 70's and even the 80's people (musicians) listened to a lot of different things. Blues, jazz, classical, rock, Indian music....Nowadays, you get guys that ONLY listen to Zeppelin or other rock bands and it waters the music down a bit. Those acts bored me. I'm talking about wild looking folks like David Lee Roth running around shirtless and in spandex pants with his dick print showing. Motley Crue wearing more makeup than drag queens running around in spandex with their dick prints showing. Def Leppard running around in their tight pants with their dick prints showing. Rod Stewart (in the years when he could rock) with his wild hair and leopard spandex with his dick print showing.
Not to mention the glam rock groups and folks like David Bowie looking wild as hell. Even down to the pop groups. Boy George looking like he just stepped off of a drag stage. Human League with their makeup. Cyndi Lauper with her wild looking ass. Tina Turner and her big ass spiked hair. A Flock Of Seaguls with their wild ass hairdoos. Then the funk was wild also. Prince, who you didn't know if he was sleeping with women or sucking dicks....or both. Rick James with his braids, thigh high boots and spandex pants (and you could see the dick print). Lakeside dressing like pirates, cowboys, genies, Robin Hood, or whatever theme they had that year. Huge bands where every member had outfits of sequins, satin, leather, or anything that shines. The flashier the better. Even the early rap with Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five looking like The Village People. The Mary Jane Girls looking like hookers. Vanity 6 looking like sluts straight out of the bedroom. Donna Summer with her low cut, split up the side dress, posing in front of a street like like a hooker. The wilder the better back then. And all of the men wore pants.....that you could see their dick print.
You see, folks are too concerned with looking straight these days. And a straight image is just as dull as straight sex. You got to get freaky to have a good time. Normal is dull and always has been. That's why the 1980s were so great in every genre....."Men were women and women were whores". As Archie and Edith used to sing....."Those were the dayyyyysssss!!!". Andy is a four letter word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rocknrolldave said: Foo Fighters ..... played huge shows in the UK this year, their popularity as high as ever.
That show is up on MSN now. Dave can really put on a show. There is a nice cover of Rock and Roll with John Paul Jones and Jimmy Page with Dave playing drums on there too. Foos ROCK. http://entimg.msn.com/i/E...ghterspost Later [Edited 7/17/08 12:56pm] Cause tomorrow is taking too long
and yesterday's too far away and the reality that you believe in begins to bind. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
liltalkm said: rocknrolldave said: Foo Fighters ..... played huge shows in the UK this year, their popularity as high as ever.
Dave can really put on a show. Foos ROCK. Thats right. And WHAT band did he come out of? Heh heh, BOO YA!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexGod said: liltalkm said: Dave can really put on a show. Foos ROCK. Thats right. And WHAT band did he come out of? Heh heh, BOO YA! Thank you for pointing that out. I don't quite understand all the Nirvana slagging. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't either. You can't blame them for the mall-grunge movement. Sgt Pepper inspired a bunch of crappy psychedelic albums with funny voiceovers and extreme phaseshifting and moo-cow sound effects and what not. It's still brilliant.
Nirvana had a personality, at least. When they started to break in summer of 1991 there were no other popular bands that remotely resembled them. There were similar bands in the underground but even there, they stood out for their ability to write pop hooks and big choruses. Most of the bands that got famous in the grunge era were just borrowing some rock star's personality in order to become famous. Of COURSE they're not that interesting. I'm no fan of emo but it is just about the only current guitar-based music that young people are listening to in any quantity. Maybe I'll be grateful for it years from now. As to why seemingly everything sucks compared to those great old days, well, I think the forms are getting played out. People who still respond to that kind of thing are probably going to revere the old masters more than the young upstarts because the upstarts aren't bringing much to the party that's new. Even Led Zep, the most blatant thieves in rock, added something to the mix. Put on How Many More Times, that doesn't sound like Freddie King or Howlin' Wolf, it's something else. The notes are the same but the approach is very different. Better, worse, your to decide but they ARE different. Today, I hear a lot of modern bands that are aping 25-year old sounds right down to the settings on the keyboards. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Q: Why is rock dying?
A: Because there isn't enough rock bands on the planet earth that knows how to write a freaking party rock song anymore. In addition, there nothing within the rock & roll lifestyle that is shocking anymore neither. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RodeoSchro said: Here is why rock is dying:
Nirvana and grunge rock. Before those ultimate buzz kills came along, rock was about partying, getting wasted and getting laid. Then the world's worst generation came along (yes, I am talking to you if you are between 18 and 30) and all those depressed retards could write about was how much life sucked. THAT is what ruined rock. There's more, but I'm too pissed off to expand on it. I just thank God I grew up in the '70's. Exactly!  [Edited 7/17/08 16:44pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
guitarslinger44 said: Anxiety said: nickelback = exactly what i was saying about safe, sanitized, bloodless disneycore. I'm not saying you have to like them, but they're writing songs that people care about and are real, as opposed to these media fed "in music just to be famous" acts. The press won't touch them, and to me, that's almost reason enough to like them, because if the press likes you, chances are, you suck. People cared about Creed and Kid Rock too. And a lot of people liked Uncle Cracker for a while there. Nickelback regurgitates the same terrible song over and over again. Feel free to join in the Prince Album Poll 2018! Let'a celebrate his legacy by counting down the most beloved Prince albums, as decided by you! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: Cinnie said: I think people miss "the image" and "the shredding". though i think people NOW see how silly it all looked, while back THEN most people took bands like this dead serious. i mean, look at that clown on the right with the sunglasses. people at one time thought that was the look of a ROCK GOD. 
now it's considered campy and nostalgic. i agree that people miss it. but i don't think the same level of earnest fervor exists. that ship has sailed. yo don't laugh but i used to listen to Nitro but mostly as a joke. this album is hilarious!!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |