being famous


PDA

View Full Version : being famous


insidergene1
12-29-2007, 12:51 AM
it seems to me that there is a true lack of quality music coming out today. as far as i can tell there seems to be some very talented ppl on this forum. i dont realy understand the music industry, they give us all this fall out boy, my chemical romance bs, when there are truely talented vocalists and musicians to be had. how do these guys that whine and cry on an album gte their voice heard and others not. is it the new generation of kids that are all "i wanna kill my self for attention" that control this thing"mass marketing" or what. why is their voice even heard, in my town the rock sations suck theres no blues station at all and the oldies plays u2 and sticks all day. what happened, whats the best route for getting your music heard on a large scale, move to cali or what. idk what the hell is wrong with the music of today

The Rambler
12-29-2007, 12:56 AM
No one ever plays blues, nor have they ever, really. I mean, Buddy Guy was saying that in the 60s. Also, the music industry is run by fads and who you know. It doesn't matter if emo is good per se, the label executives might even personally hate the bands, but they sell. Some necktie somewhere decided that the thing to do was to take the underground emo scene from the 80s and fuse it with pop and create a bastard that sells a lot of records. As far as for people like you and me making it big, you have to know someone in the industry, or be really good.

Page/Rhoads
12-29-2007, 12:58 AM
I hate music now. I base it off of talent, but mostly passion. If I can't feel anything when I listen to the music, then it just sucks. There is no point to most music now and many people have lost touch with blues and true rock and roll.

Hadeed
12-29-2007, 12:59 AM
exactly, record labels use the theory of "if its sells, its good enough for us".

so with that in mind, its the mainstream public that drive the quality of music down, which then drives the record labels, which drives more mainstream people... i'm sure u can see the vicious cycle now.

zepledfan413
12-29-2007, 01:01 AM
Modern music (they call it music) is all image in my opinion. Who's wearing the mask, who's wearing the shirt, the hair, the gothic look, the emo look, the preppy gay look....it's stupid.

In the days of Zeppelin, Sabbath, Iron Maiden etc...music was fun. Now it's depressing. If you have to look a certain way, say certain things, and be what people want you to be...I don't want to be in a band.

Dazed/Confused
12-29-2007, 01:03 AM
With the advent of iTunes and like musical distributers coupled with the rise of free music downloading programs, record companies are less likely to take risks on bands that are musically talented, when there are bands that fit a formula and are more likely to succeed. The tradition continues from hair metal, largely, when you would take a band of "good looking" guys and have them play a song or two on the album that was generic and relatable to sell albums. It is a business, so the record companies are less likely to take risks on bands that are musically Zeppelin, Boston, or GN'R-esque. The manufactured whiny bands are relatable and appealing to more people more quickly. Think of hearing "You Shook Me" off of Led Zeppelin I, or the whole album, if you're not a blues/rock fan...not as appealing in general as something that general music listening audiences would take to as a catchy beat and followable structure.

insidergene1
12-29-2007, 01:03 AM
i dont know who said it but ima quote my buddy "to play blues you had to have lived a ruff life" all these kool-aid drinking cochroaches have had it way to easy so all the can write about is how they hate themselves its very rare to hear a good album, but my tastes tend to leed me down the blind mellon nirvana tom petty simon and garfunkl skinnered bb king path so if those guys didnt put out good albums in your opinion then im stummped

The Rambler
12-29-2007, 01:06 AM
I think the music industry (why is it an "industry" anyway?) really lacks artists. I think that a lot of bands that are out there could be a lot better if they took more pride in their craft instead of just pumping out material that will sell.

Dazed/Confused
12-29-2007, 01:12 AM
I think the music industry (why is it an "industry" anyway?) really lacks artists. I think that a lot of bands that are out there could be a lot better if they took more pride in their craft instead of just pumping out material that will sell.

It's an industry because it's businesses. There are companies selling things.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that there aren't artists. It's not a matter of the current bands taking pride in their work, it's a matter of getting musicians who take pride in their art, but also feel the blues. The unparalleled (in blues) SRV didn't come from a particularly hard life, nor did Jimmy Page...but they felt it and they took pride in it and it was their lives.

The Rambler
12-29-2007, 10:54 AM
I know that it is, I was just asking why it's an industry. Art should not be products.

frigginjerk
12-29-2007, 01:59 PM
you guys need to bear in mind that even though the music industry is a business, the natural forces of supply and demand will prevail.

since the 60's, there has always been a demand for highly talented rock bands that play good songs, plain and simple. Virtuosity goes in and out of style, but good songwriting never leaves.

when a new music fad begins, there will of course be an explosion of bands that play that kind of music. Over the years, we all know what happens. The hype turns to criticism and complaints of stagnation in the genre, and most of the bands disappear as soon as the next fad starts up. But a handful of these bands will prevail and continue to be successful for 10 more years. These are the bands that are good songwriters and consumate musicians, and who were never doing it to be famous, just to be successful.

it's why the chili peppers have been around for over 20 years and they keep selling more and more albums. it's why jack white will probably sell albums consistently for the rest of his life. it's why bands like limp bizkit and Simple Plan were only famous for about 3 or 4 years, and only really cool for about a year and a half, when the novelty of their first hit wore off.

bottom line: great bands don't go undiscovered for long. Anyone can write ten songs to sound just like Fall Out Boy, and if they luck out, they'll sell out a few all-ages gigs, someone will call someone who know someone at a label and they might get signed because the label knows they can cash in on this fall out boy soundalike band. Naturally, when us condescending musicians hear this stuff, we will be angry that they got famous and we didn't, but they'll only be famous long enough to not make any real money, and get spit out the bottom of the industry when the next fad starts.

frigginjerk
12-29-2007, 02:03 PM
I think the music industry (why is it an "industry" anyway?) really lacks artists. I think that a lot of bands that are out there could be a lot better if they took more pride in their craft instead of just pumping out material that will sell.

^

you've answered your own question. It's an industry because they want to pump out material that will SELL. The problem is that the labels themselves have shifted from the concept of investing in quality material that takes more time and money to produce, but pays big in the long term, and now they want sub-par material that is cheap to produce and cheap to market, and will pay off right away, despite not having the quality required to still sell 5 and 10 years down the road.

and the reason WHY it's an industry is because artists used to have no other way of getting their music out to the people. The straight up reality is that everything a band does costs money. Equipment costs, rental costs, transportation costs, recording costs, the cost of packaging a CD, the cost of advertising a show, the cost of printing tickets, etc etc etc... adding to the problem, musicians themselves don't inspire a lot of trust in the companies that provide these services.

somewhere along the line, artists realized that, due to competition from other artists, they can't sell enough art to be able to buy food, or rent a flat, or to basically LIVE. they realized that they must work with groups of people (aka "businesses") that will help them to promote their art, help them to live day to day while working on new art, cover some materials costs, etc etc etc... in turn, the business could take their cut of sales. The artist prefers to get a smaller percentage of a large amount of money, rather than 100% of barely any money.

the only problem is that some of those businesses shifted their focus from promoting the music / art as it was originally intended, and they started trying to guess the next trend, and then they would try to sign bands ahead of time to be the first company to be promoting this cool new music. Guessing the next trend was a good idea, but it caused greedy companies to start trying to dictate what the next trend would BE, and that's when we started getting these manufactured fashion bands that everyone hates.

Retro Rocker
12-29-2007, 02:46 PM
Anyone else think that this money-making phase will end once/if honest, music-loving people start controlling the major labels?

StrokeMidnight
12-29-2007, 03:02 PM
It's like a repeat of the '60s. Back in the early '60s/late '50s all you would hear on the radio was Freddie and the Dreamers. Then the Beatles came along and changed that. After them all you'd hear on the radio was The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, etc. We just need to wait for the next musical revolution and it's going to come soon. There was a show "The Next Great American Band" and the country band (they were amazing! check them out they're called the Clarke Brothers) won the whole show and beat out the emo bands.

The Rambler
12-29-2007, 03:22 PM
Anyone else think that this money-making phase will end once/if honest, music-loving people start controlling the major labels?
That won't happen. Honest people rarely ever end up on top in business. That's like saying foundry workers will end up controlling the steel companies.

Retro Rocker
12-29-2007, 03:36 PM
That won't happen. Honest people rarely ever end up on top in business. That's like saying foundry workers will end up controlling the steel companies.
Sad but true.
We need disguises.

The Rambler
12-29-2007, 04:04 PM
Sad but true.
We need disguises.
Like business suits, sports cars, and a messy divorce.

tbca
12-29-2007, 05:25 PM
ok the first reason new music sells is because its shallow. Most American kids can relate to that(including me)because they are about as shallow as kiddy pools

the second reason is like everyone says the music industry doesnt care about people who listen to good music. For everyone one person who likes good music I would estimate that there are about 271 whoo like new music.

and finally third no one actually cares enough to try and do something about its like global warming



anyway dint mean to make any one mad i person like new and old music

shredder1223
12-29-2007, 05:39 PM
I'm gonna say some words that will probably make you guys angry.

soulja boy

HeavyReverb
12-29-2007, 05:47 PM
does anyone else find it strange that as soon as green day cool off, fall out boy shows up. when they cool off, mcr show up. its all just new-era boybands.

why the f**k are the chili's or so many amazing underground artists not as big as these? personally i dont like srv or led zeppelin but they were 200 times better than the s**t being pumped onto itunes to feed the 'depression' of todays teenagers. im only 17 but im seriously fed up with all the whining emos thinkin 'mcr are sooooo deep'.

im hope that real music will return in the near future. we need a new hendrix!

werty22
12-29-2007, 06:42 PM
Modern music (they call it music) is all image in my opinion. Who's wearing the mask, who's wearing the shirt, the hair, the gothic look, the emo look, the preppy gay look....it's stupid.

In the days of Zeppelin, Sabbath, Iron Maiden etc...music was fun. Now it's depressing. If you have to look a certain way, say certain things, and be what people want you to be...I don't want to be in a band.
It's not just modern music that's based on an image. The Sex Pistols were basicly an image created by their manager to sell clothes. A lot of so-called new wave bands in the mid-'80s were image-based, and hair metal was the same way.

Ben Wright
12-29-2007, 06:51 PM
The music industry has changed drastically. Its now, not about the talent, its about the image. The big people in music want to make money so they sign bands that they think a lot of people will like. They think of all the teenage girls who will go out and buy the albums which is probably the biggest reason that Fallout Boy are so popular.
Record Deal owners don't care about talent, money is their God. Thats what they're out there to do. They decide what will attract the biggest amount of people in the market.

Gwynnell
12-30-2007, 07:19 AM
It's fair enough really, they want money, they don't want to fail in a business, it makes good financial sense to back bands that will make money, and if you're really that bothered you'd be at the local music venue every night, where i live everyone moans about it but just up the road is a pub which has live music every night, in the past has had, Radiohead, Muse, Oasis, Coldplay, Snow Patrol, Green Day, Lostprophetes, Suede, Verve, Idlewild, Manic Street Preachers and pretty much everyone else who's big. If you go to local clubs you find good music mostly.

yatta
12-30-2007, 01:19 PM
Sometimes, the people on these forums really annoy me. Just because you aren't famous, doesn't mean you have to be lamely jealous of it consistently. Bands like Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance are big because they are talented songwriters.

Just because they're not ripping a sexy blues solo in every song, or playing some badass riff doesn't mean they're a bad band. Music has shifted away from "THAT'S SO HARD TO PLAY THIS GUY IS SO GOOD" to a band being good if they can make incredibly hooky music. With good reason.

Besides, the guitarist in MCR is most likely better than you, to be honest. I'm not a fan, but he's not a terrible guitarist by any means. You're right, these bands are like the "boy bands of our era", except they write and play all of their music, so everything that made boy bands invalid, is valid in this case. I admire the backstreet boys for their over-the-top vocal harmonies constantly. They're really well put together. Only problem, is they didn't write them.

Led Zep and AC/DC are just boy bands for hicks and elitists, anyway.

The Rambler
12-30-2007, 01:52 PM
^ You have some good points, and I'm not one of those people sitting around saying that music isn't what it used to be, blah blah blah. I like a lot of modern bands. However, there's a lot of poor-quality music that is popular. There was a lot of bad music back in the 60s and 70s (though we mostly only remember the good stuff). I think Fall Out Boy can write catchy music, but are not artists as they ought to be. I don't care if I don't personally enjoy the musical genre, but if you aren't an artist, you aren't a musician.

[EDIT]: AC/DC definitely isn't for elitists. They suck (can be fun sometimes, but still suck).

crocoscar
12-30-2007, 02:18 PM
Modern music (they call it music) is all image in my opinion. Who's wearing the mask, who's wearing the shirt, the hair, the gothic look, the emo look, the preppy gay look....it's stupid.

In the days of Zeppelin, Sabbath, Iron Maiden etc...music was fun. Now it's depressing. If you have to look a certain way, say certain things, and be what people want you to be...I don't want to be in a band.

I'll second that, all is about the damn look today ... bands such as mcr (to not name them), tokio hotel, or any band with that faggy-"emo" look help some people with a lack of personnality to say "Oh I'm ****ing metal" just because they wear black clothes and gay make-up, but listening to pop music. Yes, some people really say that mcr or linkin park are metal -___-

Retro Rocker
12-30-2007, 02:49 PM
Led Zep and AC/DC are just boy bands for hicks and elitists, anyway.
Everything you ever say is now null and void.

HeavyReverb
12-30-2007, 04:15 PM
Everything you ever say is now null and void.

no he's correct- zeppelin and ac/dc do sound like something you'd hear coming out of a pickup truck. also i agree the guitarist from mcr is better than me and probably most of us here. fall out boy shouldnt be allowed play due to their horrible live show. i dont mind if bands can at least play their music but fob cannot.

kaptink
12-30-2007, 04:33 PM
I think what you have to remember is that of course record labels want to sign talented and great artists and they do ( not always rock bands however). They make money from these fad bands and one-hit wonders but the true money comes from those legendary records, i'd wager that dark side of the moon or appetite for destruction made a lot more money this year compared to bands like FOB's records from 2006 did and they will keep selling.

shoolocomous
12-30-2007, 04:35 PM
it seems to me that there is a true lack of quality music coming out today.

Total crap.

Theres some bad bands, and some good. Same as it ever was.

take_it_t
12-30-2007, 05:10 PM
There will always be both good and bad bands, and theres nothing you can do about that, good bands only exist because you have bad bands to compare them to. Its all about the money, just like everything else in the world. If a record company feels that a band has a product which can earn a lot of money, than they will more than likely be interested in selling that band. I don't have a big problem with that either, because I choose what I want to listen to, if I don't like something I won't listen to it, and I'm not going to complain because somebody else does. In twenty years from now, most of those one hit wonder bands will have been forgotten, and the truly successful bands will continue to be remembered. Thats just how it works. No matter what the genre, or how good of an artist may be, there will always be someone who doesn't like the music.

GuitarMunky
12-30-2007, 05:14 PM
Theres some bad bands, and some good. Same as it ever was.

Yep. nothing has really changed.

brooklynsoulja1
12-30-2007, 05:43 PM
people just need to execpt things change like seriously if u dont liek someones music dont listen dont care about it
i like old bands like black sabbath and ac dc,i like bands like pearl jam and nirvana,i like bands like avenged sevenfold and mcr
learn to love all types of music for whats good about each of them.theres alwayz going to be fads get over it people shouldnt hate on other bands that have sucess/honestly if i were them id do the same thing ill take advantage of my fame id enjoy being looked up to by teenagers and by whoever

Gurgle!Argh!
12-30-2007, 05:52 PM
these threads are stupid. i mean, seriously, right now there is a wider range of music available than ever before, and its available much more freely than ever before. who cares what the major labels do? you don't need them to listen to good music, and you never have. they've always sucked and they always will.

axemanchris
12-31-2007, 09:23 AM
except the major labels dictate what the figurative "most of us" listen to.

same as it ever was.... agreed.

Not fair, IMO, to lump Green Day in with MCR, FOB, etc. How many other bands have been around, selling records consistently in big numbers since, what, 1994? Not many. Like them or not, they are NOT a flash-in-the-pan band. 14 years of those kinds of sales is rare, especially given the high-turnover rate and "disposable" nature of music today.

Like was said above, good songwriting never goes out of style. They write good songs, and they perform them well. They have a kick-ass live show. Their image is always current. What else do you want?

(Of course, good is subjective. I know loads of people here are really quick to say they suck, but their track record and endurance in a brutal market speaks for itself.)

CT

Ramco
12-31-2007, 11:56 AM
One could argue that the trend of having "flash in the pan" artists is a good thing, as it doesn't keep only a few bands on top. This gives bands a better chance of "making it", and if they're only on top for a few months or years at least they've gathered a large enough following to live comfortably for the rest of their lives and continue to play shows that won't be close to empty.

Also, I get the feeling that nearly every person who complains about bands like MCR and FOB have only heard their singles. In this day and age the singles are usually either chosen by the label or at least bands are heavily pressured by their label as to what song they should release. No band has had every song be great, or even every album be great, and in the case of a lot of bands their singles have been their weakest songs.

Also, please PLEASE don't ever judge a band by their fans. Just because kids think they're punk or emo because they listen to FOB or they're metal because they listen to Linkin Park it doesn't mean that the bands themselves are "ripping off a genre" and are idiots. Well, maybe Pete Wentz is. I'm sure the guys in those bands are exactly like nearly everyone here on UG; they love playing music and they're actually making a great living off of it, and they're taking a lot of stupid people's money - wouldn't you want the same? I like Blink-182 style pop rock enough to play it while wearing eyeliner if it means I can actually afford to put gas in my car this week. Does being poor enough to understand my priorities equal selling out?

Gurgle!Argh!
12-31-2007, 12:05 PM
except the major labels dictate what the figurative "most of us" listen to.

same as it ever was.... agreed.

Not fair, IMO, to lump Green Day in with MCR, FOB, etc. How many other bands have been around, selling records consistently in big numbers since, what, 1994? Not many. Like them or not, they are NOT a flash-in-the-pan band. 14 years of those kinds of sales is rare, especially given the high-turnover rate and "disposable" nature of music today.

Like was said above, good songwriting never goes out of style. They write good songs, and they perform them well. They have a kick-ass live show. Their image is always current. What else do you want?

(Of course, good is subjective. I know loads of people here are really quick to say they suck, but their track record and endurance in a brutal market speaks for itself.)

CT

i don't think its really true that major labels dictate what we listen to. i don't think thats been true really since the eighties when you started getting some really great indies doing something different (k records, sst, dischord, touch and go etc), and i think its even less true now. the internet is such a massive tool. once upon a time, if you wanted to put out a record, it was tough, because distribution was so difficult. now all you need is some recordings and enough money to press up 500 7"s and you've got yourself a record label, because things like myspace and paypal have made an internet presence easily achievable and hence have also made it very easy to sell your records to anywhere in the world.

and, besides that, its so easy now to just put music on a website and let people listen to it... i mean, look at 'black kids' for a great example.

what do all these changes mean for the consumer? it means music is everywhere. corporations have never been weaker in the music industry. go online and you can find some amazing webzines and mp3 blogs recommending amazing music that you can freely access thanks to things like myspace and last.fm, and which can be very often bought by some bedroom based record label selling 7"s by mailorder.

honestly, i don't know how people can complain about the state of music.

axemanchris
12-31-2007, 12:42 PM
What you say is entirely true for those who actively subscribe to the indie-rock aesthetic.

The 'average' consumer isn't motivated enough to pursue all of the alternative sources that are out there, and still finds their music by turning on MTV, turning on the radio, and other mainstream media. The stuff there is chosen by the major labels. This represents, I would estimate, easily 90% of the music-buying public, and what I meant by the figurative "most of us."

Also, the advantage of being on a label is much, much more than distribution. You can have not only virtual, but actual distribution all over the planet. You can have a great website with streaming and on-line purchase capabilities. It doesn't mean anything without the promotion and marketing to go with it.

It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound?" question.

CT

Gurgle!Argh!
12-31-2007, 12:54 PM
What you say is entirely true for those who actively subscribe to the indie-rock aesthetic.

The 'average' consumer isn't motivated enough to pursue all of the alternative sources that are out there, and still finds their music by turning on MTV, turning on the radio, and other mainstream media. The stuff there is chosen by the major labels. This represents, I would estimate, easily 90% of the music-buying public, and what I meant by the figurative "most of us."

Also, the advantage of being on a label is much, much more than distribution. You can have not only virtual, but actual distribution all over the planet. You can have a great website with streaming and on-line purchase capabilities. It doesn't mean anything without the promotion and marketing to go with it.

It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound?" question.

CT

but as a consumer i don't particularly care what others listen to. i'm happy as long as i can get to what i can listen to. the only reason people don't do what i do is.... well, i don't know actually. idiocy?

and, furthermore, i'd say that major label music is no different to how it has been. i mean, there are still classic rock style bands on major labels, there have always been pop acts, there have always been acts following trends. i don't think its a whole lot different. the only difference is that we can now get to the other stuff much more easily. so things have only improved, objectively.

as a musician, it doesnt concern me because the chances of getting onto a major label are still as slim as ever, and the prospect is still as unappealing as ever, but there are now many more avenues to distribute and disseminate music through.

besides anything else though, i just think that its ridiculous in a way to get so stressed out about what the major labels are doing, because the major labels ARE dying. they are losing their stranglehold, whichever way you look at it. i think this is a wonderful thing.

ultimately, i think the democratisation of the music industry that the internet is causing is pretty much inexorable. i'm not an optimist much, but i am about this. i honestly believe that thanks to the internet, its only going to become easier and easier to disseminate and also access a massive range of music, the boundaries between signed and unsigned are only going to become hazier and major labels are only going to be weaker, unless they realise what is happening and shift their business models to accept these changes, but even if that happens we'll still have won.

rhoads4ever
12-31-2007, 01:54 PM
these threads are stupid. i mean, seriously, right now there is a wider range of music available than ever before, and its available much more freely than ever before. who cares what the major labels do? you don't need them to listen to good music, and you never have. they've always sucked and they always will.

Seriously. There is so much music available. And to say that music doesn't have "talent" anymore is kind of moronic, was the popular classic rock of Led Zep, Sabbath etc. as "talented" as the Jazz of the 20s? was that jazz as musically "talented" as the classical music before it?
Music has always been a simplified in one form or another over the years... Notice how when people want to learn more about the theory of music they study Beethoven not Richie Blackmore?
Thats just my 2 cents. I think music is cool now because its so available... So what if Soulja Boy is a hit in the charts, I don't like it, so I don't listen to it.

JW123
12-31-2007, 02:32 PM
This is right, there is no good rock coming out on major labels.

But, Im finding great music all over the place, Why cause people that give a **** about their music can produce it without a label. There are 1000s of great bands on myspace alone, you just have to dig for them. Find a group on there and buy their product. So all you dumbass's saying there is no great music out there are too damn lazy to find it

axemanchris
01-01-2008, 02:20 PM
the only reason people don't do what i do is.... well, i don't know actually. idiocy?



For me, it is time. I have a full-time job, three kids, a house, and a band. There is enough stuff out there that I hear through conventional mainstream channels that I like, that I don't feel the need to go looking for more.

I also know from being a "periphery" member of the indie scene in my city that 98% of it does not appeal to me. It is independent only because it's not good enough for many people to want to invest in it. There is, however, a percentage that, for me, is quite good, and that I have purchased. It takes a lot of time to weed through it all though.

Laziness I'm sure is an issue as well....

CT

Jamingguitarist
01-01-2008, 07:39 PM
does anyone else find it strange that as soon as green day cool off, fall out boy shows up. when they cool off, mcr show up. its all just new-era boybands.

why the f**k are the chili's or so many amazing underground artists not as big as these? personally i dont like srv or led zeppelin but they were 200 times better than the s**t being pumped onto itunes to feed the 'depression' of todays teenagers. im only 17 but im seriously fed up with all the whining emos thinkin 'mcr are sooooo deep'.

im hope that real music will return in the near future. we need a new hendrix!


yes indeed +inf

Dunjma
01-23-2008, 08:42 AM
Gurgle! im sure i told you that your opinions where null and void. please try to remember that.

Everything you ever say is now null and void.

bahaha damn i was going to use it again.

Sometimes, the people on these forums really annoy me. Just because you aren't famous, doesn't mean you have to be lamely jealous of it consistently. Bands like Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance are big because they are talented songwriters.
ok while i am going to say that i like SOME of FOB (please be merciful on my filthy soul) i dont like the fact that they dress in all black with long black hair in their videos and shows, and im sure that that is not how they would dress on a normal day. i also believe that, while they have some good music, it isnt so good that they should become as big as they are.

Just because they're not ripping a sexy blues solo in every song, or playing some badass riff doesn't mean they're a bad band. Music has shifted away from "THAT'S SO HARD TO PLAY THIS GUY IS SO GOOD" to a band being good if they can make incredibly hooky music. With good reason. that depends on how you define hooky. if you mean a drum machine on loop with a few licks played over it occasionally with a big black guy talking really fast about his bitch then i disagree with you.

Led Zep and AC/DC are just boy bands for hicks and elitists, anyway. i choked when i read this and will place a suitable response:
Everything you ever say is now null and void.

axemanchris
01-23-2008, 10:21 PM
we need a new hendrix!

Disclaimer: The following post might make your head hurt and your eyes bleed.


We had a new Hendrix. Most of us just didn't notice. Vernon Reid (Living Colour) is the crazy-ass shred machine that Jimi Hendrix would have liked to become.

CT

LikidySplitz
01-23-2008, 11:05 PM
People buy what is put in front of them. Reason bands that suck get good is because of a secret I'm not telling lmao.

Gurgle!Argh!
01-24-2008, 06:18 AM
Gurgle! im sure i told you that your opinions where null and void. please try to remember that.

fuck off. i mean, who are you? really? you're nobody. no-one cares.

yatta
01-24-2008, 11:56 AM
ok while i am going to say that i like SOME of FOB (please be merciful on my filthy soul) i dont like the fact that they dress in all black with long black hair in their videos and shows, and im sure that that is not how they would dress on a normal day. i also believe that, while they have some good music, it isnt so good that they should become as big as they are.

That's the problem, it is that good. Not because I like it, because I'm not a huge fan, but it really is that good. It's good enough that millions of people buy their records, they sell out shows everywhere. Just because it's mainstream doesn't make it bad. Just because it's not to the style of hendrix fanboys doesn't make it bad. I'm sorry, but you're one of the many on this site who fall into the category of close-minded.


that depends on how you define hooky. if you mean a drum machine on loop with a few licks played over it occasionally with a big black guy talking really fast about his bitch then i disagree with you.

Is that what's in question? To be honest, I don't hear many rappers on the charts anymore. It's pretty well invaded with popstars and some hiphop. Regardless, those things are considered hooky because it gets stuck in everybody's head. That's what being catchy is all about. I don't listen to Rhianna, but it came on in the car and I was humming one of her songs all day. I'm gonna be blunt and say it, the members of Fall Out Boy, MCR, whoever are better than at least 80% of the "musicians" on this site.

i choked when i read this and will place a suitable response:

Go ahead. It's simply fact though. If you're a hick, or an elitist pig, you'll probably be listening to country music, ACDC and Zep. If you're "urban" or whatever, you're listening to hip-hop and rap. If you're an average person who's listening to music, you've got a nice variety of songs ranging from maybe some pop and hip-hop, some emo and punk and some classic rock favourites like Led Zep and ACDC. If you're an average listener, you're listening for good songs. Catchy songs. Good songwriting.

Call the people who are getting famous today talentless, but if you're that great of a songwriter that you can condescend on them, write me a song that millions of people around the world will love. Back yourself up. Otherwise, shut the **** up. :)

Mockingbird452
01-24-2008, 06:26 PM
Yeah, I personally don't like the newer type of rock thats comming out, except for like RHCP of course, I like them.

That's why, if I start a band, I'd more than love to play Rock N' Roll, but I figured that I wouldn't get popular that easy, so I was thinking about just playing some Alternative/Punk Rock stuff, which I don't like. But Im definately going to play and make music that I like and if somebody doesn't like it, forget them, they can go listen to wahtever.

I just wish that the music industry wasn't like this right now. I wish that everybody could like everything. And not just sign the new bands that would get popular in no time. I wish they would give everybody a chance, I hear that bands that don't make like a HIT album in their first 2 or so albums get dropped, which is totally unfair.

812many
01-24-2008, 07:48 PM
That's the problem, it is that good. Not because I like it, because I'm not a huge fan, but it really is that good. It's good enough that millions of people buy their records, they sell out shows everywhere. Just because it's mainstream doesn't make it bad. Just because it's not to the style of hendrix fanboys doesn't make it bad. I'm sorry, but you're one of the many on this site who fall into the category of close-minded.



Is that what's in question? To be honest, I don't hear many rappers on the charts anymore. It's pretty well invaded with popstars and some hiphop. Regardless, those things are considered hooky because it gets stuck in everybody's head. That's what being catchy is all about. I don't listen to Rhianna, but it came on in the car and I was humming one of her songs all day. I'm gonna be blunt and say it, the members of Fall Out Boy, MCR, whoever are better than at least 80% of the "musicians" on this site.



Go ahead. It's simply fact though. If you're a hick, or an elitist pig, you'll probably be listening to country music, ACDC and Zep. If you're "urban" or whatever, you're listening to hip-hop and rap. If you're an average person who's listening to music, you've got a nice variety of songs ranging from maybe some pop and hip-hop, some emo and punk and some classic rock favourites like Led Zep and ACDC. If you're an average listener, you're listening for good songs. Catchy songs. Good songwriting.

Call the people who are getting famous today talentless, but if you're that great of a songwriter that you can condescend on them, write me a song that millions of people around the world will love. Back yourself up. Otherwise, shut the **** up. :)

and you can call other people close-minded?

axemanchris
01-24-2008, 10:08 PM
@yatta - I feel your pain. I agree with you, for the most part. The music industry is all about the average listener. Success in that industry almost means, by definition, that if you make music for musicians, you're screwed. and no, that doesn't mean 'selling out' so long as you happen to like mainstream music.

@mockingbird - hehe... that's if they even get two albums. These days, it's even more like one. Labels are reeling in the money bags because they're not doing as well as they used to for a variety of reasons. The first things to go are:
-development deals
-similar to that, but somewhat different - giving bands more than one chance to be profitable.
-expensive videos

CT

Mockingbird452
01-25-2008, 01:54 AM
What if theres a band that is really good, but none of the people that listen to the newer music likes them. Would they be given a chance by the record companies or whatever? :rolleyes:

Dunjma
01-25-2008, 04:17 AM
Yatta you completely misinterpreted my post. i agree with you on almost every part other than having to be a hick or elitist pig to like ACDC or Zep. what i said i didn't like about FOB is the fact that they mostly dress in black, and wear makeup when i'm sure that if they walk down the street before they where famous i'm sure they would not.
Please read carefully before paying someone out for something they did not say/do :D

Symmetry4321
01-25-2008, 06:01 AM
This thread is a vehicle for tired old men to say how much better things were when Zepplin or Sabbath were around (even though to an extent i believe that to be true despite being 17) But things havent changed, bands were still subject to fads and changes.

And to people who hold up blues and traditional rock and roll as a saviour, that was still very much a fad back in its time, but the memory of it survived because the bands endured, as will probably happen in every era of music, you do not think it but in 20-30 years time you will remember the bands of this time un a different way to which you experience them now

We do not need a new Hendrix or a new Led Zep for the same reasons that we did need the original Hendrix or Led Zep, because we need new people with new ideas instead of people recycling the same tired ideas forever, otherwise your precious blues rock will get stale and die

For the record i love classic rock, blues 70's and 80's metal as well as Thrash, Death Metal, a little bit of Screamo, Punk, Indie, Electronic music and pop, so i am capapble of understanding and agreeing wth all veiwpoints

rhoads4ever
01-25-2008, 11:33 AM
This thread is a vehicle for tired old men to say how much better things were when Zepplin or Sabbath were around (even though to an extent i believe that to be true despite being 17) But things havent changed, bands were still subject to fads and changes.

And to people who hold up blues and traditional rock and roll as a saviour, that was still very much a fad back in its time, but the memory of it survived because the bands endured, as will probably happen in every era of music, you do not think it but in 20-30 years time you will remember the bands of this time un a different way to which you experience them now

We do not need a new Hendrix or a new Led Zep for the same reasons that we did need the original Hendrix or Led Zep, because we need new people with new ideas instead of people recycling the same tired ideas forever, otherwise your precious blues rock will get stale and die

For the record i love classic rock, blues 70's and 80's metal as well as Thrash, Death Metal, a little bit of Screamo, Punk, Indie, Electronic music and pop, so i am capapble of understanding and agreeing wth all veiwpoints

I agree a lot with you. The thing you have to remember is that the record industry is a business... SO obviously they want to max their profits. Economy 101. They realized that they don't have to invest much money into a one hit wonder that can pump out a good single now and then to make their return a lot higher. Obviously mainsteam music apeals to the average music listener. The average music listener, is not a musician. When I say musician i mean someone who actually studies/practices his trade, not someone who bought a guitar that now collects dust.
I've used this arguement before, but mainstream music has always "simplified itself" Tell me that musicianship behind Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, etc. Is like Wagner, Bizet, Beethoven, Chopin etc. Your favorite music is most likely a simplified form of the previous mainstream.
Also i'm fairly sure the blues was always "underground". Don't quote me on it, but I'm pretty sure the blues was never, "mainstream"

yatta
01-25-2008, 08:52 PM
Yatta you completely misinterpreted my post. i agree with you on almost every part other than having to be a hick or elitist pig to like ACDC or Zep. what i said i didn't like about FOB is the fact that they mostly dress in black, and wear makeup when i'm sure that if they walk down the street before they where famous i'm sure they would not.
Please read carefully before paying someone out for something they did not say/do :D

Some of the classic rock bands that everybody adores wore some pretty ridiculous clothing on stage, as well. On that note, however. It's entirely possible that bands who wear all black on stage do off stage as well, with the whole scene/emo movement.

And I may have misinterpreted what you said, if so, I'm sorry. However, the message in what I wrote doesn't only apply to you, but to the overwhelming majority of UG.

Mr. Bubble
01-25-2008, 09:32 PM
We should have UG make a record label, too... Then just sign all the good musicians on here and promote them like crazy. That's the way to go.

axemanchris
01-25-2008, 11:40 PM
What if theres a band that is really good, but none of the people that listen to the newer music likes them. Would they be given a chance by the record companies or whatever? :rolleyes:

Only if they were able to convince the record company - generally through a strong track record of what they do already on their own - that they would be hugely profitable.

;)

CT

af_the_fragile
01-26-2008, 10:23 AM
Who gives a **** bout what the big record companies produce or the radio stations play?!

Music shouldn't be a business but a form of art.
Like back in the days when composers like Beethoven, Mozart and all would compose every piece of their music putting in all of their heart and soul into it to end up with a masterpiece of musical artwork. Something that could be liked by the majority of people but truly appreciated by the artists and the ones who could feel every emotion behind every note.
Just like when Michael Angelo painted the Sistine Chapel. It wasn't for money, it was to create a timeless piece of artwork that would be adored and appreciated for centuries to come.

People listen and forget about bands like Fall Out Boy, Panic!, MCR and all these bands out there for people to enjoy and radio station n record labels to make money on. Its not a piece of musical artwork but a music product for people to buy. I bet in 50years time hardly anyone is gonna know bout these bands. But I bet even after 50 and probably even 100-200 years, you'll still hear Beethoven's 5th Symphony or Vivaldi's Four Seasons being played in concert halls. Music that has survived through centuries, music thats immortal. Thats real music, a timeless piece of artwork.

A few modern day bands like The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Marley, Ramones, Led Zeppelin, Elvis, Ray Charles, Rolling Stones etc. have managed to achieved that too. The bands and the people behind them are long gone but their music is still heard and will be for many more years.
This is what separates real music from corporate music like FOB, MCR and all.


Music shouldn't be made to sell but to create a piece of artwork. Something that can mesmerize the listener, leave a mark and an impression. Something that can survive through the test of time and still have the same effect after centuries as it did when it was first revealed. Something that comes flowing through emotions rather than a formula for popularity and sales. Thats true music for me and in my opinion majority of the bands out there absolutely lack this. Thats why you see all these bands pop up and never herd again.

If your music has all of these elements in it, then you'll get popular no matter your on a major label or not. But sadly even most unsigned bands lack this to be appreciated properly.


For me my music is an outlet for my emotions and my true inner self that hides behind a deceiving outer shell. I don't make my music with an intention of selling it or getting a record label. I don't even want a record label. I'ld be releasing my music on an independent label. Cuz its my music and i make it my way. I wouldn't want any third person to tamper with it.


And i believe thats how music should be. No strings attached, no drive for money or fame. Just pure emotions flowing through the musicians heart painting a masterpiece of artwork in notes and melodies thats a reflection of truth, a story, a myth or just an emotion. Its a mirror, a photograph or a painting in many different shades of colors for the world to see, feel and appreciate through time.

musiclover_92
01-26-2008, 11:19 PM
i know there is a new generation of kids like the ones a year below me(high school freshman) that listen to nu metal, other death metal, hip hop, and emo, all of those on this mix disc, and draw 666 on the board...

Gurgle!Argh!
01-27-2008, 08:52 AM
Just like when Michael Angelo painted the Sistine Chapel. It wasn't for money, it was to create a timeless piece of artwork that would be adored and appreciated for centuries to come.

and all this whilst playing at 6 billion nps!!!!!!!!!1!111 _

Zen5887
01-27-2008, 10:12 PM
There is plenty of good music around today just dont expect to find it on MTV.

scguitarking927
01-27-2008, 10:45 PM
There is plenty of good music around today just dont expect to find it on MTV.

lol, true that

paulwellerrocks
01-28-2008, 06:48 AM
the people that said we dont need a new led zep or hendrix or beatles are just stupid. we do. BUT it they would be doing somethng new and exciting like zep hendrix and the beatles were doing back in their day. Im pretty sure that people did not mean that new bands should be copying hendrix and zep. that would be gay

TimbreWolf
01-28-2008, 10:41 PM
it seems to me that there is a true lack of quality music coming out today. as far as i can tell there seems to be some very talented ppl on this forum. i dont realy understand the music industry, they give us all this fall out boy, my chemical romance bs, when there are truely talented vocalists and musicians to be had. how do these guys that whine and cry on an album gte their voice heard and others not. is it the new generation of kids that are all "i wanna kill my self for attention" that control this thing"mass marketing" or what. why is their voice even heard, in my town the rock sations suck theres no blues station at all and the oldies plays u2 and sticks all day. what happened, whats the best route for getting your music heard on a large scale, move to cali or what. idk what the hell is wrong with the music of today

saddly alot of decent talent remains in the underground...while those whos main points are their image and the "ItSells" factor are the ones getting noticed. im here in Jacksonville and every sense Red Jumpsuit Apperattus came out from Middleburg FL(or OrangeParkSouth, sense Middleburg is mostly the cowboy farmer type)
everyone has wanted to form up an EMO/Punk sounding band because that is what is selling commercially...Sad...long are the days of when creative different bands like Primus emerge!

axemanchris
01-29-2008, 01:15 AM
Funny thing is.... a lot of these so-called "great artists" that you speak of (and I don't say that in jest... it's just that's how they were referred to) who created great art did so under the conditions of employment. Bach, Beethoven, Michelangelo.... they were all hired/contracted workers. Sure, they made a commitment to their craft, but they were paying the bills.

The difference is the climate in which they worked. The churches, patrons, etc. that commissioned their work did so with the expectation of receiving something of artistic merit. The church and governments are rarely hurting for money, and patrons of the arts were people who could afford to pay for art for the sake of art. Profit wasn't a consideration. Nowadays, it is all about profit. There are still government grants out there that will financially support art for art's sake - Canada Arts Council, for instance. Their pockets aren't nearly as deep as those folks in the old days though. These days, too, governments, churches, etc. are expected to be more fiscally accountable to their voters, congregations, etc. They would have a hard time justifying having artists and musicians on their salaried rosters.

CT

af_the_fragile
01-29-2008, 11:24 AM
^Yeah, thats true.

But hardly anyone puts in that much commitment into their music anymore as the composers back then did.
They spent their whole lives composing music. And yeah, they were hired to do it and they made their living out of it. But they did put all of their heart and soul it in.

meh17
01-29-2008, 05:35 PM
It would be unfair to say that there are no good mainstream bands or artists out.

Though majority of the bands around sound monotonal and similar (not a good thing). I live in the UK, and the biggest band around are Arcitc Monkeys. I don't doslike them, but there are more talented bands and Arctic Monkeys are VERY monotonal (all their songs sound the same).

Symmetry4321
01-29-2008, 06:00 PM
When you say a new Hendrix, Led Zep or Beatles, i always see that as meaning someone who writes exactly the same sort of song and try to sound like an identical alternative (Airbourne to Ac/Dc for example). What they did was revolutionary, and i want someone to revolutionise music, rather than just bring back what has been before (Wolfmother, Darkness, Airbourne worthy bands though they are)

Tophue
01-29-2008, 09:03 PM
who even cares. I would be a musician even if no one heard me. music is about making it for yourself, not selling records or having fans listen to you

Peaceful Rocker
01-29-2008, 09:16 PM
theres good and bad music to come out of every era, atleast the 2000's have been cooler than the 80's./

af_the_fragile
01-29-2008, 10:14 PM
who even cares. I would be a musician even if no one heard me. music is about making it for yourself, not selling records or having fans listen to you
Thats my point!!

Selling records, making money and having fans is just a bonus...

Though things are always better when you can share them with someone. Playing your music to a group of people listening to you is always pleasing...

Blind In 1 Ear
01-29-2008, 10:32 PM
it seems to me that there is a true lack of quality music coming out today. as far as i can tell there seems to be some very talented ppl on this forum. i dont realy understand the music industry, they give us all this fall out boy, my chemical romance bs, when there are truely talented vocalists and musicians to be had. how do these guys that whine and cry on an album gte their voice heard and others not. is it the new generation of kids that are all "i wanna kill my self for attention" that control this thing"mass marketing" or what. why is their voice even heard, in my town the rock sations suck theres no blues station at all and the oldies plays u2 and sticks all day. what happened, whats the best route for getting your music heard on a large scale, move to cali or what. idk what the hell is wrong with the music of today

well there is talent out there but i agree that theres too much crap around these days. i find too many bands sound the same and make the same kind of song and a lot of female singers seem to have the same sound. some of the music doesnt even make sense. i was listening to some song on the radio, and i think it was some sort of dance tune, and i kid you not the bass line wasnt even in the same key as the rest of the song. it sounded so bad and im like "why doesnt anyone else notice this? how could this even pass for a song?" and then you have these rap songs that are about the lamest things ever and repeat a phrase like 100 times in a row for a "chorus" like they think people are too stupid for actual lyrics. im sure some people think all rap is crap but it used to be pretty good back when people could actually make a song about something and had creativity and didnt just do whats "in" these days. rap used to not be "in" and they did it anyways.

my thinking is that sometime in the next few years, people are going to be fed up with the commercialism of music and all these stupid fads and will start supporting bands who still make good, creative music. i think its already happening because more and more i see young people listening to older music. like at a record store that i go to to get CD's, the guy who runs it said that the people who buy RECORDS the most are actually young people. its a store that specializes in older music and most of the people that come in are teens. all of my friends listen to older music as well. i think people are finally starting to realize the crap thats going around these days. hopefully it will spark some sort of revolution of new artists that want to keep music alive.

Dunjma
02-01-2008, 07:30 AM
my thinking is that sometime in the next few years, people are going to be fed up with the commercialism of music and all these stupid fads and will start supporting bands who still make good, creative music. i think its already happening because more and more i see young people listening to older music. like at a record store that i go to to get CD's, the guy who runs it said that the people who buy RECORDS the most are actually young people. its a store that specializes in older music and most of the people that come in are teens. all of my friends listen to older music as well. i think people are finally starting to realize the crap thats going around these days. hopefully it will spark some sort of revolution of new artists that want to keep music alive.

while i have also noticed this, I'm not so sure if music really can be revolutionized any more. I mean, now the music that is listened to is almost exclusively music from the 60's to now, and almost always rock( be it soft, classic or hard rock) or any kind of metal . so now we have 2 - 3 generations that have almost 50 years of music ingrained into their heads, giving us a place that we will almost always fall back to when writing music.

i hope that made sense

Gurgle!Argh!
02-01-2008, 07:58 AM
why do people fail so badly? you can't complain about a lack or originality and creativity then go on about how much better music used to be. its illogical. you people are the problem, not the solution. you're never going to like new music if you're stuck in some kind of dull bulls[size=2]hit 70s obsession. if you say that there isn't innovative, interesting, awesome new music being created and released then you're just wrong. thats it. there isnt room for manoeuvre. you're factually incorrect. move on. if you don't like it, whatever. but don't claim you don't like it because it lacks creativity or originality, because that is just incorrect.

MadassAlex
02-01-2008, 09:01 AM
Call the people who are getting famous today talentless, but if you're that great of a songwriter that you can condescend on them, write me a song that millions of people around the world will love. Back yourself up. Otherwise, shut the **** up. :)

For some of us, that just isn't possible and not necessarily due to talent.

The general public will never like progressive rock and metal for example, nor will they like extreme metal, math rock, avant garde, ect.

I hate to burst your bubble but catchy hooks and popularity do not make a great song. A great song is defined by the artistry and technicality that goes into it. Kashmir is a great song, and not only because it sounds good but because it was original and highly influential to other musicians adopting the eastern flavour.
Black Sabbath's self-titled is brilliant in its simplicity because it took a very basic musical idea and turned it into the majority of a song that defined a whole genre - which then defied that simplicity entirely and became ultra-technical.
Hallowed Be Thy Name is a great song because it has multiple clear, melodically relevant movements, solos that are perfectly suited to the song, virtuosic vocals and a spacious vibe.
Altitudes by Jason Becker is brilliant for its melody, its fast-moving sections and the sense of completeness that it radiates, forgetting even the pure expression that is achieved by having the guitar as the single melodic voice.

Music is art. And you can't compare art to a construct of industry. Fall Out Boy, MCR, whatever, fine for the fans. But don't compare them to bands and musicians that progress and help define genres and styles.

I'll never write a song that millions will love, because the music I love isn't liked by a whole lot of others. I personally enjoy music that's melodic, yet challenging and technical with as much excitement as possible, whether by time signature changes or modulation or whatever.
Yatta, you may very well be the reason this industry is less conductive to skilled and progressive musicians. You're happy to accept something and move on. I'm not. :)

yatta
02-01-2008, 11:02 AM
For some of us, that just isn't possible and not necessarily due to talent.

The general public will never like progressive rock and metal for example, nor will they like extreme metal, math rock, avant garde, ect.

Untrue. The "scenesters" have adopted metal and the metal scene is really striving compared to the past. There are more people listening to both metal and prog rock than ever. The Mars Volta were on MTV the other day for ****s sake.


I hate to burst your bubble but catchy hooks and popularity do not make a great song. A great song is defined by the artistry and technicality that goes into it. Kashmir is a great song, and not only because it sounds good but because it was original and highly influential to other musicians adopting the eastern flavour.
I hate to burst your bubble, but I never said anything about popularity. Catchy hooks DO make good songs. When you think of said Black Sabbath song, the parts you think of are the parts that CATCH you. Nobody is immune to hooks. It's what makes music as its been for the past 100 years. I'm sorry that you're stubborn and think your musical tastes surpass that of everybody else, but just because you wish you could relive your own renaissance, doesn't mean that said music is greater than today's music. Unfortunately, the lead singer from Fall Out Boy (listed because everybody exemplifies them) is a very talented, and "melodic", as you stated, vocalist. He has a unique voice, great range, and millions of people would agree with that statement. That said, I'm not a personal fan of his voice, but people on here are lame.

I'll never write a song that millions will love, because the music I love isn't liked by a whole lot of others. I personally enjoy music that's melodic, yet challenging and technical with as much excitement as possible, whether by time signature changes or modulation or whatever.
Yatta, you may very well be the reason this industry is less conductive to skilled and progressive musicians. You're happy to accept something and move on. I'm not. :)

You'll never write a song that millions of people will love because you're not a good enough songwriter. Not because nobody else likes it. Bands that play melodic, technical music become huge all the time. Just like all of the bands you enjoy, millions of others do, as well. Quit bitching. The reason you're not in a huge band and signed isn't because the world is backwards, it's because you're backwards.

Ramblin'_Man
02-01-2008, 03:18 PM
there are quite a few original/revolutionary bands out there that are becoming big. While they probably won't ever be on MTV(at least lets hope not) they make enough to support themselves and keep playing, which is what it's all about.

Look at STS9, Derek Trucks Band, Gov't Mule, Umphrey's McGee, Disco Biscuits, Slightly Stoopid, Ben Harper, String Cheese Incident, Keller Williams, Jah Roots, John Butler Trio, Black Crowes, Trey Anastsio, Widespread Panic, ect.

gald
02-01-2008, 03:27 PM
There is plenty of good music around today just dont expect to find it on MTV.

^^Truth.

I listen to plenty of bands that write both catchy songs and have outstanding musicians in them. And plenty of bands take the lessons of old and fuse it into new music. Thomas Erak from the Fall of Troy is a perfect example of what someone can do with an understanding of blues and hardcore. TFoT's newest album has some amazing songs on it that blend the two.

Look up "Quarter Past" by them.

I hate to burst your bubble but catchy hooks and popularity do not make a great song. A great song is defined by the artistry and technicality that goes into it. Kashmir is a great song

I'd argue Kashmir is a shining example of a song with a great hook.

fretmaster91
02-01-2008, 03:30 PM
I agree with everyone. But most of the Bands today are Con artists not musicians.
Alll that matters it what sells, not what reaches the heart. And the reason why, all these new bands have no heart. What makes great music isnt skill, marketability, or some sorta gimmick, its someones heart poured out in his lyric and melody.

gald
02-01-2008, 04:31 PM
I agree with everyone. But most of the Bands today are Con artists not musicians.
Alll that matters it what sells, not what reaches the heart. And the reason why, all these new bands have no heart. What makes great music isnt skill, marketability, or some sorta gimmick, its someones heart poured out in his lyric and melody.

Against Me! pre-New Wave is this.

They're a perfect example of what's wrong with music today. They started out with a really cool sound and over time it's slowly but surley got more and more polished and poppy until now they don't even sound like the same band.

yatta
02-01-2008, 04:54 PM
Against Me! pre-New Wave is this.

They're a perfect example of what's wrong with music today. They started out with a really cool sound and over time it's slowly but surley got more and more polished and poppy until now they don't even sound like the same band.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you two knew which bands meant everything with their music. Against Me! got a lot of press off their newest album. That doesn't mean they're any less of musicians, though. They're playing what they want to play.

MadassAlex
02-01-2008, 09:54 PM
Untrue. The "scenesters" have adopted metal and the metal scene is really striving compared to the past. There are more people listening to both metal and prog rock than ever. The Mars Volta were on MTV the other day for ****s sake.

Oh, please. The Mars Volta are a terrible example of progressive music, I'll be convinced of your point when Atheist appears on MTV. And for the record, the way scenesters have adopted metal is called "metalcore" and it leaves out many of the most loved aspects of metal - like coherent solos, singing that is either high and melodic or low and rhythmic, bass lines that are independent of the guitar riff and actually being heavy.


I hate to burst your bubble, but I never said anything about popularity. Catchy hooks DO make good songs. When you think of said Black Sabbath song, the parts you think of are the parts that CATCH you. Nobody is immune to hooks. It's what makes music as its been for the past 100 years. I'm sorry that you're stubborn and think your musical tastes surpass that of everybody else, but just because you wish you could relive your own renaissance, doesn't mean that said music is greater than today's music. Unfortunately, the lead singer from Fall Out Boy (listed because everybody exemplifies them) is a very talented, and "melodic", as you stated, vocalist. He has a unique voice, great range, and millions of people would agree with that statement. That said, I'm not a personal fan of his voice, but people on here are lame.

I agree that the singer has skill as a vocalist, it's just a shame that his artistry doesn't extent beyond pleasing the ears of teen girls who don't actually give two ****s about music.
For the record, songs are difficult to define because over the years they've been expressed in different ways. Paganini, for example, would rarely revisit the same musical phrase twice in preciseness and that carries on to those influenced by him, like Jason Becker and Marty Friedman. Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath, unlike contemporary popular bands, uses rhythmic "hooks" as opposed to melodic ones in his riffs (and that's true for most metal) and even then he alters the note choice in a very subtle fashion so it's never quite the same, even in simple songs like "Paranoid".
And hey, I'm not saying that having hooks and repeated phrases is bad at all, I just think that claiming that they're the only way to have a good song is idiotic and (here's my point)...

Music can be so much more than this.



You'll never write a song that millions of people will love because you're not a good enough songwriter. Not because nobody else likes it. Bands that play melodic, technical music become huge all the time. Just like all of the bands you enjoy, millions of others do, as well. Quit bitching. The reason you're not in a huge band and signed isn't because the world is backwards, it's because you're backwards.

Hey, I'm not bitching, I just know how it is. You seem to be ignorant of the huge amount of underground bands that play music just as good or even better than any other band. There's great, talented musicians all over the world in huge numbers, and judging people because they're not writing songs that appeal to the masses is incredibly stupid.
The general public don't care about music. They think Led Zeppelin is great because every person who actually has an involvement in rock music says so. Same for all those other old bands that people worship, but what they actually like is contemporary pop-rock like Fallout Boy and MCR. And they can like whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that there aren't brilliant musicians out there who aren't making money from their music simply because their music isn't a safe business venture. But hell, Zeppelin and Sabbath weren't safe, either.
If you can be bothered, search MySpace for bands like Unmoored, Nekrogoblikon, Mirthkon, Behold The Arctopus, Crackdust and Transcending Bizarre. All unique, highly-skilled and powerful bands that aren't popular because, when it comes down to it, people just don't like music that challenges them.
It's always been like that. In the early 1900s, the general public hated the blues because they thought it was vile and unmusical - exactly how people perceive extreme metal now. Then people hated rockabilly, and rock and roll, and hard rock and metal. It's not about how good the music is, it's about how accessible it is.
And as far as my opinion is concerned, over-accessible bands do nothing for the progression of music, their genres or even themselves. Look, if I were in Fallout Boy and making millions off mediocre music, then I'd just keep going because it's goddamned logical and understandable, but I certainly wouldn't want people sticking up for my music because even they would admit that they're undeserving of their recognition. Hell, they even publicly admit that they were all in metal bands but decided to form Fallout Boy just to get popular.

In short, the modern equivalent of "boy bands" are sh*t because unlike popular bands of previous generations they're holding music back rather than allowing for progression.
In short, the general public can't decide what bands are good because they don't know **** and just follow the opinions of others anyway.
In short, music can be expressed in thousands of ways and claiming that there are certain, absolute standards is absolutely stupid because different people like different music.

To conclude, I'd like to say that the people with "superior" taste are those who have defined their music taste after exploring other options and have thought about and put words to justify said taste in music. I don't care if someone likes MCR as long as they actually know what else is out there.