todays rock is s****


PDA

View Full Version : todays rock is s****


voodoochile91
01-04-2008, 04:51 PM
:devil: bands today r way to commercialised and dont have half the talent of those in the past, surely someone will agree on that cause its true....today its all about money and how good their hair looks instead of the true meanin of rock :devil:

jakekilgore666
01-04-2008, 04:56 PM
mainstream music is always about clothes and appearances. rock isnt dead. listen to high on fire

whosamerica
01-04-2008, 04:57 PM
no way dude... sorry but your wrong. rock has been and always will be about image and getting famous.

RatmN'Roses
01-04-2008, 04:58 PM
it doesnt matter what the bands are after whether its money or fame or bull**** , as long as people are enjoying their music thats what matters

100Roy001
01-04-2008, 04:58 PM
no way dude... sorry but your wrong. rock has been and always will be about image and getting famous.

That may be, but you can't compare Green Day and Fall Out Boy to Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin...

FOCOrock
01-04-2008, 04:59 PM
Most modern songs are missing key elements like good singing, solos, and talent.

teamzaius
01-04-2008, 05:00 PM
That may be, but you can't compare Green Day and Fall Out Boy to Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin...

No you can't but you also can't pick the best representations of an era and compare them with the worst representations of another era.

FOCOrock
01-04-2008, 05:01 PM
Who's the best representation of this era?

fluffylump2
01-04-2008, 05:01 PM
commercial music was **** "in the past" as well. if you listen to the right stuff you might realize that music, especially rock, is as diverse and well-done as ever.

and to the post above, jimi hendrix and led zeppelin are WAY overrated. there are bands twice as good, if not as historically important or written-up, as those two artists. open your ears.

What do you mean by "good singing?" Solos? I would rather listen to a well-constructed song with no solo than listen to Jimi Hendrix or Jimmy Page wank away for three minutes. What's talent? Technical virtuosity or song-writing ability?

There is amazing music out right now. go find it. don't listen to the radio or watch MTV if you're looking for quality music.

ddrocksv3_4xpk
01-04-2008, 05:02 PM
well if the old bands were about the "true meaning of rock" pray tell
what is this 'true meaning'
because i hardly think the driving force behing 60 or so years worth of music is a single attainable meaning

Doodleface
01-04-2008, 05:03 PM
Hey cool, it's another 16 year old guitar player who thinks today's music suck, go and talk to the other 500,000 people with the exact same opinion.

In all honesty I think rocks fine. Bands today have just as much talent as most of the bands from way back when. Most bands back then were the same as today, nothing but chords and a mediocre guitar solo. The problem is that the bands that we let represent a certain time period (for example most people see Led Zeppelin as the sound of the early 70s). This means that the best and most talented bands are the ones we remember. In 30 years from now, I'll bet we will remember 5 or 6 bands top from the '00's' as really good.

whosamerica
01-04-2008, 05:03 PM
That may be, but you can't compare Green Day and Fall Out Boy to Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin...


well its simple enough that im not a fan of greenday or fall out boy. but at the same time im not a fan of led zeppln or hendricks. but im definately more into a lyrical performance. and i can much better relate to a song like minority from greenday than to a song like black dog from zep.

Maet
01-04-2008, 05:03 PM
People, people... you're all just... wrong.

FOCOrock
01-04-2008, 05:04 PM
well if the old bands were about the "true meaning of rock" pray tell
what is this 'true meaning'
because i hardly think the driving force behing 60 or so years worth of music is a single attainable meaning

That's true, but I think that any band that calls themselves a rock band should have a pretty fair amount of talent. Many of today's bands haven't enough talent to read a book.

monkey_dancer
01-04-2008, 05:04 PM
If you don't listen to anything beyond what you hear on the radio or see on TV, then of course you get popular, commercial music. If you actually tried to find good music, you would find plenty, unless you're ridiculously close-minded about what you listen to, which (to the TS, but also others of you), to be honest, is how you appear from that post.

EDIT: That's true, but I think that any band that calls themselves a rock band should have a pretty fair amount of talent. Many of today's bands haven't enough talent to read a book.

And you think the TS could read an entire book?


With no pictures?

catalyst329
01-04-2008, 05:06 PM
theres still music today that kicks just as much ass u just gotta find it

ddrocksv3_4xpk
01-04-2008, 05:08 PM
*That's true, but I think that any band that calls themselves a rock band should have a pretty fair amount of talent. Many of today's bands haven't enough talent to read a book*

i totally agree, but as doddleface said, when we think 'classic rock' we think of 5 or 6 bands from about 10 to 25 years
MOST of todays bands are poor, but im sure MOST of the bands back then were
and in 45 years time, there will undoubtedly be at least 5 or 6 bands from 2000 onwards that will be seen to be on a par with Led zepplin and Jimi, its just, the ones we are shown all the time on the TV arent neccesarily the leading bands, or the best bands at all
im sure there are bands who are jsut as good as led Zepplin, but they are being forced to play grotty pubs and bars because bands like fall out boy get the limelight

FOCOrock
01-04-2008, 05:10 PM
*That's true, but I think that any band that calls themselves a rock band should have a pretty fair amount of talent. Many of today's bands haven't enough talent to read a book*

i totally agree, but as doddleface said, when we think 'classic rock' we think of 5 or 6 bands from about 10 to 25 years
MOST of todays bands are poor, but im sure MOST of the bands back then were
and in 45 years time, there will undoubtedly be at least 5 or 6 bands from 2000 onwards that will be seen to be on a par with Led zepplin and Jimi, its just, the ones we are shown all the time on the TV arent neccesarily the leading bands, or the best bands at all
im sure there are bands who are jsut as good as led Zepplin, but they are being forced to play grotty pubs and bars because bands like fall out boy get the limelight

Mm. Agreed.

whosamerica
01-04-2008, 05:13 PM
theres still music today that kicks just as much ass u just gotta find it
refering to this and all the other comments... im beginning to thing people are all biased to the "fact" that all mainstream music is crappy sellout bull****. which isn't true at all. sometimes you have to accept the fact that just because music is on the radio it does NOT automatically make it crap. i remember back in the late 90s when all that was on the radio was blink. terrible musicians(minus barker), okay singers, very basic lyrics. but they were massively publicized. and they rocked. anyone who says otherwise can blow a goat.

Twist of fate
01-04-2008, 05:48 PM
:devil: bands today r way to commercialised and dont have half the talent of those in the past, surely someone will agree on that cause its true....today its all about money and how good their hair looks instead of the true meanin of rock :devil:
Yeah, that's all you can say. "cause it's true". Do you know it's called when you think that today's rock music is better and all you can say to try to prove it is "cause it is" ?

An

Opinion

BrainDamage
01-04-2008, 06:37 PM
^^:golfclap:

***CLOSED***

:rolleyes: