#1
I don't want to create too much controversy here, however it has got to be said that modern rock is lacking something that 60s, 70s and 80s rock had.

I mean, the standard of musicianship in modern rock is a LOT LOWER than in the past. Guitarists can't play as well, there are no master/virtuoso guitarists in modern rock, very few can really make their guitar sing and very few can tear up the fretboard and do decent solos. They are not what you'd call 'guitar heroes'.

Most modern rock bands have very basic guitar work, stuff that a beginner could learn within a year to be honest. Oasis, Nirvana, Foo Fighters etc is all very basic stuff that any old Joe could learn.

And it seems like vocalists in modern rock can't sing as good as classic rock singers. And the drummers use smaller kits and play more simply.

Who are the better guitarists: Brian May/Gary Moore/Joe Satriani/Eddie Van Halen.....OR Dave Grohl/Noal Gallagher etc? No contest, the first category!

Who are the better singers: Ian Gillan, Freddie Mercury, etc etc....or some whiny new band? No contest, the first category!

And singers and musicians used to go onstage and be larger than life. Nowadays many bands just stand there looking bored, like they're doing a sound-check or something.

Sorry for the rant, but I find a lot of so-called 'modern rock' hard to stomach. The musicianship and showmanship just isn't there these days.

Music is supposed to EVOLVE, but from what I see, guitar work now is much more basic and simple than it was in the 60s, 70s and 80s. So much for progress!?

Give me the 60s, 70s and 80s over the modern rock stuff any day.
#2
Not everybody looks at music in terms of guitar mastery.
Founder Of The "Jimmy Page Stole All Of My Potential Riffs" Club PM To Join!.

Quote by CoreysMonster
Meh, I usually just buy them off the local shaman, unless I'm in the wilderness, where I rely on raw meat to raise my HP.
#3
Dude that's why you need to listen to Metal. Metal has only grown in musicianship and talent from the start. The vocal portion has become a lot different of course, but there are still some metal bands with "singers" that hit some awesome notes. You just have to know how to find them. I understand what you are saying, but maybe its time to move on to metal. I know i'm glad i did.
#5
modern rock isn't bad. a lot of modern mainstream bands just aren't very good musicians. dig a little deeper and you'll find that now more than ever there are so many different diverse types of bands being signed that its next to impossible to validate your rant.

secondly, a lot of kids now do not want to hear that stuff you described. they want more simplistic, stripped down music they can sing along to and dance to. they want catchy songs that dont last too long (under 3 minutes) and want to be able to play along if they so choose. there are many like me however (i'm 19 in case you're wondering) that do dig a little deeper to find the less known bands that still have that "something" that you're describing.
#6
Just because they play simple stuff, doesn't mean the songs are bad. I prefer modern music because its often more about the whole band rather than just a guitarist soloing over basically a backing track.
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny.
(")_(")


I met this chick in a bar in Sao Palo. She was drop dead gorgeous. Soft spoken, intelligent, willing.
Ya he was a let down alright.

i ROFLed
#7
I think it's probably just a musical phase. Blues inspired rock from the 50s and 60s was also very simple and without much showmanship (with the exception of chuck berry). Then artists progressed musically and on-stage improvisation and solos became more common. Then there was an era of keyboards and then grunge. We are just experiencing a shift from grunge to alternative rock at this moment in rock history. The alternative scene will soon die out and hopefully the next generation of guitarists will find something fresh to pursue musically.

There are some bands that are trying to throw back to the old school stuff, like Wolfmother, but others are just sticking to what sells. Like the previous comment stated, metal is where you find the guitar work. There are many great metal bands breaking onto the scene with amazing guitar chops, but they don't get much airplay. Metal isn't really my thing, but there are still good musicians, they just need to be discovered.

Edit: Oh yeah and listen to Muse as well.
Whether I am a hungry rabbit or a frightened carrot, my home is the same.
Last edited by dontstopblevin at Jul 15, 2010,
#8
Who gives a flying fuck? If it sounds better it is better. Period. And I think modern rock sounds a lot better than those other bands you mentioned. You stick to your opinions, I'll stick to mine.
#9


Learn something about music and then see if you'll post this thread. Just because Pearl Jam or RHCP don't play their guitars with their dicks doesn't make the musicianship is sub par.
Quote by cakeandpiemofo
Of course I don't wanna go in the woods. There's bears in there.


Quote by Deliriumbassist
Jeff Ament is a sexy sexy beast.



Quote by Karvid
Yes. Chest hair = automatic awesome. Even if you're a woman.
#10
You're basing this arguement on guitar work and singing alone. Songwriting is different than it was 30 years ago. Also things would be very dull if everyone repeated the 60's 70's and 80's and there would be no evolution which you seem to desire so much. It's all personal opinion. Your opinion is a song needs technical skill to be good. In my opinion a very simple song can be just as good, if not better, than a song that has technical gutar work
last.fm
Quote by rockhard182
*opens happytimeharrys head* *finds nothing*

what a ripoff

Member #18 of the "Claudio Sanchez is God" Club. PM stepco12345 to join!
#11
Quote by slaptasticdave


Learn something about music and then see if you'll post this thread. Just because Pearl Jam or RHCP don't play their guitars with their dicks doesn't make the musicianship is sub par.


I don't think those are the bands he is talking about. Eddie vedder has huge vocals and they have a great guitaist. And no one can deny the musicality of RHCP. I think he's refering to bands like nickelback, shinedown, saving Abel, very bland sounding bands.
Whether I am a hungry rabbit or a frightened carrot, my home is the same.
#12
Quote by dontstopblevin
I don't think those are the bands he is talking about. Eddie vedder has huge vocals and they have a great guitaist. And no one can deny the musicality of RHCP. I think he's refering to bands like nickelback, shinedown, saving Abel, very bland sounding bands.


Well if that's what he's referring to bands like that will always exist. That's what Foreinger and all the VH soundalikes were back in the 70s and 80s.
Quote by cakeandpiemofo
Of course I don't wanna go in the woods. There's bears in there.


Quote by Deliriumbassist
Jeff Ament is a sexy sexy beast.



Quote by Karvid
Yes. Chest hair = automatic awesome. Even if you're a woman.
#13
Quote by guitar_rules311
You're basing this arguement on guitar work and singing alone. Songwriting is different than it was 30 years ago. Also things would be very dull if everyone repeated the 60's 70's and 80's and there would be no evolution which you seem to desire so much.


I didn't say everyone should repeat what was done in the 60s, 70s and 80s, what I said was music should've evolved with time....I mean music evolved from the 50s to the late 80s, then BANG in the early 90s guitar music and rock took a huge step BACKWARDS....i.e. with grunge the guitar playing suddenly went really simple instead of evolving, and with 90s indie/britpop all the bands were poor guitarists etc and they all just emulated the 60s.

So how can you music has evolved when clearly in the early 90s and beyond it took such a step backwards?

If rock music kept on evolving, then musicians would be amazing now but most mainstream ones just aren't.

Quote by guitar_rules311
It's all personal opinion. Your opinion is a song needs technical skill to be good. In my opinion a very simple song can be just as good, if not better, than a song that has technical gutar work


I think a song can be great whether it's simple or complex....HOWEVER, most modern rock bands make their songs simple because they don't have the musical ability to be anything other than simple. Whereas a master musician can be simple when required, and complex when required.

Modern rock guitar music has simpler solos because the guitarists CAN'T do decent solos, not because it's 'what's needed'.
#14
I don't agree with that other than for current mainstream being shit opposed to the old good mainstream.
#15
I don't think you're getting the definition of subjectivity here.

Quote by GuitarManNeil

Modern rock guitar music has simpler solos because the guitarists CAN'T do decent solos, not because it's 'what's needed'.
Who. Cares. People like it, so let them.

Lots of classic rock is really simple and easy to play as well. Just fyi.
Last edited by guitarhero_764 at Jul 15, 2010,
#16
Quote by GuitarManNeil
I didn't say everyone should repeat what was done in the 60s, 70s and 80s, what I said was music should've evolved with time....I mean music evolved from the 50s to the late 80s, then BANG in the early 90s guitar music and rock took a huge step BACKWARDS....i.e. with grunge the guitar playing suddenly went really simple instead of evolving, and with 90s indie/britpop all the bands were poor guitarists etc and they all just emulated the 60s.

So how can you music has evolved when clearly in the early 90s and beyond it took such a step backwards?

If rock music kept on evolving, then musicians would be amazing now but most mainstream ones just aren't.


I think a song can be great whether it's simple or complex....HOWEVER, most modern rock bands make their songs simple because they don't have the musical ability to be anything other than simple. Whereas a master musician can be simple when required, and complex when required.

Modern rock guitar music has simpler solos because the guitarists CAN'T do decent solos, not because it's 'what's needed'.


Thats exactly how I feel.
-JBSwreckfest
#18
Quote by GuitarManNeil
I think a song can be great whether it's simple or complex....HOWEVER, most modern rock bands make their songs simple because they don't have the musical ability to be anything other than simple. Whereas a master musician can be simple when required, and complex when required.

Modern rock guitar music has simpler solos because the guitarists CAN'T do decent solos, not because it's 'what's needed'.


I've always wondered how people know this sort of stuff
#19
Quote by GuitarManNeil
I didn't say everyone should repeat what was done in the 60s, 70s and 80s, what I said was music should've evolved with time....I mean music evolved from the 50s to the late 80s, then BANG in the early 90s guitar music and rock took a huge step BACKWARDS....i.e. with grunge the guitar playing suddenly went really simple instead of evolving, and with 90s indie/britpop all the bands were poor guitarists etc and they all just emulated the 60s.

Who ever said simplicity is a step backwards? Just because the bands don't jerk off every other 5 seconds doesn't mean they are bad. Trust me, you will get bored shitless listening to a guitarist wang off for 5 minutes. Also, have you been living under a rock (pun completely intended)? Sure you have mainstream, easy going bands. Their mainstream, that's why they don't wang off. But have you listened to bands like Tool, Rishloo, The Fall of Troy, Incubus, Kyuss, The Mars Volta and come on, Chickenfoot?! I mean if you can go ahead and claim there is no complexity in Modern Rock, wake up. There is more to a song than just vocals and guitar, and that is coming from a guitarist. You have bass and drums. And you have song writing. Just because they don't show off on guitar doesn't mean they are bad, just means that isn't their style. I know if I tried hard enough I could do some shred stuff (not claiming I can now), but I will never really do that, because I think its a bit ridiculous.


I think a song can be great whether it's simple or complex....HOWEVER, most modern rock bands make their songs simple because they don't have the musical ability to be anything other than simple. Whereas a master musician can be simple when required, and complex when required.

Modern rock guitar music has simpler solos because the guitarists CAN'T do decent solos, not because it's 'what's needed'.

Give me cold hard evidence that states any guitarist or singer (or bassist or drummer for that matter) can't do something you think they can't. Until you can prove that, 100% factually, your opinion is completely baseless, immature and foolish. I'll even prove to you right now that a certain modern guitarist is more than you think. Take Tom Morello, for example. He is one of my favorite guitarists. People claim he relies too much on effects and is really bad. I then point out his early 80's band, Lock Up, and then show them the solos he did there. He actually shreds in that band, and well too. So the question remains, if you are going to judge a person JUST on what you see, will you get the whole picture? And the obvious answer to that is: no. You need to actually be that person to truly know his or her capabilities.

So your opinion, is pretty much baseless. Not that I think you are wrong to have it, other than the fact that you are wrong, until you give me cold hard proof. (And that is pretty much you sitting in their bushes when they practice for the day, recording it, and doing this every day for a long time.)
Gear:
ZT Lunchbox Amp
Schecter C-1+ Diamond Series
Dunlop Cry Baby Wah
Boss DD-7 Digital Delay
Digitech Whammy
EHX Big Muff Pi w/ Tone Wicker
EHX Pocket Metal Muff
EHX Small Stone
EHX Memory Toy
EHX Holy Grail
Boss RC-20XL Loop Station
#20
Quote by GuitarManNeil
I didn't say everyone should repeat what was done in the 60s, 70s and 80s, what I said was music should've evolved with time....I mean music evolved from the 50s to the late 80s, then BANG in the early 90s guitar music and rock took a huge step BACKWARDS....i.e. with grunge the guitar playing suddenly went really simple instead of evolving, and with 90s indie/britpop all the bands were poor guitarists etc and they all just emulated the 60s.

So how can you music has evolved when clearly in the early 90s and beyond it took such a step backwards?

If rock music kept on evolving, then musicians would be amazing now but most mainstream ones just aren't.


I think a song can be great whether it's simple or complex....HOWEVER, most modern rock bands make their songs simple because they don't have the musical ability to be anything other than simple. Whereas a master musician can be simple when required, and complex when required.

Modern rock guitar music has simpler solos because the guitarists CAN'T do decent solos, not because it's 'what's needed'.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. Everyone makes the claim that grunge killed guitar solos, but it's just not true. Mike McCready, Chris Cornell/Kim Thayil, Jerry Cantrell, etc.. They all used guitar solos. All the Seattle bands did, even Nirvana though they were more simple. I don't see how one could think Soundgarden was a step backwards. All grunge did was add guitar solos to punk rock. Look at Siamese Dream by the Smashing Pumpkins. Soma alone had forty guitar tracks on it.

Secondly, for more modern rock music.. Coheed, Wolfmother, The Mars Volta, Muse, Portugal. The Man, Hella, Radiohead, The Flaming Lips.. Granted, I don't like some of these bands, but they all are very good with their instruments, and with their vocals (Minus Hella.) You're wrong.

I can play very well on my guitar when I want to. That doesn't mean that all my songs will feature guitar solos, or super complex music. Because maybe my target audience doesn't want to hear me jack my guitar off no matter how good I am.
Quote by vintage x metal
I love you =] I can't say I was very fond of you when we first started talking because you trolled the hell out of my threads, but after talking to you here I've grown very attached to you.

Yeah, write to my fanclub about it, honey.
Last edited by Jack Off Jill at Jul 15, 2010,
#22
Quote by Jack Off Jill
I really don't think you know what you're talking about. Everyone makes the claim that grunge killed guitar solos, but it's just not true. Mike McCready, Chris Cornell/Kim Thayil, Jerry Cantrell, etc.. They all used guitar solos. All the Seattle bands did, even Nirvana though they were more simple. I don't see how one could think Soundgarden was a step backwards. All grunge did was add guitar solos to punk rock. Look at Siamese Dream by the Smashing Pumpkins. Soma alone had forty guitar tracks on it.

Secondly, for more modern rock music.. Coheed, Wolfmother, The Mars Volta, Muse, Portugal. The Man, Hella, Radiohead, The Flaming Lips.. Granted, I don't like some of these bands, but they all are very good with their instruments, and with their vocals (Minus Hella.) You're wrong.

I can play very well on my guitar when I want to. That doesn't mean that all my songs will feature guitar solos, or super complex music. Because maybe my target audience doesn't want to hear me jack my guitar off no matter how good I am.

i completely agree with you. grunge did not kill anything. solos are still there, but who said a solo has to be done with single notes, or even on a guitar. a vocal solo impresses me more than a guitar solo. when a guitarist is can set an atmosphere/mood/vibe for a song though playing (especially if done through chords which a lot of modern bands choose to do) it gives more feeling than a guitar solo. even if you look around at some mainstream bands, you'd be surprised at what they're actually playing and the influences that come though. maroon 5 is very funk based. stabilo takes folk, rock, country and funk. older stuff by our lady peace is very unique sounding, simplistic and undeniably something special (gravity album and earlier). then take a look at john mayer. listen to his live stuff on youtube (link below) and tell me this guy doesn't impress you. all mainstream bands that are damn good musicians.

also, i would have to agree that certain audiences dont want to hear technicality (as i stated previously). most people now are sick of the solos and technicality. ones that are musically inclined like to be taken away and have an atmosphere or mood set. i've always stayed around and talked to people at my various bands' shows. i would say a good 95% of them preferred the simpler solos that set a mood over the complex ones (aka, shred or VH style or whatever). [also keep in mind i have had 4 bands and played around 350-400 shows since i started playing with genres in hard rock/metal, pop, rock, and an alternative style completely unique to me]. most just dont want that. they prefer to feel something when you're done playing than to see you play a million notes or something hard.

links to john mayer (actually listen to these all the way through):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32GZ3suxRn4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32GZ3suxRn4
Last edited by User_Name336 at Jul 16, 2010,
#23
Quote by GuitarManNeil


Who are the better guitarists: Brian May/Gary Moore/Joe Satriani/Eddie Van Halen.....OR Dave Grohl/Noal Gallagher etc? No contest, the first category!



dave grohl is both a drummer and singer before guitarist so why are you comparing him to eddie van halen and brian may..btw you need to broaden your horizons and listen to some non-mainstream modern rock
#24
Quote by ##_Guitar-newb
Not everybody looks at music in terms of guitar mastery.


Thank you newb!

It's not about the skill or technique involved in the music- it's what you hear. It what the music makes you feel and what it conveys for the listener.

And you listed Oasis & Nirvana? They suck to begin with!

There are alot of great bands (mainstream and not). You just have to go to shows and search for them. Have some faith that there's still creative bands, music and musicians out there because there are!

I know you didn't want to stir the pot with this thread, but you did. I'm not going to say I take offense to what you're saying but my band is fairly new and we're really excited about the music we're playing. And hey, we're modern musicians (all under 30 yrs old). Sorry we can't be the next jimi or page!
#25
Quote by 1950s esteemed gentleman
I don't want to create too much controversy here, however it has got to be said that modern music is lacking something that 20s, 30s and 40s music had.

Do you see why your argument is invalid? If anything rock in particular is better now because it is more mature.
Inhuman evil take down!
#27
I am too tired to read through all of the posts to see if it has been said but the reason you think that period was more talented is because all of the bands you have listed are the ones that stood the test of time. Of course they are going to be good, whereas now, you see all of the shit stuff because it is in your face but in 20/30/40 years people won't be remembering them.

Also, if you want to compare this generation's guitarists why don't you pick some with some chops like John Frusciante, Mike Einziger, Matt Bellamy or John Mayer. And if you wan't to talk singers maybe compare the likes of Brandon Boyd and Maynard James Keenan.... If you didn't want to be controversial you shouldn't have posted such a bias article.
#28
*reported* for utter redundancy.

Music. is. subjective.
Get over it.
If I took this cigarette and put it out on you...


...would you love me?
#29
Guitar solos are almost as gay as WBAT.
Quote by ChemicalFire
The point of underground bands is their not popular or famous most of the time. Thus there is a good chance they suck.
#31
*Reported* for musical ignorance.
Some people just don't get it...
Quote by stevenpollock
You can't be successful in Jazz music until you're at least 40. You don't have anything to say.