#1
I'm looking at Guns N Roses, thinking "were they the last classic Hard Rock band?" They sounded different and ahead of the game, by being a mainstream band that injected raw credibility with groovable rhythms and loud guitars.

However, Queens of the Stone Age seem to be the last classic Hard Rock group. Their attitude was raw, while still providing groovy rock with loud guitars. Again, didn't sound like any other hard rock group, and was forward thinking.


So I'm trying to innovate in Hard Rock again, and after a night of research, I came up with this:

Thick, fuzzy/warm guitars, with dance-punk rhythms and a relatable attitude and message. In other words, it'll rock hard and have balls to it, but the rhythms will be groove centered with an upbeat, high tempo.

the reason why we haven't had a classic hard rock band since queens of the stone age, is because no new hard rock band since them created a new groove, it's all been retread. My new idea for Hard Rock would be LCD Soundystem meets Queens of the Stone Age, but with traditional choruses and what have you in the vein of GnR

I need your input bros. Really, all I'm missing is how the lead singer will sound like. What in part separated GnR and QotSA from their peers were their distinctive singers, and their singing.
#2
Maybe you should focus on writing music instead of writing band-theory posts?

If you have an idea, write it, and post it.
#3
To reiterate:

There's been plenty of hard rock bands in the past decade, but nearly all of them aren't memorable because it's same ol' same ol' with a few variations here and there.

Why not take the balls of queens of the stone age, but apply it to a new groove that hasn't been explored in hard rock yet, with GnR style songwriting, choruses, etc

But yeah...Trying to find what the singer would sound like would be an entirely new challenge
#5
I think that might be the problem- on the one hand you're wondering why there's no good hard rock any more yet on the other you're saying what hard rock there's been has mostly been too derivative. it's kind of a catch 22, if it's too derivative you don't like it, if it's not derivative enough it's arguably not hard rock any more (of the type you're talking about).

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate, I agree with you (except I don't like QOTSA) and would love to see some more hard rock of the older type. Yet even I admit when I see a band like Airbourne that maybe shameless derivitivityness (it's a word, look it up ) is maybe a bad thing...
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#6
I'm happy to see that someones actually trying to experiment to come up with different sounds. Honestly i'm so tired of hearing the same shit over, and over again! Am I the only one that feels this way? That's why now a days the guitar is so boring and bland because people are doing the same shit that others have done in the past..
#7
It used to be that effects and things like that were cool and mainstream....don't hear as much of that stuff as back in the day...people have poo poo'd effect pedals, call everything over processed (subjective definition) and have relegated synthesizers to pop and indie.

GNR played bluesy rock music. They were not ahead of the game, you already mentioned they were, in your opinion, the last classic hard rock band.

Is it different because that is the song you are hearing in your head or because you think people want classic rock with fuzzy guitars and dance/punk rhythms?
#8
Quote by Black_devils
I'm happy to see that someones actually trying to experiment to come up with different sounds. Am I the only one that feels this way?..

Well said, i'm behind ya on that one!

@TS: I like both bands in their own rights... to a degree...
but imo I don't think Josh Homme's voice even comes close to Axel's on a regular basis.

Not to say Josh ain't awesome in his own field... to me his vocal is all smooth and somewhat subdued like, compared to Axel's harsh shrill,

and so for fury... i'd have to go with the latter... most days...
#10
I like your idea and find your goal admirable. However I think you're not getting experimental enough. For example I'm going for a sound that's like gothic, circus, Pirate heavy Metal (what would you even call that, LOL) and believe it's possible to achieve. What I'm saying is mix in some more influences into your "innovation" and see how people react.

Overall Rock On and have a nice day.
"I don't know what you're trying to suggest. There's no shame in taking what you need to hold your position!"

Super Buu (DBZ) on assimilation (it could also apply to blues guitar and guitar soloing in general).
#11
Quote by Dave_Mc
I think that might be the problem- on the one hand you're wondering why there's no good hard rock any more yet on the other you're saying what hard rock there's been has mostly been too derivative. it's kind of a catch 22, if it's too derivative you don't like it, if it's not derivative enough it's arguably not hard rock any more (of the type you're talking about).

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate, I agree with you (except I don't like QOTSA) and would love to see some more hard rock of the older type. Yet even I admit when I see a band like Airbourne that maybe shameless derivitivityness (it's a word, look it up ) is maybe a bad thing...



well you're definitely right in changing the formally too much and it'll cease to be Hard Rock, which is why QuoSA is just hanging on the edge of Hard Rock.

But that's what I mean:

My idea will be 21st century indie dance punk in regards to its grooves, but it'll be hard rocking, with singable choruses and all of that, to give it familiarity.

even though I consider QuoSA to be the last great Hard Rock band, they did veer off into their own thing at times..Which is fantastic and I love it, but to have that familiar sense of Hard Rock singable songs, that'd have to go.

You know what I mean?

Take 21st century indie but apply it to Hard Rock, giving you potential to sell arenas while being critically acclaimed
#12
Quote by Black_devils
I'm happy to see that someones actually trying to experiment to come up with different sounds. Honestly i'm so tired of hearing the same shit over, and over again! Am I the only one that feels this way? That's why now a days the guitar is so boring and bland because people are doing the same shit that others have done in the past..



yeah, that's exactly it.

It's what people were thinking before Appetite for Destruction came out, in regards to Hard Rock.

There were plenty of amazing alternative rock and metal bands in the 80s that were amazing, but Hard Rock was just pure banal, knuckle dragging garbage until Guns N Roses came along. They didn't change the formula too much, just added creativity into the genre again.


Queens of the Stone Age largely did the same thing.

Both GnR and in the 2000s queens of the stone age were miles ahead of their hard rocker peers, when both bands were at their peak.


So with my idea, it'd be changing the groove of hard rock bit again, while still being sing-a-long hard rock. So, you'd play arenas while being critically acclaimed.


But again, trying to find a singer to give it the attitude you want would be an entirely different undertaking. The singers both made GnR and QotSA
#13
Quote by tonibet72
Well said, i'm behind ya on that one!

@TS: I like both bands in their own rights... to a degree...
but imo I don't think Josh Homme's voice even comes close to Axel's on a regular basis.

Not to say Josh ain't awesome in his own field... to me his vocal is all smooth and somewhat subdued like, compared to Axel's harsh shrill,

I think Axl was also a superior lyricist. They are not even in the same league really. Homme's lyrics are pretty average (they look exactly like something that would have come out of my lyrics book from when I was 15). They are disjointed and lack cohesion. There are some cool lines here and there but it's like the lyrical equivalent of getting a handful of licks that sound good on their own and throwing them together to make a solo. Axl could articulate his thoughts much more clearly.

EDIT:
just want to say...
Rage Against the Machine
Si
#15
TS, if you want to write this kind of music, write it! But when I write music, I write music. I don't think "now I'm going to write a jazz song with a 70s style disco rhythm, thrash metal breakdown and a classical kind of melody". It just doesn't work that way. I'm sure GNR just wrote music they liked and it got big. So just write music you like. Don't think too technically.

Subgenres/genres/styles are not born like this (other than maybe in mainstream pop). They are usually born very naturally. For example Black Sabbath started playing bluesy music but they just made it a bit heavier (and it happened naturally) - heavy metal was born. Metallica (and some other bands) started playing classic metal songs but a bit faster and faster all the time - speed/thrash metal was born. There are just a lot of people that like similar kind of stuff and listen to similar bands (and each other) and just write music. Genres are born naturally.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#16
Quote by Climaxia

There were plenty of amazing alternative rock and metal bands in the 80s that were amazing, but Hard Rock was just pure banal, knuckle dragging garbage until Guns N Roses came along. They didn't change the formula too much, just added creativity into the genre again.


I disagree. I mean I love GnR and I'd be the first to admit that they were one of the best, but that doesn't mean everyone else sucked. I'm a total 80s rock/metal fanboy, but still.

Quote by Climaxia

You know what I mean?

Take 21st century indie but apply it to Hard Rock, giving you potential to sell arenas while being critically acclaimed


yep. it might be easier said than done, though.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#17
Quote by MaggaraMarine
TS, if you want to write this kind of music, write it! But when I write music, I write music. I don't think "now I'm going to write a jazz song with a 70s style disco rhythm, thrash metal breakdown and a classical kind of melody". It just doesn't work that way. I'm sure GNR just wrote music they liked and it got big. So just write music you like. Don't think too technically.

Subgenres/genres/styles are not born like this (other than maybe in mainstream pop). They are usually born very naturally. For example Black Sabbath started playing bluesy music but they just made it a bit heavier (and it happened naturally) - heavy metal was born. Metallica (and some other bands) started playing classic metal songs but a bit faster and faster all the time - speed/thrash metal was born. There are just a lot of people that like similar kind of stuff and listen to similar bands (and each other) and just write music. Genres are born naturally.



Both Sgt. Pepper and Kid A were pre-planned.


Both are considered landmark albums
#19
Just to reiterate one final time (in a more concise manner)

The reason why we haven't had a classic hard rock band since queens of the stone age, is because no new hard rock band since them created a new groove, it's all been retread into familiar, generic territory

So I'm trying to innovate where QotSA left off, and after a night of research, I came up with this: Thick, fuzzy/warm guitars, with dance-punk rhythms and a relatable attitude and message. In other words, it'll rock hard and have balls to it, but the (dance-punk) groove-centered rhythms, and singable choruses and all of that, to give it familiarity.

It's proper 21st century Hard Rock: LCD Soundystem meets Queens of the Stone Age, but with traditional choruses and what have you in the vein of GnR. That's not say to say that bands haven't tried this (think Death From Above 1979 etc), but they didn't sound anything like what I'm thinking of, which is more singable and melodic, but with those modern grooves.
#20
Can you define, or better yet, notate this thing you call a "new groove"?

What I mean is share examples of what this looks like in rhythm notation, this way we can all appreciate what's new about it. For example, some unique syncopation? subdivision, accent? Not sure what made it "new" in your estimation.

What is an example in their melody also, that other's arent doing? It should be easy to take their melodies and such and therefore isolate them.

I know, because I did something along those lines about a year ago with a band called City and Colour, when I first heard them. Their writing and approach definitely caught my attention, and I was able to determine in a self study what they were doing and why it worked, and what made them sound different, by taking their writing, breaking it down, and analyzing it.

A lot of it turned out to be just a uniqueness and artistic gift of the singer, but I was able to appreciate why it worked as well, by looking at what sounded good, and understanding the music as a whole.

Best,

Sean
#21
Maybe QotSA are the last Hard Rock band because Hard Rock is "dead" and no longer culturally relevant. I don't think remaking it with a new groove or anything will change anything. The mainstream culture is into a different sound now; more atmospheric and electronic. If you want to remake hard rock than mix it with the electronic music that is big now; which is pretty much what me and my bandmates are trying to do.
Last edited by macashmack at Apr 10, 2014,
#22
Quote by Sean0913
Can you define, or better yet, notate this thing you call a "new groove"?

What I mean is share examples of what this looks like in rhythm notation, this way we can all appreciate what's new about it. For example, some unique syncopation? subdivision, accent? Not sure what made it "new" in your estimation.

What is an example in their melody also, that other's arent doing? It should be easy to take their melodies and such and therefore isolate them.

I know, because I did something along those lines about a year ago with a band called City and Colour, when I first heard them. Their writing and approach definitely caught my attention, and I was able to determine in a self study what they were doing and why it worked, and what made them sound different, by taking their writing, breaking it down, and analyzing it.

A lot of it turned out to be just a uniqueness and artistic gift of the singer, but I was able to appreciate why it worked as well, by looking at what sounded good, and understanding the music as a whole.

Best,

Sean


I'm not sure if just notating is all encompassing. Take queens of the stone age's 'go with the flow' for example. It's minimalistic on all bases if you just go by what is played,but it's the raw energy combined with the slurring almost hypnotic pace off how it's performed that makes it different.

I notice with queens for example, that they sometimes purposedly only downpick certain riffs, where Josh with groovier riffs would use an alternate strumming style.

Queens of the stone age did not just add groove, but very "trance" (not the Edm style) like playing with the suspense. I guess you could say almost gypsy like groove. That combined with adding little production guitar licks/riffs, but not polished but very fuzzed out and compressed.

Maybe check out Josh's old band Kyuss, and namely the "welcome to sky valley" album. It's imo one of the last raw non popular rock bands there was.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Apr 10, 2014,
#23
Friends, quit blasting the OP I personally enjoy this talk!

This is why I don't take too many lessons or do too many cover songs, I prefer to write my own music and play that way.

I'm watching The World's Greatest Tribute Bands right now on Axis TV, right now it's a Nirvana Tribute Band. The lead singer has the same hair, same clothes, same songs, same everything.

I feel ticked off, one the one hand these guys are talented enough to cover Nirvana songs on the dot, but they can't write their own music? WTF! What a failure of being true to yourself, I feel almost pissed off every time I see a tribute band because I just imagine what they COULD of wrote had they been true to their own ability.

In response to the OP, I feel music is all the cyclical right now Hip Hop and Katy Perry is the cool thing. Rock N' Roll has been on a downslide ever since Kurt Cobain blew his brains out all over the ceiling. Rock will come back again, right now I feel like Hip Hop is on it's way out.
#24
Quote by NewDayHappy
I feel ticked off, one the one hand these guys are talented enough to cover Nirvana songs on the dot, but they can't write their own music? WTF! What a failure of being true to yourself, I feel almost pissed off every time I see a tribute band because I just imagine what they COULD of wrote had they been true to their own ability.

Maybe that's not what they wanted to do at all though. Some bands aren't into original compositions.
#25
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Maybe that's not what they wanted to do at all though. Some bands aren't into original compositions.


But dude, had they continued on with their OWN music, rock wouldn't be so bad!
#26
Quote by NewDayHappy
I feel ticked off, one the one hand these guys are talented enough to cover Nirvana songs on the dot, but they can't write their own music? WTF! What a failure of being true to yourself, I feel almost pissed off every time I see a tribute band because I just imagine what they COULD of wrote had they been true to their own ability.

In response to the OP, I feel music is all the cyclical right now Hip Hop and Katy Perry is the cool thing. Rock N' Roll has been on a downslide ever since Kurt Cobain blew his brains out all over the ceiling. Rock will come back again, right now I feel like Hip Hop is on it's way out.


What makes you think that being competent on an instrument equals the ability to write good or popular songs? There are about 7 billion people in the world. A musician can do almost anything and find some group of people who would enjoy whatever it is they come up with. I won't say that said musician can't write good material, but they probably cannot write popular material. Popular material, over the course of history has been pretty good. Most guitar heroes now and then have not come up with popular material...it is mainly enjoyed by other musicians. There are exceptions of course.

There just aren't many bands trying to play traditional rock music right now.
#27
Quote by Sean0913
Can you define, or better yet, notate this thing you call a "new groove"?

What I mean is share examples of what this looks like in rhythm notation, this way we can all appreciate what's new about it. For example, some unique syncopation? subdivision, accent? Not sure what made it "new" in your estimation.

What is an example in their melody also, that other's arent doing? It should be easy to take their melodies and such and therefore isolate them.

I know, because I did something along those lines about a year ago with a band called City and Colour, when I first heard them. Their writing and approach definitely caught my attention, and I was able to determine in a self study what they were doing and why it worked, and what made them sound different, by taking their writing, breaking it down, and analyzing it.

A lot of it turned out to be just a uniqueness and artistic gift of the singer, but I was able to appreciate why it worked as well, by looking at what sounded good, and understanding the music as a whole.

Best,

Sean

Hi Sean, I know this is a little off thread, it's just that I have been waiting for something like this to present itself, so it would be cool if everyone else didn't polute TS's thread with replies and if Sean0913 chooses to answer with anything, that should be more than enough.

This is a kind of follow on from xxdarrenxx's OP.

Part I: (determining the medium)
You mention here that after a self study of City and Colour, you were able to determine what they were doing and why it worked... no doubt they must be quite popular in their respective genre. but in the end... (from what you have written here and a micro listen to bring me your love on youtube) ...it seems you mostly accredit things to the singer, so it looks like you were able to establish, by deconstructing the individual components (using your knowledge of music theory? - is that right?) as to what made a clever/unique musical recipe for global popularity and world domination... or at the very least, jump out and grab you by the shorts?

Part II: (identifying the reason)
(being a current practising music teacher, I am assuming you have a decent grasp on theory)
If it was due to your understanding of "music theory" as the predominant medium that enabled you to establish City and Colour's unique appeal, which would appear so from your post, and you asking TS for some sort of example or rhythmic score to help you establish what's good about it...
then by the laws of relativity, you should be able to use the same method to explain why
This Album
dominated popularity and set a new course for bands to follow during the early 90's, and still considered by many today their best work.

Part III: (possibilities??)
If you deconstuct it using "music theory" (and I mean actual music theory and not just some slurred review with stupid statements like "their use use of tritones and minor seconds giving an eerie sense of foreboding reminiscent of Edgar Allan Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart - as any one with a weeks study in theory could come up with") as although not Atonal, neither could you say it fits into the Modal/Tonal bracket either, surely you would come up short, meaning (to paraphrase xxdarrenxx) theory and notation in some ways only go so far...

Being a music teacher, surely you must get students asking for analysis for one of the greatest albums of it's time and kind!
Any thoughts you might choose to share, would be appreciated!


Edit:
@(Sean0913) My response here (to your reply below), so not to pollute this thread...
Thanks Sean, after youtubing City and Colour I knew i'd most likely receive a somewhat limited response bearing any musical analysis, but you never know I have been surprised before, but thanks for the response Sean, I appreciated it all the same.
Ha, your deciphering mud remark made me laugh as most people tend to have that initial response, only to return weeks/months later in denial at ever having uttered such blasphemy, ain't it funny (interesting) how music has that ability to turn people from one stand point... to another given enough time/exposure, but i'll leave that for another time... perhaps i'll start another thread on that.

Thanks Sean!
Last edited by tonibet72 at Apr 12, 2014,
#28
Tonibet72,

I think for me the problem, is that I don't hear what makes this band or album that you referenced, so popular. I have many students into this genre, but to me, I cannot hear this as "musical" so providing you with an analysis of this type of music, would be like me trying to decipher "mud". I can hear bits of musicality, but I'd say the reason they appealed to so many is because they simply liked what they heard. To me, I suppose I'm just on the outside as to why. The heaviest I got, in my tastes, would be CoB, Pantera, LoG.

As for City and Colour, absolutely I was able to dissect the chord structures, and analyze them, but I also wanted to understand why they didn't sound like anyone else that I'd heard. I wanted to understand the subtle things I saw in their melody choices that made it sound fresh and interesting. For example the melody over the major 7th in the 2nd chord of "Hurry and the Harm" was easy to ascertain. I like songcrafting that makes me say "wow, what was that" and then to be able to glean some insight, like when I see their choice of melodic "interval" that "worked" for me, I can use it, maybe in my improv, to add to what *I* consider a melodic pallette, that moves me or touches me on some level. So when I do something like that, I try to see what it means to me, why did it move me.

I don't make any statement as to globally what this band may or may not be to others, I studied it from a personal appreciation. Its possible that this band isn't everyone's cup of tea, and that doesn't bother me; I know what I liked. Basically I hold two opinions when it comes to music:

1. Music I like

2. Music that holds no appeal to me. Without judging them as a band, because someone else out there may really like them. And I don't walk around with the opinion that all music must appeal to me or else...I simply shrug and move on, and continue to enjoy what I like.

So to delve into your example, I think I'd have to agree why they sound good, and to me, while I don't dislike them, that whole genre is of zero interest to me, aesthetically. I wouldn't put the band down, but as a whole, the "music" holds no appeal, so it doesn't stand out in a way that I could ascertain. I can't tell you what makes them "good" as you or others may percieve they are.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Apr 11, 2014,
#29
Quote by NewDayHappy
But dude, had they continued on with their OWN music, rock wouldn't be so bad!

It's just your opinion that rock music is bad. Some people enjoy modern rock.

Also, how do you know that the tribute band members don't have any other projects (like an original band)? I play in a cover band at the time but I also have an originals band. They are two different things. Playing other artists' songs is also fun. And some people want to listen to (and dance to) popular artists' songs live so we also need cover bands. You can't hear Nirvana live any more so isn't it just good that there is a band that plays just like Nirvana?
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#30
Quote by NewDayHappy
I feel ticked off, one the one hand these guys are talented enough to cover Nirvana songs on the dot, but they can't write their own music? WTF! What a failure of being true to yourself, I feel almost pissed off every time I see a tribute band because I just imagine what they COULD of wrote had they been true to their own ability.

There really isn't much skill needed to do that. A guitarist could pretty much play nirvana's entire discography within half a year of playing.

That's my contribution to this thread.
Last edited by macashmack at Apr 11, 2014,
#32
Quote by NewDayHappy


I feel ticked off, one the one hand these guys are talented enough to cover Nirvana songs on the dot, but they can't write their own music? WTF! What a failure of being true to yourself, I feel almost pissed off every time I see a tribute band because I just imagine what they COULD of wrote had they been true to their own ability.



Are you 7 years old? Or have people never told you when you're being stupid?

Who says they can't write their own music, you? And you are.....? Who exactly? Someone of importance?

Wait don't answer that, let me answer it for you...

NO.

I guess it's never crossed your mind that maybe they LIKE doing what they do? And for that, because they don't revolve around your sun and planetary systems like a self entitled child, they must be "failures"? What school bus let you off way before your planned stop?

They cant write their music because they might enjoy playing Nirvana songs to the tee? Boo hoo. I was in a fairly well recieved Pink Floyd band, and I did it because I liked it. We all liked the songs, and enjoyed playing them. I guess that doesn't fit into your narrow minded world with dirty fingers clenching toy cars and macaroni and cheese noodles stuck on the front of your shirt.

Go you.

Sean
#33
People don't get off topic now, but I must agree Nirvana songs are ridiculously easy to play... I'm amazed at how Kurt Cobain was very limited with techniques he knew on the guitar, but he made rather enjoyable songs out of his limited skills. Look i'm not saying that I like or hate Nirvana they're okay I wouldn't really consider them great musicians but if one of their songs came up on a car ride I wouldn't change the radio station.