Page 1 of 8
#1
yah i just read the column Whatever Happened To My Rock And Roll, and i think rock is far from dead. The music is is doing great i think. The Strokes and White Stripes kicked it off. Strokes proving that the Velvets and Beatles are still shining, and White Stripes is changing music, maybe not to the degree as the beatles but i think pretty damn close. The Libertines teaching all the kids how to write the songs like Dylan did, just Pete Doherty is more poetic. Queens Of The Stones i dont know how to say what there doing but if you heard them you know what i mean. The Coral mixing The Love's classical guitar with The Kinks sound and a little spice of Twist and Shout, bring some new rock tunes. The Unicorns sound like there a from mars, not through distortion or anything but with all these crazy noise yet keeping it simple and poppy with ways unable to express in words. Mars Volt by changes drasticly from album to album. I'm Sure there others band i dont know or cant think of putting at this time. Aslo mordern have all new catchy backing vocals instead of "owwww lalala and sha lalala" we have "shoop shoop, shoop de-lang de-lang and Wahwoo". Its little things like that that make rock fun, right? Does anyone agree with me thought that rock is from from dead, just not spit up the airwaves like in the 60's. Even maybe the best thing since the 60's.
Quote by st.stephen
You are correct...however, it DOES mean you will have colonol cancer.
#3
I agree - there are plenty of terrific rock bands around today, but there are also a large number or rather poor rock bands today. It just so happens that most of the bands that I consider poor quality are those that are in the mainstream.
#4
to compare pete doherty with dylan...come on

Whodicted



Quote by stevo_epi_SG_wo
france is laaaaame


Recognized by the Official EG/GG&A Who To Listen To List 2009
#6
I have to disagree with you there. The 00s are really like the new 80s: They suck.

I mean, this decade so far has been about music that is catchy, loud, and appeals to an unintelligent, absent-minded teenage audience. To reinstate what that artice said: Emo-Punk is the new Hair Metal. All of the bands sound the same, they are relatively simple, and they appeal to girls, and heck, even look like girls. Also, just like in the 80s, hip-hop is very popular, and has turned into black artists embarrasing and steriotyping themselves, just like black artists (and entertainers overall) did in the 80s. Why? Because it was about money. Just like it is now. If a band putting their mugs on a McDonald's comercial will mean buying themselves another porche, then so be it. Who cares about the actual musical quality? If its catchy, then it will last on the charts for 15-20 weeks and then fade away and never be heard of again. After all, who has ever cared of Europe, Whitesnake, Twisted Sister and Warrant sine the 80s? No one, thats who. And thats how it will be with these bands: In 20 years, we will look back on this musical decade as being one of the worst musically ever. Maybe next decade will be better...Like the new 90s...
The.
#7
Quote by Tsunoyukami


I'll admit, I found that to be a bit of a stretch too - but he does have talent, I can't deny that.



yah i mean same idea though. they both changed the song writing standards i think. pete would be better compared to joe strummer. sorry about that
Quote by st.stephen
You are correct...however, it DOES mean you will have colonol cancer.
#8
^

when we start our band with the mix of real punk, grunge, and funk - we'll rule the world!

Whodicted



Quote by stevo_epi_SG_wo
france is laaaaame


Recognized by the Official EG/GG&A Who To Listen To List 2009
#9
Quote by IHATECHILDREN
I have to disagree with you there. The 00s are really like the new 80s: They suck.

I mean, this decade so far has been about music that is catchy, loud, and appeals to an unintelligent, absent-minded teenage audience. To reinstate what that artice said: Emo-Punk is the new Hair Metal. All of the bands sound the same, they are relatively simple, and they appeal to girls, and heck, even look like girls. Also, just like in the 80s, hip-hop is very popular, and has turned into black artists embarrasing and steriotyping themselves, just like black artists (and entertainers overall) did in the 80s. Why? Because it was about money. Just like it is now. If a band putting their mugs on a McDonald's comercial will mean buying themselves another porche, then so be it. Who cares about the actual musical quality? If its catchy, then it will last on the charts for 15-20 weeks and then fade away and never be heard of again. After all, who has ever cared of Europe, Whitesnake, Twisted Sister and Warrant sine the 80s? No one, thats who. And thats how it will be with these bands: In 20 years, we will look back on this musical decade as being one of the worst musically ever. Maybe next decade will be better...Like the new 90s...


i think your comparing mainsteem music witch yes i agree is garbage
Quote by st.stephen
You are correct...however, it DOES mean you will have colonol cancer.
#10
Quote by IHATECHILDREN
I have to disagree with you there. The 00s are really like the new 80s: They suck.

I mean, this decade so far has been about music that is catchy, loud, and appeals to an unintelligent, absent-minded teenage audience. To reinstate what that artice said: Emo-Punk is the new Hair Metal. All of the bands sound the same, they are relatively simple, and they appeal to girls, and heck, even look like girls. Also, just like in the 80s, hip-hop is very popular, and has turned into black artists embarrasing and steriotyping themselves, just like black artists (and entertainers overall) did in the 80s. Why? Because it was about money. Just like it is now. If a band putting their mugs on a McDonald's comercial will mean buying themselves another porche, then so be it. Who cares about the actual musical quality? If its catchy, then it will last on the charts for 15-20 weeks and then fade away and never be heard of again. After all, who has ever cared of Europe, Whitesnake, Twisted Sister and Warrant sine the 80s? No one, thats who. And thats how it will be with these bands: In 20 years, we will look back on this musical decade as being one of the worst musically ever. Maybe next decade will be better...Like the new 90s...


I agree with you when talking about the majority of mainstream music, however there are many lesser known 'indie' bands that are quality and there is a small group of mainstream artists who hold true passion in the art of making music.
#11
Quote by Tsunoyukami
I agree with you when talking about the majority of mainstream music, however there are many lesser known 'indie' bands that are quality and there is a small group of mainstream artists who hold true passion in the art of making music.


thats what im saying its just not on the airwaves
Quote by st.stephen
You are correct...however, it DOES mean you will have colonol cancer.
#12
Quote by likelylad
thats what im saying its just not on the airwaves

Well, yes, but those artists are few and far between. And most indie acts are just bad Beatles rip-offs. Nothing special. And I think that the mainstream acts will be remembered more than, say, The Mars Volta.
The.
#13
Quote by IHATECHILDREN
Well, yes, but those artists are few and far between. And most indie acts are just bad Beatles rip-offs. Nothing special. And I think that the mainstream acts will be remembered more than, say, The Mars Volta.


I will agree with you - there are many indie bands that sound similar, but quite a few are innovative.

And again, I will agree with you - many, many more people will remember Fall Out Boy and never have a clue about The Mars Volta, which is a shame.
#14
Quote by Tsunoyukami
I will agree with you - there are many indie bands that sound similar, but quite a few are innovative.

And again, I will agree with you - many, many more people will remember Fall Out Boy and never have a clue about The Mars Volta, which is a shame.


But the music world will never forget the true artist or most of them. its hard to tell who will be rembered i bet in 1966 anyone thought a band called the who would be so big. A record company in 1960, i think that was the year, told the beatles there on the way out then what, they blow up two years later and you know the rest
Quote by st.stephen
You are correct...however, it DOES mean you will have colonol cancer.
#15
I'm kind of split on the whole thing.

Yeah I agree that it can be said that a number of those bands are "revitalizing" rock n' roll. With a twist on a retro sound they'll be credited for giving this generation a taste or idea of what the pioneers built.

But on the other hand, and I'm not trying to just pointlessly bash bands here, I wouldn't say many of those bands are "revolutionizing" music in any way. I can't speak for all of them (like the kinks I haven't heard their stuff). But take the strokes and the white stripes. They are working with an older formula, and despite twists here and there, they aren't putting anything new on the table. So in essense they're taking steps backward to entertain an audience of times past and a new generation, but they aren't twisting it enough to say they're moving forward with it.

The nostalgia factor isn't a bad thing. it's a good reminder of where we came from. That is until you get to many revival bands on the charts that swear to god they were born in the 60's, and then you start asking "why isn't anyone doing anything new?"
No one knows what it's like... to be a dustbin... in Shaftesbury... with hooligans...
#16
Quote by Child Of Maiden

The nostalgia factor isn't a bad thing. it's a good reminder of where we came from. That is until you get to many revival bands on the charts that swear to god they were born in the 60's, and then you start asking "why isn't anyone doing anything new?"


they has always been bad boring sameness bands i dont think you can help. just look at all the bands on the nuggets. Van Halen caused a bunch of copy cats dont make him bad though
Quote by st.stephen
You are correct...however, it DOES mean you will have colonol cancer.
#17
Quote by likelylad
yah i mean same idea though. they both changed the song writing standards i think. pete would be better compared to joe strummer. sorry about that


so...this guy "changed standards" like Dylan?


and for the record, the White Stripes arent changing anything about music. im not saying theyre bad, but playing a few blues licks hardly qualifies as changing music.
#18
so...this guy "changed standards" like Dylan?
QUOTE]

yes thats streched


but about the white stripes have you heard jack nonpopular stuff like red rain
Quote by st.stephen
You are correct...however, it DOES mean you will have colonol cancer.
#19
i have. i think its a decent guitarist in a pretty good band. he can play, no doubt, but it seems like nowadays the only way to "change" anything is to be innovated which is almost impossible, id say.

i do like him though.
#20
Quote by IHATECHILDREN
I have to disagree with you there. The 00s are really like the new 80s: They suck.

I mean, this decade so far has been about music that is catchy, loud, and appeals to an unintelligent, absent-minded teenage audience. To reinstate what that artice said: Emo-Punk is the new Hair Metal. All of the bands sound the same, they are relatively simple, and they appeal to girls, and heck, even look like girls. Also, just like in the 80s, hip-hop is very popular, and has turned into black artists embarrasing and steriotyping themselves, just like black artists (and entertainers overall) did in the 80s. Why? Because it was about money. Just like it is now. If a band putting their mugs on a McDonald's comercial will mean buying themselves another porche, then so be it. Who cares about the actual musical quality? If its catchy, then it will last on the charts for 15-20 weeks and then fade away and never be heard of again. After all, who has ever cared of Europe, Whitesnake, Twisted Sister and Warrant sine the 80s? No one, thats who. And thats how it will be with these bands: In 20 years, we will look back on this musical decade as being one of the worst musically ever. Maybe next decade will be better...Like the new 90s...


That attitude is the mark of a man who knows nothing about modern rock. If you wanted to find good music, you'd find it because there's endless amounts out there. You're just being stubborn.

EDIT: And you're making the same error in your assessment of the eighties. The Police? The Jam? The Stone Roses? Theres good music in EVERY period.
Listen to mah discs.



And coming soon, THE CLEVER DEVILS VS. THE BLONDES.

Vote for me in the
Last edited by VoodooChild15 at Jun 19, 2007,
#21
Quote by Jearl
i have. i think its a decent guitarist in a pretty good band. he can play, no doubt, but it seems like nowadays the only way to "change" anything is to be innovated which is almost impossible, id say.

i do like him though.


i dont mean just guitar but the way his music sound. guitar he is noway near hendrix or page or tom from rage. but as a musician he is changing it with differnt sound like with the synth and how unorthadux(spelt that wrong) his music is
Quote by st.stephen
You are correct...however, it DOES mean you will have colonol cancer.
#22
Quote by IHATECHILDREN
I have to disagree with you there. The 00s are really like the new 80s: They suck.

I mean, this decade so far has been about music that is catchy, loud, and appeals to an unintelligent, absent-minded teenage audience. To reinstate what that artice said: Emo-Punk is the new Hair Metal. All of the bands sound the same, they are relatively simple, and they appeal to girls, and heck, even look like girls. Also, just like in the 80s, hip-hop is very popular, and has turned into black artists embarrasing and steriotyping themselves, just like black artists (and entertainers overall) did in the 80s. Why? Because it was about money. Just like it is now. If a band putting their mugs on a McDonald's comercial will mean buying themselves another porche, then so be it. Who cares about the actual musical quality? If its catchy, then it will last on the charts for 15-20 weeks and then fade away and never be heard of again. After all, who has ever cared of Europe, Whitesnake, Twisted Sister and Warrant sine the 80s? No one, thats who. And thats how it will be with these bands: In 20 years, we will look back on this musical decade as being one of the worst musically ever. Maybe next decade will be better...Like the new 90s...



Dude you think exactly like I do about the mainstream part.

On the thing bout the 80's sucking is totally wrong dude. Rock and Metal wise the 80's were kick a**. Metallica, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, Guns N' Roses, Yngwie, Steve Vai, all of them. True innovators and amazing players that even people remember today. That also goes with Ozzy. Think about Zakk wylde and Randy Rhodes.
#23
Quote by VoodooChild15
That attitude is the mark of a man who knows nothing about modern rock. If you wanted to find good music, you'd find it because there's endless amounts out there. You're just being stubborn.

EDIT: And you're making the same error in your assessment of the eighties. The Police? The Jam? The Stone Roses? Theres good music in EVERY period.

Well, those artists you just described are gems of the 80s. Just like The Mars Volta, Breaking Benjamin, The White Strips, etc,. can be considered gems on this decade.

And, heads up, I do look for good music. I am not the type of fan I described. I, in fact, are the absoloute opposite. I was just describing mainstream music. Yes, the 00s and 80s have had/have good bands in them, but the mainstream was/is generally weak.

I can not call on era of music completely bad: there will be good bands in every era and genre. But overall, genres can be weak. This is the case that I described.
The.
#24
I agree with him....its hard to make an argument, People use that "Oh your not looking hard enough argument" way too much..this decades music is just weak....even alot of the "Underground" artists.

Theres good music in every decade.....but this decade just has less of it. If you need me to explain why then I will, but I shouldn't have to.
#25
Rock was never dead. People are just lazy and expect to have their music served to them on a silver platter.

GO OUT AND SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL MUSIC SCENE. And if there isn't one....MAKE ONE. FFS.
Last.fm

WE ARE THE MUSIC MAKERS
AND WE ARE THE DREAMERS OF THE DREAMS
#26
Quote by Child Of Maiden
I'm kind of split on the whole thing.

Yeah I agree that it can be said that a number of those bands are "revitalizing" rock n' roll. With a twist on a retro sound they'll be credited for giving this generation a taste or idea of what the pioneers built.

But on the other hand, and I'm not trying to just pointlessly bash bands here, I wouldn't say many of those bands are "revolutionizing" music in any way. I can't speak for all of them (like the kinks I haven't heard their stuff). But take the strokes and the white stripes. They are working with an older formula, and despite twists here and there, they aren't putting anything new on the table. So in essense they're taking steps backward to entertain an audience of times past and a new generation, but they aren't twisting it enough to say they're moving forward with it.

The nostalgia factor isn't a bad thing. it's a good reminder of where we came from. That is until you get to many revival bands on the charts that swear to god they were born in the 60's, and then you start asking "why isn't anyone doing anything new?"

Bands always have been doing this ever since rock n roll started. Thats how music works. There are loads of now legendary bands from the 80's like Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smiths, Echo & The Bunnymen who were directly revamping the 60's bands. Bands like The Jam in the late 70's were just copying bands like The Small Faces, The Kinks and The Who but keeping it up to date with the latest trends i.e punk. If you think about it they were not a revolutionary band, it's just they had damn good tunes...so they stuck.

Even when you look at the Beatles its the same, a lot of their songs were just homages to 50's rock n roll. Of course there are a lot of exceptions where they were pioneers, but the main reason they are such a lasting band is because of their timeless melodies.

People always hark on about how the 60's were such revolutionary times musically, sure that is true about a number of bands but when you think about it bands conformed to the latest trends just as much as now or maybe even more.

Anyway it's hard to judge whether a band will be remembered or not in decades to come. I.e. The Velvet Undergroud have only finally just started getting mainstream recognition. But I can guarantee bands like Fall Out Boy will be forgotten.
#27
Come on. People talk as if there weren't fad bands in the 60s and 70s. Of course there were, it's just that no one cares about them today, just like no one will care about the trendy bands today in 15 years or so. It's the essential, groundbreaking and innovative artists that will be remembered and that younger generations will take inspiration and influence from, not the trendies.

EDIT: And I agree with radio schizo.
Last edited by European Son at Jun 20, 2007,
#28
Quote by European Son
Come on. People talk as if there weren't fad bands in the 60s and 70s. Of course there were, it's just that no one cares about them today, just like no one will care about the trendy bands today in 15 years or so. It's the essential, groundbreaking and innovative artists that will be remembered and that younger generations will take inspiration and influence from, not the trendies.

EDIT: And I agree with radio schizo.


Yea but nothing has really been groundbreaking in this decade yet.....you think kids these days are gonna bump arcade fire and radiohead like some did with the Beatles, led zep, and even pink Floyd and bob Dylan? Hell no. They're were fads in the 60s and 70s....but not to this extent, it was more of a leveled field. Yea you had you're donna summers and your bee gees, but i mean on the other hand they're were **** like the police, the clash (ect) to level out the field...but now its very slim.
Last edited by BerryTree at Jun 20, 2007,
#29
Quote by likelylad
But the music world will never forget the true artist or most of them. its hard to tell who will be rembered i bet in 1966 anyone thought a band called the who would be so big. A record company in 1960, i think that was the year, told the beatles there on the way out then what, they blow up two years later and you know the rest


My brother and I were talking about bands that will be remembered and listened to years from now. And basicly we remembered that the mainstream rock back in the 60's wasn't the music that got the major radio play. Innovation will always sound bad at first, because no one's used to it. Many new indie bands are terrible, but many are doing something really good right now, and they're the one's that'll make the decade.


And I think it's amazing that Baba O'Riley just came on my shuffle playlist. Perfect example.
#30
Quote by BerryTree
Yea but nothing has really been groundbreaking in this decade yet.....you think kids these days are gonna bump arcade fire and radiohead like some did with the Beatles, led zep, and even pink Floyd and bob Dylan? Hell no. They're were fads in the 60s and 70s....but not to this extent, it was more of a leveled field. Yea you had you're donna summers and your bee gees, but i mean on the other hand they're were **** like the police, the clash (ect) to level out the field...but now its very slim.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say; that Bee Gees and Donna Summer were better than Clash and Police or the other way around. Anyway...

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't some kind of "Medieval of Music" like so many people claim on this forum. There are a lot more to be found than the mainstream stuff. And I promise you, in 20 years or so, pretty much no teenagers/young people will listen to The Beatles or Zeppelin. Cause let's be honest, how many of us listen to stuff like Louis Amrstrong or Bessie Smith?
#32
Quote by European Son
I'm not sure what you're trying to say; that Bee Gees and Donna Summer were better than Clash and Police or the other way around. Anyway...

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't some kind of "Medieval of Music" like so many people claim on this forum. There are a lot more to be found than the mainstream stuff. And I promise you, in 20 years or so, pretty much no teenagers/young people will listen to The Beatles or Zeppelin. Cause let's be honest, how many of us listen to stuff like Louis Amrstrong or Bessie Smith?


Yea lol, its the other way around.

There has always been great music in each decade, but the 2000s have less of this. Most of the scenes nowadays fit the alternative mold (If im not mistaken, I could be wrong) and that stemmed from the early to mid 80s.Even the underground scenes aren't really THAT groundbreaking (Even though alot of the bands are very very impressive) And....bessie smith isn't the beatles, trust me they still will be played for generations to come.
#33
Quote by BerryTree
Yea lol, its the other way around.

There has always been great music in each decade, but the 2000s have less of this. Most of the scenes nowadays fit the alternative mold (If im not mistaken, I could be wrong) and that stemmed from the early to mid 80s.Even the underground scenes aren't really THAT groundbreaking (Even though alot of the bands are very very impressive) And....bessie smith isn't the beatles, trust me they still will be played for generations to come.

Ya...this decade is very alternative based.

And I dont think this decades underground scene is anything special. I mean, Im sure we will see in about a few years, but as of now, I just dont see whats so special.
The.
#34
Quote by BerryTree
Yea lol, its the other way around.

There has always been great music in each decade, but the 2000s have less of this. Most of the scenes nowadays fit the alternative mold (If im not mistaken, I could be wrong) and that stemmed from the early to mid 80s.Even the underground scenes aren't really THAT groundbreaking (Even though alot of the bands are very very impressive) And....bessie smith isn't the beatles, trust me they still will be played for generations to come.


Well, we have to remember that the Beatles were something completely new. However, Bessie Smith and Louis Armstrong were definitely innovative.
#35
I wish lyrcis where easy again, i mean think about it. Queens "Another one bites the dust" the chorus was just that over and over and over, now lyrics have to tell a long boring story. Its not about a story its about the music. Tell me what you think.
The problem with rock music is there are to many people that play the guitar... and not enough guitarist. Guitar Hero Doesnt help...
#37
Quote by IHATECHILDREN
I have to disagree with you there. The 00s are really like the new 80s: They suck.

I mean, this decade so far has been about music that is catchy, loud, and appeals to an unintelligent, absent-minded teenage audience. To reinstate what that artice said: Emo-Punk is the new Hair Metal. All of the bands sound the same, they are relatively simple, and they appeal to girls, and heck, even look like girls. Also, just like in the 80s, hip-hop is very popular, and has turned into black artists embarrasing and steriotyping themselves, just like black artists (and entertainers overall) did in the 80s. Why? Because it was about money. Just like it is now. If a band putting their mugs on a McDonald's comercial will mean buying themselves another porche, then so be it. Who cares about the actual musical quality? If its catchy, then it will last on the charts for 15-20 weeks and then fade away and never be heard of again. After all, who has ever cared of Europe, Whitesnake, Twisted Sister and Warrant sine the 80s? No one, thats who. And thats how it will be with these bands: In 20 years, we will look back on this musical decade as being one of the worst musically ever. Maybe next decade will be better...Like the new 90s...




Couldn't have said it better myself, bud!
WHY IS EVERYONE IN THE PIT A FUCKING METALCORE KID
#38
Quote by Blink_Freak3
I wish lyrcis where easy again, i mean think about it. Queens "Another one bites the dust" the chorus was just that over and over and over, now lyrics have to tell a long boring story. Its not about a story its about the music. Tell me what you think.

Im actually a big fan of deep, metaphorical lyrics. I think those kinds of words actually mean something. Thats one good thing about this decade of music: the lyrics are pretty inspired in some cases. I mean, even Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance's lyrics are pretty good. In the 80s, those corney lyrics were not necessarily good.

E.g., "Cherry Pie"

Swing It to the drums, swing it to guitar/Swing it to the bass in the back of my car.

The.
#39
Quote by Blink_Freak3
I wish lyrcis where easy again, i mean think about it. Queens "Another one bites the dust" the chorus was just that over and over and over, now lyrics have to tell a long boring story. Its not about a story its about the music. Tell me what you think.

Catchy tunes with good lyrics<Not-so-catchy tunes with good lyrics<Catchy tunes with bad lyrics<Not-so-catchy tunes with bad lyrics
Last edited by European Son at Jun 20, 2007,