|
|
|
|
|
MMA247
| | Joined: 5/16/2011
Msg: 51 | |
| |
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 6/20/2011 4:16:06 PM | | As far as I'm concerned Lady Gaga took a chapter out of Madonna's handbook. She's got a little shot of Cyndi Lauper in there as well. And also some of Cher. Outfit wise. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 6/22/2011 8:32:51 AM | Taste definitely plays a part in things. That said, a lot of young people also either like or prefer some of the music created by the older bands. There are a few reasons as to why this may be.
Forty years ago and for many years that followed rock was an empty canvas. As well, the heads of the labels only paid it lip service. Acts like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were generally only expected to be hot for a year or less. Their early albums were recorded as cheaply as possible to maximize returns on products that were thought to have a finite life expectancy. Even before the Who first came to North America in 1967 Frank Barcelona, the man who became their North American liaison, felt that a potentially lucrative market was being badly underserved. Consequently there was more freedom and more risks were taken. A lot of the experiments probably should have been left in the labs but many, such as what came from bands and individuals like Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Queen, The Beatles during the period that led to Sergeant Pepper, The Stones (when Brian Jones was in their lineup), The Beach Boys when they did Pet Sounds, King Crimson, David Bowie, the Who, and others (this isn't a complete list), made it to the shelves. That much of it sold as well as it did probably surprised many of the heads of the industry more than it did anyone else.
There's also far too much control at the top now. The industry is grossly guilty of trying to manufacture prefabricated stars that really wouldn't become that on their own. To that end there's an endless amount of fraud inherent in the industry. Many stars now lip-sync rather than sing on stage. Others, when they do sing, are pitch corrected by devices such as auto-tune. Britney Spears, Shania Twain, Celine Dion and many others are guilty of that. It's probably done in the hope they'll be easier to control than many of the stars of the past were. When one considers an image of Keith Moon standing over an executive's beautiful (and also impossible to replace) antique desk with an axe demanding an expensive jacket for an album that's already known to be a complete dog it's not hard to understand why these guys might want their stars to be a little more tractable.
That said, it doesn't work. Some of the recent meltdowns, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey a few years ago and Amy Winehouse prove that control (or lack of it) will always be an issue.To be fair meltdowns happen to both the talented and the untalented. Spears has never been great but Amy Winehouse, train wreck that she is, has a huge talent, as does Mariah Carey. Poor ticket sales for Spears current tour and other episodes make a strong case for the idea that fraud never carries the day for long. Again, to be fair, the industry is also guilty of propping up people who had huge amounts of talent who are now past it. Art Garfunkel was propped up for his appearance at the twenty fifth anniversary celebration for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. His vocals were mixed for extra amplification to add power and auto tune or something similar was used to pitch correct his singing. His breathing is audible at a level far beyond what can be heard from Paul Simon when he sings and the first notes he sings are flat until the software completes its analysis and comes in. It might explain why Paul Simon seemed like he was phoning in his part of the performance.
The control also means following the formula dictated from the top. That mean's staying with things regarded as "safe". A lot of the younger artists have huge amounts of talent but simply aren't allowed to really show it. That's bad for everyone but it's been tried many times before and it won't last. People from the old schools of thought often didn't know what to make of works by people like Mozart, Berlioz, Liszt and even Wagner and Beethoven. Opera wasn't taken seriously until Claudio Monteverdi tried his hand at it. People always resist changes in conventional thinking and always end up embracing things regarded as different. The music industry is caught in the first part of one of those transitions now and we're seeing it. | |
|
| |
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 6/25/2011 1:51:31 AM | We have been debating in your crumbling ranks too and I still wonder why. In the 90's music reached a real interesting point along its course but the last decade had been quite bland and tedious. I think there seems to be a lack of daring in the bands, in experimenting and forcing themselves to create new sounds and concepts lyrically.
Maybe it can be explained by the fact that the majority of the bands are too "professional" and "bourgeois" so they can't find the real inspiration and don't have the boldness to cross the boudaries. Maybe, perhaps. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 8/16/2011 9:46:11 PM | try a Porcupine Tree.
i discovered this project of Steven Wilson accidentaly in 2000 just due to their release of "Stupid Dream" in DVD-Audio format. since then i'm closely watching this band and to date have all their releases in surround sound format and can confirm, with time they got even better.
i guess their genre can be classified as sort of modern progressive rock. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 8/16/2011 11:57:46 PM | I pretty much do not listen to anything past the year 1995 exceptions are Rage against the Machine and Audioslave. Everything else has just sucked.
Oh btw, whats up with all of these 'muse' fans ? Talking about how Epic they where. They're not doing anything new. Any old Metal album is just as good. Try Iron Maiden...or Megadeath.
By the way.. I'm gonna bag on muse a little more. The vocals suck. And it's more like Rock and roll for yuppy/middle class conformist urbanites.
Over and out.
P.S. Godsmack, NIn, no soul.
Try Black Sabbath instead. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 8/17/2011 2:07:17 AM | i listen to octaine on sirius. i've hears a lot of great new bands on there.
some crap too, but there's still hope.
k.w.
http://cfox.supernova.com/-Drunk | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 8/17/2011 7:35:08 AM | | At least we aren't living through the 80's again. There is always good music out there just have to find it. Even in the darkest days of the 80's and hair bands there was good music out there. It was a lot harder to find without the net. Search harder and you will find something new and good. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 8/17/2011 10:33:31 PM | HERE IS MY THEORY:
THE TALENT BAR HAS TAKEN A NOSE DIVE IN ROCK & ROLL AFTER TALENTED PLAYERS TOOK A VERBAL BEATING PUBLICLY, THROUGH THE 1990'S, BY DOUCHE BAGS LIKE KURT COBAIN AND EDDIE VEDDER ON MTV INTERVIEWS. THE GUITAR SOLO AND OPERATIC VOCALS , NEARLY BECAME EXTINCT ENTIRELY... BECAUSE WASHINGTON SPAWNS THE WORLD'S BIGGEST HATERS!
AND WHY DO PEOPLE HATE? ???
A. THEY ARE EITHER TOO LAZY TO FIGURE IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES
B. SUFFER FROM SELF ESTEME ISSUES AND SEASONAL DEPRESSION
C. THEY ARE RULED BY THEIR OUT OF CONTROL EGO
D. ALL THE ABOVE.
 | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 8/20/2011 6:05:44 PM | I think the new bands out now are great and singers like Adam Lambert and Lady Gaga, I love the new stuff out now better then the old stuff,I say it keeps getting better. | |
|
| |
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 8/21/2011 8:32:15 PM | | Onc Iggy Pop, being asked the difference between ROCK then and now and i believe i heard him say and i quote' there are no more accidents' in the music biz , like idol and the next boy sensation these are all calculated down to the map of who's the target audience,where and when they will sell, and can be predicted almost like a, science on marketing graphs and internet manipulation becuase of marketing, look at Garth Brooks, he was the one who changed this a little. Back then someone tripped upon your Coopers your Simmons , your Vicious's, everyday class clowns or school freak and thought this guy has to make records, he's one of a kind, other thing is they could turn it on and off. These so called self professed little messiah's now take themselves way too seriously and believe that everything they put out is sacred. the rock character knew he needed a new card up his sleeve that would still make him coin, the record company didn't always strike gold with each new image, it was still a gamble. American Idol has kids living up to the image of rock and pop by design, but they aren't naturals, the old schoolers wrote their own stuff and it was suited to them and their voice. You have kids on Idol, torturing queen songs when they should be singing ones designed for them and their character, trouble is they don't have a character, but you also can't repeat past glorys of rock excess, that might be the problem. the same thread bout the Sinatras and Comos and all is that they were as**** and confident as Morrison or Pete Townsend, so they were much more the same,entertainers with real clever wit regarding life, GIANT characters from classic novels,working class heroes, and the fact that they turned it on and off or it was put on made it more likeable, they could humour themselves, today's stars can't it's either i am or i'm not. My only question to myself is when or where was this line was drawn, was it Cobain, well that's opinion. another simple theory is that maybe all the best riffs and melodies have been used, but soundwise the older music slapped you in the face with honesty and EXCELLENT drumming. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 8/26/2011 5:04:52 PM | I agree there are alot of crap bands out there and most played on radio is not that good.
Unless you have a good station like a public raido station that has a dj with good taste and the freedom to choose his own playlist .
That said there are good bands out there that are in the spirit of the 60s and 70s classic bands . A personal favorite band is The Tedeski Trucks band . or any band that Derek Trucks is associated with. A good place online to check out bands who let people record them and share the music is Internetarchive .org
Link :
http://www.archive.org/browse.php?collection=etree&field=%2Fmetadata%2Fcreator
Many different kinds of music represented here many are in the spirit of The Grateful Dead.
The good music is out there but don't expect to hear it on your local radio station.
Happy listening
Mark Loewen | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/2/2011 5:15:06 AM | | i dont think think its an issue of less talent, i think its an issue of how easy it is to make music today (homemade studio for <1000$) and how saturated the market is with 'hot new artists'. there is still plenty of great rock records coming out, you just have to sift through a lot more poop than you used to. since most people are unwilling to put the time in to do this (no offense, it is quite time consuming), its easy for me to see why so many people share this notion. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/2/2011 5:49:20 AM | | Music today isn't terrible. Just the music "industry" or record companies. You can still find all kinds of great music. But there is the key word you have to "find" it. We are currently at a transitional period where the artists are finally coming into their own and will not need the backing of a record company in order to get their music to the masses. The record company of course hates this. And as a result has had to put out streamlined marginalized flavor of the week cookie cutter music in order to make money off of the backs of the artists they sign. The Record companies will soon die, and artists will be able to take over. And I think that is great! Every artist will be an independent label. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/6/2011 7:55:06 AM | | There are still some good rock bands out there still.Sam roberts to name 1.It is just a little harder to find them.Music is in the eye of the beholder. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible? (Warning, this is long)
Posted: 9/10/2011 1:44:05 AM | A few observations from a semi-insider:
Back in the day, a few garage bands had one or two hits based more on the free-wheeling spirit of rock&roll (a new genre back then) than on actual talent. Most of the bands that were consistently successful were made up of musicians who had been playing a long time (including professionally) and had honed their craft. A few used studio musicians on their records; they had a lot of hits, but couldn't live up to audience expectations when they played live.
For the first two decades or so, rock was heavily influenced by the blues -- even when it wasn't always obvious. Today the songs are crafted to appeal to somewhat shallower tastes.
Radio has changed. Top 40 was the dominant music format from the mid-50s to the mid-70s, and Top 40 stations played *everything* that was popular enough -- including some country, a few foreign-language songs, and novelty records. Then Top 40 began to fragment, while at the same time "progressive" or "album" rock gained in popularity. With more music choices on the dial, rock itself also fragmented and fewer recording acts had "monster" hits. Record companies saw their profits slipping, they tightened their fiscal belts, and there was less money to develop and support both new and established artists.
The record companies, both big and small, did a lot to turn their artists into hit-makers. Professional studios, producers, engineers, songwriters, promotion, cover design, and in some cases music lessons, "charm school" and eating money -- all of these came from studios when they believed in their artists, as long as they had the money. Lower profits meant less the labels could afford to do for the artists on their rosters, as well as fewer new artists they could sign.
Established star performers had to fend for themselves more, and in some cases found themselves without contracts. New performers couldn't even get through the front door of a recording studio.
But then came the affordable computer-based recording equipment that allowed anyone with an empty room and a little money to build their own recording studios. Problem is, a lot of them had more money and equipment than actual talent, and precious few of them had that much experience -- with music or business. We found ourselves with a lot of acts that were good enough to turn out a good song or two, now and then, but lacked what it takes to do so consistently. Maybe their musicianship wasn't that good, maybe they couldn't write enough good songs, or maybe they just didn't know how to do all the things a big record label has to do to turn a piece of plastic into gold or platinum. But there are a lot of these acts, and collectively they turn out "good enough" songs every week.
The radio stations (where most people find out about new music) play the best new songs they know about, with most of their guidance coming from a handful of influential program directors and critics. Most music fans have learned that only a few favorite artists turn out entire albums of good stuff, so instead of buying entire CDs they buy just the MP3s of the few songs they like. Even a million-selling MP3 single isn't going to generate a lot of money for the performers, so most "hit" acts have to tour almost constantly to make a living; they lack either the time or the money (or both) to learn how to play better, write really good songs, or make the best possible new recordings. | |
|
| |
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/12/2011 3:51:32 AM | Every new generation thinks they are the ones that invented sex, they found drugs, and they discovered music .
All the previous generations think they're idiots . | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/14/2011 6:20:09 PM | Is this thread for real? Rock is as big as it's ever been. Many legends have still been touring upto the past few years, and many are modern legends in their own right... Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, Megadeath
And there have been some amazing bands in the past 20 years, many of which are only just hitting the big gigs and ready to give us so much more...
A7X,
Buckcherry,
Four Year Strong,
Set Your Goals,
ALEXISONFIRE (deserve massive attention),
The King Blues,
August Burns Red,
Reel Big Fish,
Foo Fighters,
BIFFY CLYRO (another major band to note),
Exit Ten,
Bury Your Dead,
A Day To Remember,
Lacuna Coil,
It Dies Today,
Every Time I Die,
Clutch,
Your Demise,
36 Crazyfists,
Frank Turner (another massive artist who will get better and better),
New Found Glory,
Sea of Treachery,
Sublime,
We Are The Ocean,
The Gallows,
Maximum the Hormone,
Pendulum,
MACHINE ****ING HEAD!!!!
The rock scene continues to get better and better, more so because I'm not saying that every new band is better, but the old hands are never forgotten and the entire scene is built upon what has come before. Decades of genius and experimentation - sexually, musically, chemically. It's the only scene that really matters.  | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/14/2011 11:02:04 PM | | Same reason why new tv shows, new cartoons, and some new movies end up being terrible. Nobody puts their heart in their work. Everyone is a walking wallet these days. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/15/2011 3:42:29 AM | I can't beleive the generalisation that abounds from some of you soul searchers. So cynical. I hope you're more optimistic and bright-eyed when it comes to relationships!
If we're entering this debate across all media brands lets consider the modern greats... Lost (I actually thought it was crap, but the millions who adore it can't be wrong),
True Blood,
CSI,
The Inbetweeners,
The Office (UK version of course)
Skins (again UK, the yanks ruined our great comedy)
If it happens that EVERYTHING you watch and listen to is terrible, then it's clearly a problem with your openmindedness (I may have made this word up). Or perhaps you're too lazy to scout the circuit for those great programme suited to your taste.
The point I make by not liking the yankee versions of British comedies and the absolute tripe that is Lost, is that there is a plethora of excellent modern material - but to be great doesn't require it to be liked by everybody. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/15/2011 4:45:20 PM | | On the contrary, most of what I witness I learn to appreciate. But, I do believe some people doing music and art today are missing heart in their work when compared to older works. A person needs to be compassionate for their art in order for it have that special intangible feeling that a piece work made with little to no love that ends up sticking out like a soar thumb. | |
|
| Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 9/16/2011 12:39:35 PM | | The new Wolves in the Throne Room album absolutely kills. You just have to search harder for quality nowadays. Most of the great bands out there are a bit more underground or obscure. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
3
of
7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
|
|
Home
login 
