Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Art/Music  > Why are most new rock bands terrible?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Slim1023
Joined: 3/5/2010
Msg: 26
Why are most new rock bands terrible?Page 2 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
It's because sex and drugs aren't part of Rock and Roll anymore. I blame AIDS. It scared everyone from that lifestyle. And no, I'm not condoning drug use, but all those great bands from the 60s, 70s and 80s were all well documented drug users. Fuels creativity.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 3/23/2011 5:20:18 AM

The poster didn't ask which new rock bands were specific to his taste, nor did he have any other conditions. He simply asked for suggestions of newer rock bands ( than classic rock). I offered up a few bands that are different and some of my favorites. Creed would be among those.


He asked for "fresh" bands. You gave him a 14 year old band that have made the same album 7 times now, and 5 or 6 clones of that band who sound just like them. Daughtry even write songs with Chad Kroeger to make sure they sound like them. Saving Abel panned so badly as Nickelback clones in most reviews I read, it wasn't even funny.



Surely you’ve all heard of Nickelback? This is their latest album, and I have a few issues with it – no wait, this isn’t Nickelback, this is the debut album of a rip-off artist of theirs, Saving Abel.

Summary: If you're going to rip off a band, at least make sure you're not ripping off Nickelback.


http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/33430/Saving-Abel-Saving-Abel/


I'm not trying to pick on you here, it's just you are giving perfect examples of why the music sucks so bad these days. A band comes along that has a sound and before you know it there are 15 other clone bands that sound just like them. ANd just in case you want some more, here is a list of the Nickelback clones I compiled.

Theory of A Deadman
Black Stone Cherry
Crossfade
Shinedown
Chevelle
Hinder
Grey Daze
Axium
Finger Eleven
Saliva
Stone Sour
Seether
Rev Theory
Thornley
 ComplekCity
Joined: 1/17/2011
Msg: 28
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 3/23/2011 8:17:39 AM
Sowrite :

While I appreciate the effort you went to I'm afraid I have to agree with
" ready4somethingfun " 100 %.

He understood exactly what I meant when I asked for something "fresh" .

That being said, can ANYONE reading this suggest any new bands out there who actually sound like they have an original sound/aren't in it for the money/put together by some record label ?????

Are there any modern Jane's Addiction, Alice in Chains, Soundgardens, etc out there ???????
 shakeitupbaby2012
Joined: 8/12/2010
Msg: 29
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 3/23/2011 11:57:08 AM
Jogging- You're welcome. Yes, i understand what you mean by fresh- I think I was mentally taking some bands that I think are good from the 90's into the late 2000's to get caught up myself and then go from there. Let me think about it.

Ready: No prob. I take nothing personally. I just like the music I like.
 DTFan88
Joined: 6/8/2010
Msg: 30
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 3/23/2011 12:58:45 PM
I can't think of any brand new bands that are original-sounding since i don't usually go looking for them. I just usually rediscover older bands and get in to listening to them. I've been listening to a lot of Rush lately.
"King's X" were a really unique sounding 3-piece band from Texas. They don't sound like anybody else and have some great songs. They originally formed in the 80's. The first album by "Bang Tango" is amazing. They came out in early 90's I think or late 80s. That debut album has great melodies.
There are some rare older artists' music that I'm interested in buying. I always wanted to get the "London Quireboys" "A Bit of What You Fancy" cd but never got around to getting it. They sound like a blues hard rock band. I've also always loved the way Japanese guitarist Akira Takasaki played and his band "Loudness" are great. He has some solo stuff that I would like to check out but I have to get it online since it isn't available anywhere else.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 3/23/2011 4:35:08 PM
I will try to compile a list of some of the more original sounding newer bands I have had the pleasure of hearing later tonight.

The problem is, and I believe someone already stated it in this thread earlier, that it's very hard to be original in this day and age. Doing something new with the same old instruments is a tough proposition. But there are some people out there making waves.

Kings X are prog-metal band with a copious amount of funk thrown in for good measure. Excellent and rarely put out a dud album. If you haven't had the opportunity to check these 3 gentlemen out, I agree wholeheartly with the above poster and suggest a listen or two.

Loudness were a fun band, although I prefered them when they had a Japanese singer, due to the endless amount of lyrical gaffes and mispronounciations which make their rather pedestrian hair metal much more fun.

The only band I don't really agree with too much is the London Quireboys who were a straight-up Faces rip-off, not to mention they were responsible to the seventies revival that spawned the Black Crowes. The Crowes are alright, but if you have spent the last 20 years listening to obscure '70s music, you realise the they have basically stolen every idea they produced. And the same goes for the Quireboys.
 shakeitupbaby2012
Joined: 8/12/2010
Msg: 32
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 3/24/2011 1:53:15 AM
maybe not 2011 fresh but here's a few:

thievery corporation

black angels

pagoda ( just different)

although not new, I really like Staind

Ready: I'm a visual (and performing) artist. When I was at university studying drawing/painting, for example, the instructor suggested studying the Masters.
Almost anyone I know who plays the guitar, for instance, studies other musicians, and it's quite normal to use that as a starting point. If one band has a particular style, isn't it possible that another may have a similar style? It's not necessarily copied.
As a visual artist, I can mimic someone else's work but it will inevitably contain elements of my personal style. It's rare in either art form when an artist comes along who truly stands out from the rest IMO.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 3/24/2011 3:23:45 AM

I'm a visual (and performing) artist. When I was at university studying drawing/painting, for example, the instructor suggested studying the Masters.


Sure, everyone should study the masters. But not outright plagerize them.


Almost anyone I know who plays the guitar, for instance, studies other musicians, and it's quite normal to use that as a starting point.


Your last two words above are key to what I am talking about. Using a particular source as a strting point and injecting originality into it is a whole other world than outright mimicry.


If one band has a particular style, isn't it possible that another may have a similar style? It's not necessarily copied.


Certainly it is. But then 10 other bands come along ONCE that band is popular and just happen to have the similar style? Not likely. It's commonly refered to an riding on someone elses coattails.


It's rare in either art form when an artist comes along who truly stands out from the rest IMO.


It's the same reason I don't like remakes of movies. They usually suck. And bands who blatently copy another bands style deserve their fate, which is usually to wind up in a bar as cover band, unless they somehow find something that makes them stand apart from the pack. Sometimes that may be more obvious to some than to others at the beginning, but it usually gets proven in spades eventually. Just ask the 50 bands who tried to sound like Metallica in the beginning, including Metallica in the end.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 3/24/2011 4:45:25 PM
Okay, I promised a little list of newer bands I felt were fresh, which I make with a caveat. There are many different styles represented here, and not everybody is going to like them all. I am fairly rounded music wise, one day you may find Slayer in my player, and the next Gordon Lightfoot. I do tend to lean toward the heavier side, but I did try to balance it out a bit. These are all (with a few exceptions) artists who've released their first album within the last couple years and are fairly unknown to the general populace.

(1) Death From Above 1979/MSTRKFT - several albums (these are not real new, but one of the more original bands to come out in the last several years in my opinion)
(2) You Am I - same (2010)
(3) Black Rain - A Lethal Dose of (2010)
(4) Skyforger - Kurbads (2010)
(5) Triggerfinger (album title unknown) great Belgian band
(6) Lyriel - Paranoid Circus (new age meets baroque meets metal with amazing results)
(7) Warbeast - Krust the Enemy (fairly new thrash band with a power metal edge on Phil Anselmo's label)
(8) Animals As Leaders
(9) Boom Bang - World War Fun (speaking of bands using their influences to come up with something original----this is Cramps meet the B52s in****Dale's backyard!!)
(10) Sugar Knives (amazing band that sometimes get a bit similar to X, but never outright rip them off)
(11) A Thousand Knives of Fire (amazing newer metal band)
(12) Mutilators - She Put the Baby in the Microwave (punkabilly with something extra)
(13) Bare Wires - Seeking Love (punk meets T.Rex style glam and runs with it to create something exciting)
 aarons916
Joined: 1/31/2010
Msg: 35
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/11/2011 11:39:51 AM

OP?.. are they?...

could have fooled me... ...

are you listening with old ears or new ones?.... yesterday was just that...


Yeah pretty sure they're mostly terrible, with old or new ears. I didn't realize this thread was still going but there were a lot of good points made. It's not big deal I guess, there are plenty of good classic bands already to give me a good variety.

On a side note I've been listening to completely different styles of music lately too, like Irish folk or celtic music which is pretty cool. Maybe that was my problem too is limiting myself to "rock bands" when there is probably a lot of cool music around the world to discover.
 junipermoon
Joined: 3/1/2006
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/11/2011 4:25:58 PM
i call it the 'rising tide of mediocrity.' and it doesn't stop with music. compared to masterpieces of 20-40 years ago, films suck, automobiles suck, food sucks, clothing sucks. just about everything humans can produce has succumbed to the manufacturer's satisfaction with doing just enough to crank out their product. very few want to go the extra mile. and the current crop of 20-somethings don't know any better and wallow in mediocrity themselves.

i can't tell you how it happened or what to do about it.
 Padawan61
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/11/2011 8:11:06 PM
i call it the 'rising tide of mediocrity.' and it doesn't stop with music. compared to masterpieces of 20-40 years ago, films suck, automobiles suck, food sucks, clothing sucks

That's a very astute observation, juniper. Mediocrity permeate our entire culture today because this generation have no taste and a very short attention span to boot. They lack critical thinking and is willing to be led around by the nose and told to accept what is currently hot.

Speaking of films ... the 2009 reboot of Star Trek by JJ Abrams was an epic failure ... with no original plot, shitty acting and a vain attempt to capitalize on the original. Yet through clever marketing, the pliable masses bought in and thought it was good. In late 2009, I was on a thread arguing with a poster on the film's merit ... or lack thereof. Eventually, a mod warned both of us to stay off that thread ... or else. But without me stirring up trouble ... no one bothers to post on it anymore and it quietly died.

The "talent" today rely on more "bells and whistles" than groups in the 40's, 50's, 60's and early 70's did

Exactly!! Those "bells, whistles and gimmicks" are meant to distract the mindless hordes into wrongly believing that there's actually talent present.

We are allowed to have the radio on at work and my young co-worker has his computer tuned to a station that continuously crank out the same tired out songs over and over throughout the day. Songs are played again within half an hour of its last performance. How many times do I need to hear Fefe Dobson's monkey noise song ... "Stuttering" in one workday?? When I go home, those stupid lyrics are stuck in my head and I can't get rid of them.

BTW ... WTF is a Lady Gaga anyway?? Some sorta of freak show hiding the fact that she really has no talent.

i can't tell you how it happened or what to do about it

It happened because many people these days will accept any crap sold to them. As long as they accept it ... producers will gladly give them more of the same. The best defense is ... don't buy-in to the brainwashing.
 peppermint petunias
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 38
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/14/2011 5:20:50 AM
Sound Garden
Alice In Chains
Train
Stone Temple Pilots
Sick Puppies
Green Day
Foo fighters


Turn the station OP




Are there any modern Jane's Addiction, Alice in Chains, Soundgardens, etc out there ???????

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I consider them modern/new..LOL


 ComplekCity
Joined: 1/17/2011
Msg: 39
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/14/2011 8:12:12 AM
^^^^ Those bands were in their "heyday" in the early 90's - I'm starving for bands like this NOW !
 peppermint petunias
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 40
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/14/2011 2:00:15 PM

^^^^ Those bands were in their "heyday" in the early 90's - I'm starving for bands like this NOW !


Well most bands I mentioned have new music out.

Soundgarden.Black Rain
Green day ....Last of The American Girls
Alice in chains...Lesson learned
Sick Puppies.....Odd One.

The bands/musicians evolve..They can't just play all your old favs can they?

Hey Day indicates they had one good album/a couple of hits and may as well stop playing or making music to me.


I won't say bands of today are terrible but it is true that being original is getting harder and we all enjoy the music of our youth. That said anyone who wishes a real understanding of r and r should get the Beatles complete. A thousand years from now this will still be the definitive rock study guide. Not only is it a study of music , but of a history of world politics and culture.

^^^^^^^^What if they stopped at one or two albums..The loss

Not every song they wrote as a band or as individuals was thought to be as good as the fab fours first couple of works by some.
People didn't get artist/musicians evolve.

I can't Imagine not ever hearing a sitar or many of Johns love songs after the "hey day" of the Beatles.
The music was still great.
Please Please Me and zilch?

No White Album?

No Abbey Road???

 ComplekCity
Joined: 1/17/2011
Msg: 41
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/14/2011 2:29:40 PM
Well most bands I mentioned have new music out.

Soundgarden.Black Rain
Green day ....Last of The American Girls
Alice in chains...Lesson learned
Sick Puppies.....Odd One.


Soundgarden - I would like to check it out and I hope I like it
Alice in Chains - the original singer died and I've heard the latest cd and it's not even close to being as good as their older material IMO
Green Day , Sick Puppies - not a fan of the former, never heard the latter.


The bands/musicians evolve..They can't just play all your old favs can they?


I'm not talking about what the older bands should do - I'm saying I wish there were NEW bands out so I wouldn't have to listen to "old faves " over and over and over again.


Hey Day indicates they had one good album/a couple of hits and may as well stop playing or making music to me.


IMO .... " HEYDAY" is when a band was in their prime, whether it was one good album or ten in a row. I can't name one single band from the early 90's that is still putting out quality material. Jane's Addiction released a cd around 2003 and it was very sub par.

Ready4somethingfun :

Thank you very much for taking the time to give me a list of bands that you consider "fresh" - I appreciate it !

Cheers !
 scootie75
Joined: 2/20/2010
Msg: 42
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 5/31/2011 8:22:09 PM
I havent read most of the replies to this, so Im sure Ill be repeating some things that were already said...

There are a lot of rock bands out there that arent terrible. Do they get radio play? Absolutely not. Radio stations today play what the record labels want you to hear, plain and simple. On the other hand, if youre looking for something new or maybe something thats been around for a while that youve never heard of, Id seriously recommend satellite radio, Pandora, and other internet radio and go from there. Theres so much better music out there than what you hear multiple times a day on any given station. Also, go to some of the big music festivals near you. Sure, some bands might not be your thing, but youre bound to find something you'd be into.

Im sure I wouldnt be the first to admit that radio stations have taken a major dive the last decade or so with the quality of music they play. I think I saw someone mention about how your taste might change over time. I partially agree with that, but it certainly doesnt help when popular bands and their music are constantly being replicated/duplicated and spoon-fed to society and told that it is good. For example, look how upset/shocked people were when The Arcade Fire won album of the year. No one had even heard of them before 2010, and barely got any radio play anywhere compared to who they were up against...other artists that are played in heavy rotation on multiple stations in any given market.

Anyway, if you want to hear better music you have to search for it and endure some ear bleeding along the way. Another site to check is Myspace. Im sure youll laugh, but the site was originally made for bands to promote themselves per se. Good luck.
 Mr_Modular
Joined: 1/25/2011
Msg: 43
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 6/15/2011 10:22:04 AM
There are great bands out there, you just have to look. When I was in high school, I was all about grunge and alternative. But as time has gone on, my musical palates have changed, and are always changing. I mean, for example, 15 years ago, I would've laughed if someone said I'd be into jazz, rock-abilly, punk, post-rock, and even a bit of hip hop (well, trip hop), as well as classical music.
Music has been a part of my life since I was very young. Thanks to YouTube, I can see videos I haven't seen since I was a kid, and I'm always discovering new bands (or new to me bands)...

I think people hold onto certain eras of music because it was their time. I have a buddy who's a year older than I am, and he always say there hasn't been any good music since '92. That said, he is a rock guy, and when grunge came in, it completely alienated him.

Now as for mainstream music, it's had its periods where it's good, and right now it's utter crap. There's some out there like Katy Perry and Bruno Mars that I like, but I can't get behind Kesha, Gaga, and so forth.

Again, it's like anything else you're into, if you want new stuff, you have to be willing to look, and open your mind.
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 6/15/2011 7:42:09 PM
There has not been any decent bands since the early 90's. I love listening to "Law And Order". It's a mix of Led Zepp, and late 80's rock. It's a shame that Kurt Cobain started a movement in the early 90's, and he didn't stick around to complete it.
 Shatteringlast
Joined: 12/17/2008
Msg: 45
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 6/20/2011 3:41:41 AM
Give these guys a shot. Local bands might have to be the savior for the time being.

http://www.reverbnation.com/newredscare
 MMA247
Joined: 5/16/2011
Msg: 46
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 6/20/2011 2:30:38 PM
98% of all music now is terrible. It's quite pathetic really.
 UnixGrand
Joined: 5/9/2011
Msg: 47
view profile
History
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.
 BryGuy56
Joined: 2/22/2011
Msg: 48
view profile
History
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.
 ComplekCity
Joined: 1/17/2011
Msg: 49
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 6/22/2011 9:11:02 AM

Forty years ago and for many years that followed rock was an empty canvas.


Wow, that sounds a lot like msg 8 !
 valco1
Joined: 2/6/2011
Msg: 50
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.
Show ALL Forums  > Art/Music  > Why are most new rock bands terrible?