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
 GuitarPlayer64
Joined: 4/4/2013
Msg: 151
Why are most new rock bands terrible?Page 7 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Rock music with it's emphasis on guitar and drums is incredibly limited to a handful of chords and rhythms that you can only arrange in that many ways before originality runs out. It was easy in the 60s when this type of music was relatively new to be original and creative and move into into new ways, and the 70s still brought on more sophistication and variation. After that peak it got difficult, and what you may call "terrible" is most likely a lack of originality and creativity.


Hardly, there are hundreds of chords and 16 different key signatures, plus numerous variations on chords, scales and key signatures that aren't used in rock music because they are too diatonic or people just don't understand advanced music theory like trained musicians. Rock music still revolves around the same kinds of key signatures like E and A. It's not the genre's fault people can't branch out.
 LightGlider
Joined: 6/12/2013
Msg: 152
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 11/18/2013 10:18:06 PM
To today's complexity and these old band are inferior. Not that these old band were bad, they were great back in the day. I learned to appreciate Gothic music where you can include opera, philharmonic, violins etc.... with hard electric guitars, bass of that of heavy metal and make it all come together. It takes musicians with real talent to be able to compose such music. Back in the days of Zeps and Sabs. oprea stayed with opera so as philharmonic with violins for the most part. Now days music has no borders. Yes, there is lots of garbage out there more than the good stuff. Yet those good bands out weigh the bad bad by a very long shot.
 GuitarPlayer64
Joined: 4/4/2013
Msg: 153
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 12/6/2013 8:00:29 PM
Good music doesn't have to be complicated, anyone who thinks that complicated = better is a brainless meathead (metalheads especially). The best written songs of all time for the majority are all fairly easy to play. It's not how many notes you can play, it's HOW you play them. One note can convey more emotion then a flurry of notes overladen with distortion. There is a reason why Hendrix is revered as the best guitar Player to ever live, he was not only a genius and a pioneer when it comes to his technical skills, but he took the electric guitar to places no one else had traveled. I hate fret wankers, being a guitar player myself, I see no value or skill in being able to play fast if you can't convey emotion through phrasing. David Gilmour is hands down one of the greatest guitarists because his playing was never absurdly complicated, but each note is so well placed and every song so well written that even one note for two bars can be a statement, since the rest of the instrumentation coincides with that one section. Half these hacks like Yngwie Malmsteen and John Petrucci make nothing but noise and are so arrogant because skull bashers try and hold them on some sort of phallic pedestal despite their inability to create something great.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 154
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 12/8/2013 1:04:31 PM
Most of the rock music we hear on the radio is based on Baroque harmonies because that's what sounds good to people. Bands that use extended harmonies and more dissonance like Sonic Youth don't appeal to a wide audience because the music isn't as coherent or based on simple (strophic) forms. You have to have a really catchy hook and simple harmonies if you want to make a hit. You could write atonal rock music, but it's never going to go beyond a cult following of people that listen to obscure music or musicians that can understand it. The same goes for books or artwork. It might be interesting to read a book filled with random words in different fonts, some going vertically down the page, but at the end of the day, it's coherent, basic books like the Hunger Games or the Da Vinci Code that appeal to a broader audience.
 ledzeppfan92
Joined: 11/23/2013
Msg: 155
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 12/21/2013 6:36:31 PM
Well, here are my thoughts on this conundrum of why most music (not just rock) seems to suck

1. The complete absence of counter culture in music- The 1960's was a very turbulent decade to say the least. The Civil Rights movement, The Vietnam war, The assassinations of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King Jr., the hippie movement. It all helped brew this anti-establishment "Us vs. Them" mentality in popular music (sex, drugs and rock n' roll) that just doesn't seem to exist today. This created iconoclasts such as Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Dennis Hopper, Timothy Leary and so on. Who do we have now that in this time period that could do this, Lady Gaga? Give me a damn break.


2. The Digital Age- Thanks in large part to all the technology available, anybody can make music now, which is both good and bad. Good in the sense that you don't need to be signed to a label to create your own content. Bad in the sense that computers have taken over everything, why not music as well. Record companies figured out a long time ago "Hey, why try and develop talent, when a computer and a generic, attractive 22 year old can do all the work for us?" And we see the end result in this. It's much easier to have a repetitive computer beat and sing "Girl, shake that ass. girl, shake that ass..." than it is to create an album with any integrity, using actual instruments, which just isn't as trendy anymore.


3. The death of the "Rockstar" image- For the most part, rock is just not seen as "dangerous" and "sexy" as it once was decades ago, and has since been replaced by mainstream rappers like Lil Wayne, Wiz Kahlifa, Drake, and other names I'm too lazy to look up. Rap/Dance is the new rock n' roll, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. That's sort of why a lot of people dismiss modern rock as angry screamo kids that try to cut their wrists with plastic knives, that write songs about why they hate society, because their dad had to put them in timeout for running around with scissors. Either that or formulaic Nickelback, Hinder, Theory of a Deadman "Metal without the balls" crap.


4.The Music Industry is just that, an industry- The fact of the matter is this, a very large organization called Clear Channel owns the vast majority of radio stations in this country. Their bottom line is green, just like any other industry. Their formula's already been written in stone. Step 1:Major labels find good looking young people (talented or not), Step 2: Hire writers to write songs for these young people, Step 3: Shove these people down the general publics' throat until someone (mainly preteen girls) eat them up, Step 4: Turn them into a cultural phenomenon (put them on the cover of Rolling Stone, put them on MTV, music award shows, have them host SNL, put their face all over newspapers, magazines, books, TV commercials) Step 5: Merchandising, send them on a world tour and make a crappy 3-d movie and charge 14.99 for one ticket to that movie, Step 6: Bleed every last dime out of them. When their 15 minutes of fame are up, kick 'em to the curb. Step 7: Repeat Step 1 and recruit new people . It operates like an assembly line. These people are the reason why decent rock musicians will never get worldwide exposure like the Beatles and the Stones among many other bands did.

This video is quite old but explains it perfectly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzm50HEmNeM

I'm still waiting for that one band that exploded onto the charts from out of left field, the same way Nirvana did when they buried Hair Metal into its well deserved grave, that will make this teeny bopper stuff become obsolete. We need another Alternative rock explosion, or at least just something out of the norm.

Sincerely, Some random douchebag
 EmsAndI
Joined: 4/14/2008
Msg: 156
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 1/9/2014 4:26:04 PM
try TRIGGERFINGER from Belgium..one of the best rock bands of the past couple of years!
 junipermoon
Joined: 3/1/2006
Msg: 157
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 1/9/2014 5:01:30 PM
i blame a lot of it on oversocialization and, indirectly, feminism.

rockers should present grit, aggression, rebellion and raw, unfiltered sexuality. what we see now (and since curt cobain's death) looks and sounds too sanitized, too concerned with offending listeners. but one of the points of rock and roll was to shock society out of its comfort zone.

i maintain that the rolling stones had more of an impact on western culture than anyone since nijinsky. jagger threw propriety to the wind and bumped and ground his way into the world's bedroom. the stones had no use for flower power. peace and love didn't interest them. nor did refined civility. and that variety of masculine aggression got lost through our post-modernist constructions.

too many men concern themselves with getting in touch with their 'feminine side.'

let boys be boys. and let the chicks wail like they mean it.
 GuitarPlayer64
Joined: 4/4/2013
Msg: 158
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 1/12/2014 8:19:00 AM
I think a lot of the younger generation has picked up the music our parents listened to. I remember as a little kid my dad had stacks of old vinyl records, which he unfortunately sold before we moved houses. Little did he know that his first born son (aka me) would grow into the music of his generation. Granted, there was a time that I listened to pop music, but as I further engrossed myself in music as a performer, the more my interests in genres changed. I listened to and played a lot of jazz early in high school, and was also listening to more modern rock when I was 13 or 14. I started to get further into the older rock when I started playing guitar at 16. I think a lot of kids today are similar if they are raised in a musical environment. I started singing and playing recorder at 7 years old, both my parents played before I was born.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 159
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/9/2014 5:00:09 AM
Myself, I've felt for a while that Rock and Roll in general has been boring or just sucked. I know that some of this is simply a matter of preference, but that some of it has got to be for legitimate preference-independent reasons. One thing in particular that I will cite has to do with vocals. One thing that I think is intrinsic with some of the rock-n-roll spectrum (this of course doesn't apply across-the-board, for there are many colors in the rock-n-roll spectrum), and something that I like about the kind of rock-n-roll to which this applies, is that the vocals are what I'd call robust, tough, musky, or "confident". Whether it's male or female, bright and positive or darker and lamenting, one of the things that makes it the kind of rock-n-roll that it is, is that the vocals are robust, tough, musky, or "confident" in a way. Well...something that I noticed about a lot of rock-n-roll that seemed to keep coming out for a while was that, while on the one hand according to everything else about the music it was this certain shade of the rock-n-roll spectrum, yet on the other hand the vocals would be so damned whiney, and pre-pubescent sounding. The music would be decent, rocking in some way, and then the vocals would start and ruin it all...that damned whiney pre-pubescent girly-man sound.
 junipermoon
Joined: 3/1/2006
Msg: 160
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/9/2014 11:32:53 AM

The music would be decent, rocking in some way, and then the vocals would start and ruin it all...that damned whiney pre-pubescent girly-man sound.


i blame michael jackson for that. in fact, i blame him for the impending decline of popular music.

we've seen valiant efforts by artists like petty, the who, the stones and springsteen, but the damage was already done.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 161
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/9/2014 12:46:33 PM
Everyone is kind of taking the term "rock n' roll" and making it mean whatever they want to mean. It's supposed to be about being sincere and personal expression. If you don't naturally have a robust voice or you don't want to sing in that way, how is it "rock n' roll" to change your voice to fit into some preconceived idea of what you should be doing? Most bands that are making decent money have a manager or producer that tells them how to look and how to sound and even hires session musicians for the studio and buys songs from a professional songwriter. Having a "robust" voice doesn't make you rock n' roll. Being true to yourself does.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 162
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/9/2014 4:19:40 PM
junipermoon:


The music would be decent, rocking in some way, and then the vocals would start and ruin it all...that damned whiney pre-pubescent girly-man sound.
i blame michael jackson for that. in fact, i blame him for the impending decline of popular music.

we've seen valiant efforts by artists like petty, the who, the stones and springsteen, but the damage was already done.

I don’t think that I’d share this view. First, Michael Jackson isn’t my style of music, but I recognize his success and legitimacy as a musician, and certainly not as a whiney pre-pubescent sounding vocalist. He was pre-pubescent for a while, but he didn't sing that way. He had the funk and rock down. Second, I wouldn’t list The Who or The Rolling Stones at all as examples at least of what I meant. I also see those two very much as successes, much more than simply valiant efforts.

And, do we think that the Bee Gees were influenced much by Jackson? Everybody knows they like the Bee Gees, they just won’t admit it. Hehe.

Coma_White:

Everyone is kind of taking the term "rock n' roll" and making it mean whatever they want to mean. It's supposed to be about being sincere and personal expression. If you don't naturally have a robust voice or you don't want to sing in that way, how is it "rock n' roll" to change your voice to fit into some preconceived idea of what you should be doing? Most bands that are making decent money have a manager or producer that tells them how to look and how to sound and even hires session musicians for the studio and buys songs from a professional songwriter. Having a "robust" voice doesn't make you rock n' roll. Being true to yourself does.

For my part, this is why in my post I said things like “some of the rock-n-roll spectrum” and “the kind of rock-n-roll to which this applies” and “this certain shade of the rock-n-roll spectrum”…enough times that my post reads a bit goofy. I just didn’t know how I should say it, and am not sure what I should label the kind of rock and roll that I’m talking about. But I believe that I’m talking about mainstream, hard, and heavy…though I don’t think that everything under those labels conforms to my opinion or description, and what I mean by mainstream might be very different than what it should be or someone else’s opinion.

By the way, you seem like you might be a fan of things that are outside of convention, or at least understand it - know ye that I am a lover of Bjork. And this type of stuff - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB37F25BB264CE090

But anywho…I’ll clarify my previous post. I wasn’t talking about rock that had to be of a certain sound (and I like much more rock than the particular kind that I’m talking about), but I was talking about rock which has music that sounds one way, but then vocals that completely don’t fit…a robust powerful testosterone (even for female rock) rocking music, yet when the vocals begin, those vocals sound like someone’s just whining with a voice that hasn’t gone through puberty, and singing in a way that isn’t “rocking” at all. But I am also talking about rock that isn’t trying to be “rocking” in the way that I mean, but the vocal style is still just too “pre-pubescent” or whiney sounding for me.

(There were lots of rock and roll bands of the 70’s and 80’s that I love but weren’t of “robust tough” vocals at all…at least the vocalizations fit the music, instead of the music trying to rock out, but then the vocalist sounding like he’s a wanna-be emo or goth, or just plain whiney or pre-pubescent sounding. And some of this stuff during this era I didn’t like either for this reason.)

I’ll list examples here, first of rock vocals that are robust and confident in the way that I’m talking about and that fit the music in the way that I’m talking about…but you’ll have to have some real music reproduction in order to really receive the “power” and concentrate on the qualities of the vocals that I’m referring to (not just recognize that it’s trying to be “macho” sounding)…and then I’ll list examples of music that is “rocking” in a certain way but the vocals just come in and ruin that ride and don’t seem to fit, or, the music to begin with is just boring as any kind of "rock".

First -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L74OkgxwNzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ9CLOEOB5U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcj34XixuYg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy-QmgdUVTI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxZInIyOBXk (yes < even this one)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdphvuyaV_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZuW6BH_Vak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWhInhE6emE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4gVfxhPvxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCtga1OJ9I4

You get the idea. And then there’s this stuff -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOllF3TgAsM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qVPNONdF58 (it’s real funny that I like this one < but it’s technically an example of the kind of vocals I otherwise can’t stand)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lec_LszFoT4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50TEM8OPFcY (tom cruise < can sing well, but not rock and roll, this is horrible, he should not be singing rock, let alone that song)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2zWM3YGEmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNq9gmY_Oz4

Both lists intentionally contain at least one example which might seem borderline or like it seems to belong in the other list to anyone trying to know what I mean.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 163
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/10/2014 2:53:25 AM

I’ll list examples here, first of rock vocals that are robust and confident in the way that I’m talking about and that fit the music in the way that I’m talking about…but you’ll have to have some real music reproduction in order to really receive the “power” and concentrate on the qualities of the vocals that I’m referring to (not just recognize that it’s trying to be “macho” sounding)…and then I’ll list examples of music that is “rocking” in a certain way but the vocals just come in and ruin that ride and don’t seem to fit, or, the music to begin with is just boring as any kind of "rock".


I'm kind of confused. I think the vocals on Smells Like Teen Spirit are pretty heavy. You can tell he's singing as hard as he can with lots of vocal fry. That song is very intense vocally. I could understand if you picked Smashing Pumpkins where his voice is more delicate. I think it's just a matter of personal preference. Sometimes I like the contrast of heavy music with more delicate vocals. That's why I like bands with female vocalsists like Echoes of Eternity, Nightwish, Within Temptation, Leaves Eyes etc.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 164
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/10/2014 4:08:14 AM
^ Well, this is why I offered from the beginning that it's very much a matter of tastes. You can hardly say that anyone is wrong when talking about this kind of thing. But that's an attempt to explain my tastes and views in a certain area. And yea, smashing pumpkins could easily have been one of my examples too. But, what you're saying about the vocals in smells like teen spirit is correct...but for me it's not the same, no matter how hard he's trying or how much passion he has (again, just a matter of preference). It's still whiney sounding to me, and it still isn't one of styles of rock that I like. For that matter, in one of my examples of what I don't like, the vocalist isn't bad at all, but I just think he belongs in a different kind of music, or different song, not "rock" (of course, the kind of "rock" that I'm talking about). Maybe as another example of what I mean - I love a couple of Led Zeppelin songs...but I can't see that style of vocalization being employed in any of the examples I listed of what I like. It belongs in Led Zeppelin style music, and works well. The general Led Zeppelin sound is tight that way. And I say that as not being a Led Zeppelin fan, though I love 2 or 3 of their songs.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 165
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/10/2014 3:47:34 PM
I thought I knew what you meant by the current whiney rock singing, but now I am not so sure. It's funny-- I really gravitate towards the unusually high-pitched male rock singers such as those in Rush, Yes, and Jane's Addiction, but I can't stand what I consider whiney singing-- the type that sounds as though the singer is begging his girlfriend not to break up with him. I blame Foreigner and their song "I want to know what love is" for pioneering this style.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 166
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/10/2014 5:40:58 PM
There has been rock songs that I've heard, which had music closer to the things I like that I listed, but the vocals were as I describe...and I just can't locate or name them in order to put them in here. I don't know what they are, probably because I didn't like them. And that is a big part of what I originally meant about rock that was coming out for a while that was "yuck" to me.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 167
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/10/2014 7:32:02 PM

There has been rock songs that I've heard, which had music closer to the things I like that I listed, but the vocals were as I describe...and I just can't locate or name them in order to put them in here. I don't know what they are, probably because I didn't like them. And that is a big part of what I originally meant about rock that was coming out for a while that was "yuck" to me.


Yeah, I think it's just a personal preference. Some people love Billy Corgan's voice and some hate it. Same with Cobain. I found Billy to have a more nasal and whiny voice personally. Some people like the juxstaposition of heavy music with a lyric soprano like Sharon den Adel from Within Tempation and some only like male vocalists for metal. I've been listening to a lot of Hungarian music lately because I like they way they pronounce things.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 168
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/11/2014 2:17:21 AM
Gave Echoes of Eternity, Nightwish, Within Temptation, and Leaves Eyes a listen to. Not bad to me. Those aren't at all one way or the other of what I mean. Kind of like them too, 'cept for that accompanying synthesizer-type sound that seems to always be there all of the time and define it.

Hungarian rock...not so bad either, 'cept some of it seems to be more black/death metal. Those voices way too deep, and those black/death riffs or chords or whatever. But still not really what I mean either way.

However, I did discover this...I really like it, and I think it's a good example of the kind of vocals I like, marriage between the vocals and music, and the music itself...thanks man! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2qC5exHRw
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 169
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/11/2014 4:03:57 AM

However, I did discover this...I really like it, and I think it's a good example of the kind of vocals I like, marriage between the vocals and music, and the music itself...thanks man! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2qC5exHRw


Cool, I know Virgo. They're pretty good. I listen to a lot of pop and rap music from Hungary like Lola, Barbee, Children of Distance, The Baby Dolls, and Fruzsina Kovacsovics. Their language has vowel harmony, so it makes the vocals more pleasing to the ear than Germanic languages. If you want a real trip, check out the spinto soprano from Crysalys. This style of singing is out of fashion now because it doesn't really fit the genres of music that are popular now.

Crysalys - The Awakening of Gaia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfT606XUbco
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 170
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 2/11/2014 5:08:38 AM
Whew. A breath of opera rock, that is.

To recover, I fight back with a sword-swing of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaFOeSuwCKM

(trying not to post so much, this is turning into simple chat, don't want to reach some post limit)
 OrvilleOinkdexter
Joined: 3/30/2014
Msg: 171
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/11/2014 1:15:09 AM

That's why I like bands with female vocalsists like Echoes of Eternity, Nightwish, Within Temptation, Leaves Eyes etc.


I'm a big fan of all the aforementioned and the genre from which they come. Within Temptation is FINALLY coming to the United States, but not a single one of the dates is in my state!!

I can't wait for the next Nightwish album. I can't believe I'm saying this as someone who was devastated by Tarja's departure years ago, but I think Floor Jansen may very well end up being the best thing to ever happen to the band. She is incredible. Their newest DVD with the Wacken show totally sold me on her.
 ThatGirlNamedAlli
Joined: 12/28/2013
Msg: 172
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/11/2014 8:49:23 AM
I'm really looking forward to jack white's new album coming out in june. I've only heard the one single, but I'm looking forward to more.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 173
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/16/2014 8:19:00 PM

People want cover bands, bands that play songs they know, this means copying what is out there, over and over again. Next stage of progression, they end up with a juke box and/or karaoke, free for the place to offer pretty much. Musicians aren't what used to be an actual profession, we have to either scrounge for chump change, reproducing what's out there, or remain behind closed doors and not get a gig. When I say chump change, I say, your gas is not even covered for showing up to play as the norm.


I play in a cover band and I work with people that play in tribute bands. It's not true that you get "chump change" for playing the norm. My friend is in three tribute bands and local gigs give each member $400. Playing gigs outside of town brings in more money. I've played in original bands where each member got at least $400 a gig and transportation was often provided for gigs over 8 hours away. Some cover bands get $300 a night to split, with each member getting $75 or $100. That kind of payment is what the lowest level cover bands make. Most of them play classic rock that no one wants to dance to anymore. If you play current music, you're already in a better position.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 174
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/16/2014 10:15:02 PM

Where do you life at, this will be the must do, place to go if I want to play music at! In Portland, Seattle, Sacramento, the band get's 120 total, and that's the going rate if you actually get to play, which takes ton's to sell them upon. If you also take into account, the amount of gas you spend to get to the practice spot, the time you personally spend to learn and fine tune your compositions, just do the math my friend.


I'm from Ontario. Are you talking about playing originals or a cover band? I play in some punk rock bands for fun and it's normal to only get $50 or $100 tops. For making money, I prefer to play in a cover band. The songs are easy to learn and you can get a lot of bookings.
 Bebopalu
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 175
view profile
History
Why are most new rock bands terrible?
Posted: 4/20/2014 8:09:58 AM

I'm really looking forward to jack white's new album coming out in june. I've only heard the one single, but I'm looking forward to more.


I like some White Stripes song a lot.

It seems like many people stop enjoying or listening to new music when they get into their 30's and older. I don't listen to music a lot now, and I don't hear many songs I'm excited about; but I still listen to some new sounds.
Show ALL Forums  > Art/Music  > Why are most new rock bands terrible?