Homer Simpson syndrome.Originally Posted by Ltlabner
"I used to rock 'n' roll all night, and party ev-er-y day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky."
Homer Simpson syndrome.
"I used to rock 'n' roll all night, and party ev-er-y day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky."
"I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful
That's what I'm saying. It's an art form dedicated to finding new ways to howl at the moon.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Nirvana.
I think Green Day was pretty close with American Idiot, they would play Boulevard of Broken Dreams and Wake Me Up When September Ends on my mom's soft rock radio station. The Chili Peppers should have gotten more attention with Stadium Arcadium, but it was still not embraced by the main stream music stations the way Green Day had been. The Smashing Pumpkins and blink 182 had there time, and Weezer continues to draw. I think the Foo Fighters and 3 Doors Down have the potential to release a great album and get close to this status as well. Although I don't think any of these modern bands can ever reach the heights of the others listed because rock has taken a back seat to other music genres, these bands are as close as it gets today IMO...
Last edited by *BaseClogger*; 10-01-2008 at 12:29 PM.
I've been fighting that too. Years ago, my wife and I both used to be really into all the new music out there. Among our friends we were the people that had all the CDs no one else had even heard of, and we also had much wider ranging tastes than most of our friends. But now, I really tend to find myself where you are, LA, but I am not necessarily content to be there.
Our efforts to avoid this rut have been buoyed by XM radio to some extent. Now granted we are not going to pursue this with anywhere near the gusto of our earlier days as we have our daughter and several other activities and priorities. But we want to stay in touch, at least in some parts, and especially with the types of music that we find appealing. For example, I likely wouldn't be able to pick out a Jay Z song from a group of similar-style artists' songs, but that also probably would have been the case had he been present back in our more voracious music comsumption days.
Over the past 10 years I have found myself gravitating to more of the singer-songwriter and alt-country genres, but I still love me some rock'n'roll in all stripes too. I get anything Todd Snider throws out there and play it to death, but am also having some fun listening to the Killers, etc. We got Radiohead's Pablo Honey for Creep back in the day, and we just personally didn't care for some of their initial follow-ups so we never really pursued them after that. So I'm trying, within limits. I know there's tons of stuff out there I'd like. But one a given day you may see my 6-disc changer with nothing newer than 1995 in it (with the exception of my favorite artists who continue to make music) - and that I am trying to change.
With all that, I have no clue who could truly be the aught's answer to the Stones, AC/DC, or Beatles...and IMO that is my own fault. I honestly wish I could offer some reasonable choices based on what I have heard, but I have limited myself over the past few years, and it shows...
"I'm virtually free to do whatever I want, but I try to remember so is everybody else..." - Todd Snider
In this you mention 3 of the "larger-appeal" bands I really appreciate : Nirvana (they were a favorite of mine from day one), Green Day (to a slightly lesser extent), and probably most relevantly the Chili's (that's the last concert we've been to). Foo Fighters have not drawn me in completely yet. That's where I think I stopped being even somewhat current.
"I'm virtually free to do whatever I want, but I try to remember so is everybody else..." - Todd Snider
Great discussion here, I'm really enjoying it.
On a side note to this discussion, I've seen maybe half of one episode of American Idol about five years ago. That said, I do hold the strong belief that this is the one reality competition that actually serves its competitors in a long-lasting career sense. Shows like Project Runway and Top Chef are much better shows and their competitors are stronger in their fields (they're trained and experienced professionals, as opposed to the contestants on Idol whom I gather are basically music business-virgin kids). But American Idol winners walk away with a record deal and enough exposure that I believe they're given some control over their careers. At least, that's the way it seems to me, with the slight variety of styles I see in their winners. And I *know* who the winners are without even watching the show. That's a success for them.
The other reality competitions seem to be about the spectacle. The winners of Top Chef and Project Runway walk away with $100,000 to start their own business. Frankly, between paying business associates, purchasing materials, renting space, and stiff industry competition (not to mention finding a way to live), $100K isn't enough to really do that successfully, and I suspect a lot of those winners will fade into obscurity. It's fun as a competition and it's entertaining television, but it's not a springboard to a career.
Now, whether this is good for music is a separate argument. But the music industry has been spewing out packaged, targeted crap since its inception. We can talk all we want about the quality from decades ago being better, but I think that's some pretty rose-colored hindsight. Quality bands age better with time and flashes in the pan fade from our memories. But while they exist, those flashes rake in enough cash to hold up some of the better artists who can't afford to do so themselves. That's why I have no problem with American Idol. People who are looking for deeper, more quality music will find it; in fact they'll have an easier time finding it now than they ever have. If pre-packaged crap is what everybody else wants to listen to and pay for, then let them have at it. This is nothing new. It just has more opportunity to cross media now, which is a natural thing in this increasingly media-based society.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
You know what, it just occurred to me that Rock music existed as a definitive alternative to something else, something that kids could listen to as a way to define themselves as being different than their parents. Yeah, I know- duh. But it got me thinking about the progression of alternatives.
Rockabilly and "rock and roll" were alternatives to the dominant popular music of the 40s and 50s.
The British invasion was an alternative to the rock and roll of the 50s.
Folk and blues inspired Rock was an alternative to the pop sound of the British Invasion.
Rock remained an alternative to pop and later disco.
"Hard Rock" was an alternative, harder edged answer to Rock.
Heavy Metal was an alternative to both.
Punk was an alternative to everything.
You get the point- it just makes me wonder what the present day alternative is? I am apt to think there is little chance of of any present day alternatives achieving the same levels of popularity as Rock did back in the day, primarily because of the way music is organized and available. People can customize their own listening far more easily than they could thirty years ago. And they have more ways to opt out of the crap being manufactured by the marketers and branders of the music industry.
I am enjoying this thread a lot. It's just like high school, discussing music with my friends.
Without the bong hits, of course.
Next Reds manager, second shooter. --Confirmed on Redszone.
Angry, mopey alternative belongs to those of us who came of age in the '90s. The modern alternative is the "twee" movement (if that's what you call it) already mentioned. And it's already generating backlash in the form of back-to-roots hard rock (Airbourne, Buck Cherry).
"I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful
It's beginning to remind me of this:
BRIAN:
What?
REG:
Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS:
Wankers.
Next Reds manager, second shooter. --Confirmed on Redszone.
They've only released 3 albums in the "aughts" --
Everyday (2001)
Busted Stuff (2002 -- most tracks actually from a 2000 studio session)
Stand Up (2005)
And, if you ask any DMB fan to rank the band's discography, you'd be hard pressed to find many (if any) that would put any of those three ahead of the work they did in the 90s on Before These Crowded Streets, Crash, and Under the Table and Dreaming. Their songs that are still in radio-rotation on Adult Contemporary and Mix-Rock format stations are all from those first three albums, the lone exception being "The Space Between" from Everyday. The other main singles ("I Did It", "Where Are You Going", "Grey Street", and "American Baby") fell from rotation shortly after the albums were released.
Having said that, they've got a new album set to release in early-'09 which, if it's back on par with their earlier stuff, could make them a serious entrant into this debate.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
I suspected that was the case. DMB's mostly off my radar, but I figured that if they were putting together some great new stuff it would be heavy rotation all over the place.
IMO, in order to get into the Greatest Band mix they'd either need to be working on a major streak (not the case) or the new album has to be their best, something that blows even the non-believers away. Of course, the problem with that is the band stands to upset its core audience if it gets too ambitious and they're on a very comfortable gravy train. My guess is you'll see them play to their base.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Well in your group both U2 and Springsteen are continuing to issue good and great work and still put on amazing shows. Have they actually relinquished the title?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtz7q5l5Ll4
Last edited by klw; 10-01-2008 at 04:47 PM.
It took four pages for someone to mention the Jonas Brothers? I think if they crank out another disc like their last one you have to put them right up there with Fall Out Boy.
"I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings."
Hitters who avoid outs are the funnest.
My 14-year-old cousin, who happens to be the author of the soon-to-be-breakout hit book, Joe Jonas is Amazing, would concur with you.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
I also don't know how much they influence other musicians (which I hold as a criterion), though that would probably be off my radar as well. The band's been around long enough for their influence to have circled around again musically...are there any DMB knockoffs of substance? Arcade Fire hasn't had nearly the success that the Dave Matthews Band has, and I don't think they're anywhere near something like this title yet, but I can say pretty confidently that they're going to affect the direction of music at least slightly.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote