Quality of rock music?

[el_fefes]

Do you guys think the quality of rock has gone up or down through the years?

IMO today's stuff can't compare to the classics.

Discuss.

[Fado]

I had no idea todays music could even be discussed when it comes to "quality". Pop/Rock (yes, the lines have blurred) music of today is a joke, and its all of you braindead retards who bob your head to manufactured bands that keep this shitball rolling.

[finboy]

there is still quality stuff out there, but music is cyclical, the last big rush of really good rock music was the early to mid 90's (seatle scene, brit pop, electronica, canadian alt rock, etc.), there are bright spots here and there (foo fighters, queens of the stone age, etc.) but it will probably be a few years until another big scene comes around.

i will agree that most mainstream "rock" today is pretty mellow and pretty predictable.

[msommers]

Lots of money going around and only mediocre talent coming to the public spells disaster for any quality music.

One of the biggest reasons I love going to see underground shows and "no-names". When the hell is the last time Nickelback had a guitar solo......or changed their fucking 3 chord schedule around? G-A-C ok thats one, how about C-G-A damn you're assume! Lets go public!! :guns::banghead:

The thing I feel about music at this time is there is no "style" of living or select genre of music going around. There is good music from all genres if you look hard enough but not ONE that stands out above the rest like say Led Zepplin would.

With so many styles of music coming from the past and so many various genres now, it's hard as a musician to make something totally different that no one has heard before. Music now is constantly being compared to "what it used to be" and it's quite unfair and probably a little discouraging for aspiring artists...I mean true artists not your cookie-cutter hot broad, studio manipulated voice artists.

Lets face it, if a band suddenly had their own distinct vocals like ACDC does, distinct tones like Iron Maiden has and soulful playing like Jimi Hendrix did, they would just be labelled a wannabe, even if they somehow had never heard of any of those bands/artists.

[el_fefes]

Originally posted by finboy
there is still quality stuff out there, but music is cyclical, the last big rush of really good rock music was the early to mid 90's (seatle scene, brit pop, electronica, canadian alt rock, etc.), there are bright spots here and there (foo fighters, queens of the stone age, etc.) but it will probably be a few years until another big scene comes around.

i will agree that most mainstream "rock" today is pretty mellow and pretty predictable.

hey, what are some of these bands from the early 90's? (aside from Nirvana or Smashing Pumpkins)

And I do agree that it's hard to be original... but most bands just want to sound like someone else nowadays.

And another thing, rock isn't as melodic as it used to be.

[ZedMan]

You also have to remember that the classic rock you hear is a distilled product, nobody remembers the shitty disposable pop/rock song the radio stations played 18 times a day back in '76, so it disappears into pop obscurity, where it belongs.

In 20 years, nickelback et al will nothing but a faded memory.

[finboy]

Originally posted by el_fefes


hey, what are some of these bands from the early 90's? (aside from Nirvana or Smashing Pumpkins)

And I do agree that it's hard to be original... but most bands just want to sound like someone else nowadays.

And another thing, rock isn't as melodic as it used to be.

my favorite 90's acts in no specific order

-stone roses
-oasis
-foo fighters (colour and the shape is by FAR their best work)
-soundgarden
-alice in chains
-offspring
-green day
-Guns and roses
-metallica (i liked their 80's stuff too)
-matthew sweet
-the verve
-radiohead (the bends and ok computer were GREAT, pablo honey had its moments)
-Red hot chilli peppers
-silverchair
-bush
-stone temple pilots
-aerosmith's get a grip album was good IMO
-sublime
-tool
-wallflowers
-weezer
-sunny day real estate

and that doesn't even scratch the surface, then there are the canadian acts...

-Matthew good band
-treble charger
-econoline crush
-early our lady peace (clumsy was the last cd i really listened to, after that they got boring)
-collective soul
-gob
-zucker baby
-killjoys
-finger 11/rainbow butt monkeys
-age of electric
etc.

i miss the 90's :(

a big reason you don't see a lot of new things is because most bands that make it don't want to try things that are unsafe, and equally so, label's want something that will get them a profit, if they KNOW a formula works, where is the encouragment to find something new? its a vicious circle that pulls you into a stagnent state of music, which then gets replaced by something fresh (be it good or bad) in the form of usually the exact opposite. substance is replaced by image, image is replaced by substance, it goes back and forth like ping pong.

[hjr]

less people care about rock now and as such, it seems like much less of it is being made (outside of produced). i like silverchair and deftones and whatnot, but ive moved on. they are still on my computer, but music is always moving, you dont want to be the guy who wont listen to anything else cause iron maiden was the best that could ever be. (yes, i have iron maiden too, haha)

actually, im thinking now maybe 'rock' music is still good, only its changed, and some people definitions have not changed. for example, the post above me lists many bands that i know people will dissagree about being 'rock' (namely alternative, grunge, etc) - what about twisted sister, ac/dc, kiss, or those types of 'rock'

[l8braker]

mainstream shit stations like cjay 92 have killed rock music. for years they were the only station in calgary who played rock music and for many people, was the only outlet for new tunes. they have always shyed away from anything new, edgy, unique and cutting edge, in favour of tunes that will not piss off their advertisers (read: nickleback, t.d.g, falloutboy).

there is a TON a great new rock music out there, you just have to dig a little or tune into satellite/internet radio to get it.

[thrasher22]

Originally posted by finboy


my favorite 90's acts in no specific order

-stone roses
-oasis
-foo fighters (colour and the shape is by FAR their best work)
-soundgarden
-alice in chains
-offspring
-green day
-Guns and roses
-metallica (i liked their 80's stuff too)
-matthew sweet
-the verve
-radiohead (the bends and ok computer were GREAT, pablo honey had its moments)
-Red hot chilli peppers
-silverchair
-bush
-stone temple pilots
-aerosmith's get a grip album was good IMO
-sublime
-tool
-wallflowers
-weezer
-sunny day real estate


Can't forget Faith no More (everyone does these days, but they're killer) and Sublime!

Don't forget what we consider "classic" now was probably overplayed back in its day and people were saying the same thing we are now.

[l8braker]

Originally posted by thrasher22


Can't forget Faith no More (everyone does these days, but they're killer) and Sublime!

Don't forget what we consider "classic" now was probably overplayed back in its day and people were saying the same thing we are now.

midlife crisis, epic,

add to the list

cracker, the toadies, radiohead, helmet, elastica, pavement, sandbox, sponge, stp, filter, killjoys

[Doctor]

New bands are garbage compared to the oldies..

Zepplin
Grand Funk Railroad

All those hos we're great. Good music, quality musicianship and AMAZING shows.

Now the quality of the show is second rate too. Music is doomed.

[b_t]

Originally posted by ZedMan
You also have to remember that the classic rock you hear is a distilled product, nobody remembers the shitty disposable pop/rock song the radio stations played 18 times a day back in '76, so it disappears into pop obscurity, where it belongs.

In 20 years, nickelback et al will nothing but a faded memory.

FTW.

Go dig through your parents' record collection one day and while you will find lots of great albums, there are going to be a hell of a lot of really crappy ones you have never heard of before stuck in there too, ones that history was kind enough to let us forget.

Twenty years from now, the classic rock stations will play lots of Red Hot Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana, Metallica, stuff like that... and the stuff that really is no good will be forgotten.

[finboy]

oh yea, aside from the others mentioned in the thread, garbage is a GREAT 90's band, butch vig FTW :thumbsup:

[Inzane]

There might be hope on the horizon. Van Halen's supposed to be making a big comeback this year. Lets keep our fingers crossed.
:thumbsup:

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Unreleased Jimmy Page Guitar Riff To Be Retrieved From Secret Vault To Save Rock And Roll (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/unreleased_jimmy_page_guitar_riff)

If only it were true.

[TNation]

Is Roger Waters coming to the Dome?
that'd be one hell of a show

and obviously the Police are insane and such a classic
I love Boston too, great band

[asp integra]

ya i think it has gone down, like like the one guy said, there were alot of bad bands back in the day as well,

but i dont think any bands of today can compare to old bands like CCR, bto, beatles, steve miller, eagles, doobie brothers etc

[finboy]

Originally posted by asp integra
ya i think it has gone down, like like the one guy said, there were alot of bad bands back in the day as well,

but i dont think any bands of today can compare to old bands like CCR, bto, beatles, steve miller, eagles, doobie brothers etc

i don't know about that, radiohead is pretty damn impressive IMO

[Crymson]

http://www.viruscomix.com/devo.jpg

This is courtesy of my good friend at .www.viruscomix.com (http://www.viruscomix.com) , Winston Rowntree. He's got some funny shit, and he also hates nickelback, and AWFUL lot.

[finboy]

hehehehehe

[msommers]

Yeah progressive pic is awesome. The singer from Bush-X (can't think of his name..Gavin something?) has a new band isn't too bad, Institute..seventh wave is a good one.

[finboy]

gavin rosdale

here is a little insight on the current state of music from the fine folks at pbs...

-3990712704983223658&q

[googe]

interesting show. i wonder how its changed in the 3 years since that was released.

i think the internet is going to change a lot as soon as someone gets it right. right now the huge corporations have a chokehold on every part of the industry, but itll be impossible to do that when the main form of music distribution goes from CDs, radio, and tv to online. myspace alone has given a lot more artists visibility so its definitely moving forward.

the other issue, once the public gets quality music back again, is finding a way to support it financially. barely anyone pays for music anymore, and most never have any intention of doing so. if they can get a good service going that makes money off of ad revenue they might be able to make everyone happy. i dunno, itll be interesting to see where it goes in the next 10 years.

[thrasher22]

^^ Thats why you don't listen to the radio. Tons of good stuff out there:thumbsup:, you just have to look a little harder sometimes



Originally posted by Inzane
There might be hope on the horizon. Van Halen's supposed to be making a big comeback this year. Lets keep our fingers crossed.
:thumbsup:

I hope not, they've always struck me as the nickleback of classic rock.
Just better guitars :dunno:

[googe]

Originally posted by thrasher22
^^ Thats why you don't listen to the radio. Tons of good stuff out there:thumbsup:, you just have to look a little harder sometimes


Yeah, I never do myself, but Im just talking about the viability of the industry as a whole. All of the artists Im into are hurting bad, and all have day jobs. I often come across bands that I dont even necessarily like but know would be huge hits on the radio if they were actually heard, but they never get a chance. Its funny, whenever I play my stuff in the car, people are like "wow who is this? I havent even heard this type of music, what is it called?" etc...making good music is one thing, getting people to hear it is probably harder.

[l8braker]

Originally posted by googe


Yeah, I never do myself, but Im just talking about the viability of the industry as a whole. All of the artists Im into are hurting bad, and all have day jobs. I often come across bands that I dont even necessarily like but know would be huge hits on the radio if they were actually heard, but they never get a chance. Its funny, whenever I play my stuff in the car, people are like "wow who is this? I havent even heard this type of music, what is it called?" etc...making good music is one thing, getting people to hear it is probably harder.

What stuff are you playing these days?

[msommers]

Originally posted by googe


Yeah, I never do myself, but Im just talking about the viability of the industry as a whole. All of the artists Im into are hurting bad, and all have day jobs. I often come across bands that I dont even necessarily like but know would be huge hits on the radio if they were actually heard, but they never get a chance. Its funny, whenever I play my stuff in the car, people are like "wow who is this? I havent even heard this type of music, what is it called?" etc...making good music is one thing, getting people to hear it is probably harder.

Is this music you have searched up on those public band sites? Some of them are amazing. I just can't remember the sites. I should try to upload my buddies band CD, they just finished recording with a local label.

[googe]

Originally posted by l8braker


What stuff are you playing these days?

industrial mostly (that doesnt mean NIN).
some random samples...
http://profile.myspace.com/109507715
http://www.metropolis-records.com/artists/audio/355-01.mp3
http://www.metropolis-records.com/artists/audio/458-02.mp3
http://www.metropolis-records.com/artists/audio/458-06.mp3


Originally posted by msommers


Is this music you have searched up on those public band sites? Some of them are amazing. I just can't remember the sites. I should try to upload my buddies band CD, they just finished recording with a local label.

yeah, stuff like myspace and purevolume, as well as just word of mouth from other people into it, or on forums, going to shows, etc.

[Euro838]

It'd be nice if these "artists" actually composed and wrote their own stuff. I mean with rock it's not so bad but every other type of music i.e. pop/soul/hip hop, etc seems to be just a collaborative effort for everyone wanting a piece of the pie. The actual artist laying claim to the song probably contributed less than 10% of the actual production. That's why we have the "Americal Idol" music factory. Basically the entire album is probably completed and all they need is to plug in a voice and face. But now that I think about, that's the whole premise of the Idol Series is for people who have no other musical talent other than a voice.

I agree with the list written earlier about the bands of the 90's, definitely my favourite rock era.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Euro838
It'd be nice if these "artists" actually composed and wrote their own stuff. I mean with rock it's not so bad but every other type of music i.e. pop/soul/hip hop, etc seems to be just a collaborative effort for everyone wanting a piece of the pie. The actual artist laying claim to the song probably contributed less than 10% of the actual production. That's why we have the "Americal Idol" music factory. Basically the entire album is probably completed and all they need is to plug in a voice and face. But now that I think about, that's the whole premise of the Idol Series is for people who have no other musical talent other than a voice.


Very, very well put and couldn't be more true...How sad is that?

[finboy]

Originally posted by msommers


Very, very well put and couldn't be more true...How sad is that?

the marketing is brilliant, everyone wants to be famous but very few are willing to go through the practice and effort it takes to get there. why learn to write, sing, play an instrument, learn to play with a live band, learn song structures, etc. when you can just try out for some judges and have a #1 album in america. seems like a pretty average dream for the "mtv" generation, where style > substance, give it time, the pendulum will swing back the other direction, and hopefully take a bit of power away from the labels :thumbsup:

[Crymson]

I think it's a case of modern youth culture passing us by.

I grew to "musical maturity" i guess you'd call it, when my musical tastes more of less solidified, in the late age of grunge, so those bands will always be "better than that crap those kids are listening to today".

But at the same time, when I believed that Nirvana and Pearl Jam could not possibly be topped, people 10 years my senior were saying the identical things about Van Halen and U2. That the seminal music of THEIR generation, was in fact the best music ever produced.

Now the exact same thing is happening, as apparent by the posts on this thread. If i had to guess, i'd say that finboy is a white guy, who is about 25-28 years old, because ones musical tastes i beleive are irreconcilably tied to what was the musical mecca of their teen years.

Do i like todays music? Sure, some of it. I don't like Nickelback anymore, i DO like Billy Talent, and Falloutboy, i DON'T like James Blunt. But the new bands that i like, will innevitabely be eclipsed by next years new bands, or the new wave of musical tastes (i LOVE hipster metal or throwback metal), but Nirvana, Smasthing pumpkins, pearl jam, silverchair, foo fighters, bush, stone temple pliots, janes addiction -- these bands will FOREVER be on my ipod. My biggest fear is becoming so entrenched in my own youth, that i lose touch so much with the current trends that you become a walking embarassment or a living museum of extinct taste -- and as i've witnessed in some people -- and are extremely proud of it.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Crymson
I think it's a case of modern youth culture passing us by.

I grew to "musical maturity" i guess you'd call it, when my musical tastes more of less solidified, in the late age of grunge, so those bands will always be "better than that crap those kids are listening to today".

But at the same time, when I believed that Nirvana and Pearl Jam could not possibly be topped, people 10 years my senior were saying the identical things about Van Halen and U2. That the seminal music of THEIR generation, was in fact the best music ever produced.

Now the exact same thing is happening, as apparent by the posts on this thread. If i had to guess, i'd say that finboy is a white guy, who is about 25-28 years old, because ones musical tastes i beleive are irreconcilably tied to what was the musical mecca of their teen years.

Do i like todays music? Sure, some of it. I don't like Nickelback anymore, i DO like Billy Talent, and Falloutboy, i DON'T like James Blunt. But the new bands that i like, will innevitabely be eclipsed by next years new bands, or the new wave of musical tastes (i LOVE hipster metal or throwback metal), but Nirvana, Smasthing pumpkins, pearl jam, silverchair, foo fighters, bush, stone temple pliots, janes addiction -- these bands will FOREVER be on my ipod. My biggest fear is becoming so entrenched in my own youth, that i lose touch so much with the current trends that you become a walking embarassment or a living museum of extinct taste -- and as i've witnessed in some people -- and are extremely proud of it.

Wow.... well written haha

im worried of that too... haha

[finboy]

Originally posted by Crymson
I think it's a case of modern youth culture passing us by.

I grew to "musical maturity" i guess you'd call it, when my musical tastes more of less solidified, in the late age of grunge, so those bands will always be "better than that crap those kids are listening to today".

But at the same time, when I believed that Nirvana and Pearl Jam could not possibly be topped, people 10 years my senior were saying the identical things about Van Halen and U2. That the seminal music of THEIR generation, was in fact the best music ever produced.

Now the exact same thing is happening, as apparent by the posts on this thread. If i had to guess, i'd say that finboy is a white guy, who is about 25-28 years old, because ones musical tastes i beleive are irreconcilably tied to what was the musical mecca of their teen years.

Do i like todays music? Sure, some of it. I don't like Nickelback anymore, i DO like Billy Talent, and Falloutboy, i DON'T like James Blunt. But the new bands that i like, will innevitabely be eclipsed by next years new bands, or the new wave of musical tastes (i LOVE hipster metal or throwback metal), but Nirvana, Smasthing pumpkins, pearl jam, silverchair, foo fighters, bush, stone temple pliots, janes addiction -- these bands will FOREVER be on my ipod. My biggest fear is becoming so entrenched in my own youth, that i lose touch so much with the current trends that you become a walking embarassment or a living museum of extinct taste -- and as i've witnessed in some people -- and are extremely proud of it.

22, but i started listening to music more seriously around '92 or so...:D

you are right with the generational thing, the music that you listen to and have memories of from the more emotional times in your life will always make them more special to you. I still like some bands today (billy talent has great guitar work btw) but i still hold bands like the beatles, aerosmith, pink floyd, etc. in just as high if not higher regard to the ones from the 90's, the real problem i see is that bands aren't given a chance to develope.

lets take for example radiohead....

first album was alright, wasn't anything great, had one or two good songs but if it was put out today, it would really be lost. because they had one single that connected with an audience (and only one hit really) they were given a bit more freedom with "the bends" and they became one of the biggest bands in the music scene after that.

now imagine if it was now adays, how often do you hear a band that has one hit, and after that completely dissapear? sure it happened in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, but its becomming more and more frequent, corporations are looking for a quick answer to a long term problem, and in doing such are only harming themselves further. bands are moving further away from the traditional label's in favour of internet style promotion. just look at the arctic monkeys, i think they are shite but they are a group of 18 and 19 year olds who had the fastest selling debut album in europe, taking out oasis' debut which was HUGE (oasis took out the beatles iirc), and their big hype machine was using myspace to get directly to the fans. not only are bands moving away from traditional labels, but fans as well, deadlines mean cramped creativity, rushed albums, and an overall shitty cd, and who wants to buy shit when you can find gold for free from the comfort of your desk?

[Crymson]

Well, truth be told, i was never a big radio head fan. I know alot of people are. And i DEFINATELY understand the point your making.

I'd like to address 2 things.

I also hold previous generation's godly bands, in high esteem. However, i believe they're mostly iconic for other reasons that relate to our generation specifically. I would say that the current populatity of the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, Led Zepplin, the Who, etc. is more due to the re-emergence of their music in modern sountracks, tv shows, and god forbid, advertisements, than the fact that their music is "timeless". It's still good music, but most people who did not grow up with those bands, could not name more than handful of their songs, except the ones that still get radio play, or more likely "was that song from the start of that movie". I think a good indiator would be "name 3 LP's by said band" -- i don't think most people of our generation could. I couldn't name the title of 3 of Rolling Stones albums off the top of my head. There are probably entire rolling stones albums, where i wouldn't recongnize a single track, and i'm not necessarily a musical ignoramus, but neither am i an afficionado. I'd say i'm pretty average.

I'm not saying that it's not possible "rediscover" the music of a previous generation, i'm saying that it's rare, and unlikely, that someone would choose another generation's music overtop of their own.

The other issue i'd like to agree with Finboy on, is the marketing strategy. I think it's very clear that labels are out for the bucks, but they've honed their strategy so deviously now. In the 70's and 80's, if you were a recorld label, you wanted a popular band. You wanted a band with good music, that got radio time, and sold records and tickets. Marketing was, perhaps, in its infancy, the idea of a one hit wonder, didn't sit well with labels, because it meant that and awuful lot of expenses to fuel a flash in the pan.

Fast forward to 20 years, and it seems the 1 hit wonder or more likely, 2 hit wonder is the ideal scenario. The way i see it, if you can hook a band, ideally, for a 3 album deal, you can make the most out of them. A record label seems to pull a band out of relative obscurity, and sign them for next to nothing. The first album is an economic sucess, producing a few singles. Their sophmore album is the biggest seller, and their 3rd album flops (hopefully). In this case they've made a tonne of money off them, and then due to declining record sales decided "not to extend their contract", so they can move onto the next cash cow.

They record industry does not want to create superstars, because they guide their own destiny. You think U2 doesn't get to pick and choose who releases their albums? They know its going to sell a gazillion copies. Who would want to create a U2 in todays market? You'd make a killing off them for their first contract then, under the spectre of their stellar success, you'd barely make anything on their 2nd contract because they now hold all the card. If you can kill a band through lack of promotion or overhype, and milk them for all their worth on their first contract, you're gonig to make a killing.

my 0.02$

oh, and i really liked the arctic monkeys debut album. Oasis always pissed me off, so i'm glad they got supplanted.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Crymson
Well, truth be told, i was never a big radio head fan. I know alot of people are. And i DEFINATELY understand the point your making.

I'd like to address 2 things.

I also hold previous generation's godly bands, in high esteem. However, i believe they're mostly iconic for other reasons that relate to our generation specifically. I would say that the current populatity of the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, Led Zepplin, the Who, etc. is more due to the re-emergence of their music in modern sountracks, tv shows, and god forbid, advertisements, than the fact that their music is "timeless". It's still good music, but most people who did not grow up with those bands, could not name more than handful of their songs, except the ones that still get radio play, or more likely "was that song from the start of that movie". I think a good indiator would be "name 3 LP's by said band" -- i don't think most people of our generation could. I couldn't name the title of 3 of Rolling Stones albums off the top of my head. There are probably entire rolling stones albums, where i wouldn't recongnize a single track, and i'm not necessarily a musical ignoramus, but neither am i an afficionado. I'd say i'm pretty average.

I'm not saying that it's not possible "rediscover" the music of a previous generation, i'm saying that it's rare, and unlikely, that someone would choose another generation's music overtop of their own.

The other issue i'd like to agree with Finboy on, is the marketing strategy. I think it's very clear that labels are out for the bucks, but they've honed their strategy so deviously now. In the 70's and 80's, if you were a recorld label, you wanted a popular band. You wanted a band with good music, that got radio time, and sold records and tickets. Marketing was, perhaps, in its infancy, the idea of a one hit wonder, didn't sit well with labels, because it meant that and awuful lot of expenses to fuel a flash in the pan.

Fast forward to 20 years, and it seems the 1 hit wonder or more likely, 2 hit wonder is the ideal scenario. The way i see it, if you can hook a band, ideally, for a 3 album deal, you can make the most out of them. A record label seems to pull a band out of relative obscurity, and sign them for next to nothing. The first album is an economic sucess, producing a few singles. Their sophmore album is the biggest seller, and their 3rd album flops (hopefully). In this case they've made a tonne of money off them, and then due to declining record sales decided "not to extend their contract", so they can move onto the next cash cow.

They record industry does not want to create superstars, because they guide their own destiny. You think U2 doesn't get to pick and choose who releases their albums? They know its going to sell a gazillion copies. Who would want to create a U2 in todays market? You'd make a killing off them for their first contract then, under the spectre of their stellar success, you'd barely make anything on their 2nd contract because they now hold all the card. If you can kill a band through lack of promotion or overhype, and milk them for all their worth on their first contract, you're gonig to make a killing.

my 0.02$

oh, and i really liked the arctic monkeys debut album. Oasis always pissed me off, so i'm glad they got supplanted.

oasis > arctic monkeys :poosie: :D

not only will bands hold another card in their deck if they aren't one hit wonders, but they also get the one magical thing that those controling them want the least, EXPERIENCE. if a band knows it takes X number of dollars to go on tour, and X number of dollars to make a record, and they will draw X number of people to a show with the proper amount of promotion, then they will know when they are gettnig screwed over by the label. kind of hard to have a&r reps telling people "you haven't done this before, trust me, i've done this for years" when the band themselves have ALSO done it for years, and no how to be a success.

Contracts themselves are also becomming more and more tricky, control ones own image, control of what goes on the album, control over what the album will even look like is getting taken over more and more by the labels. Its not uncommon for a band to go platinum and still be flaaat broke. Its a system designed to set up the artist for failure, and allow for short term gain of the label. Band gets a $1 million advance, band spends 150 grand recording album, 150 grand on marketing, 200 grand on a nice video, buys new equipment for 30 grand, gets a tour bus for 50 grand used, gets some tech guys to work on equipment etc., hire a good lawyer and manager to take care of the legal junk. that million just turned into 20-30 grand for each band member, to last until the album comes out, which can take a LOOOONG time if the label doesn't think they are a priority. On top of that, that is money owed back to the record company so the band has to go on tour, take all kinds of promotional events and do endorsments they don't really want to do, all to pay back their advance, and they don't make a dime of their own until EVERYONE else gets paid first. if that isn't going to cause tension between the band then i don't know what will, you can see why so many bands self destruct after 1 album, it can't be easy to be creative when you owe $1 million and you HAVE to be brilliant in front of an audience every night while away from home, plus you have to jump through every hoop that your record label sets out for you, plus yo are away from your family and friends, and your only REAL source of income is the swag that you sell at your shows. and all this while the record company is making $15 a cd, of which you don't see a penny until you pay off your debt, and even then you make a fraction of what the cd costs. If the band hates their label, how can the record company expect the fans to support the label?

so bands that don't want to be stuck in this loop stick to the internet, the record label shoots itself in the foot again and signs young bands with no experience to make a quick buck, and lose money left right and center in the long term, while putting out a sub-par product that some people will buy because mtv/muchmusic/radio are told to play it, but overall has no staying power. mainstream music is sick, the underground scene has a ton of potential but no major distribution, it really puts you right back in the situation faced in the late 80's, late 50's, mid 70's, etc. eventually the underground will find a way to break past traditional methods again (likely the net) and the record label's will change their conventional method's to make money again.

like i said, cyclical :angel:



i bet this post makes no sense, shows what happens when you try and do work and go on beyond at the same time....:rofl:

edit: also add marilyn manson and rob zombie to my list of good 90's tunes

[ashee]

Most of the new "rock" these days sounds the same it's hard for me to even tell the difference between the artists, it's not just rock either, I don't find that there are many GREAT artists anymore, too many movie stars/celebrities thinking they can do everything including sing.

[msommers]

Originally posted by ashee
Most of the new "rock" these days sounds the same it's hard for me to even tell the difference between the artists, it's not just rock either, I don't find that there are many GREAT artists anymore, too many movie stars/celebrities thinking they can do everything including sing.

Holy run-on sentence batman!

I wish the Wallflowers were make another album, I loved a lot of their tunes. Just nice to chill out to.

What cyrmson and finboy have discussed is spot on and nothing more needs to be added or repeated. Are you reading this part Ashee?:rofl:

[death_rabbits]

rock hasn't gotten worse since the 90s, its gotten better. musical creativity and diversity has definitely improved. but if your looking for good music by listening to mass media, you will be sorrily disappointed. the problem is that the majority of the population is actually 30+ years old, and the radio is geared to them, hence all the shitty 80s bands on cjay, while much music is geared towards 15 year olds who like to listen to poppy crap with no substance. there is tons of great music out there, you just have to find it on your own, and can't rely on mass media to show it to you. the recent wave of indie music is really good, the only problem is any new wave of music is always accompanied with some stupid fashion treand (ie the new wave hipster crowd) and it tends to get passed over by the very image oriented general population. there of course is no musical greats right now like a modern day hendrix/ the doors/ led zepplin but that's because there is a way bigger diversity in music these days, and it makes it much harder for one band to appeal to such a diverse palette of modern day music lovers. if you want to hear some new music with some substance and great musician ship here are a few bands you can check out.


-the maccabees
-the appleseed cast
-greg laswell
-the shins
-jamie t
-the grates
-silversun pickups
-the rifles
-the thermals

[3g4me]

I dont listen to any new bands cause they ALL blow. Especially bands with THE in front of them. Urrrgggg

[RaptorGJC]

Has anyone seen Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny? If you've seen it, that's the truth;)