Moderators: peeker643, swerb, mitch
by Triple-S » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:12 pm
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.
by jfiling » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:59 pm
by British_Pharaoh » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:52 pm
by hebner20 » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:38 pm
by Spin » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:08 am
by jb » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:43 am
by jb » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:45 am
hebner20 wrote:for the life of me i don't understand why the well established big acts that have huge followings don't vertically integrate and eliminate the need for record companies.
by jb » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:49 am
Spin wrote:Rock and roll is clearly dead. It came to an end with grunge rock, people whining and bitching about how awful their lives are.
by Spin » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:21 pm
jb wrote:Spin wrote:Rock and roll is clearly dead. It came to an end with grunge rock, people whining and bitching about how awful their lives are. I know this isn't NHB'd, but you and I have a past history of being able to throw some elbows and then getting up and shaking hands and letting bygones be.So I just want to add that you're an idiot.Grunge got formulaic and boring to be certain, but then again, all genres of the dead art form did. For example, Flea and Kiedis unfortunately are responsible for Fred Durst in some ways. The Beatles gave us the Monkeys. Judas Priest's sound helped give us all the shitty hair bands. Bill Bellichich gave the NFL McDaniels. oops, wrong forum. That shit happens. If you don't think Mudhoney or even popular, commercial acts like Pearl Jam aren't quality R&R, the only reasonably sane explanation is you're still in MOm's basement surrounded by Warrent and Cindarella posters.Grunge didn't kill R & R. It was the last thing R & R crossed off on it's bucket list before it took a header off the Y-Bridge.And as loathsome as Scott Stapp is, and I agree, his fingerprints aren't on the weapon. But Sean Parker's, Simon Cowell's, and Michael Eisner's are. Maybe Mutt Lang's, too.
by Erie Warrior » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:30 pm
by jb » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:32 pm
Erie Warrior wrote:Spin wrote:Rock and roll is clearly dead. It came to an end with grunge rock, people whining and bitching about how awful their lives are. The Seattle music scene was the greatest since the British Invasion. There are 3 or 4 of those bands that rank in the top 10 of American rock music. Better recognize.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:10 pm
by motherscratcher » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:40 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Grunge was simple, and the kids love simple, especially if it comes with it's own fashion trend. I mean how many sappy hair rock ballads can you listen to?I never really got into grunge that much, but I saw why people liked it when it broke out. I will say that junkie Cobain feller blowing his head off was one of the coolest parts of the 90's.Rock never dies, it just mutates.How can it be dead when we're all waiting with bated breath for the next fuckin Radiohead album to come out?
by aoxo1 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:20 pm
by aoxo1 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:59 pm
jfiling wrote:If you mean blues-based guitar driven with lyrics based on getting laid (like Rock N' Roll has been for the last 50 years), then yeah, it's pretty much dead. Damn shame, too, but then again those damn kids won't stay off my lawn.
by FUDU » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:51 am
by motherscratcher » Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:49 am
FUDU wrote:Grunge was over rated, a few soild bands, a couple defining songs. It was the music for young kids who needed to be defined because they could define themselves.Nothing more than Hootie and the Blowfish with some distortion and volume. Hell the best thing to happen to the flagship band's legacy was for their main man to off himself, no different than bad artists paintings being noteworthy when they're gone.
by FUDU » Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:00 am
by Spin » Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:36 am
by Erie Warrior » Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:17 am
FUDU wrote:Grunge was over rated, a few soild bands, a couple defining songs. It was the music for young kids who needed to be defined because they could not define themselves.Nothing more than Hootie and the Blowfish with some distortion and volume.
by Larvell Blanks » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:42 pm
Spin wrote:There's no new sounds, unless you go underground. And who has the time to sift through all the sewage there to find a gem?
by WarAdmiral » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:03 pm
by jb » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:39 pm
by aoxo1 » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:43 pm
Spin wrote:Grunge was top ten, or grunge was a brief fart in pop music, doesn't matter how you look at it.The labels changed. They no longer take a chance on somebody, unless they sound like somebody popular. So rock is a one lane road. Or they win on "American Karaoke". Basically meaning they have a perfect voice. Imagine Bruce Springsteen or Mick Jagger or Roger Daltrey on that game show...There's no new sounds, unless you go underground. And who has the time to sift through all the sewage there to find a gem?
by FUDU » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:49 pm
jb wrote:The issue isn't that there is talent. The issue is relevance.The fact u have to scour u tube and not flick on 100.7 = death of the art form.As relevant as jazz to aficionado nerds. Dead as a popular art form
by Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:32 pm
by FUDU » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:54 am
by WarAdmiral » Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:00 am
by Triple-S » Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:34 pm
by Spin » Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:22 pm
by Triple-S » Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:14 pm
Spin wrote:Is it the radio stations, or the labels? Either way we're screwed. There was a time when bands and genres could come out of the underground and get signed to record deals and get on the radio. Those days seem like they're gone.Sign of the times I guess. Now Maxwell has resurfaced on 98.5, so now there's one less station to listen to for music. What the hell is this fascination with listening to some ass hole talk about himself all morning? Off topic but still, wtf?
by mattvan1 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:58 am
by WarAdmiral » Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:32 pm
mattvan1 wrote:Most of you are thinking your age, regardles of how old you actually are. Unless you happen to be in high school, the world of music we once knew has changed forever. It's not so much that rock is irrelevant - just the mechanism through which we listen. The one true success of the ever-changing business to consumer model is music. Kids today don't listen to what we consider "radio" and they could care less about labels. An artist doesn't need a label anymore. The democratization of music has arrived. It started with Napster and continues with all of the download sites, including the much loathed iTunes, and all of the artists who are releasing straight to consumers without a label. The social network ensures that if something is worth listening to people will discover it.We should stop trying to define "radio airplay" as MMS. Those days are long dead. The music lives on - you are just looking for it in the wrong places.
by hebner20 » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:56 pm
by British_Pharaoh » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:53 pm
by e0y2e3 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:33 am
by e0y2e3 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:34 am
by e0y2e3 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:37 am
by Spin » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:23 pm
by jb » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:46 am
by Spin » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:01 am
by jb » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:46 am
Spin wrote:You define rock as what the young adult demographic listens to.
by mattvan1 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:08 pm
Spin wrote:That all depends on your definition of rock and roll, which has become an individual preference. The Rock Hall is the perfect example of that.The genres that grew out of the 50's is what I consider rock and roll. The trunk of the tree. If you follow that to today, it IS still alive, it's called country music. All this talk and looking for definitions has changed my mind on what rock music exists as today. Today's country should be considered a modern manifestation of rockabilly. It's a fusion of light rock and hillbilly. Think about it, when you can play the Eagles or later Bob Seger on a country station and it fits in (minus the constant redneck references), THAT is rock and roll 2013. It's not a recent fusion either, you could say it's always been there. You had outlaw country in the 60's and 70's, then "young country" with Hank Williams Jr and those groups. On to "new country" with Alabama, into Billy Ray Cyrus, etc. If you follow that route, modern country is the current rock and roll. You define rock as what the young adult demographic listens to. I don't agree with that definition as a single qualifier. Country certainly fits that definition. I see rap as a sub-genre of R&B, without a lot of the other elements of rock. It does have a driving beat and a lot of it has antisocial underpinnings. But to me, it's out in the branches of rock, looking at how the "pure" rock music has progressed.
by Spin » Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:56 pm
by jb » Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:13 am
by HoodooMan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:42 pm
Spin wrote:To me, rock has always had at its core, from the beginning, guitars and drums.
by googleeph2 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:04 pm
by jb » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:08 pm
googleeph2 wrote:Rap took over the voice of protest/outrage 30 years ago, no? Guitar/drums/melody will always have its niche, as has been said. But its golden era has passed. It's baseball: kids don't really dream of doing it like they used to.Personally, it feels like we're in a transition period to the next thing.
by Hikohadon » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:40 pm
by FUDU » Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:47 pm
Return to Movies, Music, TV, Books, Pop Culture
Users browsing this forum: gbot and 2 guests