T Nation

Rock-N-Roll Rant

Wow, someone takes their music (and themselves) just a WEE bit too seriously, methinks.

[quote]LAMF wrote:
OP;

This is so fucked up I don’t know where to begin…However it is most clear that you would not know Rock ‘n’ Roll if it sodomized your spinal remains…

Your the type of clown that’s so cool, and knows all the right shit, years after it’s not cool any more, and soccer moms are wearing Ramones t-shirts, but somehow your supposed to be with “it”.

You actually fell for Lennon’s game. Lennon himself admitted years later he was fucking with everyone ( the counter culture ) just to turn a buck.

Your right the Beatles used the record industry to promote their own agenda; Mega Bucks. Have you read Cobains’ suicide note? But all that probably doesn’t fit in with your wannabe-hipster-psychosis though.

The day you stop trying to be so cool, is the day you can begin to enjoy music again. Good luck with that.[/quote]

[quote]MODOK wrote:
How about “Bands who never ‘jumped he shark’”? Two come to mind.

  1. Led Zeppelin- I cannot say that ‘In Through the Out Door’ was a swan song, even though it was the weakest Zep record.

  2. Nirvana-wasn’t around long enough to jump anything, but I believe they’d still be extremely relevant today.

What do ya’ll think?

[/quote]

Any band that has key members willing to die to preserve their legacy gets my respect.

[quote]Damici wrote:
Wow, someone takes their music (and themselves) just a WEE bit too seriously, methinks.

[/quote]

At first I thought you lacked an ability to comprehend my thoughts, though that is most likely true in some degree, I will attempt to clear this up for you.

I do take music seriously, but I don’t fancy myself a “hipster” or “in with the in crowd.” I know alot about music, past and present. I know people in “the underground.” I know “big shots.” I know “flavor of the month(s).” So fucking what?

I CAN’T STAND, “hipsters.” The only thing worse than a “hipster” is a “wannabe-hipster” like the OP.

The “hipster” is the just the other side of the coin to the “pop-zombie.” They are both reactionist jackasses that are so busy looking cool, that they lost their own identity. Rock ‘n’ Roll shouldn’t be about what side of an imaginary radness-fence you are on.

My message was that Rock ‘n’ Roll is not about anything beyond a sound that you as a person like, fuck everyone else if they don’t, fuck them if they do you still like it.

Fuck it if soccer moms wear Ramones t-shirts, the Ramones at one time where really great, we’ve got that on ipod to prove it. Were they always great? No. Did they do a lot of dumb shit? Yes. Are they “passe.” Yes. But that doesn’t mean that you have to get your leather jacket in a twist over the Ramones.

Again that little “Ramones thing” is just my opinion on that ONE BAND, if someone else doesn’t agree 100% fuck it. But if you let one shit-face-puke-rot band ( again opinion ) that calls itself something, or a string of crap-albums ruin something for you, you are missing the whole point of Rock ‘n’ Roll.

For the record there are many bands that I only like one album from. There are many more groups, or solo acts that I only like one song from and sometimes that one song is a cover. So fucking what?

Got it?

[quote]LAMF wrote:
Damici wrote:
Wow, someone takes their music (and themselves) just a WEE bit too seriously, methinks.

At first I thought you lacked an ability to comprehend my thoughts, though that is most likely true in some degree, I will attempt to clear this up for you.

I do take music seriously, but I don’t fancy myself a “hipster” or “in with the in crowd.” I know alot about music, past and present. I know people in “the underground.” I know “big shots.” I know “flavor of the month(s).” So fucking what?

I CAN’T STAND, “hipsters.” The only thing worse than a “hipster” is a “wannabe-hipster” like the OP.

The “hipster” is the just the other side of the coin to the “pop-zombie.” They are both reactionist jackasses that are so busy looking cool, that they lost their own identity. Rock ‘n’ Roll shouldn’t be about what side of an imaginary radness-fence you are on.

My message was that Rock ‘n’ Roll is not about anything beyond a sound that you as a person like, fuck everyone else if they don’t, fuck them if they do you still like it.

Fuck it if soccer moms wear Ramones t-shirts, the Ramones at one time where really great, we’ve got that on ipod to prove it. Were they always great? No. Did they do a lot of dumb shit? Yes. Are they “passe.” Yes. But that doesn’t mean that you have to get your leather jacket in a twist over the Ramones.

Again that little “Ramones thing” is just my opinion on that ONE BAND, if someone else doesn’t agree 100% fuck it. But if you let one shit-face-puke-rot band ( again opinion ) that calls itself something, or a string of crap-albums ruin something for you, you are missing the whole point of Rock ‘n’ Roll.

For the record there are many bands that I only like one album from. There are many more groups, or solo acts that I only like one song from and sometimes that one song is a cover. So fucking what?

Got it?[/quote]

I believe I get what you are saying and if so I agree. There are many bands I like and listen to often and there are many songs I like from bands or genres I usually don’t listen to.

If something sounds good to my ears I am going to like it and jam it regardless of someone else’s feelings about it.

D

[quote]soupandspoons wrote:
I think you deserve one of these…j/k, man. That’s a decent list.[/quote]

At my wife’s request I got one put on my left ass cheek.

[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
JBomb wrote:
Why is it considered so fashionable to like “underground” music?

Because it gives those a sense of originality to being a few who enjoy something that most aren’t familiar with. It’s like a small club to them.[/quote]

I started listening to non-commercial radio because I got tired of advertising and since I live in a city that has 5 or 6 non-com stations I can take a pick between modern, classical, jazz and world. I wouldn’t classify what I listent to as “underground” it’s “indie” as in independent record label.

The modern stations I listen to play indie as well as more established artists (classics) such as Velvet Underground and Iggy Pop, etc.

I also enjoy being exposed to “new” music that I have never heard before. In the last 2 years since Minnesota Public Radio launched the Current I have been exposed to tonnes of great music; especially local artists which we have many.

[quote]LAMF wrote:
Your the type of clown that’s so cool, and knows all the right shit, years after it’s not cool any more, and soccer moms are wearing Ramones t-shirts, but somehow your supposed to be with “it”.
[/quote]

Awesome. Soccer moms are now the age to have cut their teeth to the Ramones, as I have in my early teens–but blame “Hot Topic” for that.

There is nothing wrong with trying to make a living. As I stated earlier, they were the first to achieve celebrity in that way…btw, not a big fan of their earlier work before “Revolver”.

Huh? What is your point.

[quote]
The day you stop trying to be so cool, is the day you can begin to enjoy music again. Good luck with that.[/quote]

I enjoy music immensely as it is. This was just a list of artists who in my own opinion should have called it quits earlier. Rock on.

[quote]LAMF wrote:
My message was that Rock ‘n’ Roll is not about anything beyond a sound that you as a person like, fuck everyone else if they don’t, fuck them if they do you still like it.
[/quote]

You are exactly the “hipster” you are bashing. Soccer moms aren’t allowed to rock-out to the Ramones? Is this a privilege only allowed to yourself?

I do not define myself based on any type of music I listen to. For the record, I listen to it all. I just happen to prefer certain genres more than others. I am also an amateur jazz musician so I base alot of my opinions on musical talent as well as originality.

I believe I made it known that this was completely my opinion and that I knew in all seriousness that I was probably full of shit. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Much as a I agree with a lot of what the OP said with regards to the quality of albums deteriorating with each subsequent release, I feel that the artists in question earned the right to do so.

I have trouble understanding the mentality that because a band releases a ‘sell out album’ this somehow affects the quality of their earlier work. It may make you feel bad because you decided to support a band who sold out, I can understand this to a certain degree.

However, I know for a fact that Prince, Metallica et al. don’t owe me shit. They can continue to make all the commercial albums they want. If a new one comes along which I feel is better I’ll buy it, if not I won’t.

I think that people credit Nirvana with far too much. Don’t get me wrong I grew up listening to all their albums, hell, Steve Albini is pretty much my favourite producer so In Utero will always be special. However, their impact was more pronounced within their genre than in pop-music overall. The Melvins, Sonic Youth and even Tad changed their sound a lot after Nevermind was released.

On the other hand, pop music now is so far removed from the ‘Seattle’ sound that it’s hard to see Nirvana’s lasting influence there.

Producers like The Neptunes and Timbaland are working well within the confines of the Top 40, with Pop acts and MAKING DAMN GOOD MUSIC. I fail to see how these tunes owe anything to Nirvana or how this music is worse than the pop that came before it.

Admittedly, I feel that recently there has been a larger volume of shit music getting released due to the ease and reduced cost with which a band can release material.

Where previously only a band’s greatest songs were released, due to the cost of getting acetates cut and producing an LP, now even studio out-take albums get a release.

I don’t feel that this negates the impact of the rock music which comes out these days which is actually good though. If anything the sea of shit only serves to highlight the impact of the quality releases.

Khanate
Melt Banana
Deerhoof
Lightning Bolt
TV on the Radio
Anaal Nathrakh
Shellac
Blonde Redhead

All released great rock albums in the last 10 years, so my faith in rock music is far from being broken.

It is also easy to forget that Nostalgia clouds people’s opinions. 20 years from now people may well view the aforementioned artists releases in the same boat as ‘& Nico’, ‘Trout Mask Replica’, ‘Faust I’, ‘Lorca’, ‘Highway 61’ or even ‘Spiderland’.

Everyone always thinks that things were better in the past. The thing that people often forget is that the past that you look back to with misty eyes was at one time somebody’s shitty, sell out, present.

Nirvana is easily one of the best bands of the nineties. It’s easy to overlook what I consider to be Kurt Cobain’s biggest influence on the music industry. If you listen to a lot of the rock and roll that came out before Nirvana you will notice that most songs had huge overblown guitar solos in them, and a lot of the songs required some degree of technical ability as far as playing instruments goes.

Van Halen, Guns and Roses, and a bunch of other bands that I absolutely hate reduced the art of writing a song to basically just showing off in many instances. (I don’t care if you like those band are not, I’m just using them as an example) Songs like Eruption are more of a demonstration of skill than an actual piece of music.

What Cobain did was write extremely simple songs that kicked ass. He wasn’t a great guitarist, technically speaking, but he was a great songwriter. Putting songwriting ability back on it’s rightful pedestal above that of technical skill is what I consider to be Kurt Cobain’s biggest contribution.

I’ll finish with a quote from an issue of Guitar World from a couple of years back that I feel completely sums up my point. “Kurt Cobain was the knight that slew the Shred Guitar dragon.”

Oooooooh, you’re gonna’ take a lot of heat for that one (and rightfully so), especially when attempting to compare them unfavorably to the likes of Nirvana . . . .

Sit back. :slight_smile:

Van Halen, Guns and Roses, and a bunch of other bands that I absolutely hate reduced the art of writing a song to basically just showing off in many instances. (I don’t care if you like those band are not, I’m just using them as an example) Songs like Eruption are more of a demonstration of skill than an actual piece of music.

[quote]JBomb wrote:
Nirvana is easily one of the best bands of the nineties. It’s easy to overlook what I consider to be Kurt Cobain’s biggest influence on the music industry. If you listen to a lot of the rock and roll that came out before Nirvana you will notice that most songs had huge overblown guitar solos in them, and a lot of the songs required some degree of technical ability as far as playing instruments goes.

Van Halen, Guns and Roses, and a bunch of other bands that I absolutely hate reduced the art of writing a song to basically just showing off in many instances. (I don’t care if you like those band are not, I’m just using them as an example) Songs like Eruption are more of a demonstration of skill than an actual piece of music.

What Cobain did was write extremely simple songs that kicked ass. He wasn’t a great guitarist, technically speaking, but he was a great songwriter. Putting songwriting ability back on it’s rightful pedestal above that of technical skill is what I consider to be Kurt Cobain’s biggest contribution.

I’ll finish with a quote from an issue of Guitar World from a couple of years back that I feel completely sums up my point. “Kurt Cobain was the knight that slew the Shred Guitar dragon.”[/quote]

Nevermind was a great album Territorial Pissings, On a Plane, Drain you, were all kick ass songs.

I never cared for Guns N Roses except a few songs. The thought of them always reminded me of some guy wearing skin tight stone washed jeans tucked into cowboy boots in a tank top with hair sprayed hair. Just kinda ridiculous I thought.

D

[quote]Dorso wrote:

What has killed the music industry (and this applies only to pop/rock, which is a very limited category) is MTV. Seriuosly, have you seen the following that some of these pre-pube goth/emo/pansies get because they have a weird haircut?[/quote]

I agree. MTV killed music. After MTV is was all about looks instead of music. I don’t listen to mainsteam formula rock today for the simple fact that in our PC society rock today has no balls. I am doubtful we will ever see another “big” rock act in arena of Zeppelin or the Stones.

Record companies now make money off of image only, this is why one media mogul in particular said “I am a billionaire because most people are stupid sheep”

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Dorso wrote:

What has killed the music industry (and this applies only to pop/rock, which is a very limited category) is MTV. Seriuosly, have you seen the following that some of these pre-pube goth/emo/pansies get because they have a weird haircut?

I agree. MTV killed music. After MTV is was all about looks instead of music. I don’t listen to mainsteam formula rock today for the simple fact that in our PC society rock today has no balls. I am doubtful we will ever see another “big” rock act in arena of Zeppelin or the Stones.

Record companies now make money off of image only, this is why one media mogul in particular said “I am a billionaire because most people are stupid sheep”[/quote]

record companies are not making ANY money lately. they killed themselves by offering the fans less and less and less for more and more and more money, not to mention actively suing the hands that feed them.

today’s deal with apple and emi is just more of the same bullshit. raise the price even more for something that we already have ? no thanks. i’ll continue to steal.

You are wrong for saying scremo is pansy and so on. That stuff you see on tv and the way the “mtv kids” dress is not screamo/emo.Those kids are Hipster/ Trend Whores and spend more on appearance then really listening to the music; and Those bands label them selves as a genre they arent.

Its like labeling billy idol, punk. hes not and never will be, he uses the image. The thing you are right on is MTV does kill music, as Big Corporation Record Companies also Kill Music. They are all looking for something new for starting a new trend.

[quote]JMac10 wrote:
Its like labeling billy idol, punk. hes not and never will be, he uses the image. [/quote]

Oh please - before Billy Idol went solo he was a member of Generation X who WERE punk/ post punk…

As to MTV/ big corporations killing music, well, that’s just crap: There were plenty of manufactured bands in the 60’s/70’s/ 80’s etc - the sheer number of multiple female vocal groups created to cash in on the fame of bands like the Supremes/ The Crystal etc from the 60’s alone demonstrates that point.

What MTV has done has created an increasing reliance on the image to perpetuate a marketed ideal. Certainly, the mass-marketed copy-cat becomes more visible as a result and trends result as such, but that doesn’t necessarily diminish the importance or the influence of the original artists.

Take a couple of generes:

For example: Girly pop singers/ princesses in the 90s/00’s

Britney Spears is able to be legitimately cited as the current progenitor of the trend; while her music is bubblegum, it’s superior bubblegum. Certainly, she projected a specific image but the music supported the image…from her onwards, however, things have devolved to the point where the image sells things more than the music. However, it is still possible for the genre to throw up superior examples far removed from the progenitor.

Take Rap: Take Public Enemy and NWA - strong/ political, great music - then with gangsta rap moving from being a political force to a ‘my posse is bigger than your posse’ etc the value of such acts can be argued, nevertheless there are still original artists within the genre…

Sorry, I could go on for years…

[quote]swivel wrote:
record companies are not making ANY money lately. they killed themselves by offering the fans less and less and less for more and more and more money, not to mention actively suing the hands that feed them.

[/quote]
I was listening to NPR the other day and I heard some report about how record companies are struggling to keep up.

That made me laugh and prompted me to start this thread. I believe that the music industry would be better off if the two largest record companies would disappear.

Seriously, I think Justin Timberlake is a decent musician (for what he does) but I don’t want every pop-star manufactured by the industry to sound like him just because that is what currently sells.

Look at the musicians that actually struggle to get their music out to the public on their own. There is something to be said about suffering for your art. When one cares about the creation of that music it isn’t really suffering.

Record companies are more concerned with selling a marketable image than selling decent music. And by all counts why should they care about music quality when they can put together a one-hit wonder make $100 million off one record and move on to something “newer”?

At what point does music not become about the art of making music?

I am going to get on my soap-box one more time:

If you really care about the state of music go out and see some local shows and support local musicians. Don’t do it just for the sake of doing it but because it is something you are passionate about. Passion is what should be driving art to begin with. You might be surprised by what you find.

boyscout,

VERY good call on Paganini. I remember reading that during a Paganini performance, men in the audience might wet themselves and women would faint.

Here is a Youtube video about Paganini. I have no clue what’s on it since I lack speakers at work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os2tQz3YyAw

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you really care about the state of music go out and see some local shows and support local musicians. Don’t do it just for the sake of doing it but because it is something you are passionate about. Passion is what should be driving art to begin with. You might be surprised by what you find.[/quote]

Yep, local stuff is the way to go.

Some friends: http://www.myspace.com/downforfive

That’s that last CD I bought in about 3 years.

[quote]JBomb wrote:
Nirvana is easily one of the best bands of the nineties. It’s easy to overlook what I consider to be Kurt Cobain’s biggest influence on the music industry. If you listen to a lot of the rock and roll that came out before Nirvana you will notice that most songs had huge overblown guitar solos in them, and a lot of the songs required some degree of technical ability as far as playing instruments goes.

Van Halen, Guns and Roses, and a bunch of other bands that I absolutely hate reduced the art of writing a song to basically just showing off in many instances. (I don’t care if you like those band are not, I’m just using them as an example) Songs like Eruption are more of a demonstration of skill than an actual piece of music.

What Cobain did was write extremely simple songs that kicked ass. He wasn’t a great guitarist, technically speaking, but he was a great songwriter. Putting songwriting ability back on it’s rightful pedestal above that of technical skill is what I consider to be Kurt Cobain’s biggest contribution.

I’ll finish with a quote from an issue of Guitar World from a couple of years back that I feel completely sums up my point. “Kurt Cobain was the knight that slew the Shred Guitar dragon.”[/quote]

Nirvana is easily one(if not the)most overrated band of all time that has been immortalised by the suicide of the guy who created it. Don’t mistake lack of talent for genius. Kurt Cobain is the Bill Phillips of the fitness industry, he his praised by those who don’t know any better.