Best Ever Albums

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

badfaith — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:11 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 01/24/2010 01:00

an_outlaw wrote:

Badfaith, what would a band/new genre have to do to 100% change your opinion about "the lifestyle and 'attitude'" of Rock and roll and convince you that it is back or it was there all along?

I do think you may be right to a certain extent (most swear words don't pack a punch anymore, the middle finger is almost a symbol of conformity to the rock and roll streotype rather than a sign of rebellion)

Quote:

maxperenchio: Listen to classic rock radio hits- many of the greatest mainstream rock songs of all time took risks they simply wouldn't be allowed to take today. What if Queen was around today? Sorry Freddie, but "Bohemian Rhapsody" just doesn't have a chorus, we can't play it.

In my own opinion, I think the opposite would happen. The songs would be much much more bigger than they were back then. Which is a shame really :(

I don't know to be honest, I think the uncertainty is my current defining characteristic, it's just highlighted more in regard to my view of music and the music scene... am I just getting old?
"I could be wrong, I could be right... I could be Black, I could be White" (As Public Image observed)
... but I wanted to gauge the truth of this self scrutiny against the views of others, but opinions vary, and I'm none the wiser really, has the music scene changed, or just me- naturally, inevitably (maybe it's nearly old' yeller time for Badfaith!), or maybe both, and to what degree of each?

I may have been making something out of nothing, or maybe Rock and Roll has.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:13:46 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/22/2010 21:13

Badfaith, what would a band/new genre have to do to 100% change your opinion about "the lifestyle and 'attitude'" of Rock and roll and convince you that it is back or it was there all along?

I do think you may be right to a certain extent (most swear words don't pack a punch anymore, the middle finger is almost a symbol of conformity to the rock and roll streotype rather than a sign of rebellion)

Quote:

In my own opinion, I think the opposite would happen. The songs would be much much more bigger than they were back then. Which is a shame really 🙁

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

badfaith — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:51:09 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 01/19/2010 14:51

The last two lines of the last two posts by Max and an_outlaw have made me smile, and feel a little more optimistic... I think that's what I was probably really looking for from this thread "say it aint so!" kind of thing.

Better bands making better rock songs just about says it perfectly, there is some good stuff around, but none of it surprising, stimulating, or striking out in new directions. I think of those legendary tracks of the past, and the real thing they have in common is that upon their arrival, they made you say to yourself- "wow, what the fuck is this all about?!!"
...remember the first time you heard I am the Walrus, Tomorrow Never knows, Firestarter, Bohemian Rhapsody, Paranoid android, or punk or even experimental electronic music? -stuff that grabbed you by the throat and slapped you around the face repeatedly, because it was like discovering a whole new world. Those songs are different for everyone I know, but people need variation to keep it fresh... new possibilities to hold your interest.

But the crux of this thread was that I'd got the feeling that where the lifestyle and 'attitude' of rock once drove, and inspired those inovations, or were tolerated because of the music it helped produce, we seem now intent on buying the packaging of rock only to discover there's no product inside anymore. The attitude has overwhelmed the aptitude.

But perhaps, as you say, reports of rock's demise have been greatly exagerated, and it only appears that way in this age of change, and my untutored eye.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

maxperenchio — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:44:29 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 01/19/2010 06:44

As long as there is some dude driving black out drunk down a sidestreet, playing air guitar to some riff on the radio, rock and roll is alive and well. People just need to lighten up. Rock and roll was always derivative, always kind of dumb, thats why it was awesome... it wasn't supposed to be metaphysical poetry after all. That's what is so funny about "rock criticism". While it essentially provided a buyer's guide, entertaining articles and commentary etc, it also academized something that i'm really not sure was meant to be scholarly in the first place.

If anything is killing rock and roll today its bands that actually care about what critics want, bands like Airborne Toxic Event who have the most predictable idea of what indie-realm likes, and tries to be an amalgamation of "good taste" but instead makes me embarrassed for the human race.

Rock and Roll needs great songs to survive. Both sides of current "rock" music (indie and mainstream) are fraught with different problems which prevent that. Mainstream rock is so obsessed with formulaic songs that middle America will temporarily love that it neglects artist development- it is a system that doesn't allow for artists to take any risks. Listen to classic rock radio hits- many of the greatest mainstream rock songs of all time took risks they simply wouldn't be allowed to take today. What if Queen was around today? Sorry Freddie, but "Bohemian Rhapsody" just doesn't have a chorus, we can't play it.

Underground or indie rock is, in my opinion, in a much more painfully stagnant area. While mainstream music is more or less unashamedly money-driven, indie rock clings to these pathetic, pathetic ideals that suck the very life force out of rock, while at the same time trying to make believe that its original, innovative, thoughtful music. I mean, by this point, there is a canonical pantheon of what is an acceptable indie-rock influence. You know what I mean, Sonic Youth, Joy Division, No Wave, Talking Heads, David Bowie, all those guys. Great great artists, but most of the bands they influence create niche-y little songs that lack anything remotely close to resonance.

Either way we just need some better bands that write better rock songs, not that there arent a few great ones right now. But that shit aint dead.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:39:15 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/17/2010 20:39

Some very good points there, thank you for the quick reply 😄

I think almost all artists (all of them at some point in their career's) get satisfaction from playing music and/or composing it.

I believe that you can achieve almost anything if you first believe you can and then put the effort to get it. Of course the effort to get somethings is going to be much greater than others. For example a band could outsell the Beatles if they really put their mind to it. It might seem like an impossible task at first but the only way your going to do something like that is if you intend to. It's going to be impossible to "accidentally" do that.

Again, hitting big is all about the effort you put and the devotion you have for the music you make. I think many artists are able to get big with their musical 'values' intact. Sometimes they may fall astray but they can easily pick themselves back up if that is what they want.

As for Rock and roll is dead, it's much better to have it back I would say. At the moment most of the new bands/artists seem to be so apathetic to stuff around them. I'm not saying all of them are and plenty are still making interesting music. It reminds me of this quote:

"Mute icons are the only kind of beauty we find acceptable today" - Mark Rothko

I would love a Gun N' Roses/ Sex Pistols/ Nirvana type band to come out of no where and shake the "indie" scene to it's core. It's like Nicky Wire said about the fire only being in the Manic Street Preachers and possibly the Gallows nowadays (That was in an interview with the NME April/May 2007)

Anyway, I find fun in playing guitar and all this writing has inspired me to practice some more today 😄

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

telefunker — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:50:27 GMT

Author: telefunker

Posted: 01/17/2010 19:50

i don't think there's anything inherenty wrong or shameful in pursuing commercial success.. after all, fame is widespread social acceptance and that appeals greatly to the human ego.. fortune brings material security which appeals greatly on a more fundamental level. of course, there's more to it than that, but that's the core mechanism of attraction, i believe.

on a musical level, i think if you derive satisfaction from playing music, composing music (something i've enjoyed since infancy), recording it or whatever, then that is of course reward in itself. but unless you're born into money, you need to make some kind of career choice at some point in your life and i guess if you have the chance to pay your way through life with music, then you're very fortunate.

if that entails compromising your musical 'values' to some degree then that might be the toughest decision you'll have to make career-wise, which again is probably fairly trivial compared to what some people have to go through.

i think as long as you end up doing things on your own terms, you can consider your integrity intact. i mean, cobain failed with raw punk rock, so he went pop, hit the jackpot and then reverted to raw punk. eminem started out trying to be copy nas' aesthetic, failed, then went nuts and succeeded.

most 'artists' seem to give up at some point in their twenties though, when they decide they're not making enough money.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:21:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/17/2010 19:21

telefunker wrote:

i don't know enough about morrison or moon to comment, but with regard to dylan and lennon, i have a very hard time believing that their egos were not getting off BIG time on fame and fortune..

as for rock and roll, it's been dead for years and it's better off that way in my opinion.. 4 angry men with guitars singing 3-chord songs about 3-chord things? there's nothing 'rock n roll' about that anymore..

In your own opinion, what do you think young people who aspire to be in bands should be looking for/achieving when they play and record their music?

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

telefunker — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:37:33 GMT

Author: telefunker

Posted: 01/17/2010 17:37

i don't know enough about morrison or moon to comment, but with regard to dylan and lennon, i have a very hard time believing that their egos were not getting off BIG time on fame and fortune..

as for rock and roll, it's been dead for years and it's better off that way in my opinion.. 4 angry men with guitars singing 3-chord songs about 3-chord things? there's nothing 'rock n roll' about that anymore..

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

ffudnebbuh — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:56:14 GMT

Author: ffudnebbuh

Posted: 01/17/2010 14:56

Freddie55 wrote:

Sex, drugs and rock 'n roll! It's still common everywhere you look. The drugs are different drugs but that's really all that's changed. There were more nice "indie type peaceniks" back in the day who weren't overdosing and smashing guitars than there were bad boys. Don't worry there are still lots of creative wastoids today willing to disintegrate in the spotlight for our pleasure. One big difference might be money. In the 70s, there were more top-of-the-heap bands that could afford to throw TVs out of windows and trash rooms. There's very few now! Another point of clarification. Drug use in the 70s has been exaggerated and glamorized by Hollywood. In my public high school I would estimate that 80% of the students were "straights" and 20% were "heads".

I agree, the way the 60s were publicized in the media was very different from the way I remember it, much less drug use than what has been reported, but probably a lot of drinking....Of course, I never drank or drugged (not because I thought it was evil or anything, it just didn't interest me) during high school, college or grad school, so maybe I don't have the best perspective..

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

badfaith — Fri, 1 Jan 2010 08:32:52 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 01/01/2010 13:32

I think ther is also a case of "group shift", which has done nothing to help the situation.

Artists you used to respect and admire, who were in it for art's sake originally, but became entranced by the cash, and/ or bought into a conception of themselves that never was.. "Sting Syndrome", "Eltonitisis", "The Bono Complex". Whereby the original impulse to make good music becomes overmatched by dillusions of divinity, and confirmed in their minds by material success as affirmation of this... leading to the eventual belief that they don't have to try any more, and that people just want whatever THEY do, and not buy the work for it's own intrinsic and particular merits- and so quality inevitably drops, in direct correlation to the volume of such sub-standard work increasing (the Hunger:Comfort ratio) Like Elton John, who was at one stage releasing a hundred albums a month, none you'd wipe your backside with, or to the other extreme Sting, who didn't release anything for ages, but still managed to place himself in our minds as an over-exposed twat ( a remarkable feat it must be said), or yet Bono, the saddest case here it must be said, once a stalwart of music with great integrity, now a man who believes he is Jesus, and is entitled not only to lecture his customers on ethics, but that this entitlement should enable him to sit and discuss these matters with our own elected representatives and religious leaders, when we ourselves cannot.... all the while U2 continue to suck, and haven't made an album of startling originality since Achtung Baby- even this album, and earlier meritorious works now tainted in our minds by the fact that Bono's voice is on them. (He's even ruined The Joshuah Tree for me- BASTARD!)

But Group shift can also happen in the reverse direction- Pop idol types who exist for cash and self agrandisement, but realising the vacuuity of their proffession, desire to become "taken seriously" as "artists"... often leading to hillarious pretentious results.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Anonymous — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:39:11 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2009 22:39

You could probably place almost any artist into any of the three groups (to varying degrees). Here is how I see it:

Group 1 = "I like this artist/band"

Group 2 = "I don't like this artist/band"

Group 3 = "I like this artist/band"

That's probably just me though 🙄

Personally, I would love to see a Group 1 band pretending to be a Group 2 band 😜 (rather than Group 2 bands pretending to be Group 1 bands)

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

badfaith — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:49:09 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 12/30/2009 13:49

...Would make a good game- gather all the artists, and sort them into three pots- ART, CASH, or ICON... great fun for all the family, and a potential source of much debate and possible bloodshed!

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

badfaith — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:41:34 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 12/30/2009 13:41

I think I see three distinct flavours of musician emerging here:

First, the musician who loves making music for it's own sake (excellence and musical ambition) (anonymous, or low key types like Pink Floyd, Session musicians etc)

Second, the ME musician... Personally ambitious, who seeks to promote him/herself before the music, and includes those who see music as a tool for making money. (ALL "R&B", modern Rap and "Hip Hop")

and Third, the ideallist... Those who we've come to believe were trying to make the grand gesture, to live the life, and in some cases stand for something bigger.
(Bob Dylan, Lennon, Morrison, Moon, etc.)

...And thus revealed, it's this third group my question was about really,- do they still exist?... Did they ever really exist?, or have we romantisised their exploits, deeds, and bestowed attributes on them they never really possessed?

...I wonder if it is this question, and personally my growing concern that this has shattered the myth, that has opened the door for the second group, not only through the demise of the third group, but also the expense of the first.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

telefunker — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:32:30 GMT

Author: telefunker

Posted: 12/28/2009 23:32

it's very easy to satisfy your musical ambitions if you're not seeking fame and fortune.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Freddie55 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:25:18 GMT

Author: Freddie55

Posted: 12/28/2009 23:25

an_outlaw wrote:

So does anyone think that pursuit of fame and artistic merit can coexist as goals of a musician if they were to balance the two?

Sure. Anyone (artist or not) can be driven by a desire to become famous and rich for being the best in his/her field. It doesn't require balance. It requires excellence and drive.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

RFNAPLES — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:33:51 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 12/28/2009 22:33

an_outlaw wrote:

So does anyone think that pursuit of fame and artistic merit can coexist as goals of a musician if they were to balance the two?

Yes, I think they can coexist.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:18:56 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/28/2009 19:18

So does anyone think that pursuit of fame and artistic merit can coexist as goals of a musician if they were to balance the two?

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Freddie55 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:30:08 GMT

Author: Freddie55

Posted: 12/28/2009 18:30

My observation is that, whether we like it or loathe it, the most popular rock bands today are: The Killers, Kings of Leon, Coldplay and Radiohead. And these top four are not as popular as U2 and many geriatric rockers doing their victory laps.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Alt-Rocker77 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:32 GMT

Author: Alt-Rocker77

Posted: 12/28/2009 17:55

I think a better question is not "Is Rock dead?', but "Is there anything new to create in the genre?" Let's examine this decade, It starts off exceedingly well with Kid A, which infused krautrock, britpop, shoegaze, and electronica into one convincingly amazing sound. The very next year the band receiving the attention was the Strokes, who were not a band band by any means, but weren't exactly trailblazers. The rest of the decade seemed to be bent around This Is It?, in the sense that the styles of the 60's weren't being adapted, so much as copied. For the most part, this music wasn't bad, some of it great (The White Stripes will go down as one of the best rock bands ever), but it made me begin to question whether or not rock had any new ideas left. The electronic and hip hop genres had far more game changers than rock. I think the next 5 years will be indicative of where things are going.

Re: Rock & Roll R.I.P?

Alt-Rocker77 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:15 GMT