Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

What Do You Think "Ruined" or "Negatively Impacted" Rock?


kaleb

Recommended Posts

In the last 20something years, IMHO Rock music has been totally going wacko. Is it the record companies, modern day technology, Grunge (LOL!), etc?

 

I think it's the cliches and stereotypes.

 

For example, Guns N' Roses started a cliche for rock bands IMHO. They definitely were NOT a cliche, but most rock bands of the dual-guitar/cool frontman ilk seem like a stereotype to them.

 

Just like SRV and blues; SRV was a great talent, but he inspired a legion of sound-alikes (NOT talking about Kenny Wayne Shepherd. He's got his own style IMHO). And nowadays, the SRV stereotype seems to be shoved in the face of anyone who plays blues and or plays a Strat.....

 

What I would call the "cliche" rock guitar player: low slung Les Paul, a few tattoos, long hair, leather pants, etc.

 

Sure, I love Les Pauls (and wear them at a somewhat low position) and have long hair, but that's because I like the sound of Les Pauls, that guitar height is most comfortable to me, and I think long hair looks cool.....(not trying to be a "real rocker"), but I ain't no cliche. I'm a walking anomaly, as a matter of fact.

 

It seems to me that in the last 25 years, a lot of bands don't be themselves. My examples? Many of the hair bands of the 80s (not ALL), and Buckcherry (GnR wannabes if you ask me!)....

 

Hey, I am not a fan of Nirvana at all, but at least they didn't copy....

 

And if I was a touring musician, I'd have a wall of combo amps rather than the normal dummy Marshalls.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Let me tell you how it REALLY was about GNR-they didn't start anything. What they were doing was the same thing rock bands were doing for about 10 or 20 years all over and up and down LA. What might have been a surprise, is that "trend" of those types of bands was something that had already came and went.

 

For example, our own DUANE V was a hair-metal butt-rocker right out of that very same cest-pool doing exactly the same thing. That's before SLASH came to town.

 

ANDY R is STILL doing it.

 

Send me one of your Marshalls and I'll do it too. (I would prefer a JMP, but I ain't gonna be picky). I don't have the head to support "hair" metal anymore though. Maybe that's why they started to call it butt-rock?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Record companies! They pounced on anything that resembled Van Halen. They pounced on anything that resembled Nirvana (though they may have been pounced upon themselves). Now they pounce on anything that resembles Death Cab for Cutie or Foo Fighters or whomever else has a sound that is selling that they think they can reproduce with their machines and shove down our throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you how it REALLY was about GNR-they didn't start anything. What they were doing was the same thing rock bands were doing for about 10 or 20 years all over and up and down LA. What might have been a surprise, is that "trend" of those types of bands was something that had already came and went.

 

For example, our own DUANE V was a hair-metal butt-rocker right out of that very same cest-pool doing exactly the same thing. That's before SLASH came to town.

 

ANDY R is STILL doing it.

 

Send me one of your Marshalls and I'll do it too. (I would prefer a JMP, but I ain't gonna be picky). I don't have the head to support "hair" metal anymore though. Maybe that's why they started to call it butt-rock?.

 

GnR were different then their hair peers. They had too much attitude to be compared to a band like Motley Crue....

 

Is that an insult to Duane and Andy or a compliment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah id say MTV had a huge impact...

 

But I think its just the dumbing and watering down of "Rock", when bands like Coldplay are considered rock just because they use guitars (and they are a personal peeve of mine)..

 

At the end of the day though times and tastes change, each generation doesnt understand the next generations music and it will probably always be like that.. We like what we like and thats what stays with you...

 

However I will say that even though theres alot of crap out there, theres alot of cool stuff too.. I really like Jake White, he does his own thing and I also LOVE the Gorillaz who are making music that is a mix of dance, rap and guitars.. amongst many other bands who have and have not made it (theres plenty of good music out there, you just have to work to find it).

 

The thing is as you say why bother if your not doing something different, well people are doing it diffirent, you just dont like it thats all :)

 

On the flip side of the coin. Now with stuff like Youtube and Facebook things are going to change again...

 

I love this tune and the video is awesome and is good and original modern rock (imo of course :) )

 

and this is with one of his other bands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grunge started it. creed finished it off.

 

This,

 

The rebelious image, hair and the unorthodox playing of an instrument are as old as rock n' roll itself.

 

To me the strange thing is that one of the main claims to fame of grunge was that they kept it basic on both arrangements and production, well I'll take AC/DC anyday.

 

Grunge was DDT, it killed the over-the-top glam image crap but it also killed more good things in music.

 

Like a friend says in a very sarcastic (what I call theatrical) tone of voice: Grunge,thanks for the 3 years of greatest hits!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rock evolves. I don't think it's changed that much in thirty years though It's just guitar playing that's changed. It's all tapping and speed now to the loss of melody.

I think the types and styles of Rock have increased. I personally don't like Grunge etc, but who remembers the 'New York Dolls'? ZZ Sputnik? There's something for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GnR were different then their hair peers. They had too much attitude to be compared to a band like Motley Crue....

 

Is that an insult to Duane and Andy or a compliment?

To answer the question about DAUNE and ANDY, that was neither a compliment or an insult, it's a fact: they were both doing what GNR did before they were a band. Same music. Duane was actually in the same place.

 

I haven't heard Andy's music, but I have heard Duane's. I like it. My understanding is his band was bought off by the record companies about the time when they were buying off everyone who had a chance... about the time of QUIET RIOT popping off and making it big I'm guessing.

 

As for GNR having this "additude" compared to a band like the Crue? I don't mean to promote a certain lifestyle or taking drugs, but think about it: the members of GNR are all still alive. There are guys from that time that aren't, because of doing what GNR seemed to be about AT THAT TIME. Vince Niel went to jail for killing a guy while partying. You won't see a reunion of the origonal RATT or METALLICA. That ain't even counting the guys around that weren't in a band that poeple would "seem" to care about.

 

Just my little rant: this was a time when it was THOUGHT that partying and taking drugs made you legit, or not a poseur. It ain't the way it is. But what was going on and what a lot of these guys did (including me for a time) would make GNR look like schoolgirls. It turns out, taking drugs, and "acting" like the real deal in that sense is what makes an actual poseur.

 

Besides the drugs and partying, there is being tough, being a nice guy, and being a ****. Not everyone in that "scene" was any or all of these. Lots of what was seen by thier peers as "legit" were real guys who were not dicks and wasn't high all the time. Some never were, and some still are, and some wised up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question about DAUNE and ANDY, that was neither a compliment or an insult, it's a fact: they were both doing what GNR did before they were a band. Same music. Duane was actually in the same place.

 

I haven't heard Andy's music, but I have heard Duane's. I like it. My understanding is his band was bought off by the record companies about the time when they were buying off everyone who had a chance... about the time of QUIET RIOT popping off and making it big I'm guessing.

 

As for GNR having this "additude" compared to a band like the Crue? I don't mean to promote a certain lifestyle or taking drugs, but think about it: the members of GNR are all still alive. There are guys from that time that aren't, because of doing what GNR seemed to be about AT THAT TIME. Vince Niel went to jail for killing a guy while partying. You won't see a reunion of the origonal RATT or METALLICA. That ain't even counting the guys around that weren't in a band that poeple would "seem" to care about.

 

Just my little rant: this was a time when it was THOUGHT that partying and taking drugs made you legit, or not a poseur. It ain't the way it is. But what was going on and what a lot of these guys did (including me for a time) would make GNR look like schoolgirls. It turns out, taking drugs, and "acting" like the real deal in that sense is what makes an actual poseur.

 

Besides the drugs and partying, there is being tough, being a nice guy, and being a ****. Not everyone in that "scene" was any or all of these. Lots of what was seen by thier peers as "legit" were real guys who were not dicks and wasn't high all the time. Some never were, and some still are, and some wised up.

 

Good point.

 

In actuality, the thrash groups of the era (including pre-Black Metallica, whom owned the metal world until they did "Enter Sandman"....At least "One" was a great finale...) had more attitude...

 

But I wasn't applying that "attitude" had anything to do with drugs, women, or partying. GnR certainly knew how to rock, and in 1987, they did it like nobody's business. Motley Crue are a different story.

 

I was simply referring to the swagger of the music and their performance tact. Not what Axl and Vince shot in their arms....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think record companies dictate too much these days. It's all about the bottom line. Alex Lifeson once said that Rush wouldn't make it in today's music market. He's absolutely right. Back in the 70s bands were allowed to find themselves. Nowadays the record companies want the hit and probably push bands too much to produce that hit. I think it's fine to have a solid album that will have a good following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think record companies dictate too much these days. It's all about the bottom line. Alex Lifeson once said that Rush wouldn't make it in today's music market. He's absolutely right. Back in the 70s bands were allowed to find themselves. Nowadays the record companies want the hit and probably push bands too much to produce that hit. I think it's fine to have a solid album that will have a good following.

 

This is the era of the independent label.

 

There's lots of great music out there, but it's not being pushed through the media and the mainstream. You have to look for it.

 

Rush could be successful in this age, but not on a mainstream level.

 

The best bands around today are far from mainstream IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kiss and Rush

Now that's just mean... (Hey, he didn't say it was the Ramones [wink] ).

 

I don't think it's been "ruined", but it's going through a bit of an "awkward stage". Been through many of these, Disco, the birth of MTV, the "death" of MTV, Glam, Hair Bands, Napster, Grunge, lots of different "phases" that are all intertwined and woven into the fabric of "popular' music. Virtually every one of the bands mentioned in this thread has fans, paying fans, that justify their place in the industry regardless of what others think.

 

There is a lot of good music out there. Also a lot of crap. Trouble is, which is which will depend quite a bit on who you ask. And when you ask them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's just mean... (Hey, he didn't say it was the Ramones [wink] ).

 

I don't think it's been "ruined", but it's going through a bit of an "awkward stage". Been through many of these, Disco, the birth of MTV, the "death" of MTV, Glam, Hair Bands, Napster, Grunge, lots of different "phases" that are all intertwined and woven into the fabric of "popular' music. Virtually every one of the bands mentioned in this thread has fans, paying fans, that justify their place in the industry regardless of what others think.

 

There is a lot of good music out there. Also a lot of crap. Trouble is, which is which will depend quite a bit on who you ask. And when you ask them.

 

You're absolutely correct!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

looking back I don't think that big music companies did it any good ! I say that, because rock in the 60s and early 70s was hot stuff and doing incredible things! And then disco came along, where did that stuff come from! it totally ruined what we were listening to at the time,LPs,fm,am 8 tracks! that's not to say it was dead, but it was real difficult to find then!

what really opened my eyes was sirius radio esp. BB Kings Bluesville channel and the LUCILLE channel!those 2 places showed me that there is a whole lotta rockin being done but its NOT in the old places!those places are so stagnant its pathetic! [thumbdn]

there are the walter trout's, joe bonnamassa's and so many more! but you gotta look in the blues venues to see the new hot rockin stuff! [woot]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...