kaleb Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 Cliches and stereotypes are definitely a product of narrow mindedness. Yep. Eddie Trunk has a few things to say about that subject.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R.M.30! Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Well nothing duh. Rocks are ruined over time, crumbling into little granular specs and depositing in river beds, in one example. Many rocks have embedded animal skeleton shapes not to mention plant shapes as such. A negatively impacted rock, no such thing in my fervent opinion as rocks are catagorized as non-living therefore it's basically just a lifeless object, void of living characteristics, unless one thinks of it as their pet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Well nothing duh. Rocks are ruined over time, crumbling into little granular specs and depositing in river beds, in one example. Many rocks have embedded animal skeleton shapes not to mention plant shapes as such. A negatively impacted rock, no such thing in my fervent opinion as rocks are catagorized as non-living therefore it's basically just a lifeless object, void of living characteristics, unless one thinks of it as their pet! lol theres always one.. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californiaman Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Fk7PQLYZw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Okay... an old guy here who doesn't even recognize most of the names mentioned above... But... I think Evol hit half of our entire culture's problem, and that definitely affects music: Bean counters. The other half is that we're overwhelmed with so many media that I don't think any of us can possibly find .1% of what might interest him or her musically. Or in any other way. So... for any batch of music companies to make any money at all, and in theory also carry some musicians into money and fame, they've gotta try to quickly respond to whatever it is that they see selling. The weakness, of course, is a shrinkage of creativity and "artists" having to decide if they want to make a living creating art or not. The 2D and 3D artist has the advantage that it's not temporal - you can have their art on a wall or on a shelf and it's sold as an unchanging physical possession. Even a book - and how many authors are making a living at it compared to, say, 1970-90? - is a time-factored work as much as music or theater. Note how there's a lotta "stuff" out there with little general exposure and the "artist" has had to make choices he/she would not have had to do 30-60 years ago. I don't think rock is "ruined," although frankly I see the new stuff - both rock and "country" - as pretty much new batches of kids with slight musical variations appealing to other kids. (Yeah, if you're 40, you could be my kid. <chortle>) But note that back in the 1950s "rock" artists were considered to be ruining both music and culture in general. The more things change, the more they stay the same... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxom Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I just plussed you Farnsie but I meant to minus you. I mean The Beatles??????? They're literally the blandest band in history. They're like the matzo of music. Is this what you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxom Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I have no problems with Kiss, but I despise Rush. Highly overrated, in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Fk7PQLYZw Are you trolling too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Fk7PQLYZw Sorry, I think you mean the drug not Lou Reed or the Velvet Underground. All is forgiven (unless you meant the Velvet Underground). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega1 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Boring Old Farts thinking rock should stay exactly as it was back in the days when they were young. P. This. Every generation thinks the one that comes after is ruining/negatively impacting the things they love because it evolves. Ask any 20 year old if music is better now than it was 10-15 years ago. I believe a high percentage will say yes. Does that make them wrong? Now go back and think of yourself at 20, what would you have said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 ... but I despise Rush. Highly overrated, in all honesty. I know. If you're going to go Canadian, better bust out the Anne Murray or Gordon Lightfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californiaman Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Sorry, I think you mean the drug not Lou Reed or the Velvet Underground. All is forgiven (unless you meant the Velvet Underground). Certainly the drug. But one can't count out the effects drugs have had on rock music positive or negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Certainly the drug. But one can't count out the effects drugs have had on rock music positive or negative. One hundred percent true. It's a fine line between Echoes and becoming Syd Barrett. Psychedelics have opened some minds to allow great music to pour out. They've also burned some minds out. Cocaine gave us Black Sabbath's Vol. 4. It also gave us that live Derek and the Dominoes album. Talk about coke fueled excess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 I know. If you're going to go Canadian, better bust out the Anne Murray or Gordon Lightfoot. You can't be serious... There's lots of great Canadian bands other than Rush... Pat Travers, Max Webster, April Wine, The Guess Who, BTO, The Band, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 I have no problems with Kiss, but I despise Rush. Highly overrated, in all honesty. It seems that you despise any band with musical virtuosity (Rush...) or high levels of creativity (The Beatles)... I love The Ramones too, but they're pretty bland compared to The Beatles....Listen to Revolver and then tell me they're bland. Your Ramones wouldn't exist if it weren't for The Beatles. Now Rush on the other hand.....They are a love/hate band (like KISS, although they're really nothing alike!), and you obviously hate them, and that's okay. Just don't hold it against me. I guess you just couldn't handle "2112"? And while Johnny Ramone was a master of punk guitar (and did it like no one else) and I enjoy his art, he couldn't have held a candle to Alex Lifeson if his life depended on it, and he would have admitted it too. The Rolling Stones and The Clash are overrated, in all honesty..... I can play the game too.... I don't think that any band that isn't in the RRHF is overrated. KISS, Rush, Ted Nugent, Heart, Pat Travers, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Jethro Tull, Boston, Kansas, Thin Lizzy, U.F.O., and the countless others certainly aren't overrated. A lot of the bands that are, including the aforementioned Stones and Clash, are IMHO. Not taking away from the obvious virtuosos that were Led Zeppelin and The Beatles..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaysEpiphone Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Nothing lasts forever so just let it go and keep liking what you like and don't complain about something that has no bearing on history. Time move's forward not backwards, moving backwards would be catastrophic and would stagnate the art of original song writing/producing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I think that regardless the type of music, in this sort of discussion "we" have to look at historical context. That's often hard to do when "we" also tend to ask ourselves whether this or that composer or guitar player is "better" than the other - which totally ignores context. A great example would be Chuck Berry. All sorts of folks nowadays can rather easily duplicate his playing style and even stage antics but... at the time for all intents, he was an "original." Ditto Link Wray at least on that one blast of "Rumble" that left an indelible mark on rock and - for all of that - any "electric guitar" music. Frankly my own "opinion" is that there isn't a rock guitar player who could come close to the capabilities of Joe Pass or Segovia - but then, neither Pass nor Segovia were doing the sorts of things or playing the sorts of music to become general culture icons and remained icons of musical subcultures. I think that whether I particularly like or don't care for a given guitarist in "popular music" genres, contemplating them as "helping" or "ruining" rock is only a matter of first defining "rock," then defining how that defined genre would be "ruined" or instead "maintained" by division into sub-genres at given times and places. Often the skill and even talent of a guitarist can be less relevant than a vision to do something musically at a given point in musical history that captures the approval of a sufficient market segment to be considered somewhat groundbreaking. You might easily make a case that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner have played a major role in the development of rock in the sense that they had the chops of the time to capture their own generation that held over into following generations. We're still hearing variations of their stuff on television - and believe me, stuff you hear all the time will have an effect on how you perceive music in general. In rock... those 1950s guys switching from Jazz and Country and pop and blues to play that heavy beat and guitar lead rather than brass or reed are the trendsetters we still emulate today - just after batches of other pickers have added this or that to the general concept of rock. Hmmmm. No, I don't think anybody ruined rock. I do think our culture is increasingly difficult for music and musicians in the sense of being as incredibly influential as Mozart, Chuck Berry or the Beatles. But by the same token, I think we have a lot more pickers developing a lot more skill overall. When and if that finds a media breakthrough so that we hear elevator music variations and television background scores featuring dozens of variations a given stylistic concept as with Wagner or the Beatles... then we can know that there's been something really neat in changing the musical culture. Until then, I think in ways we're doomed to a jangling fragmentation of material appealing mostly to increasingly small musical subcultures. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The Rolling Stones.....are overrated, in all honesty..... You are missing the obvious, my friend. You started this thread on how GNR had become "cliche", and yet, here IS the actual template you speak of when you point out GNR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 You are missing the obvious, my friend. You started this thread on how GNR had become "cliche", and yet, here IS the actual template you speak of when you point out GNR. When did I say that? I said they were being themselves, but started a cliche unknowingly for bands that followed them. Look at the "Welcome To The Jungle" video from 1987: their look back then is now a stereotype of heavy rock music. Does that mean they were cliche? Hell no! And me thinking the Stones are overrated has nothing to do with their "style" or anything, just their music and how they perform it live. It was awesome until Exile. All downhill from there IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPguitarman Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It seems that you despise any band with musical virtuosity (Rush...) or high levels of creativity (The Beatles)... I love The Ramones too, but they're pretty bland compared to The Beatles....Listen to Revolver and then tell me they're bland. Your Ramones wouldn't exist if it weren't for The Beatles. Now Rush on the other hand.....They are a love/hate band (like KISS, although they're really nothing alike!), and you obviously hate them, and that's okay. Just don't hold it against me. I guess you just couldn't handle "2112"? And while Johnny Ramone was a master of punk guitar (and did it like no one else) and I enjoy his art, he couldn't have held a candle to Alex Lifeson if his life depended on it, and he would have admitted it too. The Rolling Stones and The Clash are overrated, in all honesty..... I can play the game too.... I don't think that any band that isn't in the RRHF is overrated. KISS, Rush, Ted Nugent, Heart, Pat Travers, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Jethro Tull, Boston, Kansas, Thin Lizzy, U.F.O., and the countless others certainly aren't overrated. A lot of the bands that are, including the aforementioned Stones and Clash, are IMHO. Not taking away from the obvious virtuosos that were Led Zeppelin and The Beatles..... Couldn't have put it better myself. If Buxom doesn't like RUSH, it's his loss. There's a lot of musicianship there and not just with Alex. I mean, who could sing and play killer bass runs at the same time better than Geddy? And nobody is better than Neil in my book. I guess I'm just a RUSH fanatic. I got Clockwork Angels for Father's Day from my daughter and it hasn't left my CD player in my car yet. When I do eject it, I'll put another RUSH CD in for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 As a grouchy old man, lemme put it this way... Almost all bands, without viewing some fancy stage stuff, become banal. One doesn't feel that way earlier in life, but the older I get, the more "rock" and "country" and "blues" all are variations on well-worn themes - like beef stew made with varying veggies, cuts of meat, style of gravy... Luckily I happen to like beef stew. But I don't get hung up on one group or another - it's more a matter whether I like, and on occasion arrange to play for myself, this piece or that. I'll never quite care for beef stew with celery, so I'm not likely to eat it. But there are more than enough other variations to keep me well fed... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyBillyBob1 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 My name is Rock Enroll and the rumours of my death are grossly exagerated. In the words of Neil Young "Rock Enroll will never die." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versatile Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It may have been said already.... There are key elements well-understood.... Firstly money vs risk... It is easier to rehash older music (same old) to satisfy the market for MOR of any genre Risk is scary...and can result in zero sales and zero paying audience... Accountants rule like never before The recession has virtually killed off lucrative live gigging for bands The work ethic and implied creativity diminished in accord with perceived instant success of pop idol type franchises More people drink at home... :blink: V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanH Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Never mind rock..... Who's killing music off altogether?............................. ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo68 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Plenty of killer rock bands out there. Not on the radio tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.