The sorry state of 21st Century music culture

[sleepless]

Rock music is the reason the industry began declining. It started in the '50s. Rock in general has always been stupid music made for stupid people. Or shoud I say, slow people? No, stupid is the correct word. Of coarse there have always been exceptions, and there always will be. If you want the industry to change, change it. It only continues this way because you keep paying them.

I believe though, with this high rate of decay, it wont be long until it collapses and a new era of music listening rises. In fact, it began in the '80s with the label Dischord, and has only been getting stronger since.


As a side note, Joe Bonamassa is fairly good, but not the end all to guitar playing. Not even remotly close. Not even top 10 good.

i dont agree with what you have said in any way at all, its like having the victorian opinion that you could tell a persons character by measuring the dimensions and shape of their face and head. stephen king listens to rock music [ac/dc in particular] and i wouldnt class him as 'slow' or 'stupid' all you have done is generalised, classified people by using your own predjudices and made yourself look stupid in doing so. if i were to listen to beethoven or bach would i be more intelligent? of course not, its all music and its all just sounds and nothing more, regardless of what type of music you prefer.

[thcbongman]

I never once assumed that MCR or anyother "emo" band was actually emo. Stuff dating back from Sunny Day Real Estate from Seattle is generally credited as being the first wave of emo. And I thought they sucked back then, too.

Mainstream does not equal shitty, nor sell-out. If you look at a good amount of mainstream music, even in the 70s-90s, a lot of the top-selling artists were GREAT. Unfortunately, that's not ALWAYS the case now. But some mainstream vocalists, like Norah Jones, Christina Aguilera, ect. have amazing voices. And they're mainstream too.

That's actually when emo began to be widely misinterpreted. SDRE is an ok band, but they're responsible for having any indie band with a poppy beat to be labeled emo. Much of emo was started by bands like Rites Of Spring under the label Dischord records. It sounds vastly different than what emo is classified as now. Emo stands for a raw sound, when performers go nuts on stage and play with high emotion. Somehow it's evolved into something that sounds sissy.

Saetia, At The-Drive In, Cursive. These are bands that I would consider playing the true form of emo. And there's nothing sissy, or poppy about any of their sound.

[thcbongman]

Personally, around the Baltimore-DC metro area, 90% of the 'underground' scene completely sucks. (Well that's because you don't know good music- Fuck that, good music is different for everybody.)

That I can agree with! At least Baltimore has a decent scene, in DC it seems most act like total zombies when they go to shows.

[suhl]

Suhl, what's with you tonight? You're being way too harsh and critical, man. I wouldn't classify the Dandies as mainstream, nor is it underground. Personally, around the Baltimore-DC metro area, 90% of the 'underground' scene completely sucks. (Well that's because you don't know good music- Fuck that, good music is different for everybody.)

And sure, Supergrass and 311 are a bit mainstream. But so what? The whole "Mainstream music automatically sucks" bit seems a bit high horse to me.

Some of Supergrass's stuff, possibly not in the arena of guitar solos or jazz riffs, but they have a lot of genuinely good songs with interesting lyrics.

Respect other people's views, and try not to be so haughty sometime...

EDIT: I have checked out that page. Why did you assume I didn't, and then proceed to be so critical?

because you said there was no blues jazz based riffs with good solos. i didnt say mainstream music automatically sucks, but i thank you for putting words in my mouth. i said saying holdovers from the early nineties were the saving grave of music is ridiculous, i said you were wrong about the psychadelic scene, i said that the mainstream has gotten significantly worse in recent years, i said you were wrong about the blues based rock with good solos, i stick by that. one thing i did was assume that you probably werent looking deeply because you listed only very famous bands as your good bands and the things keeping music good.

i respect other peoples views, but rem blows and michael stipe is an asshole.

and yes christina aguilera has a good voice. you can find about a thousand sex objects that can sing, am i supposed to be impressed, thats all she does. someone throws together a pop beats, hands her a sheet of paper, says look sexy and sing this.

what is with me isd that for some reason i still let ignorance get under my skin. i really wish i didnt, as i am trying to be a better person, but i just cant seem to let some things go. ill let this go, i really dont want to seem like one of those assholes on the high horse but i can see how it could be taken that way.

[SonicBloom]

first of all, not even top ten isnt saying much when millions of people have picked up the instrument. he is the best playing today. saying he is fairly good undermines everyone to have picked up the instrument. if he is fairly good then all but about 5 people playing today are fairly bad or worse. you are a musician. because if by your standards bonamassa is "fairly good" nothing special, i would love to hear what you have to say about yourself. because if i am calling bonamassa fairly good, you are some of the worst dogshit i have ever heard. note that by my standards bonamassa is great, you are decent, definitely above dogshit(well not the singing) but dont deserve a record contract or to make it outside of local bars.

really, i have no problem with people not liking bonamassa, it is an opinion, but to say he isnt great is just ludicrous. like i have no problem with people not like srv, blues isnt for everyone, but saying he is anything less than great is fucking ridiculous.


dont pretend like rock music started declining in the fifties. belive me i like some old tunes but no one under the age of 90 believes that pal the beatles werent even around yet. so i know you want to seem all cool saying that rock music was better in the fifties, but it is a joke. you are literally, and yes i mean literally literally the only man on earth who thinks that. my guess is it is some sort of an attempt to act like you are the ultimate authority of music and it gives you an excuse to talk down to people who talk about great music. "oh man you like led zeppelin well fuck that aint nothin compared to that balls to the wall 20s rock" something along those lines.

talk to me again when you come down off the high 1950s horse.

First thing, I didn't mean to come across saying that only music from the '50s or before was any good. How I meant to be read was that the business started declining in the '50s, when it started to be taken over by cooperate fat-cats who wanted to push merchandise, and using sex to sell products. There has been great music before, during and since that period, and a lot of it. I also would say Led Zeppelin were one of the bands to break that mold, for most of their early career they made it clear they wanted to stay away from that kind of bullshit.

Thing with J.B. though, it's not that he's not good, some (you), might even call him great, and that's fair, but you shamelessly plug him into every music thread you post in, as if he is the end all to guitar playing. John Mclaughlin, Brad Rabuschin, Frank Gambale, and countless others that you ignore are far better, (in my opinion), and offer similar listening experiences.

[SonicBloom]

if i were to listen to beethoven or bach would i be more intelligent? of course not, its all music and its all just sounds and nothing more, regardless of what type of music you prefer.

Actually, you're completely wrong. You would be more intelligent. It's proven that music that makes you think harder is good for you brain, and over all increases knowledge intake.

[EbelEyes]

"oh man you like led zeppelin well fuck that aint nothin compared to that balls to the wall 20s rock"

lol

You made me smile.

Thank you very much.

[sleepless]

Actually, you're completely wrong. You would be more intelligent. It's proven that music that makes you think harder is good for you brain, and over all increases knowledge intake.

therfore it wont matter what you listen to, only that you listened to something, regardless of what it was.

[SonicBloom]

If AC/DC makes you think hard, then clearly the Mahavishnu Orchestra would make your brain explode.

[sleepless]

im not a musician so the only way i think about music is if i like it or not, or if i like the things the band are saying. to me, just because a piece is complex or has over 120 instruments playing at the same time means nothing. i appreciate and enjoy the sound but im not going to spend too much time thinking about tempos and arpeggios etc.