Topic: What do you think of Rock 'n' Roll music? (Read 14332 times)

MadassAlex · « **on:** 22 Jun 2007, 07:18 »

So over the years rokk music has changed one hell of a lot pretty obviously.

So what do we think of the current state of rock music? What do you think it says about rock music that there are truely very few good bands that can be generally described as "rock" without branching into some subgenre? Why do Wolfmother get more airplay than Queen?
Branching from that, what do you think about the state of subgenres of rock now that they have so many sub-subgenres? What aspects of rock do you like that are missing from many bands today and/or what aspects do you think modern rock bands could lose?

To start this off, I will talk about metal. One thing that I've found really annoying recently is the need for every new metal band to have to growl into the microphone. I mean that's great if you want to do that, but surely SOME of you realise that metal isn't based on vocals alone, right? Right? Guys? No?
Damn.
This is a lot of the reason why recent mainstream metal bands are pretty much failures in my opinion. For example, Trivium. Trying to hard to be thrash. On the other hand, Avenged Sevenfold, not trying hard enough to be gritty and metal more or less. Bands like Mastodon, SYL and Outworld are waaaay better examples of good metal bands that bring new appeal yet keep aspects from classic metal bands.

Basically what I'm saying is that metal should take a collective step backwards, and think: "What direction could we go in now that we haven't taken before? How can we be more aggressive without taking a direction wherein there's a strong possibility of becoming stale?"

I also think that the genre defined merely as "rock" without any subgenres should do this, too. Wolfmother was a good attempt at bringing back some kind of classic rock, but overly repetative and unprogressive. Rock, collectively, should ask itself "How can we be the genre that inspired punk and metal again while bringing something new into the mix?".

Of course, I could go into all sorts of subgenres.

My general question is: What are your regrets about contemporary rock music? What are the aspects that you really enjoy?

Kai · « **Reply #1 on:** 22 Jun 2007, 07:25 »

I know we built this city on rock and roll

Johnny C · « **Reply #2 on:** 22 Jun 2007, 07:41 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 10 Jul 2006, 10:19

Man are we ever knee-deep in the hoopla right now.

Orbert · « **Reply #3 on:** 22 Jun 2007, 09:43 »

Rock and Roll has been around a long time now; it is probably the longest lived "popular" genre of music, and when something's been around a long time, it grows, evolves, and subdivides. (Kinda like a multicellular organism.) Back in the old days, there were only one or maybe two radio stations in each town. Smaller towns didn't even have their own radio stations; you had to tune in something from the nearest big city. So people all ended up listening to the same thing, and the same things were popular.

Nowadays you have 1000 different subgenres of "Rock" because there is both demand for it and a means to supply it. When everyone listened to the same station, bands like The Beatles could have several singles out at the same time, and they'd all be hot. Heck, there was a point when the top 5 songs in the US were all by the same band, The Beatles. There's no way that could ever happen today. Most bands or singers only have one song out at a time, and if there's a second one climbing the charts, it's because the last one's already on its way down. Why? Because the market is so fractured. There is never a large enough percentage of the population that all listens to the same thing.

But that's not a bad thing. Everyone has different tastes, and everyone can find stuff to listen to that they like.

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #4 on:** 22 Jun 2007, 11:58 »

Just let me hear some of that rock'n'roll music
Any old way you choose it

Hat · « **Reply #5 on:** 22 Jun 2007, 14:39 »

I have a seething hatred for the constant bullshitting about how so and so new metal act is an innovating new step forward for the genre, when like any genre of music, the vast majority is derivative shit.

Other genres have this issue, but metal seems to cop it more than anything else.

Also, fuck you emilio for saying that before I had a chance

JCnNJ · « **Reply #6 on:** 22 Jun 2007, 15:02 »

Quote from: Orbert on 22 Jun 2007, 09:43

Rock and Roll has been around a long time now; it is probably the longest lived "popular" genre of music, and when something's been around a long time, it grows, evolves, and subdivides. (Kinda like a multicellular organism.) Back in the old days, there were only one or maybe two radio stations in each town. Smaller towns didn't even have their own radio stations; you had to tune in something from the nearest big city. So people all ended up listening to the same thing, and the same things were popular.

Nowadays you have 1000 different subgenres of "Rock" because there is both demand for it and a means to supply it. When everyone listened to the same station, bands like The Beatles could have several singles out at the same time, and they'd all be hot. Heck, there was a point when the top 5 songs in the US were all by the same band, The Beatles. There's no way that could ever happen today. Most bands or singers only have one song out at a time, and if there's a second one climbing the charts, it's because the last one's already on its way down. Why? Because the market is so fractured. There is never a large enough percentage of the population that all listens to the same thing.

But that's not a bad thing. Everyone has different tastes, and everyone can find stuff to listen to that they like.

I don't know if so many subgenres is THAT good. I mean, with the Beatles, people had an incentive to play music - there was a chance they could really connect to a lot of people. And the market allowed bands to grow and develop with a label. Not too many people remember that the Beatles' first single bombed in America.

Nowadays, with so many selections out there, and with so much stuff that just gets missed due to the massive amount of product available, it's remarkably easy for extremely talented artists to go unnoticed. And the pressure to succeed RIGHT NOW is enormous. I've bought a few albums from bands that I wanted to hear more from, but never heard from again because they got cut from their label. Some bands need an album or two to grow into their sound and develop their songwriting. You just don't see that anymore.

Add to that the only artists that seem to make it HUGE anymore are the test-market bullshit - Creed, Limp Bizkit, Nickelback. I doubt there'll ever be another artist along the lines of Nirvana that's both hugely popular AND talented. And don't get me started terrestrial radio. Now if something isn't instantly recognizable by 75% of the population, it doesn't get played. Which leads to a lot of Jack-FM stations with no creativity in their playlists. Yeah, it's fun to listen to 80's music once in a while, but take a chance to introduce something to me, you know? I can find new stuff on Sirius, but it does kind of piss me off that I have to PAY to get some adventurous radio selection.

Sometimes I feel like with all the variety in rock, there's just too much of a good thing.

Orbert · « **Reply #7 on:** 22 Jun 2007, 15:22 »

It's not necessarily a good thing, either. There are certainly downsides to it, as you've pointed out. I guess I was responding to the idea that fracturing genres is automatically bad, which seems to be a common attitude. There's both good and bad to it.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #8 on:** 22 Jun 2007, 18:11 »

The notion of subgenres isn't something that is decided by the musicians, it's decided by the fans as a useful shorthand for finding out about new music.

EXAMPLE:

Let's say you really like Slowdive and JAMC. Would you ask a friend of yours "Hey, what's some good rock music?" or would you ask him/her "Hey, what's some good shoegazer?"

In general 99% of everything discussed here is rock music. The subgenres exist to make it easier to get into specific flavors of rock music.

And in summation, I think rock music is doing just fine.

thenosebleedkid · « **Reply #9 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 04:32 »

The hellacopters are THE band to listen to if you dont beleive good rock music is still being brought out. Not flashy, not ground breaking, just plain, fun and solid rock!

fish across face · « **Reply #10 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 04:33 »

Tommy's story.

doki · « **Reply #11 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 05:00 »

Rock music is one of those things that is just gonna keep going. something that has been at least substantially popular for a good 50 years has got staying power. but what you people need to understand is that music is very cyclic. lets take a few examples

Grunge is basically 70's punk in different clothes
bands like Wolfmother and Jet are doing things that worked in the 60's and 70's
Classic songs are nearly always re released as covers, becoming successful again

why?
well, there is no one answer, but i like to think it's because sounds that Led Zepplin and The Sex Pistols made have begun to fade in today's culture, so we have artists who raised themselves on those sounds reproducing them, which is good, or combining them with todays sound, also good.

my point here is the reason we have subgenres is because you can't sell something that doesnt have a name.

Scytale · « **Reply #12 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 06:40 »

Quote from: MadassAlex on 22 Jun 2007, 07:18

To start this off, I will talk about metal. One thing that I've found really annoying recently is the need for every new metal band to have to growl into the microphone. I mean that's great if you want to do that, but surely SOME of you realise that metal isn't based on vocals alone, right? Right? Guys? No?
Damn.
This is a lot of the reason why recent mainstream metal bands are pretty much failures in my opinion. For example, Trivium. Trying to hard to be thrash. On the other hand, Avenged Sevenfold, not trying hard enough to be gritty and metal more or less. Bands like Mastodon, SYL and Outworld are waaaay better examples of good metal bands that bring new appeal yet keep aspects from classic metal bands.

Basically what I'm saying is that metal should take a collective step backwards, and think: "What direction could we go in now that we haven't taken before? How can we be more aggressive without taking a direction wherein there's a strong possibility of becoming stale?"

I wasn't going to raise to the bait but I will

There is absolutely nothing wrong with death/black vocals when they are used appropriately, the problem is all these shitty "nu metal" bands that don't have an ounce of talent and use the vocals as a cheap gimmick to sell records to stupid mall kids. Same thing with corpse paint and a lot of the other things that make people go "lol metal".

Otherwise the 'growled' vocals fit with the style of music being played very well. You listen to the music being played by most death metal bands and tell me whether it would be suited to a nice tenor accopanying it (It could work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc-V3NYckOI ...).

It really annoys me when hipsters come along and say things like "Opeth/Agalloch/(whatever band is trendy these days) would be great if they got rid of the growled vocals". Too me it just displays ignorance and narrow mindedness it as if there's some sort of stigma associated with the vocals "oh with vocals like that this band can't be any good". It's so retarded.

The other thing you touched upon that annoys me is this seemingly modern obsession of wanting to push the boundaries all the time, all these people who "Oh I only listen to post-post-post whatever genre, everything else is too generic and inspid" are also retarded. There's a lot of good original fresh sounding music being released today most people just realise its stupid to advertise yourself based on how much you can "push the boundaries of peoples pre-concieved notions of accepted music" or whatever bs these fanboys are always spouting. Yes albums get released from time to time that push genreX in an entirely new directions but plese remeber it's about the music not about how "innovative" you can be, no matter what spin you put on your music if it's still music at the end of the day, if it's crap it'll disappear if its good 10^7 clone bands will all spring up end of story.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #13 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 07:01 »

Dude I love me some deathy/black vocals, I just hate it how every new metal band seems to want to do this. Necrophagist FTW.

That said, I'm not too hitched on bands always pushing the boundaries, but it'd be cool if they could say "Well okay this sounds great, how can I use it to express myself without losing anything?". The answer, of course, would be to become a competant musician. I dunno about you guys, but as I learn more and more about the building blocks of music, I see how few well-known bands are actually savvy to it.
What would be GREAT is more bands like SuidAkrA, who use influences from old celtic music. It's not pushing boundaries, but it's not often done and sounds great. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - for more bands to really nail a good sound. You can always tell when Iron Maiden or Opeth are being played, right? You can't tell when Trivium are fucking playing though, because it's bullshit, half-assed imitation growls and guitar harmonies that have been done before.

valley_parade · « **Reply #14 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 07:13 »

I have heard that this rock you speak of is not noise pollution, am i right about this assumption?

Scytale · « **Reply #15 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 07:46 »

Quote from: MadassAlex on 24 Jun 2007, 07:01

Dude I love me some deathy/black vocals, I just hate it how every new metal band seems to want to do this. Necrophagist FTW.

That said, I'm not too hitched on bands always pushing the boundaries, but it'd be cool if they could say "Well okay this sounds great, how can I use it to express myself without losing anything?". The answer, of course, would be to become a competant musician. I dunno about you guys, but as I learn more and more about the building blocks of music, I see how few well-known bands are actually savvy to it.
What would be GREAT is more bands like SuidAkrA, who use influences from old celtic music. It's not pushing boundaries, but it's not often done and sounds great. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - for more bands to really nail a good sound. You can always tell when Iron Maiden or Opeth are being played, right? You can't tell when Trivium are fucking playing though, because it's bullshit, half-assed imitation growls and guitar harmonies that have been done before.

That rant I posted wasn't directed squarely at you, my applogies if it was percieved that way

it was merely addressed at that whole attidute that seems to prevail. To be honest I've never heard Trivium, so I can't comment on them.

Re Suidarkra there are quite a few metal bands out there with varying degrees of Folk influences, some of my favorites are Melechesh (Middle Eastern), Windir (Norwegian) and Drudkh (Ukranian). I agree with you it great to see them using those influences.

Recently (last year or so). I've been getting really into sort of spacey black metal, stuff with really mechanical drums plenty of keys, like Limbonic Art, Odium, later Abigor, Samael that sort of thing, it's really interesting just how diverse metal can be.

ScrambledGregs · « **Reply #16 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 08:40 »

Not to come off like a deconstructionist, but isn't rock music a nebulous term?? I mean, so much shit falls under that broad category. It's one of those "I know it when I hear it" things, but it's only gotten worse with time. Do we consider metal, itself a ridiculous broad category of music, as part of rock?? Do we consider 'pop' music like The New Pornographers and Belle & Sebastian rock, or is 'pop' its own category??

I'm not saying we need to sit down and make distinctions for ever band, because that's what got us in trouble in the first place, but if we're going to talk about the health of rock music, it's going to be completely different for each person. I would argue that rock music is just as healthy and alive as ever, but I don't have the same perspective as Tommy or even Khar.

Johnny C · « **Reply #17 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 09:39 »

I kind of understand what Tommy means. I check review sites only when I remember it now and don't keep up with release dates anymore because my policy for listening to music is essentially that I think of an older record I haven't heard and then go seek it out. The last time I went to the library to borrow a CD it was Wire's Pink Flag, and while there instead of picking up any of the new releases I grabbed Black Flag's Damaged.

However I also think there were some great rock albums released last year and this year that Tommy's completely missing. I have faith that the genre is still alive, though maybe there is a lot of regurgitation - at the moment though I think you'd be hard-pressed to single out a genre where there isn't a lot of that going on right now. If you think music is stale at a given point you just need to give it time really. Something big is probably happening somewhere and just hasn't spread to the national consciousness yet.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #18 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 10:05 »

Quote from: Scytale on 24 Jun 2007, 06:40

It really annoys me when hipsters come along and say things like "Opeth/Agalloch/(whatever band is trendy these days) would be great if they got rid of the growled vocals". Too me it just displays ignorance and narrow mindedness it as if there's some sort of stigma associated with the vocals "oh with vocals like that this band can't be any good". It's so retarded.

Or maybe it just displays people not liking guttural vocals. They usually put me off a band, which is why there are only a few death metal bands I like. It's not narrow-mindedness, it's personal taste.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #19 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 13:39 »

Jeez. You guys are like, 8-10 years younger than me and you're already at the "Gee whizbang, there just ain't none of that there good musics comin' out no more like there was in them old days!" That makes me sad.

The past two years I've heard more new good rock albums than the couple years before. Boris, Ghost, Maserati, Interpol, Liars, Do Make Say Think, Jesu, Trans Am, Mono, Arcade Fire, Broken Social Scene, The Legendary Pink Dots, The Twilight Sad, Yo La Tengo, Silver Mt. Zion, Acid Mothers Temple, British Sea Power, Los Alamos... just off the top of my head, those are bands that all put out absolutely incredible albums in the past two years. And that's just off the top of my head, AND I don't really go far out of my way to investigate new bands!

MadassAlex · « **Reply #20 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 20:59 »

Quote from: a pack of wolves on 24 Jun 2007, 10:05

Or maybe it just displays people not liking guttural vocals. They usually put me off a band, which is why there are only a few death metal bands I like. It's not narrow-mindedness, it's personal taste.

Very few people start out liking growled vocals - it is kind of aquired as you listen to certain types of music and think "well I could go for something heavier". Which is why fans of music with growled vocals often get annoyed - they aquired the taste through time and a definate direction of music they wanted, whereas people who just ssay "no, lulz" probably never gave the vocal style a second chance.

What I'm saying is that just about very death metal fan has had the same opinion as you at some point. Even if you don't like it, it would be cool if more people could go "Okay well I don't think the vocals are very good, but I am willing to listen because I am an open-minded individual and other aspects of the music might appeal to me". That would rock so hard.

Johnny C · « **Reply #21 on:** 24 Jun 2007, 23:31 »

The idea of an "acquired taste" always puzzled me.

Take escargot, for example. Why would I spend my time and money eating snails if I don't enjoy the way they taste? I may not even wind up liking them anyways! Then my money and time are gone and also I've eaten a bunch of food I just don't like! It is not so great an idea.

I don't mind growled vocals but just because I don't have an urge to listen to an album of them doesn't mean I'm not open-minded. It means I've given the vocals a shot and they just aren't my thing.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #22 on:** 25 Jun 2007, 00:10 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 24 Jun 2007, 23:31

I don't mind growled vocals but just because I don't have an urge to listen to an album of them doesn't mean I'm not open-minded. It means I've given the vocals a shot and they just aren't my thing.

That's cool, what I was getting at is people who are completely closed to something that may not appeal to them instantly. Anyway it's not like I, personally, "tried" to enjoy growled vocals, it just kind of happened over time without me noticing.

fish across face · « **Reply #23 on:** 25 Jun 2007, 00:28 »

I think that's the key - if there's enough to like in the music you probably have a feeling that you could grow to love something, it's not something you have to try to develop. If I love, say, the taste and texture of garlic-fried car tyres, then maybe I'll give those escargot another shot from time to time to see if I might enjoy them more this time around.

Lots of interesting points in this thread, I reckon. Nothing much I have to add to it, though.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #24 on:** 25 Jun 2007, 16:33 »

yeah i hate ni9gfgers so i guess i;lll never like hip hip

Hat · « **Reply #25 on:** 25 Jun 2007, 17:08 »

I don't see why there should be a problem with acquired tastes. I fucking hated the taste of whiskey when I was fifteen. I drank it anyway because it got me shitfaced. Now I've come to really appriciate it.

The thing about acquired tastes is they need to offer something apart from the jarring sensation you're attempting to "acquire" otherwise there is no point. Think of some fifteen year old kid listing to whatever godawful heavy metal music is loud and aggressive and has growled vocals. They just want to listen to something angry and aggressive until they acquired that taste. If you haven't done that, you probably don't like them, which is why I had to get into Opeth to be able to stand death vocals at all.

Hell, I had to listen to post-rock stoned out of my mind for months until I was able to enjoy it sober.

ScrambledGregs · « **Reply #26 on:** 25 Jun 2007, 17:50 »

I actually can't think of any music that I have personally experienced as an acquired taste. Most of the time it's either "this sucks, I never want to hear this again" or "I like this, I'll listen to it again."

Also, I think vocalists can make a band far more interesting if they're an "acquired taste." I finally got around to listening to Bikini Kill, and while I'm sure somebody will come out of the woodwork to castrate me for saying this, the band would be boring as fuck if not for Kathleen Hanna.

Orbert · « **Reply #27 on:** 26 Jun 2007, 10:31 »

Music videos encourage people to acquire tastes. A lot of times, the song isn't something you'd normally listen to, if you heard it on the radio, you'd change the station, but the video is interesting enough to keep you watching. Before you realize it, you've actually listened to the song. Next time you hear it on the radio, you've heard it before, so you maybe give it a chance.

Doesn't happen all the time by any means, but a certain percentage of the time, people will end up listening to stuff they would have rejected before. Maybe even like it and buy more. The taste has been acquired.

SeanBateman · « **Reply #28 on:** 26 Jun 2007, 12:26 »

Quote from: MadassAlex on 22 Jun 2007, 07:18

Why do Wolfmother get more airplay than Queen?

Because Queen Fucking suck.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #29 on:** 26 Jun 2007, 12:49 »

HAHA YOU MAKE FUNNY JOKE

MadassAlex · « **Reply #30 on:** 26 Jun 2007, 21:14 »

Quote from: Dirk Hopeless on 26 Jun 2007, 12:26

Because Queen Fucking suck.

HAHA YOU MAKE FUNNY JOKE

Inlander · « **Reply #31 on:** 27 Jun 2007, 00:41 »

Kieffer, have you even heard Wolfmother? "Because (x) band sucks" is not an argument that can be used to support Wolfmother of all bands.

the-artful-dodger-rodger · « **Reply #32 on:** 27 Jun 2007, 14:46 »

they are not that bad, its cool to hear modern acid-washed rock.

Johnny C · « **Reply #33 on:** 27 Jun 2007, 15:39 »

If that's what you want then listen to Black Mountain.

Misereatur · « **Reply #34 on:** 27 Jun 2007, 15:51 »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIzYrAlq-hY

Inlander · « **Reply #35 on:** 27 Jun 2007, 19:43 »

Quote from: the-artful-dodger-rodger on 27 Jun 2007, 14:46

they are not that bad, its cool to hear modern acid-washed rock.

I maintain that in an era where more old recordings are available to buy and to listen to than ever before, why would I listen to a modern rehash of an old band or style when I could just as easily listen to the original albums of that band and/or style?

This applies as much to Wolfmother as to any other crappy retro band out there.

the-artful-dodger-rodger · « **Reply #36 on:** 28 Jun 2007, 06:29 »

I do like retro rock bands, its cool to hear a new take on acid-rock muisc with modern bands, like retro rockabilly.

Johnny C · « **Reply #37 on:** 28 Jun 2007, 08:13 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 27 Jun 2007, 15:39

If acid-rock music with modern bands what you want then listen to Black Mountain, for Christ's sake.

the-artful-dodger-rodger · « **Reply #38 on:** 28 Jun 2007, 14:18 »

I have listen to Black Mountain and they are awesome, so I still like Wolfmother and now I like Black Mountain.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #39 on:** 28 Jun 2007, 15:14 »

Quote from: Inlander on 27 Jun 2007, 19:43

I maintain that in an era where more old recordings are available to buy and to listen to than ever before, why would I listen to a modern rehash of an old band or style when I could just as easily listen to the original albums of that band and/or style?

This applies as much to Wolfmother as to any other crappy retro band out there.

Well, there are a few reasons to do that. For one thing, original doesn't mean best. The first hardcore record ever released was Pay To Cum by Bad Brains. Bad Brains were woeful. The first hardcore album was Land Speed Record by Husker Du. This is a decent slab of wax, but it's been surpassed many many times over the years.

Another reason is that some genres work best live. I almost never listen to noise on record but I do enjoy it when performed (especially since the dividing line between noise and performance art is often very blurred), so if you take any genre that's been going longer than, say, dubstep you'll always need new bands to replace the ones who've split.

And finally, having a really original sound isn't all that important. I like fast songs with people yelling. Yesterday I heard Graf Orlock for the first time and I now really want some records by them. I have vast amounts of fast songs with people yelling already, but I want more because I enjoy them and I always like to hear good new ones.

Sorry none of these examples have anything to do with Wolfmother, I heard that band once and decided I wasn't bothered, but I do feel the need to defend the principle of new bands that aren't really that new but are damn good anyway.

Johnny C · « **Reply #40 on:** 28 Jun 2007, 16:27 »

Quote from: the-artful-dodger-rodger on 28 Jun 2007, 14:18

I have listen to Black Mountain and they are awesome, so I still like Wolfmother and now I like Black Mountain.

My work here is done.

Johnny C · « **Reply #41 on:** 28 Jun 2007, 17:54 »

The best part about the film American Hardcore is how they deal with Bad Brains' turn into a full-on reggae band.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #42 on:** 28 Jun 2007, 18:38 »

I have nothing of value to add. @ "original =/= best"

Black Sabbath are a pretty cool heavy metal band but Judas Priest are better.

That said, Black Sabbath >>>>> Wolfmother, also Led Zeppelin >>>>> Wolfmother

Quote

I have nothing of value to add.

Oh-ho-ho, very funny.

No really, I had a good chuckle.

Kai · « **Reply #43 on:** 28 Jun 2007, 21:41 »

where does Emerson lake and Palmer fit into that equation?

MadassAlex · « **Reply #44 on:** 29 Jun 2007, 00:44 »

Quote from: Kai on 28 Jun 2007, 21:41

where does Emerson lake and Palmer fit into that equation?

I like to think they occupy the space between ">>" and ">>".

Inlander · « **Reply #45 on:** 29 Jun 2007, 05:25 »

Personally I feel that "doing something similar, only being good instead of being crap" can be filed under the category of "taking an old musical style and doing something new with it", which makes it permissible. At which point, of course, I become ensnared in a logic trap made out of pure subjectivity, from whence there is no escape.

Remember me to my family, guys. Don't forget about me!

the-artful-dodger-rodger · « **Reply #46 on:** 29 Jun 2007, 05:59 »

Quote from: Inlander on 29 Jun 2007, 05:25

Personally I feel that "doing something similar, only being good instead of being crap" can be filed under the category of "taking an old musical style and doing something new with it", which makes it permissible. At which point, of course, I become ensnared in a logic trap made out of pure subjectivity, from whence there is no escape.

Remember me to my family, guys. Don't forget about me!

so you dont like cover songs then? because Johnny Cash's cover of the song "Hurt" sounds better to me than NIN's original song "Hurt", but as you say its pure subjectivity.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #47 on:** 29 Jun 2007, 09:26 »

Originality is impossible. No one should be making music anymore by this logic. There is a pre-cursor for everything.

amok · « **Reply #48 on:** 29 Jun 2007, 15:37 »

Quote from: tommydski on 29 Jun 2007, 06:08

Having Johnny Cash, who is less CRAP than Trent Reznor, make a song marginally less CRAP is not much of an improvement.

(In my opinion).

Seriously. If he was going to improve a Nine Inch Nails song he could've picked one that was all industrial-rocky so that the cover sounded original. He just took a whiny acoustic piece of shit and turned it into a whiny acoustic piece of shit as performed by Johnny Cash.

Johnny Cash's reputation did nothing to improve that turgid sack of crap on a musical level, funnily enough.

JCnNJ · « **Reply #49 on:** 02 Jul 2007, 19:55 »

Johnny Cash loved "Hurt", and said it was one of the best anti-drug songs ever written.

He wasn't trying to improve it, just play a favorite song in his style.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: What do you think of Rock 'n' Roll music? (Read 14332 times)

JCnNJ

thenosebleedkid

doki

Scytale

Scytale

ScrambledGregs

ScrambledGregs

SeanBateman

JCnNJ