Creed/Alter Bridge is a darn good modern band.
And "ilikeguitar", MCR isn't really that good. They aren't as BAD as some people make them out to be. But they are still really bad. And are very popular, which is why I said they are a reason for bad music nowadays.
Fall Out Boy is too. Wow, they suck.
And you're right, whoever said this, that 50s guys were influenced by 60s guys, 70s by 60s, etc. But if we look at all of these decades and we say what was MOST influential, the 60s was probably the most influential of all. There was just so much talent then, so much great music. Sure, there was bad music too, there will be forever some "bad" music. But that era was filled with greatness.
Not even just the individual artist. Think about the atmosphere and how influential that is too. Woodstock is a prime example. Three days of peace. Influence on MUSIC. Woodstock was huge for the music world.
You think "Live 8" will always be remembered? Nah. But Woodstock will.
Your "they are very popular, which is I why I said they are the reason for bad music these days" logic is faulty. If the music is popular, it's because some sizable audience believes it is to their taste and are listening to it -- maybe even buying it. But if there is an epidemic of bad music, it's because the audience is (in someone's view) indiscriminant and supports this so-called questionable music. And unlike 20+ years ago, one can't argue that the industry is only giving us this limited selection of music, as the sources of music these days are many and varied. But logic aside, whenever someone says "(most of) today's music sucks" -- and I've heard this many times over several decades, there is usually only one reliable conclusion to be drawn: The person who said it has tastes different from those of the general audience. Oh well.
As far who's a good band and who's not: Good bands with good musicians do not always produce notable, lasting music. However, some terrible bands, with generally acknowlegded marginal musicians have produced great music and great performances that seem to be standing some tests of time. I'm sure GN'ers can supply plenty of examples to support this contention.
-=tension & release=-
Your "they are very popular, which is I why I said they are the reason for bad music these days" logic is faulty. If the music is popular, it's because some sizable audience believes it is to their taste and are listening to it -- maybe even buying it. But if there is an epidemic of bad music, it's because the audience is (in someone's view) indiscriminant and supports this questinable music. And unlike 20+ years ago, one can't argue that the industry is only giving us this limited selection of music, as the sources of music these days are many and varied. But logic aside, whenever someone says "(most of) today's music sucks" -- and I've heard this many times over several decades, there is usually only one reliable conclusion to be drawn: The person who said it has tastes different from those of the general audience. Oh well.
As far who's a good band and who's not: Good bands with good musicians do not always produce notable, lasting music. However, some terrible bands, with generally acknowlegded marginal musicians have produced great music and great performances seems to be standing some tests of time.
Amen brutha.
^^Thank you for justifying my point, gnease.
Bad bands that aren't popular make no impact, am I right? Yes. Bad bands that are popular, do make impact, am I right? Yes. My Chemical Romance is so popular...why? I don't know. I didn't think The Black Parade was too bad, but I dislike their other two albums.
That's what I mean. You look at the "big" modern bands nowadays. I don't like many of them, if any. I respect the RHCP, but I don't like them too much. They're the best out of all of them right now.
And on you saying good bands with good musicians...etc, etc. I agree 100% here. When the hell did I say this wasn't true? Not once. I've stressed this before. That's what makes Hendrix the best from MY perspective. He made the most beautiful sounding music, in my opinion. That's why I like him so much more than any other band or artist. He was a genious, I think. He might not have been as good technically as many players, but wow man, the music he made.
Basically, we're both making the same point here, just in different ways.
I liked Alter Bridge's version of Kashmir more. Tremonti's use of wah is cool and I love Myles Kennedy's voice. They've also done Crazy Train. Modern bands covering classic bands is a good way to transition from modern to classic, and vice versa. It was Nirvana that got me checking out David Bowie. I couldn't get into Genesis though, as much as I liked Disturbed's cover of Land of Confusion.
Modern bands covering classic bands is a good way to transition from modern to classic, and vice versa. It was Nirvana that got me checking out David Bowie. I couldn't get into Genesis though, as much as I liked Disturbed's cover of Land of Confusion.
I agree, I've always liked covers for that reason :D
BTW, The original line up of Genesis was hands down the best IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTTf1-pD5D8&mode=related&search=
Who's the singer? The people on YouTube can't seem to agree on Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins. Cool nonetheless though.
Something about Hendrix related conversations always amuses me :)
Was he an innovator? Sure. Widely emulated and cited as an influence by many? Absolutely. The best ever? Uh... no.
Hendrix is a great example of a sub-text of this thread: there are virtuoso performers, and there are known performers. Those who are known will always be emulated more than those who aren't, for the simple reason that folks you don't know you can't emulate. Guitarists who are famous will be emulated, whether or not they're the best.
During Jimi's life, he wasn't the best technically (folks like Tony Mottola, Alvin Lee, and many others were far better). He was certainly innovative, but the medium of electric guitar was still pretty fresh - you find innovators everywhere in that era, from Link Wray to Bill Nelson, who were at least his equal in creativity.
While he was alive, he wasn't the sensation he is today. I mean, he was the opening act for the Cat Stevens tour!
Of his three albums, only one hit #1 in the US (and none did in the UK). Compare that record with the Beatles: 12 for 12 #1 albums in the UK, 14 out of 20 #1 in the US (US releases were rearranged and retitled). Or Elvis, whose first four singles all reached #1.
So why is he on such a pedestal today? I think there are two reasons, neither of which he had much control over....
1. Woodstock. He wasn't supposed to close the show, but the headline act (Iron Butterfly) chickened out. The festival itself went bankrupt, and the assets - the recordings and film - went to the creditors, who were sharp business people and wanted their money back. They heavily promoted the Woodstock album and movie, and Jimi was the closer by default.
2. Bad contracts. Like many acts, Jimi was exploited in his early deals. His first two recording contracts didn't end up with records being released... but they did grant the recording companies rights to the one he'd recorded plus the next couple of albums. After Jimi died, this created a legal nightmare - companies could claim rights to release his music under existing contracts, and they could sell those rights to other companies.
And they did.
Jimi had only three authorized releases in his lifetime, but almost 300 posthumous albums. Ownership rights weren't sorted out by the courts for about twenty-five years... during which time all those different albums were being promoted by dozens of different labels. Exposure = fame, and Jimi ended up dropping his pants for more than just the plaster casters in that respect. Lots of marketing over a long period of time = notoriety; notoriety = "great" in a lot of circles.
I'm a fan of Hendrix. But I admire the work of many other guitarists too - and I try not to confuse popularity with prodigy. Hendrix had plenty of the first because of Woodstock/contracts, and enough of the second to keep his name on the "great guitarists" lists.
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
Who's the singer? The people on YouTube can't seem to agree on Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins. Cool nonetheless though.
Peter Gabriel On this one I am sure. Collins did back up vocal and plays the drums. Later Collins became the front man. He was a far better drummer than front man IMO.
Woodstock is a prime example. Three days of peace. Influence on MUSIC. Woodstock was huge for the music world.
You think "Live 8" will always be remembered? Nah. But Woodstock will.
I remember Woodstock. I wasn't there myself but I loved The Offspring. Probably my favourite punk band. Definitely my favourite performance there too.
Peter Gabriel On this one I am sure. Collins did back up vocal and plays the drums. Later Collins became the front man. He was a far better drummer than front man IMO.
Didn't know that. Learn something everyday. I like Gabriel's singing better. This is based on two Genesis songs though.[/url]
^^Thank you for justifying my point, gnease.
Bad bands that aren't popular make no impact, am I right? Yes. Bad bands that are popular, do make impact, am I right? Yes. My Chemical Romance is so popular...why? I don't know. I didn't think The Black Parade was too bad, but I dislike their other two albums.
That's what I mean. You look at the "big" modern bands nowadays. I don't like many of them, if any. I respect the RHCP, but I don't like them too much. They're the best out of all of them right now.
I don't agree with many of your contentions. I think your view of cause and effect is sometimes reversed and overly simplistic. What does "impact" mean? Changing what? Changing it how? I suspect that popular music rarely initiates change in popular music. That change more likely moves in from the less popular fringes. One of the reasons is simple: Musicians tend to listen to more than just popular music. They take their imfluences from many places. Then in some cases, those who happen to be or become popular may bring elements of change to popular music -- usually slowly. So a band that is not popular can certainly influence the direction of music -- esp if other musicians hear them and are inspired. Being "good" or "bad" may not make a difference either. I've heard (IMO) bad bands that (again, IMO) actually display some interesting, creative musical traits. Another musician may not think the performance by these bad bands is good, but he may hear or see something that affects him and his music.
And on you saying good bands with good musicians...etc, etc. I agree 100% here. When the hell did I say this wasn't true? Not once. I've stressed this before. That's what makes Hendrix the best from MY perspective. He made the most beautiful sounding music, in my opinion. That's why I like him so much more than any other band or artist. He was a genious, I think. He might not have been as good technically as many players, but wow man, the music he made.
This was in response to your assertion that MCR and similar "suck." It's only your opinion. Just as your admiration of Jimi is still only your opinion. However, insulting other by telling them the bands they like are bad is just a bit too intolerent. If you want others to read and consider seriously your opinions, demonstrate a bit more open mindedness and consideration of others', possibly different opinions.
Basically, we're both making the same point here, just in different ways.
Nope. We differ.
-=tension & release=-
I remember Woodstock. I wasn't there myself but I loved The Offspring. Probably my favourite punk band. Definitely my favourite performance there too.
[/url]
OWA ... Offspring was at "Woodstock 1999." When people refer to Woodstock -- the original Woodstock -- they usually mean the one in 1969.
-=tension & release=-
I remember Woodstock. I wasn't there myself but I loved The Offspring. Probably my favourite punk band. Definitely my favourite performance there too.
[/url]
OWA ... Offspring was at "Woodstock 1999." When people refer to Woodstock -- the original Woodstock -- they usually mean the one in 1969.
Methinks she knows that and was just being tongue in cheek.
I don't agree with many of your contentions. I think your view of cause and effect is sometimes reversed and overly simplistic. What does "impact" mean? Changing what? Changing it how? I suspect that popular music rarely initiates change in popular music. That change more likely moves in from the less popular fringes. One of the reasons is simple: Musicians tend to listen to more than just popular music. They take their imfluences from many places. Then in some cases, those who happen to be or become popular may bring elements of change to popular music -- usually slowly. So a band that is not popular can certainly influence the direction of music -- esp if other musicians hear them and are inspired. Being "good" or "bad" may not make a difference either. I've heard (IMO) bad bands that (again, IMO) actually display some interesting, creative musical traits. Another musician may not think the performance by these bad bands is good, but he may hear or see something that affects him and his music.
You're assume I don't feel the same as you with some of these statement. I agree, I've heard a lot of good things from some of these bad bands. I'm not saying modern music is 100% bad. It's not, there's a lot of good music out there to be discovered. Most music is just the same, really. And it's sad to see it going this week. Most high school bands nowadays have that typicaly "Fall Out Boy" voice as the lead singer. They sound like 'everything else' and they know it. My friend Nolan, who's in a band, is a very, very talented guitarist. He's very skilled, I've heard him play at a school talent show and on his myspace page. Why must he play these simple power chords in a band and only play 10, maybe 15 seconds "guitar solos"(this is what the guitar solo has evolved into nowadys). I also agree that influence can come from anywhere. Hell, I heard a song on the radio the otherday and I liked something from it. I don't know who it was or what decade it was from, but it had some good sounds on it.
This was in response to your assertion that MCR and similar "suck." It's only your opinion. Just as your admiration of Jimi is still only your opinion. However, insulting other by telling them the bands they like are bad is just a bit too intolerent. If you want others to read and consider seriously your opinions, demonstrate a bit more open mindedness and consideration of others', possibly different opinions.
It is an opinion. That's why I've been saying IMO and other phrases like that all through thsis topic. I think Jimi Hendrix is the greatest guitarist of all time. IMO. MCR sucks. I am very openminded. That's why I've given many modern bands a chance. I've tried to find a band that I love in todays music. Remember Stadium Arcadium by the RHCP? That album was loved so much by so many. I didn't like the songs I heard on the radio from that album, but sinec everyone said it was so great, I downloaded it. I gave it a listen through twice (and a half maybe), there was only like 4 songs that I liked (me, not you, I just liked them). I deleted the album and I came to the conclusion that (in my opinion), it wasn't very good. Being closeminded is the last type of thing I am. That last. I may appear as a jerk with the words I'm using (I don't think so though), but I am not a closeminded person and I do consider everyones opinion.
I remember Woodstock. I wasn't there myself but I loved The Offspring. Probably my favourite punk band. Definitely my favourite performance there too.
[/url]
OWA ... Offspring was at "Woodstock 1999." When people refer to Woodstock -- the original Woodstock -- they usually mean the one in 1969.
Methinks she knows that and was just being tongue in cheek.
ah ... then too bad for me I missed the humor.
-=tension & release=-
Yea, I sensed some sarcasm too. I hope, lol.
