Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

More proof

62 Posts
25 Users
0 Likes
7,397 Views
Ignar Hillström
(@ignar-hillstrom)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

Wes: Personally I never quite got the 'sell-out' argument. It's like accusing the baker he is making bread others like. The age argument is not my cup of tea either, they should make music as long as they like. I definitely don't expect people to tell me to put my guitar down when I'm old. It's not even like I think they make 'bad' music in any shape or form. But I do have to notice that, with all their resources and possibilities, their new stuff is quite 'traditional'. That's not bad on itself but using the Stones as a signpost for creativity, espescially now, makes me wonder what our views on creativity and originality exactly is. I just don't see how they can even score 'decent' on that scale by just using the same old chords in the same old meter with the same old licks from the same old scales. What then *is* that new thing?

I think Mike hit the nail on the head: we all want originality but we all have a certain limit to what we can accept. Cross that line and we think it's no longer original but just crap. Some think the Stones use the basic concept and push it right to where they still like it. Others aren't too interested in it as long as they don't play the most bizarre and weird construction the world has ever seen.

The classic rock period was a time where, as far as I can see, very little actually happened. The core usually remained a bunch of diatonic chords strung together, with the lead guitar using major/minor pentatonics, with the entire song using the intro/verse/chorus/bridge/solo/outro structure. That's not bad. And when you look at the genre itself you can say they were original. Now when you put that to some modern bands (eg. Lamb) it's very easy to see that the modern bands are vastly more original, but I'm sure people here would call it noise instead of good music. And that's a perfectly fine opinion.

Originality depends on what you compare it with. The stones are more creative then Britney or the average Gangsta-Rap 'act', but not as original as some other bands. Whether it's original enough is a matter of personal taste, not something you can objectively measure. (making the above just an opinion as well)

Greybeard: I think when we use popularity to measure quality rap is going to beat any guitar right on the head. Last time this came up everyone hear screamed that it's about quality and not quantity of sales. Bit weird to use it when the same faulty arguments is now usefull to your own point.


   
ReplyQuote
Tim_Madsen
(@tim_madsen)
Prominent Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 724
 

This whole Bluegrass honors Van Halen thing seems backwards to me. I could seen Van Halen doing some bluegrass in tribute. But Bluegrass honoring Van Halen just seems wrong. :?

Tim Madsen
Nobody cares how much you know,
until they know how much you care.

"What you keep to yourself you lose, what you give away you keep forever." -Axel Munthe


   
ReplyQuote
improvgtrplyr
(@improvgtrplyr)
Estimable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 87
 

props to David Lee Roth for doing something new...i won't buy it. we're only hearing it because it is DLR. if an unknown was doing the same stuff, this thread wouldn't exist.

i still like some classic rock but it is getting old. people need to face this. it's not an issue of them getting old. aerosmith came out with new songs in the 90's that did well. the stone's come out with new albums and they're doing great. i grew up to led zep and know all their songs but man, i'm sick of it. i don't care if i ever hear them again.

my mom still listens to elvis. my brothers still listen to led zep. i'm looking in the indie sections of the record stores looking for something new.

for the last year or so, it was a local (vancouver) jazz band callede 'the dukes of swing" that have been getting most of my attention.

that said i'll be playing classic rock at the open jam, (that's all they ever do) and have a great time doing it :D


   
ReplyQuote
smokindog
(@smokindog)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5345
 

I found a video clip of Diamond Dave doing "Jump" with the Boston Pops.He seems to be more in his element here :D I think his problem was with the bluegrass band he sang the some the same way he did with V.H. That style just don't work with bluegrass. Any way he seems much more at home here 8) ( He's still cheesy :lol: )--the dog

http://www.davidleeroth.com/galleries/videos.php

My Youtube Page
http://www.youtube.com/user/smokindog
http://www.soundclick.com/smokindogandthebluezers

http://www.soundclick.com/guitarforumjams


   
ReplyQuote
Wes Inman
(@wes-inman)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5582
 

Arjen

When I say that bands were more original in the 60's and 70's I did not mean that all bands played a wide variety of styles like the Beatles did. You are correct, the Stones have always been very Blues oriented. But that was the music they loved.

But what I mean is that bands at that time tried very hard to be different from other bands. CCR had that swamp sound that made you think of alligators, voodoo, and mojo. Santana was latin. Steely Dan was very jazz. Led Zeppelin like the Beatles experimented with Celtic, Folk, Blues, and Eastern sounds. The Grateful Dead had bluegrass and country influence.

There were some bands that seemed to copy others. I have always thought that Grand Funk Railroad copied Cream, especially in the beginning. Later they developed their own sound.

But generally back then, nobody wanted to sound like anybody else, this was the worst possible thing that could be said about a band at that time.

And I know there are many original bands today, perhaps they can't get air-play for whatever reasons. But most bands you do hear on the radio are all playing the same down-tuned stuff. Everybody tries to sing like Eddie Veddar. You do not hear the wide variety of influences you heard back in the 60's and 70's. No way.

When Korn first came out they were very original. Now how many bands play super-low tuned 7 string guitars?

If you know something better than Rock and Roll, I'd like to hear it - Jerry Lee Lewis


   
ReplyQuote
kingpatzer
(@kingpatzer)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 2171
Topic starter  

Why are the Rolling Stones sell-outs for playing their many great hits they wrote over a 40 year span?

Because that's sort of what defines "sell-out."

Some 60+ year old grandfather strut around like he's 25 with his shirt off while thrusting his hips around is sad, not sexy.

Look, I'm not saying old people can't play music. There's plenty of older artists that I love. But they have a sense of who the heck they are.

The Stones want to put on a show that portrays themselves as the bad-boys of rock and roll they were 40 years ago. They aren't that anymore. Thus they don't come across as having any integrity. Rather it comes across as if they're doing it for the money, not for the music.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST


   
ReplyQuote
greybeard
(@greybeard)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 5840
 

I think when we use popularity to measure quality rap is going to beat any guitar right on the head. Last time this came up everyone hear screamed that it's about quality and not quantity of sales. Bit weird to use it when the same faulty arguments is now usefull to your own point.
My comment had nothing to do with sales nor about quality nor even about quantity. My question was simple, but you tore off at a tangent and didn't answer it. Nor did I use faulty argument, because I only asked a question. But my question still stands - how many contemporary acts can boast million plus audiences? How many contemporary acts can consistently fill stadia everywhere they are booked to play? How many have managed that for more than, say, 5 years?

I started with nothing - and I've still got most of it left.
Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in any dictionary?
Greybeard's Pages
My Articles & Reviews on GN


   
ReplyQuote
Mike
 Mike
(@mike)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2892
 

But my question still stands - how many contemporary acts can boast million plus audiences? How many contemporary acts can consistently fill stadia everywhere they are booked to play? How many have managed that for more than, say, 5 years?

The Dave Matthews Band comes to mind.


   
ReplyQuote
kingpatzer
(@kingpatzer)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 2171
Topic starter  

Harliquinn Romance novels publish about 50 new titles each month. In 2004 they sold over 250 million books, to some 75 million readers.

Guess what, they're authors fall into the "sell out" category too.

Popularity frequently has more to do with good marketing than with quality.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST


   
ReplyQuote
racetruck1
(@racetruck1)
Honorable Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 518
 

Funny, I remember a quote from Lars Ulrich from Metallica.
"Yeah,we sold out, every place we play!"

I heard the last Stones album and I was actually some what impressed. They haven't sounded this good in years.

I'm of the opinion that if all these "old timers" can still fill a venue and people still want to pay money to see them, great! If you don't want to see them then don't go. Personally, I remember seeing the Stones in 74 or 75 and saw them a few years ago and was really disappointed, I guess my expectations were a few years off. But, this last album, I really enjoyed. I also have a recording of "Bridge of Sighs" done by a really old looking Robin Trower that's amazing! (Guitar World, August 2006) If you get a chance, check it out.

Just remember, Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill! 8) 8) :lol:

When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming......
like the passengers in his car.


   
ReplyQuote
Ignar Hillström
(@ignar-hillstrom)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

Greybeard: Rio was a one of, and due to the nature of the area pretty impossible to compare with other places. It's not like a million people payed to see them, a million people were there in a close enoug proximity to be statistically a 'spectator'. Even though the vast majority would not have had any physical ability to perceive that performance in any way.

If you mean 'selling out arenas worldwide':
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Franz Ferdinand
Radiohead
U2
Coldplay
Counting Crows
Blink182 and clones
Green Day
Britney Spears and the likes
Eminem and the likes
Slipknot and the rest of the downtuning powerchord people

That's a basic list. I'm not sure at all what the number of people at a given Stones concert really matters. If television coverage counts, then any given Idols show outperformed any given Stones concert ten times. Numbers don't mean nothing.

Wes: Take a look at the list above, they are all very much mainstream acts with trucks loaded with awards. Widely different, very well known. You still have tons of Latin coming out, fused with about every style known to man. The electronics scene alone resulted in more genres then all the classic rock bands combined. Tons of bands use new genres mixed with the old ones to create a way more unique sound, plus jazzy influences have become quite hot in mainstream music circles.

But as I said, originality is relative. I would say bands like CCR, Led Zep, the Stones and quite a few others are not as diverse at all. They all used rather basic, simple chord-driven structures all based more or less on the standard pop principal. The bands were all based around the usual drum/bass/guitar/vocals setup, all featured the required guitar solos, never strayed to far off the beaten paths either rhythmically or harmonically and follow the same general kind of movement. They can all be clearly identified as bands from the same period of time, coming from same general musical foundation (basically, bluesrock) writing songs in more or less the same manner. They are as different from each other as is house and melodic hardcore: widely different for fans of electronic music, pretty much the same kind of music to the rest. I've heared enough late 50s C Am F G progressions or wannabe beachboys to believe that period was really any different.

Most of the crap has just been washed away by time.


   
ReplyQuote
StormyMonday
(@stormymonday)
Reputable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 429
 

When artists don't change their style, they've sold out. When artists change their style, they've sold out. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


   
ReplyQuote
Ignar Hillström
(@ignar-hillstrom)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

Selling out has nothing to do with the music itself but the motivation behind it. If you make music like a baker makes bread you are selling-out, you are using your creative talents as a method to bring in money and not primarily to make the 'best' possible music. On itself that's not bad but the suggested negative bit is that people who sell-out generally tend to make music that appeals to the biggest possible crowd, which in turn means little inventivity, originallity and creativity. This pretty much applies to the Stones. When I look at footage of old Stones gigs I see a bunch of very happy people playing pretty simple music in a rather technically poor way due to them being totally stoned out of their minds, with their audience consisting of stoned out equally happy hippies who don't care much either about the sonical qualities. I liked the atmosphere, the attitude of everyone, the wheather seemed great as well but the music itself wasn't really that special in any way or form, in my opinion. Unlike, say, the Beatles or the Hendrix Experience, bands that both had oozes of originality and weren't shy to get off the beaten path.

This is all fine if you happen to be part of the people they're shooting for. If not, then you might whine about it. I personally wouldn't go to a Stones concert, but that's just a personal preference.


   
ReplyQuote
Wes Inman
(@wes-inman)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5582
 

I can't imagine any band not wanting to make good music. Sure, they want to sell records and make money. But new original bands want to sell records and make money too.

I saw a show on VH1 about two years ago about Aerosmith. Now these guys are almost as ancient as the Stones. But anyway, they showed the making of an album. It was obvious they were very concerned about writing great music, especially Steven Tyler. I remember a comment he made, he said the first thing they ask about any song is if it is WORTHY of the Aerosmith name. I am sure Mick Jagger feels the same way.

You can't say the Stones or any of these groups are resting on their laurels. They are playing hundreds of concerts per year, many young people can't stand up to this strain. These are hard working people, that's why they make many millions.

And many critics do say the latest Stones album is the best in years.

As far as prancing around on stage, Mick Jagger and Steve Tyler are both pretty impressive. They are in excellent physical shape and can still sing. What do you want them to do, retire and sit in a rocking chair? I doubt anyone writing here will be in that great shape at that age. Yep, damned if you do and damned if you don't. :roll:

I still don't understand why people call Metallica a sell-out. They have simply gotten older and are into different music now. Same thing will happen to most here, wait and see.

If you know something better than Rock and Roll, I'd like to hear it - Jerry Lee Lewis


   
ReplyQuote
Ignar Hillström
(@ignar-hillstrom)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

What do you want them to do, retire and sit in a rocking chair?

You know what they did when they were in Amsterdam last year or so? They sold out the entire place in thirty minutes but kept the tickets of the first two rows. These were then *given* away to hot looking young chicks so in the video footage they were shooting it looked like they still drew the attention of young women. Meanwhile the real fans (generally not young girls) couldn't get any tickets. That has nothing to do with integrity, pleasing fans or caring about music. It's pathetic and shamefull behaviour.

When I see Clapton, Gilmour or BB King I feel nothing but respect. When I see what the stones are doing I feel sad. Fake and rock&roll just don't mix too well. Not even if you actually were, a long time ago, what you pretend to be now.


   
ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 5