A Simple Question [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

QUENTIN

09-14-2009, 12:38 PM

The VMAs reflect the shittiness of MTV. What is featured on MTV is shit.

Every decade will have their share of lab-created marionettes dancing around on stage belting out bad songs, and as time goes on, quite quickly, they will all be forgotten to make way for the new ones. You can hate the new crap that replaces the old crap, but don't forget the old crap and say the new crap is really "new" crap, or that the new crap is any more pervasive than the old crap. It's just the old crap in new threads, and its just as bad.

The reason people tell themselves music is getting worse, is worse, is because they expect institutions like MTV and radio to not shovel shit in their ears. But that's totally what they do all the time. If one were listen to radio expecting good music, I'd understand why they might think music is worse. But it's not. This generation's music lovers now discover and pass on music through the web. And music this decade is great. And you don't need to dig to find any of it. Not really. It's all out there. It's all right here.

He's right. Like those people who despair about the state of movies being so much worse than some imagined past, they're selectively remembering the good old stuff and forgetting all the pop shit that was out then. Is this the best time for music ever? No, my taste runs more to the 65-75 era, but there was a shit ton of awful music then and there's a shit ton of great music today. Then, as now, the best stuff is not going to be played on a corporate station trying to co-opt what 12-year-olds think is "cool" and appeal exclusively to the mentally challenged. The MTV VMAs are a perfect exemplification of what's wrong with MTV, not with all music. If anything, good music is more readily available today than it has ever been, so it's a great time for music lovers to discover new stuff.

LordSimen

09-14-2009, 12:41 PM

Find and watch this episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1287663/

It'll pretty much sum up everything I have to say on this subject.

vesaker

09-14-2009, 12:44 PM

a corporate station trying to co-opt what 12-year-olds think is "cool" and appeal exclusively to the mentally challenged.

i think you may have just quantified why stuff like Justin Bieber exist, lol.

AceD

09-14-2009, 01:16 PM

How the hell can anyone watch the MTV music video awards and not agree that this is the worst decade EVER for music without question. I can't believe how 95% of artists celebrated there fucking suck and have no actual music ability.

Well, I think that based simply on the VMAs, yes, music today sucks. However, there's legions of good music that doesn't make it on MTV. Also, I think the idea that they have "no musical ability" is a bit much...clearly that is true of some of them, but many popular artists have droves of talent, they just don't use it like they should.

But no, this is not the worst decade for music. As Smarmy said, it's pretty easy to find the quality stuff that's being made right now. That said, based simply on the VMAs, yes, most of the most popular stuff today sucks though.

The Postmaster General

09-14-2009, 01:32 PM

Slowly, but surely, over the past couple decades, the VMA's and MTV as a network in general has shifted it's focus from music to performance art.

Hey Man

09-14-2009, 01:34 PM

Name me 10 really fantastic rock bands that came out in the year 2000 or later and who are still together making music?

ericdraven

09-14-2009, 02:03 PM

Slowly, but surely, over the past couple decades, the VMA's and MTV as a network in general has shifted it's focus from music to performance art.

You consider dancing transexuals on America's Best Dance Crew peformance art?

AceD

09-14-2009, 02:28 PM

Name me 10 really fantastic rock bands that came out in the year 2000 or later and who are still together making music?

Why does it matter if they are still together? Anyway...

Great rock acts who debuted/came to prominence post-2000:

The White Stripes
Jet
Modest Mouse
Muse
Neko Case
The Hold Steady
Anathallo
MGMT
The Spill Canvas

...among others. Keep in mind that I'm intentionally naming acts that almost everyone knows. I'm not saying these are the greatest acts going, but they bring distinct and worthy things to the table.

QUENTIN

09-14-2009, 02:48 PM

Keeping in mind some differences of opinion (not a big Jet fan), I'd add:

The Black Keys
Kings of Leon
My Morning Jacket
Mike Doughty
The Raconteurs
Umphrey's McGee
Tony C and The Truth
Tea Leaf Green

And that's sticking solely to a very traditional definition of "rock music" and bands whose first label release was post-2000. Classic rock is mostly that though, classic, if you're looking for the best music out there you have to branch out beyond stuff that sounds like it's trying to be from 1973, though most of the above-mentioned do a great job of that.

Also, what difference does it make if they're still together or not unless you're just trying to artificially limit people's options? Of course, if a band or musician releases an album in this decade, then it's modern music, doesn't matter how long they've been around. A 2008 album by Pearl Jam isn't "90s music" or any such silliness, it's new, modern rock. Johnny Cash and Buddy Guy have released some of the best music of their careers this decade for instance, this decade is the one that should temporally take the credit for that, not the 60's.

The Postmaster General

09-14-2009, 02:48 PM

You consider dancing transexuals on America's Best Dance Crew peformance art?

What in god's name are you talking about? I didn't say anything closely resembling what you said I consider, nor do I have the faintest clue as to what you are referring to.

bigred760

09-14-2009, 02:59 PM

It's why I don't watch MTV or the VMAs. My taste in music has absolutely nothing to do with what MTV airs (if they still air music at all) or what the VMAs recognize.

I was watching the Packers-Bears game when I went on facebook and many of my friends were statusing that Kanye West was a prick, and that they couldn't believe what he did. I had no idea what they were talking about. When I realized they were talking about the VMAs . . . I stopped caring, and went back to the game.

AceD

09-14-2009, 03:05 PM

Keeping in mind some differences of opinion (not a big Jet fan), I'd add:

The Black Keys
Kings of Leon
My Morning Jacket
Mike Doughty
The Raconteurs
Umphrey's McGee
Tony C and The Truth
Tea Leaf Green

Obviously there are differences of opinion, but I'd add the bands you listed to my list as well, and again, no one's listed anything too off-the-wall here. These are all accessible bands who you can find in most any record store.

Also, what difference does it make if they're still together or not unless you're just trying to artificially limit people's options? Of course, if a band or musician releases an album in this decade, then it's modern music, doesn't matter how long they've been around. A 2008 album by Pearl Jam isn't "90s music" or any such silliness, it's new, modern rock. Johnny Cash and Buddy Guy have released some of the best music of their careers this decade for instance, this decade is the one that should temporally take the credit for that, not the 60's.

Exactly. The decade is producing the music, and influence can be a two-way street. Johnny Cash needed Rick Rubin to see the limits of where he could go. Bob Dylan obviously influenced every one of the listed bands here, but even some of his stuff, from a musical standpoint, has been influenced by some modern acts. It's a cycle.

The Postmaster General

09-14-2009, 03:39 PM

Don't forget Sammy Haggar's new band.

AceD

09-14-2009, 03:47 PM

Don't forget Sammy Haggar's new band.

Not sure if you're joking or not, but either way they're better than Velvet Revolver.

vesaker

09-14-2009, 04:04 PM

Don't forget Sammy Haggar's new band.

lol all's i can think of when i see that name is

"I can't drive, FIFTY FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!"

is there any other popular Van Halen song this guy sang for?

Prismatic Sphere

09-14-2009, 04:12 PM

Guitarist Joe Stump said this at the beginning of the decade; and I think it pretty much sums the entire decade up:

"If I wanted to be fashionable I would grow a goatee, put a sock on my head, and forget how to tune or play my guitar. No thanks."

Servo

09-14-2009, 04:28 PM

I'm just not into modern music anymore. I've given up on the lyrical stuff this past year mainly because it doesn't capture who I am or what I feel anymore these days. Movie scores have been my only comfort recently, and I enjoy the fact that they're timeless. Also, scores just tend to conjure up images in my mind more than the lyrical stuff does. It's more inspiring for me.

Hey Man

09-14-2009, 05:04 PM

Hey Man

09-14-2009, 05:18 PM

Heisenberg

09-14-2009, 05:32 PM

The Gorillaz are prety great.

QUENTIN

09-14-2009, 05:35 PM

And I am not denying that a couple of those bands are good, but really great? I wouldn't say so. Certainly not reflective of the best bands of years past. There are a few wannabe bands there and even posers to a degree - who think they just fucking rock, but sadly don't.

I don't think they're the best musical acts around right now, but I think the best musical acts around right now, those closest in talent to those 30-40 years ago, aren't doing traditional rock and roll which is what you asked for. If you're very narrowly focused in what you'll listen to or enjoy to traditional rock, then you may well be disappointed. But that had more to do with your tastes than the general quality of modern music.

What few are wannabe posers who sadly don't rock though? I listed only 8 acts, which three suck and only think they rock?

Like I said, my taste runs to stuff from 65-75 as the cream of the crop. Of my ten favorite bands/performers of all time, only one, Nirvana, wasn't formed between 1962-1969. But that was a highpoint of music period -- and narrowly, the music that I happen to like best.

It doesn't mean music today sucks, or is any worse than it's ever been. There was a ton of shit then and because of my particular preferences, any era is less good than about 65-75. I could just as easily say from 500,000 BCE-1962 music was "an embarrassment" and from 1975-1999 it sucked if my only point of comparison is its highest epoch.

What you said here:

But for the most part, the MTV music video awards reflects the absolute worst of the worst, but passes it off as the best.

is certainly true and I don't see anyone disagreeing with you. What we're saying is, that's totally illustrative of the problem with MTV, but not with modern music as a whole and your imagined heyday of when music was all so much better is mostly a whitewashed, incomplete, created memory that ignores the mountains of crap that have always been out there and popular. Applying your MTV argument to modern music as a whole is like me saying, "In 1958 I went to The Palm in NYC and got a filet mignon that was mindblowingly good. Now I tried this McDonalds cheddar melt burger and it was disgusting. Modern food sucks, they don't make 'em like they used to."

ericdraven

09-14-2009, 05:43 PM

The Gorillaz are prety great.

Not really. it seems their singles are their best songs.

john_rambo

09-14-2009, 05:50 PM

Jay Z is in my opinion the greatest Rapper in mainstream rap's history. (prepares for grilling). So I loved his last performance, but yeah, modern music pretty much sucks every year the White Stripes don't release a CD.

Hey Man

09-14-2009, 05:52 PM

I don't think they're the best musical acts around right now, but I think the best musical acts around right now, those closest in talent to those 30-40 years ago, aren't doing traditional rock and roll which is what you asked for. If you're very narrowly focused in what you'll listen to or enjoy to traditional rock, then you may well be disappointed. But that had more to do with your tastes than the general quality of modern music.

What few are wannabe posers who sadly don't rock though? I listed only 8 acts, which three suck and only think they rock?

Like I said, my taste runs to stuff from 65-75 as the cream of the crop. Of my ten favorite bands/performers of all time, only one, Nirvana, wasn't formed between 1962-1969. But that was a highpoint of music period -- and narrowly, the music that I happen to like best.

It doesn't mean music today sucks, or is any worse than it's ever been. There was a ton of shit then and because of my particular preferences, any era is less good than about 65-75. I could just as easily say from 500,000 BCE-1962 music was "an embarrassment" and from 1975-1999 it sucked if my only point of comparison is its highest epoch.

What you said here:

is certainly true and I don't see anyone disagreeing with you. What we're saying is, that's totally illustrative of the problem with MTV, but not with modern music as a whole and your imagined heyday of when music was all so much better is mostly a whitewashed, incomplete, created memory that ignores the mountains of crap that have always been out there and popular. Applying your MTV argument to modern music as a whole is like me saying, "In 1958 I went to The Palm in NYC and got a filet mignon that was mindblowingly good. Now I tried this McDonalds cheddar melt burger and it was disgusting. Modern food sucks, they don't make 'em like they used to."

I disagree completely, because even in the 80's on MTV award shows - you still got Van Halen, AC/DC and Def Leppard (when they were good) for example along with Kajagoogoo or Rick Astley or whatever the fuck horrid group or artist that featured on MTV.

Secondly, you act like the bands and artists featured on the MTV awards are simply restricted to MTV. In fact, the majority of these no talent fucks are what is keeping the music industry still alive. Most of the bands that you mentioned don't sell very many CD's in comparison. This is the shit that people want to buy today - whereas in the past, a lot of different artists and band were able to get a piece of the pie so to speak.

QUENTIN

09-14-2009, 06:20 PM

I disagree completely, because even in the 80's on MTV award shows - you still got Van Halen, AC/DC and Def Leppard (when they were good) for example along with Kajagoogoo or Rick Astley or whatever the fuck horrid group or artist that featured on MTV.

Secondly, you act like the bands and artists featured on the MTV awards are simply restricted to MTV. In fact, the majority of these no talent fucks are what is keeping the music industry still alive. Most of the bands that you mentioned don't sell very many CD's in comparison. This is the shit that people want to buy today - whereas in the past, a lot of different artists and band were able to get a piece of the pie so to speak.

Well then this goes to a simple difference of taste. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, you were a classic (60s and early 70s) rock guy from your rant, was posting bands that had a similar sound, and addressing things in relation to that genre and era. I hate 80s hair metal and think Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leppard are at least as bad as your average shitty rock band on MTV today and considerably worse than any of my examples, so that does nothing to persuade me.

I don't act like they're restricted to MTV, I act like they're what is pushed by MTV, corporate radio stations, and listened to almost exclusively by young teenagers or early 20-somethings who haven't grown up yet. In the past, the difference wasn't the music, as The Monkees and Abba and the Bee Gees and bubblegum pop and disco were enormously popular and monumentally crappy manufactured junk, it was just that there wasn't such a monopoly in who owned and distributed the music so more stuff had a chance to get out there through the mainstream channels. But I also think you're making a fallacious connection between how many CDs get sold and how popular or respected a group is. No one takes Miley Cyrus seriously, and tweens buy her albums en masse. With the internet, downloading, legally and illegally, filesharing, and streaming and all these other ways that down involve buying a CD or watching MTV or listening to the radio, are extremely common and popular ways to listen to music, particularly good music that doesn't get aired at the VMAs, which doesn't even pretend to be anything more than a popularity contest aimed at 12-17 year olds.

Hey Man

09-14-2009, 06:44 PM

Well then this goes to a simple difference of taste. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, you were a classic (60s and early 70s) rock guy from your rant, was posting bands that had a similar sound, and addressing things in relation to that genre and era. I hate 80s hair metal and think Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leppard are at least as bad as your average shitty rock band on MTV today and considerably worse than any of my examples, so that does nothing to persuade me.

I don't act like they're restricted to MTV, I act like they're what is pushed by MTV, corporate radio stations, and listened to almost exclusively by young teenagers or early 20-somethings who haven't grown up yet. In the past, the difference wasn't the music, as The Monkees and Abba and the Bee Gees and bubblegum pop and disco were enormously popular and monumentally crappy manufactured junk, it was just that there wasn't such a monopoly in who owned and distributed the music so more stuff had a chance to get out there through the mainstream channels. But I also think you're making a fallacious connection between how many CDs get sold and how popular or respected a group is. No one takes Miley Cyrus seriously, and tweens buy her albums en masse. With the internet, downloading, legally and illegally, filesharing, and streaming and all these other ways that down involve buying a CD or watching MTV or listening to the radio, are extremely common and popular ways to listen to music, particularly good music that doesn't get aired at the VMAs, which doesn't even pretend to be anything more than a popularity contest aimed at 12-17 year olds.

I prefer 60's and 70's stuff, but MTV wasn't around then and that is why I used the 80's as an example.

If you are true music enthusiast - you have to at least appreciate the innovations that Eddie Van Halen brought to the guitar even if you don't like the band that he was in. Van Halen were not hair metal (neither was AC/DC or Def Leppard for that matter) and are deserving of being mentioned among the best hard rock had to offer. At least the Roth years anyway.

QUENTIN

09-14-2009, 06:58 PM

I prefer 60's and 70's stuff, but MTV wasn't around then and that is why I used the 80's as an example.

If you are true music enthusiast - you have to at least appreciate the innovations that Eddie Van Halen brought to the guitar even if you don't like the band that he was in. Van Halen were not hair metal (neither was AC/DC or Def Leppard for that matter) and are deserving of being mentioned among the best hard rock had to offer. At least the Roth years anyway.

I recognize that Eddie Van Halen is a very talented guitarist, as I recognize that Travis Barker is a technically skilled drummer or Michael Bolton has a good voice, while thinking the music they all use that skill to create sucks really hard. Difference of taste I guess.

Not sure what differentiates hair metal specifically. I've always used it to apply to those with long, big hair who played crappy, fast, substanceless metallic rock in the 80's. I think those three fit that bill, but Wikipediaing hair metal, I guess it also had something to do with being from the Sunset Strip? I dunno, big, long, silly hair and bad metal was what I meant.

Hey Man

09-14-2009, 07:08 PM

I recognize that Eddie Van Halen is a very talented guitarist, as I recognize that Travis Barker is a technically skilled drummer or Michael Bolton has a good voice, while thinking the music they all muse that skill to create sucks really hard. Difference of taste I guess.

Not sure what differentiates hair metal specifically. I've always used it to apply to those with long, big hair who played crappy, fast, substanceless metallic rock in the 80's. I think those three fit that bill, but Wikipediaing hair metal, I guess it also had something to do with being from the Sunset Strip? I dunno, big, long, silly hair and bad metal was what I meant.

Eddie Van Halen is completely different than those examples you provided - he revolutionized the world of guitar playing and essentially had a whole generation of guitarists copy him. He is legendary. Barker and Bolton are nothing in comparison.

Hair metal is more Poison and Warrant - Van Halen and AC/DC would fit in the Zeppelin and Aerosmith category of classic hard rock.

BadCoverVersion

09-14-2009, 07:16 PM

Def Leppard are/were always awful. They are the 80's equivalent of Nickelback.

TV On The Radio, Devandra Banhart, The Cribs, The White Stripes, The Arcade Fire, Okkervil River, Animal Collective, Joanna Newsom, Iron & Wine, Herman Dune, The Fiery Furnaces, Muse, Cat Power, Yeah Yeah Yeah's, The Mars Volta, Beck, Daft Punk, Royksopp, Elbow, The Strokes, Deerhoof, The Go! Team, Grinderman, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Jarvis Cocker, Scott Walker, Sufjan Stevens, The Streets, Erlend Oye, Dizzee Rascal, M.I.A, Radiohead, Broken Social Scene, The Streets, Wilco, Jay-Z, The Libertines, Bjork, Bright Eyes, Panda Bear, Doves, The Klaxons.

An artist established in a certain decade doesn't always represent that decade alone.

QUENTIN

09-14-2009, 08:23 PM

Eddie Van Halen is completely different than those examples you provided - he revolutionized the world of guitar playing and essentially had a whole generation of guitarists copy him. He is legendary. Barker and Bolton are nothing in comparison.

Hair metal is more Poison and Warrant - Van Halen and AC/DC would fit in the Zeppelin and Aerosmith category of classic hard rock.

I don't think that's true. He didn't "revolutionize the world of guitar playing," that's really hyperbolic. I happen to live with a professional, classically trained rock guitarist and just asked him how accurate that statement was. "Not really" is what I got. B.B. King, Jimi Hendrix, those guys revolutionized the world of guitar playing. Van Halen was really popular and may have been influential, especially to hard rock and heavy metal people, but he's by no means a delineator artist that changed what rock music was and how guitar was played. I mean, when Rolling Stone did their top 100 guitarists of all time they put him at 70. I'm not saying their list is canon, but I think it's very hyperbolic to act as though he had the impact of a Chuck Berry or Jimmy Page. And again, in my opinion, just like a Barker or Bolton, he is inarguably gifted at playing his instrument, but does so in the service of generic, grating crap.

I don't see much difference between Poison, Warrant, and Def Leppard except the latter's faster. It's all bland, pointless, amelodic 80's bullshit to me. I'm beginning to further see where our tastes diverge as I'd never dream of putting the tremendously mediocre Aerosmith in the same class as the greatest rock band of all-time.

Again though, what you're ultimately able to successfully argue are two things: MTV and similar entities promotes mostly crap (you'll get no disagreement from anyone on this point I don't think), you don't like modern rock (fair enough). Neither of those things remotely demonstrate that modern music is abysmal and just so much worse than the good ol' days.

AceD

09-14-2009, 08:50 PM

Eddie Van Halen is completely different than those examples you provided - he revolutionized the world of guitar playing and essentially had a whole generation of guitarists copy him. He is legendary.

He had a whole generation of guitarists in a very pariticular brand of rock emulating him, that is true. But his influence is not very widespread. On the other hand, Hendrix, King, Allman, Vaughan, Page, etc...you can hear their influence all over the place. I'm not knocking Van Halen's importance or his skill, but his area of influence is relatively small.

And while most of us would agree that Rolling Stone is pretty schlocky as a magazine right now, that list of the top 100 was voted on by guitarists; it wasn't compiled by a bunch of thirty year-olds in RS's basement. Which is not to say that he's not ranked a little too low, but it's not like he just missed the top ten. You can certainly disagree with that, but a lot of people who really know this stuff don't think incredibly highly of him in terms of many of his peers.

Prismatic Sphere

09-14-2009, 08:52 PM

I hate 80s hair metal and think Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leppard are at least as bad as your average shitty rock band on MTV today and considerably worse than any of my examples, so that does nothing to persuade me.

I can't believe I just read this statement(I actually had to re-read this three times). This is really really AMAZING, frightening, sad, and downright jawdropping. I just can't believe that someone could actually consider this opinion to be right; let alone actually have it for an opinion.

I just can't believe it. The term SHOCK dosen't even come close.

QUENTIN

09-14-2009, 09:12 PM

I can't believe I just read this statement(I actually had to re-read this three times). This is really really AMAZING, frightening, sad, and downright jawdropping. I just can't believe that someone could actually consider this opinion to be right; let alone actually have it for an opinion.

I just can't believe it. The term SHOCK dosen't even come close.

Hahahaha. I'm glad I could have such an impact on you. "Frightening," haha.

I actually know a fair amount of people who don't like universally-recognized, enormously popular and influential good music like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Dylan, so I don't think anyone should be that surprised when someone likes or dislikes a mildly popular, pretty dated band.

"Loud and fast" isn't the same thing as good to me, which is made even worse when it all sounds the same. Just not my style.

Smarmy Douche

09-14-2009, 09:15 PM

Kanye West, Taylor Swift, and Lady Gaga > Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leppard

Truly.

AceD

09-14-2009, 11:07 PM

I actually know a fair amount of people who don't like universally-recognized, enormously popular and influential good music like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Dylan

As do I, but the difference is that people can, for whatever reason, not like the Beatles or Dylan, but the influence that both have over every facet of popular music today is undeniable. One can be obtuse and claim not to see it, but the influence of the Beatles and Dylan can't be adequately described.

As for Def, AC/DC and the like, they were decent in their own right, and inspired a lot of crappy bands trying to echo what they did. No great artist comes from the influence of them, whereas almost every great artist has been hugely influenced by the Beatles and Dylan in some capacity.

Kanye West, Taylor Swift, and Lady Gaga > Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leppard

Truly.

Kanye, yes; the others, I'm not as sure. But it's not a landslide in anyone's direction.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 12:00 AM

I don't think that's true. He didn't "revolutionize the world of guitar playing," that's really hyperbolic. I happen to live with a professional, classically trained rock guitarist and just asked him how accurate that statement was. "Not really" is what I got. B.B. King, Jimi Hendrix, those guys revolutionized the world of guitar playing. Van Halen was really popular and may have been influential, especially to hard rock and heavy metal people, but he's by no means a delineator artist that changed what rock music was and how guitar was played. I mean, when Rolling Stone did their top 100 guitarists of all time they put him at 70. I'm not saying their list is canon, but I think it's very hyperbolic to act as though he had the impact of a Chuck Berry or Jimmy Page. And again, in my opinion, just like a Barker or Bolton, he is inarguably gifted at playing his instrument, but does so in the service of generic, grating crap.

I don't see much difference between Poison, Warrant, and Def Leppard except the latter's faster. It's all bland, pointless, amelodic 80's bullshit to me. I'm beginning to further see where our tastes diverge as I'd never dream of putting the tremendously mediocre Aerosmith in the same class as the greatest rock band of all-time.

Again though, what you're ultimately able to successfully argue are two things: MTV and similar entities promotes mostly crap (you'll get no disagreement from anyone on this point I don't think), you don't like modern rock (fair enough). Neither of those things remotely demonstrate that modern music is abysmal and just so much worse than the good ol' days.

Honestly, it is kind of irrelevant if you believe it or not. Eddie Van Halen is already recognized and will go down in history as a revolutionary guitarist that influenced an entire generation of guitarists in rock, hard rock, blues, jazz, etc. with his technique. I think your dislike towards Van Halen the band has diminished the importance of Eddie Van Halen to guitar history in your mind.

Rolling Stone? You have got to be kidding. Does anyone view that rag as a credible source for music in the last 20 years? This doesn't help your argument. Eddie has already won countless guitarist polls, various guitar magazine polls or lists and has had many famous guitarists like Page, Clapton, Les Paul, Beck, Di Meloa have spoken out about how Eddie is simply mind blowing and like nothing they have ever seen. Or the countless famous guitarists in the 80's and 90's who have totally admitted to ripping off Eddie's techniques.

Look you don't have to like Van Halen or even Eddie Van Halen - but at least do some research beyond your friend and fucking Rolling Stone Magazine to see just how important Eddie Van Halen really is to guitar.

The Postmaster General

09-15-2009, 12:12 AM

I think The Beatles invented bands being posers as a concept.

David Lee Roth perfected it.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 12:14 AM

He had a whole generation of guitarists in a very pariticular brand of rock emulating him, that is true. But his influence is not very widespread. On the other hand, Hendrix, King, Allman, Vaughan, Page, etc...you can hear their influence all over the place. I'm not knocking Van Halen's importance or his skill, but his area of influence is relatively small.

And while most of us would agree that Rolling Stone is pretty schlocky as a magazine right now, that list of the top 100 was voted on by guitarists; it wasn't compiled by a bunch of thirty year-olds in RS's basement. Which is not to say that he's not ranked a little too low, but it's not like he just missed the top ten. You can certainly disagree with that, but a lot of people who really know this stuff don't think incredibly highly of him in terms of many of his peers.

Please provide confirmation that the Rolling Stone list was conducted by guitarists, because I see nothing stating that on Google or even on the actual link from Rolling Stone.

But I see a ton of outraged websites on Google claiming that Rolling Stone doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about and the list is a total joke.

I don't think the list was conducted by guitarists, however like in the case with Jimi Hendrix - his rank listing was written by Pete Townsend. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 12:16 AM

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 12:25 AM

Kanye West, Taylor Swift, and Lady Gaga > Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leppard

Truly.

You are high and have no business talking about music.

AceD

09-15-2009, 12:32 AM

Honestly, it is kind of irrelevant if you believe it or not. Eddie Van Halen is already recognized and will go down in history as a revolutionary guitarist that influenced an entire generation of guitarists in rock, hard rock, blues, jazz, etc. with his technique.

What techniques, exactly? He's often given credit for tapping, but dozens of people -- as popular as Zappa, Hackett, and Allman -- were doing that years before him. The volume swells he's famous for were also a ripoff of previous acts. I'll grant that the way he tuned his guitar to create a distinct sound is his. Like I said before, I don't think he's terrible or anything close to that. But the only real technique he pioneered was a nifty way to tune a guitar to make big riffs smoother.

Please provide confirmation that the Rolling Stone list was conducted by guitarists, because I see nothing stating that on Google or even on the actual link from Rolling Stone.

I can't find it either. I could be wrong. I know RS usually does do their polls based on artists voting. If not I apologize.

On the other hand, though, can you point us to some non-metal polls that EVH won? I'm not going to ask you to prove that Beck and Clapton and those other cats love EVH -- I don't doubt that. My only point is that the idea that EVH was actually "revolutionary" in any real sense is a big misguided.

Prismatic Sphere

09-15-2009, 12:36 AM

I've said this before.

Rolling Stone DIED at around the same time that MTV did: 1992-93.

Commercial radio started to become retarded around this time too; finally dying altogether in 1996 thanks to The Media Conglomeration Act of the same year written by Clinton and Gore giving ClearChannel et al unlimited ownership of radio stations and their content.

Rolling Stone, MTV, and commercial radio can go fuck each other.

Internet radio, European radio, underground music, and independent + online record stores has been where it's at for years folks if you wanna go find the good stuff.

AceD

09-15-2009, 12:40 AM

Yer kidding right? Most of the "rock bands" on your list are a joke. Arcade Fire? Really? You think that band is bringing the rock?

Again, no one here is saying the hard rock of today kicks any ass. You aren't defining your terms. You say "rock band," we give you rock bands, you say they don't rock hard enough. That's fine. If that's your taste, I'll grant that there aren't a lot of good modern choices. But Arcade Fire, The Cribs, TV on the Radio, Cat Power, MIA...what the hell are they if they're not rock bands? They're not pop. They're not folk. They're excellent, intelligent bands.

You are high and have no business talking about music.

Van Halen is on one tier. Yes.

But AC/DC and Def Leppard wrote and performed fun, enjoyable, accesible popular music that a lot of people enjoyed.

Kanye does the same thing.

Even Swift is a great pop songwriter.

When you make easily-digestible music for the masses, there's nothing wrong with that, but being dirty or hard about it doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 01:04 AM

What techniques, exactly? He's often given credit for tapping, but dozens of people -- as popular as Zappa, Hackett, and Allman -- were doing that years before him. The volume swells he's famous for were also a ripoff of previous acts. I'll grant that the way he tuned his guitar to create a distinct sound is his. Like I said before, I don't think he's terrible or anything close to that. But the only real technique he pioneered was a nifty way to tune a guitar to make big riffs smoother.

I can't find it either. I could be wrong. I know RS usually does do their polls based on artists voting. If not I apologize.

On the other hand, though, can you point us to some non-metal polls that EVH won? I'm not going to ask you to prove that Beck and Clapton and those other cats love EVH -- I don't doubt that. My only point is that the idea that EVH was actually "revolutionary" in any real sense is a big misguided.

Eddie Van Halen's approach to the guitar involves several distinctive components. His innovative use of two-handed tapping, natural and artificial harmonics, vibrato, and tremolo picking, combined with his rhythmic sensibility and melodic approach, have influenced an entire generation of guitarists.

The instrumental Eruption has been called revolutionary and is considered one of the most influential rock instrumentals of all time. I mean we are talking about rock here - not jazz or polka music. Why do you want to discredit Eddie Van Halen - because his influence was only rock based. I mean who do you want to hear from that will impress you? How about Pat Matheny, Al De Meola and Paco De Lucia? Will those do?

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 01:09 AM

Again, no one here is saying the hard rock of today kicks any ass. You aren't defining your terms. You say "rock band," we give you rock bands, you say they don't rock hard enough. That's fine. If that's your taste, I'll grant that there aren't a lot of good modern choices. But Arcade Fire, The Cribs, TV on the Radio, Cat Power, MIA...what the hell are they if they're not rock bands? They're not pop. They're not folk. They're excellent, intelligent bands.

Van Halen is on one tier. Yes.

But AC/DC and Def Leppard wrote and performed fun, enjoyable, accesible popular music that a lot of people enjoyed.

Kanye does the same thing.

Even Swift is a great pop songwriter.

When you make easily-digestible music for the masses, there's nothing wrong with that, but being dirty or hard about it doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

If you really think those artists have had the same impact as say AC/DC's Back In Black album that STILL sells a lot of copies every year since 1981, I don't know what to say.

Come on - you know Kanye sucks ass. You can admit it.

QUENTIN

09-15-2009, 02:45 AM

Disagrees with you ≠ wrong believe it or not. It is possible to just differ in fair, reasonable opinions.

Prismatic Sphere

09-15-2009, 02:56 AM

Disagrees with you ≠ wrong believe it or not. It is possible to just differ in fair, reasonable opinions.

But then stating that Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leopard are worse than the worst rock bands portrayed on MTV today defies all of that. That's akin to saying that an infant could play drums better than say... Cozy Powell.

It's all opinion right??? Wrong.
Certain fundamentals have to be met first in order for the matter to gravitate to a matter of opinion.
Me casually thumping on my table with my computer isn't music; no matter how you slice it.

Art is NOT 100% subjective.

I wish it were. Because then we would be dealing with a world where all the fundamentals were met and respected.

Art is no longer made chiefly as expression. It is made for market campaigns and to basically only be trendy.

MTV and commercial Top 40 can almost all entirely go back to the abyss from whence it came.

john_rambo

09-15-2009, 03:10 AM

Disagrees with you ≠ wrong believe it or not. It is possible to just differ in fair, reasonable opinions.

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS!?!??!!?!? When did this happen?;)

I have an utter disdain for bands like the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana that really have no talent vocally, or instrumentally, and don't even write songs. But, while not being a fan of her music, I gotta give Taylor Swift props for being able to make it writing all of her own music (I believe she has the record for youngest artist to hit number 1 with all original, self written material, though I could be mistaken). I was being sarcastic earlier when I said that about the White Stripes (though IMO they are the best act to come out this decade). There is good music now, I don't know how much will be remembered. I can appreciate the old (love AC/DC, always found Van Halen (as a band) overrated, and Def Leppard is alright to me). I have an udder disdain for bands that you can tell are not into the music, but the fame (you can just tell who they are, and there are a lot *cough* all emo bands) I respect people that have a love and respect for the music though. I am not saying it is bad to enjoy fame, but I do not like it when the goal is fame and not good music, as opposed to making good music to reach fame. In the end, we all have our opinions in taste, and there is no right answer when it comes to taste.

AceD

09-15-2009, 03:36 AM

Why do you want to discredit Eddie Van Halen - because his influence was only rock based. I mean who do you want to hear from that will impress you? How about Pat Matheny, Al De Meola and Paco De Lucia? Will those do?

I never tried to discredit him. Saying that his influence is limited to hard rock isn't discrediting him because I never gave him the credit in the first place. I'm not knocking him. I think his influence on hard rock is enormous. I just think that other guitar players have a greater influence on a greater breadth of music. I never denied that many great musicians value him.

If you really think those artists have had the same impact as say AC/DC's Back In Black album that STILL sells a lot of copies every year since 1981, I don't know what to say.

I never said anything about impact, so I don't get your point here.

However, if we're going to talk about what happens over time, let's not forget that AC/DC's latest is being sold EXCLUSIVELY at Wal-Mart with such great tracks as Rock 'N Roll Train, Smash N Grab, Wheels, Decibel, She Likes Rock N Roll, Rock N Roll Dream and Rocking All the Way.

I mean. Not exactly the bastions of badass they claim to be.

Come on - you know Kanye sucks ass. You can admit it.

Kanye is an ass, but he doesn't suck. And since you made no effort to make a real point here I don't feel the need to defend him. Everything off of College Dropout sucks ass? Please enlighten us as to why.

But then stating that Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leopard are worse than the worst rock bands portrayed on MTV today defies all of that....It's all opinion right??? Wrong.
Certain fundamentals have to be met first in order for the matter to gravitate to a matter of opinion.
Me casually thumping on my table with my computer isn't music; no matter how you slice it.

Art is NOT 100% subjective.

I wish it were. Because then we would be dealing with a world where all the fundamentals were met and respected.

To a degree, you're correct, in that art is not 100% subjective. You're right that there are some bottom-line standards in some cases.

But sorry, Van Halen, Def Leppard, and AC/DC are not the bottom-lines. If you wanted to attempt to make bottom-lines in music in terms of overall influence, whether or not you like them, you have the Beatles. You have Dylan. You don't have much else. And as already been pointed out, not everyone even likes them, even if they recognize their influence.

So no, it's not in any way wrong to not like Van Halen. It's not even wrong to think that that they don't make enjoyable music. EVH is a ridiculously good guitarists. No one denies that. But that's the only bottom line with that band.

Art is no longer made chiefly as expression. It is made for market campaigns and to basically only be trendy.

Some modern music, yes, you're absolutely right. Stuff like Nickelback. Stuff like Jordin Sparks. Stuff like Chris Brown. And stuff like Black Ice.

Smarmy Douche

09-15-2009, 07:22 AM

You are high and have no business talking about music.

lol. You're the one listening to Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leppard, ;)

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 08:25 AM

lol. You're the one listening to Van Halen, AC/DC, and Def Leppard, ;)

You must be very young and naive, because bands like Van Halen and AC/DC are considered legendary in the history of rock and belong in the same classic rock family tree in terms of the next generation as Zeppelin, Sabbath, Deep Purple and Aerosmith.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 08:48 AM

I never tried to discredit him. Saying that his influence is limited to hard rock isn't discrediting him because I never gave him the credit in the first place. I'm not knocking him. I think his influence on hard rock is enormous. I just think that other guitar players have a greater influence on a greater breadth of music. I never denied that many great musicians value him.

I never said anything about impact, so I don't get your point here.

However, if we're going to talk about what happens over time, let's not forget that AC/DC's latest is being sold EXCLUSIVELY at Wal-Mart with such great tracks as Rock 'N Roll Train, Smash N Grab, Wheels, Decibel, She Likes Rock N Roll, Rock N Roll Dream and Rocking All the Way.

I mean. Not exactly the bastions of badass they claim to be.

Kanye is an ass, but he doesn't suck. And since you made no effort to make a real point here I don't feel the need to defend him. Everything off of College Dropout sucks ass? Please enlighten us as to why.

To a degree, you're correct, in that art is not 100% subjective. You're right that there are some bottom-line standards in some cases.

But sorry, Van Halen, Def Leppard, and AC/DC are not the bottom-lines. If you wanted to attempt to make bottom-lines in music in terms of overall influence, whether or not you like them, you have the Beatles. You have Dylan. You don't have much else. And as already been pointed out, not everyone even likes them, even if they recognize their influence.

So no, it's not in any way wrong to not like Van Halen. It's not even wrong to think that that they don't make enjoyable music. EVH is a ridiculously good guitarists. No one denies that. But that's the only bottom line with that band.

Some modern music, yes, you're absolutely right. Stuff like Nickelback. Stuff like Jordin Sparks. Stuff like Chris Brown. And stuff like Black Ice.

AC/DC's members are 100 years old - is your argument really going to be that their music sucks ass today and that it's a big sell out that they like many respectable artists are selling their albums at Wal Mart.

You can't compare a band at the end of their career for the most part and with the creative juices not flowing like younger bands/artists working today. But certainly no one is going to deny the fact that when they were young, AC/DC made some of the greatest albums in hard rock history - Highway To Hell and Back In Black that will still be remembered 50 years from now.

I don't think what you deem to be the best of the best today of new artists will have that same longevity or impact. Look at Eminem - there was a time when he was considered a God in his genre of music and it was assumed that he would go down in history as a legend. Now, he is considered a joke and that is what he is going to be known for.

Zeppelin could make a new album tomorrow with Jason Bonham and while it would sell a ton, I don't think it would be that fresh musically or even reflective of the best that Zeppelin had to offer in the past. It would be a Page/Plant album like Walking Into Clarksdale with more riffing, blues based songs and a little more kick.

It seems to me that you do negate the impact of artists in the hard rock genre, because while Dylan and The Beatles are a huge influence on a lot of artists, you might be surprised to learn that KISS has been a huge influence on a ton of bands and the reason why many famous guitarists today picked up the guitar in the first place. This is not to say that KISS music is amazing, but they spoke to a whole generation of artists from Motley Crue to Guns N' Roses to Lenny Kravitz to Nirvana to Pearl Jam - it's pretty diverse and it's KISS that they will tell you made them want to be musicians.

Tony_Montana

09-15-2009, 09:24 AM

Aahhh I think it's the same as movies really. We say all the shit coming out now is shit but then we're gonna look back on it in 2021 and say it was THE shit. Cos noone remembers old shit.

BadCoverVersion

09-15-2009, 10:02 AM

Yer kidding right? Most of the "rock bands" on your list are a joke. Arcade Fire? Really? You think that band is bringing the rock?

I didn't realise that our lists were strictly limited to artists who are capable of "bringing the rock"...but obviously this was a silly mistake-a to make-a.

The Mars Volta, Muse, TV On The Radio, Radiohead, The White Stripes, The Cribs, Grinderman, Yeah Yeah Yeah's, PJ Harvey, Mastodon, Fiery Furnaces can all "bring the rock" for sure. If you dislike them then that's your prerogative but I personally think that each and every one of them piss all over ANYTHING Def Leppard have ever done (that includes the masterwork that is "Pour some sugar on me".)

People classify The Eagles and The Police and Steely Dan as great ROCK bands ferchrisake. My dead Grandma rocks harder than those lames. Give me an innovator like Walker of Brian Ferry or David Byrne over those shitty, ten-a-penny guitar bands any day of the week.

Also...amending my list because I was kinda tired when I wrote that.

Focusing on music as a WHOLE, I believe these artists are more than worthy...

TV On The Radio, Devandra Banhart, Antony & The Johnsons, Will Oldham, The Cribs, The White Stripes, The Arcade Fire, Okkervil River, Animal Collective, Bill Callaghan/Smog, Joanna Newsom, Iron & Wine, Herman Dune, Fiery Furnaces, Muse, Cat Power, Yeah Yeah Yeah's, The Mars Volta, Beck, Art Brut, Daft Punk, Royksopp, Elbow, The Strokes, Fleet Foxes, Deerhoof, Deerhunter, The Go! Team, Grinderman, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Mastodon, Scott Walker, Jamie Lidell, Sleater-Kinney, Sufjan Stevens, The Flaming Lips, Tom Waits, The Roots, Lampchop, Magnetic Fields, The Streets, Erlend Oye, Dizzee Rascal, The Neptunes, M.I.A, Radiohead, Broken Social Scene, Beirut, Wilco, Jay-Z, The Libertines, Bjork, U.N.K.L.E, Bright Eyes, Grizzly Bear, Panda Bear, Doves, The Klaxons, OutKast, Calexico, PJ Harvey, Jenny Lewis, David Byrne, Portishead, Uffie, Crystal Castles, Hercules & Love Affair, Bon Iver, Camera Obscura, Roisin Murphy, Sun O))), Ooioo, Mum, Interpol...and a shit tonne more.

vesaker

09-15-2009, 10:14 AM

It breaks my heart that no one has even mentioned the influence Toni Iommi has had on rock and hard rock specifically. I mean Black Sabbath pretty much created hard rock.

And as for other band mentioned:

AC/DC is incredibly simplistic and often boring when you look beyond Angus's guitar riffs. The bass and drum do nothing but keep a beat for Angus to play over and the lyrics, at least in the latter half of their career, are often boring and uninspiring imo.

Van Halen i can't really say a whole lot about cause i could never stand Roth's voice so i only know their more main popular songs. Yes Eddie is a great guitarist but to claim that he's had more influence then ppl like Hendrix, BB King, Clapton, Page or yes Iommi is fucking ridiculous seeing as i'm sure all of those have influenced him and are what made him pick up a guitar and learn to play.

Def Lep is a band that had a few really big hits but was certainly nothing close to legendary. I think they were another one of these band that had their magic time for a time then pretty much died out after.

But in the end like many have said already it is a matter of opinion and taste for what someone thinks is good music they like. Yes there are certain merits you can judge these bands on to debate how good the music on things like an artistic level and they can have a baring on why you like any particular band but they are not the be all end all that forms your opinion on something.

Oh and just for the hell of it, Tool is the greatest band of all time, but that's just me :D

Donnie_Darko

09-15-2009, 10:15 AM

I recall hearing an interview with that fucking hack band 3 Days Grace and they were asked if their songs were about important events in their lives and one of them replied, no word of a lie

"Uh.... no they aren't about our lives. If we wrote music about the stuff in our lives then our songs would be pretty boring"

Put down your fucking instruments and get off the fucking stage you gawd damnnn hacks.

WHAT? That's not being a hack, that's being fucking honest. Anybody who writes songs about "meaningful moments in their life", is either an arrogant fuck, or lying. Yea, okay, granted, occasionally a band will write a tune, and have it based around something of importance, but... seriously... hip hop fan? Anyone who actually believe all this fucking "word from the street BULLSHIT", needs to have their fucking heads examined.

I've written a LOT of tunes, and not one was "based on my life", cause like they said, if I did, it would be boring as shit.

I'm not going to argue on "who brings the rock", cause that shit TOTALLY AND 100% SUBJECTIVE! And, well... I fucking hate "rock".

Arguing on what music is "good" or "shit" is also pretty fucking stupid. I put it up there with politics and religion. I love GWAR, you love Jay Z, he loves Garth Brooks and she loves Elvis. Who's right? Shit dude, we ALL are.

The only opinion that means shit is mine... period. Granted TO ME, but that's really what matters. If we agree, that's great, if we don't, that's fine too. Some of my best friends are total Hip Hop guys, and their great guys. I happen to fucking despise Hip Hop, but why hate the person, just cause I hate the genre? They don't like what I like (metal, the heavier the better), but they like me, and again, that's where it matters. I'll admit, way back if you didn't like the same music I did, I would fucking blow you off, faster than Bret Favre retires, then comes back again. Now... shit ain't worth it.

Peace out brothers and sisters. Stay heavy... rock on... twang the country... hip the hop... whatever floats your boat, so long as it doesn't cause a murder, we's good. :cool:

vesaker

09-15-2009, 10:32 AM

WHAT? That's not being a hack, that's being fucking honest. Anybody who writes songs about "meaningful moments in their life", is either an arrogant fuck, or lying.

No it means they've had and interesting life to the point of writing interesting songs about it. And if you don't have any interesting moments in your life or the life of someone close to you even then a lot of the time your music isn't seen as something someone can connect to on a personal level.

But again that is just me, i have a thing about ppl trying to write emotionally about something they've never experienced and acting like they aren't just talking out of their ass. And again everyone has songs like that but to admit your songs as a whole are like that, no thanks you hack.

john_rambo

09-15-2009, 11:16 AM

Arguing on what music is "good" or "shit" is also pretty fucking stupid. I put it up there with politics and religion. I love GWAR, you love Jay Z, he loves Garth Brooks and she loves Elvis. Who's right?

The one that likes Jay Z. :D

Smarmy Douche

09-15-2009, 12:13 PM

You must be very young and naive, because bands like Van Halen and AC/DC are considered legendary in the history of rock and belong in the same classic rock family tree in terms of the next generation as Zeppelin, Sabbath, Deep Purple and Aerosmith.

Bands like Van Halen and AC/DC are considered crap by those with good sense. Make no mistake, the three modern shitheads I named are crap too, but truly, truly, they are better than the three you named.

I can see by the bands you're naming what kind of music you listen to, and why you made this thread. Early Sabbath is good, though. And Zeppelin has half a dozen songs that don't suck. So I'll give you that. The rest's albums are most suitable as coasters.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 12:17 PM

I didn't realise that our lists were strictly limited to artists who are capable of "bringing the rock"...but obviously this was a silly mistake-a to make-a.

The Mars Volta, Muse, TV On The Radio, Radiohead, The White Stripes, The Cribs, Grinderman, Yeah Yeah Yeah's, PJ Harvey, Mastodon, Fiery Furnaces can all "bring the rock" for sure. If you dislike them then that's your prerogative but I personally think that each and every one of them piss all over ANYTHING Def Leppard have ever done (that includes the masterwork that is "Pour some sugar on me".)

People classify The Eagles and The Police and Steely Dan as great ROCK bands ferchrisake. My dead Grandma rocks harder than those lames. Give me an innovator like Walker of Brian Ferry or David Byrne over those shitty, ten-a-penny guitar bands any day of the week.

Also...amending my list because I was kinda tired when I wrote that.

Focusing on music as a WHOLE, I believe these artists are more than worthy...

TV On The Radio, Devandra Banhart, Antony & The Johnsons, Will Oldham, The Cribs, The White Stripes, The Arcade Fire, Okkervil River, Animal Collective, Bill Callaghan/Smog, Joanna Newsom, Iron & Wine, Herman Dune, Fiery Furnaces, Muse, Cat Power, Yeah Yeah Yeah's, The Mars Volta, Beck, Art Brut, Daft Punk, Royksopp, Elbow, The Strokes, Fleet Foxes, Deerhoof, Deerhunter, The Go! Team, Grinderman, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Mastodon, Scott Walker, Jamie Lidell, Sleater-Kinney, Sufjan Stevens, The Flaming Lips, Tom Waits, The Roots, Lampchop, Magnetic Fields, The Streets, Erlend Oye, Dizzee Rascal, The Neptunes, M.I.A, Radiohead, Broken Social Scene, Beirut, Wilco, Jay-Z, The Libertines, Bjork, U.N.K.L.E, Bright Eyes, Grizzly Bear, Panda Bear, Doves, The Klaxons, OutKast, Calexico, PJ Harvey, Jenny Lewis, David Byrne, Portishead, Uffie, Crystal Castles, Hercules & Love Affair, Bon Iver, Camera Obscura, Roisin Murphy, Sun O))), Ooioo, Mum, Interpol...and a shit tonne more.

I asked for 10 truly fantastic rock bands. If you think those bands are reflective of the best that rock has had to offer, that is your business - but most of these artists just plain suck and/or are wannabe's. Let me clarify that I am not some huge Def Leppard fan and only brought them up to as per 80's MTV. I don't think they are a great band, so your Def Lep comment isn't really making your point.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 12:22 PM

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 12:25 PM

WHAT? That's not being a hack, that's being fucking honest. Anybody who writes songs about "meaningful moments in their life", is either an arrogant fuck, or lying. Yea, okay, granted, occasionally a band will write a tune, and have it based around something of importance, but... seriously... hip hop fan? Anyone who actually believe all this fucking "word from the street BULLSHIT", needs to have their fucking heads examined.

I've written a LOT of tunes, and not one was "based on my life", cause like they said, if I did, it would be boring as shit.

I'm not going to argue on "who brings the rock", cause that shit TOTALLY AND 100% SUBJECTIVE! And, well... I fucking hate "rock".

Arguing on what music is "good" or "shit" is also pretty fucking stupid. I put it up there with politics and religion. I love GWAR, you love Jay Z, he loves Garth Brooks and she loves Elvis. Who's right? Shit dude, we ALL are.

The only opinion that means shit is mine... period. Granted TO ME, but that's really what matters. If we agree, that's great, if we don't, that's fine too. Some of my best friends are total Hip Hop guys, and their great guys. I happen to fucking despise Hip Hop, but why hate the person, just cause I hate the genre? They don't like what I like (metal, the heavier the better), but they like me, and again, that's where it matters. I'll admit, way back if you didn't like the same music I did, I would fucking blow you off, faster than Bret Favre retires, then comes back again. Now... shit ain't worth it.

Peace out brothers and sisters. Stay heavy... rock on... twang the country... hip the hop... whatever floats your boat, so long as it doesn't cause a murder, we's good. :cool:

Michael Jackson was an overrated dancer and entertainer.

vesaker

09-15-2009, 12:59 PM

We are talking about influencing a generation after 1980 - not beforehand. Pretty much every rock guitarist has admitted to stealing from Eddie in the 80's and would comment that Eddie is king. Do I really need to compile a list for you? I have also indicated that Page, Clapton, Beck, May and many other earlier guitarists have been blown away by Eddie. If that isn't enough for you, I don't know what is.

That's all fine and good. What i am saying though is don't sit there and act like he has been such a huge influence without seeing that he himself was influenced by many who would agree are better guitarists then him.

I mean maybe it's just me but you seem to be putting him on this ridiculously high pedestal and acting like he is the be all end all of guitar and anything before or after is nothing in comparison which is just foolish and ignorant.

You talk about how his style revolutionized some much of later guitar play like he was the first person to pick up a fucking guitar and play or something. I can assure you that he would be nothing today without the musicians that influenced him and he essentially and eventually built his own style from.

BadCoverVersion

09-15-2009, 01:25 PM

I asked for 10 truly fantastic rock bands. If you think those bands are reflective of the best that rock has had to offer, that is your business - but most of these artists just plain suck and/or are wannabe's. Let me clarify that I am not some huge Def Leppard fan and only brought them up to as per 80's MTV. I don't think they are a great band, so your Def Lep comment isn't really making your point.

See this really is a subjective topic. You're dismissing every band I listed on the basis that they "plain suck and/or are wannabe's"? Most of them just suck...I mean really? Could you be any more unspecific?

I presented you with a small selection of different groups mainly because I think 'rock' is a totally blanket term to begin with.

Grinderman - No Pussy Blues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuDP7c3Zd8I)

Muse - Knights Of Cydonia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8WP7aOD_9Q)

Mastodon - Divinations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1w1XcoBmE4)

TV On The Radio - Wolf Like Me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qBnuzrjx0)

Yeah Yeah Yeah's - Date With The Night (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TybsgLX4ynQ)

The Cribs - Cheat On Me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeIJcAkO7b4)

The Mars Volta - Drunkship Of Lanterns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4kTMYhY2ds]PJ Harvey - Big Exit[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CegMfbAC81U)

The Fiery Furnaces - Duplexes Of The Dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeBxQ92nHZM)

I aint ragging on Eddie Van Halen but times move on. He was/is a very gifted musician but so what? There are immense musicians from every era/musical movement and I hate to say it but you seem stuck in the past dude.

I like - nay, LOVE - musicians from each and every decade since the 20's onwards, honestly. My all-time favourite musician, Scott Walker started out in the 60's...and the 60's might just be my favourite decade overall. But art NEVER went off the boil. Some people just get bogged down in a well full of misty-eyed nostalgia and slam the things that serve to remind them just how old they actually are.

I think you resent youth a little...and you're bracketing every current band with the latest crop of generic skinny-jeaned hipsters who can't play their instruments very well. It's understandable but it isn't right.

LordSimen

09-15-2009, 01:29 PM

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 02:26 PM

See this really is a subjective topic. You're dismissing every band I listed on the basis that they "plain suck and/or are wannabe's"? Most of them just suck...I mean really? Could you be any more unspecific?

I presented you with a small selection of different groups mainly because I think 'rock' is a totally blanket term to begin with.

Grinderman - No Pussy Blues (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuDP7c3Zd8I)

Muse - Knights Of Cydonia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8WP7aOD_9Q)

Mastodon - Divinations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1w1XcoBmE4)

TV On The Radio - Wolf Like Me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qBnuzrjx0)

Yeah Yeah Yeah's - Date With The Night (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TybsgLX4ynQ)

The Cribs - Cheat On Me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeIJcAkO7b4)

The Mars Volta - Drunkship Of Lanterns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4kTMYhY2ds]PJ Harvey - Big Exit[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CegMfbAC81U)

The Fiery Furnaces - Duplexes Of The Dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeBxQ92nHZM)

I aint ragging on Eddie Van Halen but times move on. He was/is a very gifted musician but so what? There are immense musicians from every era/musical movement and I hate to say it but you seem stuck in the past dude.

I like - nay, LOVE - musicians from each and every decade since the 20's onwards, honestly. My all-time favourite musician, Scott Walker started out in the 60's...and the 60's might just be my favourite decade overall. But art NEVER went off the boil. Some people just get bogged down in a well full of misty-eyed nostalgia and slam the things that serve to remind them just how old they actually are.

I think you resent youth a little...and you're bracketing every current band with the latest crop of generic skinny-jeaned hipsters who can't play their instruments very well. It's understandable but it isn't right.

Let me put it into perspective for you. If we are to believe that the Stones, Zeppelin and The Who for example are the greatest rock and roll bands of all time - the bands you have listed don't remotely come even close to them. Where the Zeppelin's and The Who's of today? They don't exist.

ericdraven

09-15-2009, 02:49 PM

You are high and have no business talking about music.

Seems like you are shooting down every point that we bring up.

ericdraven

09-15-2009, 02:51 PM

Let me put it into perspective for you. If we are to believe that the Stones, Zeppelin and The Who for example are the greatest rock and roll bands of all time - the bands you have listed don't remotely come even close to them. Where the Zeppelin's and The Who's of today? They don't exist.

Your standards for music aren't someone elses. Also, there will never be another Who, Zeppelin because they are too much of a landmark to be intimated correctly.

BadCoverVersion

09-15-2009, 03:53 PM

I think you just need to get over the fact that times change Hey Man, and but your tastes haven't and thus this new stuff you obviously won't like. I actually am in agreement with you that pretty much every band BadCoverVersion mentioned are complete and utter trash with no redeeming values, but I don't see the point in trying to make her feel that way as well. Obviously she digs 'em.

This statement offers up no thought or insight whatsoever. Once again you're letting your own taste mar your judgement to the point where it verges on the ridiculous. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you have no idea of what constitutes credible or well-structured music.

I don't personally 'like' a myriad of artists including Tool, Nine Inch Nails, Pearl Jam, Megadeth, Metallica et al....HUGE favourites on this board. But to label them "trash" with no redeeming qualities would be completely wrong on my part and just demonstrate a lack of understanding blinkered by limited knowledge and personal preference. I'm certain that if I dedicated some time to discovering the aforementioned artistes in a conscious way I could find elements that struck a chord with me...no pun intended.

Will Oldham, Antony Hegarty, Bill Callaghan, Joanna Newsom, Beck, Nick Cave, Scott Walker, Sufjan Stevens, Tom Waits, Thom Yorke, Bjork, Jenny Lewis, David Byrne, Dizzee Rascal are all critically acclaimed singer/songwriters with a unique style and musical vision. TVOTR, Muse, Mastodon, The Mars Volta are all incredibly accomplished musicians who can put on a killer live show at the very least. I also listed dance, rap and folk artists as well as a few alleged 'Hipster' bands who despite the derogatory tag often create interesting and innovative music.

My intention wasn't to compose a list that everybody would approve of or even like...it was simply to demonstrate that there are a million different (and often wonderful) artists out there that are worlds away from MTV-endorsed undiluted pish such as Pink, Katy Perry, Linkin Park and My Chemical Romance.

I'm curious as to whether you watched any of the videos I linked. I'd also like you to be a little more specific as to which artists you deem to be absolute trash.

Let me put it into perspective for you. If we are to believe that the Stones, Zeppelin and The Who for example are the greatest rock and roll bands of all time - the bands you have listed don't remotely come even close to them. Where the Zeppelin's and The Who's of today? They don't exist.

Whether any current artists will stand the test of time like The Who, The Rolling Stones and the like is a different story...but it doesn't render them worthless. I think relatively recent artists such as Radiohead. The White Stripes, Bjork, Nine Inch Nails, Beck and others are well on their way to achieving classic status...and I'm sure the new millennium has birthed at least one artist or group of artists who will be loved and revered for many decades to come.

Everybody has a different yardstick...mine is more Scott Walker, Tom Waits, The Zombies...maybe even Leonard Cohen, they are MY classics and it's difficult to envision any modern artists emulating them as far as my love for their work and their personal acclaim/success is concerned.

Heisenberg

09-15-2009, 03:59 PM

LOL @ labelling ACDC 'creative'. They are one of the most one-dimentional bands to ever have existed.

Prismatic Sphere

09-15-2009, 04:28 PM

For the record, I've always preferred Randy Rhoads to Eddie Van Halen. But unfortunately Randy died in 1982 and his full potential wasn't reached. But in the early 80's, everybody in California argued about who was better between the two; and MOST went with Rhoads.
(And for the record, Rhoads actually did fretboard tapping BEFORE VH; though neither did it first).
But the few rock guitarists around today who were not influenced by Van Halen like Dave Murray, Adrian Smith, Glenn Tipton, and K.K. Downing, and Ritchie Blackmore et al are still playing music that none of those MTV or popular rock bands would even be able to play.
(*Mars Volta may be a slight exception)

***Also just to say it, but, Dave Murray & Adrian Smith are guitar WIZARDS.

And oh yeah, Tony Iommi's influence is undeniable. As Ozzy said: "He is the GOD of demonic riffs!" And when he first joined Sabbath, he got his fingertips chopped off in a factory accident(he made thimbles to replace his tips). So it took some heavy dilligence and an unwavering dedication to make him into the formidable force that he became.
So you have to respect that utterly.

A lot of AC/DC sounds the same and the basslines are pretty simple. I can't listen to them in heavy doses but they still know how to write a better rock song than anyone on popular radio or MTV.

As for Def Leppard, they died with Steve Clark.

vesaker

09-15-2009, 04:50 PM

And oh yeah, Tony Iommi's influence is undeniable. As Ozzy said: "He is the GOD of demonic riffs!" And when he first joined Sabbath, he got his fingertips chopped off in a factory accident(he made thimbles to replace his tips). So it took some heavy dilligence and an unwavering dedication to make him into the formidable force that he became.
So you have to respect that utterly.

And let's not forget that he had to tune his guitar lower then the norm so that it didn't take as much pressure to hold the strings down or it would have been too painful for him to play which contributed to the lower heavy sound that the band made famous.

BadCoverVersion

09-15-2009, 05:04 PM

I've never been overly familiar with Sabbath but always had a lot of respect for the relatively small amount that I've heard. Same goes for Motorhead...even though Lemmy might well be a closet Nazi. His mutton chops are tops !

LordSimen

09-15-2009, 06:46 PM

This statement offers up no thought or insight whatsoever. Once again you're letting your own taste mar your judgement to the point where it verges on the ridiculous. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you have no idea of what constitutes credible or well-structured music.

Well, of course my taste would mar my judgement. Taste is everything. :D What constitutes credible and well-structured music is whatever I decide it is, just like it's whatever you decide it is, just like it's whatever Hey Man decides it is.

I'm curious as to whether you watched any of the videos I linked. I'd also like you to be a little more specific as to which artists you deem to be absolute trash.

I watched 'em. Pretty much any artist not named "Mastodon," or that isn't a project involving Nick Cave or Jack White I find absolute trash out of your list.

BadCoverVersion

09-15-2009, 06:57 PM

Well, of course my taste would mar my judgement. Taste is everything. :D What constitutes credible and well-structured music is whatever I decide it is, just like it's whatever you decide it is, just like it's whatever Hey Man decides it is..

Gods honest, I try not to let my taste taint my judgement. Sometimes it does...nobody is perfect.

Well, of course my taste would mar my judgement. Taste is everything. :D What constitutes credible and well-structured music is whatever I decide it is, just like it's whatever you decide it is, just like it's whatever Hey Man decides it is.

I watched 'em. Pretty much any artist not named "Mastodon," or that isn't a project involving Nick Cave or Jack White I find absolute trash out of your list.

Scott Walker and Tom Waits are trash? I mean fucking REALLY?

LordSimen

09-15-2009, 07:11 PM

Not a fan.

someguy

09-15-2009, 07:39 PM

It's ok if Simen calls your music trash with no redeeming values BCV, I mean we probably agree that the horrible ICP/Korn/Limp Bizkit and all nu metal is completely worthless. It truly is all about taste!

LordSimen

09-15-2009, 07:43 PM

Eww, ICP/LB.

BadCoverVersion

09-15-2009, 07:44 PM

Not a fan.

You don't have to be.

But ignoring Walker's influence/brilliance is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T WANNA HEAR IT!!!??"

See David Bowie, Talking Heads, Julian Cope, Marc Almond, The Smiths and a good deal more.

LordSimen

09-15-2009, 07:47 PM

It's more akin to me saying... I'm not a fan. Bowie rules too. :D

The Heart Collector

09-15-2009, 07:47 PM

There is a reason why Beavis and Butthead liked those hard rock bands like AC/DC.

The Heart Collector

09-15-2009, 07:49 PM

Simen, I don't know how you can even make these grandiose statements without feeling a little bit embarassed for yourself.

What I do know is that 'it's just my taste' is a boring old load of shit. I guarantee that if I ask you to justify why the bands you mentioned have no redeeming value, and at the same time ask you to justify why the music you listen to has value, you won't even begin to get close to offering a reasonable answer other than "whatever dude its my taste".

What is this "value" that you can quantify (enough to say that the bands mentioned by BCV don't have this 'value') and where can I find this value in the music YOU listen to? I really want to see if you even know what in God's name you're babbling about.

BadCoverVersion

09-15-2009, 08:07 PM

Bowie rules too. :D

There would be NO Bowie as we know and love him without Walker, and yet you still think it's no biggie to dismiss him. Ok.

LordSimen

09-15-2009, 08:13 PM

There would be NO Bowie as we know and love him without Walker, and yet you still think it's no biggie to dismiss him. Ok.

Don't really care about that shit, so yeah. It is no biggie.

BadCoverVersion

09-15-2009, 08:34 PM

Don't really care about that shit, so yeah. It is no biggie.

Oh dear. OK.

I do hope you don't dismiss your own heroes influences so easily.

Wow.

LordSimen

09-15-2009, 08:40 PM

Their heroes are as much my own heroes as they are theirs, the fact that we share a lot of heroes just makes them even more awesome. :D One of Eli Roth's heroes is Lynch (hell, he's one of the guys who gave Roth a shot at the business in the first place), and I'm not a fan of him at all. Although he has at least made two things I enjoyed which is more than I can say for someone like Walker.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 11:14 PM

Your standards for music aren't someone elses. Also, there will never be another Who, Zeppelin because they are too much of a landmark to be intimated correctly.

It's not really up for debate - Elvis is the King of Rock and Roll and The Who and Zeppelin are cemented among the greatest rock and roll bands in history. You or someone else may not like those bands, but it's really irrelevant to what their status actually is.

There may never be another Who or Zeppelin - but it is simply because very few bands have tried to be epic. You have your emo rock bands, wannabe rock bands, poser rock bands and everything in between. At least Guns N' Roses made a statement with Appetite For Destruction if nothing else.

Hey Man

09-15-2009, 11:25 PM

There is a reason why Beavis and Butthead liked those hard rock bands like AC/DC.

It's obvious you missed the point - it wasn't so much the bands as Mike Judge digs that music, but it poking fun at die hard metal head fans and the pussy hard rock bands like Winger.

Gregorious8

09-16-2009, 01:22 AM

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 01:34 AM

I think that last quote sums up the other side of the argument as well.

You may not like the bands BCV or others have posted, but that doesn't mean they haven't produced great albums. There are plenty of amazing bands out there today, not necessarily played on MTV or mainstream, but they just do not match your tastes. They may just not "rock" hard enough for you, but that doesn't matter in overall quality.

Millions of people think Nickleback have produced great albums - so the argument really isn't valid. Look, I really like The White Stripes and The Black Keys, but I certainly wouldn't confuse them to be on the same level as Zeppelin or The Who. Digging an album is one thing - thinking the band is among the greatest of all time is another.

The Postmaster General

09-16-2009, 01:57 AM

Saying a set of bands is the greatest is one thing, saying there's a point in time upon which no more bands can be ranked among the greatest is another.

AceD

09-16-2009, 03:52 AM

It's not really up for debate - Elvis is the King of Rock and Roll and The Who and Zeppelin are cemented among the greatest rock and roll bands in history. You or someone else may not like those bands, but it's really irrelevant to what their status actually is.

Alright, fair enough. I don't at all disagree with this.

Millions of people think Nickleback have produced great albums - so the argument really isn't valid. Look, I really like The White Stripes and The Black Keys, but I certainly wouldn't confuse them to be on the same level as Zeppelin or The Who. Digging an album is one thing - thinking the band is among the greatest of all time is another.

But this is why the argument seems to be pointless with you.The reason The Who, Zep, Dylan, etc are considered great is because intelligent, informed music fans consider them that. Some of those same fans also think some current bands are also great. On a Who or Dylan level? Not necessarily. But if we're eliminating every band not on that level, we're eliminating a lot of great bands -- and Val Halen sure as hell ain't around anymore.

You keep asking for bands, but shoot down every one that's offered. You're allowed to think there's no great bands anymore, that's your right, but it's clear that you don't believe any post-2000 rock band is great. So why ask for suggestions if you've already make this up in your mind?

Saying a set of bands is the greatest is one thing, saying there's a point in time upon which no more bands can be ranked among the greatest is another.

Yup.

BadCoverVersion

09-16-2009, 05:05 AM

Although he has at least made two things I enjoyed which is more than I can say for someone like Walker.

I don't even believe you've listened to an entire album but this is pointless dog chasing it's tail kinda bullshit so lets just call it a day eh.

hrdude

09-16-2009, 06:50 AM

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of derision and absolute statements made on these boards!

Personally commercial radio and MTV grew old in the early nineties, but just because I think Kyuss's Welcome To Sky Valley is the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't make anyone else opinions less valid if they disagree.

I tend to embrace the bands I love since this time, Monster Magnet, Sleep, Nebula, PJ Harvey, Muse, Tool, Yeah Yeah Yeah's, Shadows Fall etc rather than putting down bands that others might like.

And Def Leppard's On Through The Night is still one of the greatest hard rock albums ever Wasted rocks!!!

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 07:31 AM

Saying a set of bands is the greatest is one thing, saying there's a point in time upon which no more bands can be ranked among the greatest is another.

There isn't a point of time - just let me know when a current band achieves that rank.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 08:51 AM

Alright, fair enough. I don't at all disagree with this.

But this is why the argument seems to be pointless with you.The reason The Who, Zep, Dylan, etc are considered great is because intelligent, informed music fans consider them that. Some of those same fans also think some current bands are also great. On a Who or Dylan level? Not necessarily. But if we're eliminating every band not on that level, we're eliminating a lot of great bands -- and Val Halen sure as hell ain't around anymore.

You keep asking for bands, but shoot down every one that's offered. You're allowed to think there's no great bands anymore, that's your right, but it's clear that you don't believe any post-2000 rock band is great. So why ask for suggestions if you've already make this up in your mind?

Yup.

Because the suggesstions that people are providing are not at that level. They may be good bands that have made good albums or at least good albums deemed by people here suggesting them, but I don't think anyone can seriously claim with a straight face that these bands are on the same level as Zeppelin and The Who. Most of the bands mentioned are not even doing that well, so it negates the same status as Zeppelin or The Who of a band that is not only making brilliant music that will live on for decades to come, but are also superstars. Like U2 - who I hate, but can give credit to.

Part of the problem here and you all can correct me if I am wrong is the age of people posting on this thread. Me thinks that most people commenting were not living or old enough when albums by Zeppelin or The Who were released, because those albums were considered legendary even back then. It's not like 20 or 30 years later, we are finally giving respect to Led Zeppelin and The Who. Many of those albums were instant classics and I am sorry, but Arcade Fire or whatever the fuck is not in the same league.

Like I mentioned before and I am not even a big fan of this band, but Guns N' Roses made a huge impact with Appetite For Destruction and at the time anyway before Axl when crazy - were considered to be the next in line so to speak to the classic bands of the 1970's. But that was 1987. Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden also made impact, but no one has yet named any band that is even on the same level as those bands.

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 09:56 AM

Who gives a shit about Elvis being the 'king' of rock n' roll? No one really cares about him anymore, 'rockistically' speaking. His music is barely listened to by anyone in our generation, his standard of artistry is incredibly out of date, he influences nothing, he is not really something that survived properly. Which goes to the root of your argument, which is that anyone should care that Elvis is the 'king' of rock n' roll, a meaningless and silly title 'granted' to him by people who barely even listen to any music. It's a pointless reference to some sort of cliché suburban 'rock' 'canon' that's so outdated as to be useless. To be honest I could same for Guns N' Roses, Van Halen, etc. all these bands you mentioned.

You have an incredibly narrow, and dare I say it, immature idea of what the rock canon and the critical canon is. Popular American Rock being for 'rocking' and bands like Guns N' Roses being the zenith of Rock is what people think when they have only listened to a few bands, and are teenagers who read, I don't know... I'd say Rolling Stone Magazine, but even Rolling Stone promotes normal bands.

I mean honestly you're just arguing from such an extremely narrow definition and referring to a specific style of rock (a style that most people simply outgrow once they stop being teenagers/young adults) that I don't really know what to tell you.

I mean yeah, do you want me to grant you that Guns N' Roses 'rocks' or something? Sure. But no one gives a shit. Because that's not the definition of being good.

The Who really have a large amount of absolutely awful albums, a bunch of albums that aren't realy particularly good, either as a cohesive whole or in a song-by-song comparison to modern albums, they are most famous for being the poster boys of absolutely ridiculous, pretentious, idiotic 'concept albums' with dumb social/political/philosophical messages, and their most famous songs are dumb rock completely devoid of anything that could reasonably be called 'intelligence', 'nuance', or 'insight'.

I don't really give a shit if The Who are part of some 'rock canon' and a bunch of old dudes who need to go consider them to have 'rocked or something'. Their career has mostly been shit and their top albums are nothing incredible.

As I asked Simen, why don't you just tell us why these bands are good in a very specific, clearly defined way? What do you value in music, in all of its categories, performance, composition, etc, and what you don't value (aka the traits of the bands you're slagging) and why we should consider your hierarchy of values better or worse? Because otherwise, there's better things to do than to have conversations about some awful boomer canon.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 10:25 AM

Smarmy Douche

09-16-2009, 10:32 AM

I am sorry, but this entire posting is a fucking joke on so many levels and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Truly laughable and I just don't even know where to start.

lol

SAI

09-16-2009, 10:36 AM

There isn't a point of time - just let me know when a current band achieves that rank.
That's something that comes with time, with perspective. I think The White Stripes are certainly worthy of consideration along with bands like Zeppelin and The Beatles, but what you initially asked for was '10 really fantastic rock bands' from the 2000's. This is a different thing from bands that number among te all time greats. There are a lot of really fine bands around who likely won't get to that level of acclaim, doesn't mean they aren't great bands though.

Here's a very small list of my favourite bands/artists of the 2000's, from all sorts of genres (ALL clickable to youtube vids): Sons and Daughters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0VvrHd36A), Yeah Yeah Yeahs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UiNr8T2Mrc), Susanna and the Magical Orchestra (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHhVydgvuAc), Cannonball Jane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA_gKDWBPxM), The Knife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhQ5TiBHVk), Royksopp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOt15JsLloU), The White Stripes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zskw3mCQFL4), The Arcade Fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNfWC4Sgkcs), Fever Ray (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBVkq-V3jg0), Metric (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEz8N8AT-yo), The Kills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6wUPCqwWI8), Love is All (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWwP9TRXaZA), The Black Keys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcc07MyG1aU), Strike the Colours (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7wdtfae8QM), The Raconteurs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B7npSXQkxE), Frightened Rabbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qZr1uHiwsY), The Duke Spirit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqdXeeYrtY), Florence and the Machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwsg3Czyl78), Bat For Lashes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ZHah-c0hQ), Elbow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzGIjOJoLUg), Lykke Li (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkBOi2x6zH8), The Raveonettes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRUqpgg-8Ps)
And I'm leaving out a LOAD of great bands.

Of course they won't all end up having the same kind of enduring acclaim and influence as The Beatles, but on the evidence they've submitted so far I think these are all interesting and talented musicians, and there are a few potential future greats in there. I expect amazing things from both Bat for Lashes and Florence and the Machine, and I think, for me, The Knife are already one of the great bands, certainly within their own style of music.

Whether you, or anyone else, agree or not is another matter and one, frankly, that isn't very important because as this thread demonstrates art of all kinds is subjective - for instance I can't deny The Who's influence or musicianship, but I have never really got into their music. Your greats are different from mine, fine. On the whole though, if you really believe there is NO great music being made right now then I think you just aren't looking hard enough for it.

SAI

09-16-2009, 10:39 AM

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 10:46 AM

That's just rude. He came up with a cogent argument, why won't you?

Because it couldn't be further from cogent.

The Postmaster General

09-16-2009, 10:53 AM

There isn't a point of time - just let me know when a current band achieves that rank.

No, I can't name any bands formed in the 2000s that have a 40 year track record of fans and devotees. You got a point there.

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 11:03 AM

It is a perfectly reasonable argument. The only reason you can't answer it is because you think "rocking" is some sort of quality and Elvis isn't a relic of the past that only fat Americans listen to.

Please answer, with clearly defined criterias for what is 'valuable' and what isn't 'valuable', as well as some sort of coherent criticism of form and content, why The Who are to be understood as some great band, and why say, The Arcade Fire, aren't.

"Rocking" isn't a defined criteria of what is valuable by the way, you would have to express that in a much more coherent way.

It's not a trick question. You might even convince me. That's ultimately the larger achievement of criticism, to convince someone and make them change their mind about 'subjective' issues (which indicates they're not really subjective). So shoot. Why is Elvis 'the king' of rock n' roll in a meaningful way, not in a bullshit 'rock canon', 'american pop culture fetishism' way.

SAI

09-16-2009, 11:05 AM

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 11:15 AM

No, I can't name any bands formed in the 2000s that have a 40 year track record of fans and devotees. You got a point there.

That's funny and nice try, but as I stated before - Zeppelin were considered Gods in the 70's as the albums were released. The Beatles didn't become legendary after the fact - they were legendary at the time.

SAI

09-16-2009, 11:23 AM

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 11:24 AM

I'm exaggerating. Obviously some people do listen to Elvis. But not as many as you'd expect.

Last.fm tracks the listening habits of people who sign up for it, and I'm fairly sure it's mostly youth-oriented. I'm looking at the list of most-listened-to artists and Elvis, at 20,090,895 plays, is the single biggest incongruity between 'canon status/alleged popularity' and actual plays. Nick Drake has 16,948,602 plays (and he's not really a famous guy, nor does he have many songs). Johnny Cash has 39,654,381 plays. The Rolling Stones have 43,759,297 plays. Bob Dylan has 58,475,596 plays. Pink Floyd has 99,076,921 plays. The Beatles have 185,154,446 plays.

Most top artists are hovering near or above 2 million unique listeners, classic rock bands at 1.5 million generally, Elvis isn't at 1 million.

That's fine for a standard artist. But "King of Rock N' Roll"? Clearly he did not fully make the generational leap.

The reason is obvious, it's that what we consider 'modern rock' and all of its characteristics (albums, 'artistic personalities', etc) came from The Beatles onward.

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 11:29 AM

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 11:38 AM

No. They were popular, and commercially successful at the time. Legends take time.

Not for some bands - some bands or artists became instant Gods so to speak.

QUENTIN

09-16-2009, 11:44 AM

I am sorry, but this entire posting is a fucking joke on so many levels and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Truly laughable and I just don't even know where to start.

You have a very disrespectful and dismissive tone to almost all of what you're saying. That's not cool and not appreciated here.

Added to that, you've yet to make any substantive argument and instead are essentially repeating the refrain, "I like what I like, what you like sucks, lol."

Why incite debate and ask for others' suggestions and opinions if you've decided beforehand you won't listen to anyone, can't be moved in the slightest, and when an argument is raised that legitimately challenges your own you run from it refusing to respond?

SAI

09-16-2009, 12:01 PM

Not for some bands - some bands or artists became instant Gods so to speak.
And that still happens today, in the eyes of certain people. For my best friend's brother Placebo may as well be the only band on earth, and have been since their first album came out. Name any band around today and they'll have fans like this. Yes bands like Zeppelin and The Beatles had more. You know why? There was less music then. These days HUNDREDS of albums are released each week, so scenes have fragmented. Once again, that doesn't mean that there aren't great bands to be heard, it just means you might have to apply yourself to finding them, rather than just running across one of their albums on the high street.

This thread reminds me of that annual staple - the thread asking if this is the worst year for movies EVER. I've always said that if you believe that then you are seeing the wrong movies. Same goes for music.

SAI

09-16-2009, 12:06 PM

I'm exaggerating. Obviously some people do listen to Elvis. But not as many as you'd expect.
I should have used a smiley, I knew what you were getting at.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 12:37 PM

Being 'legendary' has nothing to do with the quality of bands and everything to do with teenage boys being retarded. Star Wars was legendary as it was released.

Led Zeppelin's a weird example anyway since it's not like they were some sort of critical and artistic success. To quote Lester Bangs, "Their albums refine the crude public tools of all dull white blues bands into something awesome in its very insensitive grossness, like a Cecil B. DeMille epic".

Think about this. You are using arguments that, if you used them to talk about MOVIES, you'd be laughed out of the forums. Appeals to popularity and vague notions of what is cool don't work in movies, and they don't work in music either.

Citizen Kane doesn't stop being regarded as the best movie of all time - because the hip kids of today think it's shit as per your Elvis reasonings.

What I find most ironic on this board (and I am not saying that this is you), but people will quote AFI's Top 100 Movies of All Time as being a somewhat accurate and respectable list and yet if you look at any respectable top albums of all time list where The Who, Zeppelin, The Beatles, Hendrix, The Stones, etc. are usually at the the top of the list, this is somehow not valid.

Popularity? Notions of what's cool? What are you talking about. It's FACTUAL that Elvis is The King of Rock and Roll and The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. I didn't make this up. I also did make up the fact that Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix are among the greatest bands/artists in rock and roll history and their albums are not being dethroned by the artists of today or really even impact at all on the greatest albums of all time. Like I said, before - you don't have to like these bands and there are some that I don't like as well (Elvis), but as a music enthusiast - I can respect it.

I will provide a list later of the new bands that I like - who I do think are great, but for now - I would appreciate your feedback on this all time list:

1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles

2. Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys

3. Revolver, The Beatles

4. Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan

5. Rubber Soul, The Beatles

6. What's Going On, Marvin Gaye

7. Exile on Main Street, The Rolling Stones

8. London Calling, The Clash

9. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan

10. The Beatles ("The White Album"), The Beatles

11. The Sun Sessions, Elvis Presley

12. Kind of Blue, Miles Davis

13. Velvet Underground and Nico, The Velvet Underground

14. Abbey Road, The Beatles

15. Are You Experienced?, The Jimi Hendrix Experience

16. Blood on the Tracks, Bob Dylan

17. Nevermind, Nirvana

18. Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen

19. Astral Weeks, Van Morrison

20. Thriller, Michael Jackson

21. The Great Twenty-Eight, Chuck Berry

22. Plastic Ono Band, John Lennon

23. Innervisions, Stevie Wonder

24. Live at the Apollo (1963), James Brown

25. Rumours, Fleetwood Mac

26. The Joshua Tree, U2

27. King of the Delta Blues Singers, Vol. 1, Robert Johnson

28. Who's Next, The Who

29. Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin

30. Blue, Joni Mitchell

31. Bringing It All Back Home, Bob Dylan

32. Let It Bleed, The Rolling Stones

33. Ramones, Ramones

34. Music From Big Pink, The Band

35. The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars, David Bowie

36. Tapestry, Carole King

37. Hotel California, The Eagles

38. The Anthology, 1947 - 1972, Muddy Waters

39. Please Please Me, The Beatles

40. Forever Changes, Love

41. Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, The Sex Pistols

42. The Doors, The Doors

43. The Dark Side of the Moon, Pink Floyd

44. Horses, Patti Smith

45. The Band, The Band

46. Legend, Bob Marley and the Wailers

47. A Love Supreme, John Coltrane

48. It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, Public Enemy

49. At Fillmore East, The Allman Brothers Band

50. Here's Little Richard, Little Richard

51. Bridge Over Troubled Water, Simon and Garfunkel

52. Greatest Hits, Al Green

53. The Birth of Soul: The Complete Atlantic Rhythm and Blues Recordings, 1952 - 1959, Ray Charles

54. Electric Ladyland, The Jimi Hendrix Experience

55. Elvis Presley, Elvis Presley

56. Songs in the Key of Life, Stevie Wonder

57. Beggars Banquet, The Rolling Stones

58. Trout Mask Replica, Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band

59. Meet the Beatles, The Beatles

60. Greatest Hits, Sly and the Family Stone

61. Appetite for Destruction, Guns n' Roses

62. Achtung Baby, U2

63. Sticky Fingers, The Rolling Stones

64. Phil Spector, Back to Mono (1958 - 1969), Various Artists

65. Moondance, Van Morrison

66. Led Zeppelin IV, Led Zeppelin

67. The Stranger, Billy Joel

68. Off the Wall, Michael Jackson

69. Superfly, Curtis Mayfield

70. Physical Graffiti, Led Zeppelin

71. After the Gold Rush, Neil Young

72. Purple Rain, Prince

73. Back in Black, AC/DC

74. Otis Blue, Otis Redding

75. Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin

76. Imagine, John Lennon

77. The Clash, The Clash

78. Harvest, Neil Young

79. Star Time, James Brown

80. Odessey and Oracle, The Zombies

81. Graceland, Paul Simon

82. Axis: Bold as Love, The Jimi Hendrix Experience

83. I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You, Aretha Franklin

84. Lady Soul, Aretha Franklin

85. Born in the U.S.A., Bruce Springsteen

86. Let It Be, The Beatles

87. The Wall, Pink Floyd

88. At Folsom Prison, Johnny Cash

89. Dusty in Memphis, Dusty Springfield

90. Talking Book, Stevie Wonder

91. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Elton John

92. 20 Golden Greats, Buddy Holly

93. Sign 'o' the Times, Prince

94. Bitches Brew, Miles Davis

95. Green River, Creedence Clearwater Revival

96. Tommy, The Who

97. The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, Bob Dylan

98. This Year's Model, Elvis Costello

99. There's a Riot Goin' On, Sly and the Family Stone

100. In the Wee Small Hours, Frank Sinatra

SAI

09-16-2009, 12:54 PM

I will provide a list later of the new bands that I like - who I do think are great, but for now - I would appreciate your feedback on this all time list:

Honestly? If that's your list, cool, but for the most part it reads to me as a list of what one is 'supposed' to regard as the best albums of all time. Again though, it's all subjective: any list I didn't write is essentially wrong in my eyes, because I didn't write it, and the same goes for everyone else.

Just on a slight nitpicking point... aren't greatest hits albums, essentially, cheating at listmaking?

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 12:56 PM

Honestly? If that's your list, cool, but for the most part it reads to me as a list of what one is 'supposed' to regard as the best albums of all time. Again though, it's all subjective: any list I didn't write is essentially wrong in my eyes, because I didn't write it, and the same goes for everyone else.

Just on a slight nitpicking point... aren't greatest hits albums, essentially, cheating at listmaking?

I didn't make this list.

SAI

09-16-2009, 01:14 PM

So what would your list include?

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 02:44 PM

I didn't make this list.

I think my Grandma made this list.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 03:03 PM

I think my Grandma made this list.

Funny, but the reality is that any list of the top albums of all time are going to be very reflective of that list. What - do you think Fall Out Boy should be there somewhere?

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 03:13 PM

Funny, but the reality is that any list of the top albums of all time are going to be very reflective of that list. What - do you think Fall Out Boy should be there somewhere?

Have you heard me make any reference to Fall Out Boy?

You wish you had the breadth and depth of my musical knowledge.

Go.

Your Tusk album is getting scratched by the stylus bumping off its port.

QUENTIN

09-16-2009, 03:24 PM

The Rolling Stone list he posted, like the AFI lists, tend very heavily toward the past, not necessarily the best. They'd always have you believe something that came out in the 50s is better than anything that came out in the 90s, not because its better but because its been more influential and has had much longer to establish a "classic" stature.

What you're talking about isn't the best music, as the AFI list isn't really the "best" according to serious film people, but rather the most well-remembered and well-known American "classics" of yesteryear, maybe with a couple modern titles thrown in so its no so obviously a list of "The best from 1925-1980" which is what it pretty much is. Has less to do with the quality of the work than it does nostalgic classic-worship, because defending the new as on a par or with the old or god forbid better is so much more risky for critics and professional art aficionados.

Prismatic Sphere

09-16-2009, 03:35 PM

The problem with being an oracle of musical knowledge of today's popular music is that the more and more that person listens to the shit that's out there today; he eventually finds himself liking some of it. (I think this is called "forced compliance") This is a serious problem when he isn't given anything else to work with(i.e. underground music, music on internet radio, overseas, etc.)

So then he settles for the shit that's out there in some form and spreads the love. This is just criminally sad and is what creates many of these fanboy pieces of shit who perpetuate the eardrum poison further and thusly set the bar even lower for musical entertainment.

It's akin to having a real estate agent show you around the slums(when you can afford better; but don't know where to look), and then day after day you eventually find yourself to start coveting a certain shithole and then tell everybody that this is the best way to find a residence.

Music, like life, is like a pinata: You gotta beat the shit out of it to get the candy.

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 03:44 PM

Popularity? Notions of what's cool? What are you talking about. It's FACTUAL that Elvis is The King of Rock and Roll and The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. I didn't make this up. I also did make up the fact that Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix are among the greatest bands/artists in rock and roll history and their albums are not being dethroned by the artists of today or really even impact at all on the greatest albums of all time. Like I said, before - you don't have to like these bands and there are some that I don't like as well (Elvis), but as a music enthusiast - I can respect it.

What? None of this is 'factual'. What are you talking about? This is ridiculous.

If The Beatles are the 'greatest band of all time' (musically speaking), and this is factual, that means there is some way of measuring 'greatness' in music, very specific criteria that defines greatness and has very little if anything in the way of variance, and we can measure that greatness and conclude, as fact, that The Beatles are 'the greatest band of all time'. But of course, there is no such measure of greatness. The whole idea is absurd and pointless. I mean, not that I wouldn't like to see you try to show that.

I don't need to respect shit. I can listen to music, understand it, and try to see where it fits in some 'value system' that I've devised, and try to explain that to people that might have something in common with my views. But I don't need to respect anything. What the fuck. What a weird statement.

You haven't really explained anything at all. This is what you don't get. Pointing to some music canon that was made by a bunch of old pieces of shit is not an argument. Either you explain specifically why the music of those bands is objectively better, why we should take your value judgment and your criteria seriously, or you stop babbling about modern bands not being up to it.

There's also something you don't seem to understand, which should be clear: There wasn't a whole lot of rock music when The Beatles were famous. There wasn't a whole lot of rock music when Led Zeppelin were famous, for that matter. That was still the first generation of what we now consider 'rock music'. There was rock n' roll before, but things like Elvis and Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly and whatnot, all of that had a different culture, different artistic conventions, etc. Which is why I said earlier that Elvis is semi-forgotten as a musician (rather than as a pop culture phenomenon), people's current ways of measuring 'artistry' (personal topics or lyrics, composing everything yourself, recording 'albums') didn't really exist back then, so music that does not fit properly is discarded. Anyway, The Beatles were first generation rock. Unsurprisingly, people fell head over heels for them, and for bands like The Who and The Rolling Stones, and for people like Bob Dylan. They have that 'mythical' image and there is that concept of them being 'legendary' because that is the form the industry took at the time. It is not necessarily related to their talent. If The Beatles released their music today, the music world wouldn't suddenly screech to a halt and proclaim them the new Best Band Ever, the music world would praise them and go on with their lives, because there's just too many bands now and it's a different world.

Rock music wasn't even artistically valid at the time, people didn't think Chuck Berry was making something intellectually stimulating or 'important' or culturally valid. That's why Beatles and Bob Dylan have the large reputations they have, because they legitimized something. Of course they would get wildly overpraised.

The same thing happens in other artforms. Television is a really obvious example. It is only over this past decade that television has become a medium perceived as artistically valid, often even better than film. It is much more common for film actors and actresses to do shows, and I would dare say that HBO television is more culturally relevant than most films of the past few years. Anyway, since "serious" television is a new medium, people have no problem making proclamations like "such and such show is infinitely better than anything else". The Wire is the greatest tv show, nay, the greatest work of art on any medium ever. Or The Sopranos. For those that don't like gangster stuff, then, it's Mad Men.

The point is, it's partly because of the conditions of the medium and the status of the audiences that these wild proclamations and these rigid 'canons' manage to exist. It's precisely the reason why, as Quentin mentioned, best-of lists almost never add newer movies, even though it makes no sense to suggest that you're measuring movies 'objectively' (aka seeing some sort of immutable qualities in them) and suggesting that no one has managed to improve on art, which is insane.

The same thing happens with film. Citizen Kane is 'the best movie' not because it is actually objectively the best movie, or anything of the sort, but simply because over the years, it becomes 'canon', and it is hard to remove something from canon. If you ask people in 30 years, it won't be Citizen Kane. It will be, if anything, The Godfather. Or a movie that, like The Godfather, isn't as old. But how can that be, if The Godfather was released ages ago? Exactly.

The truth of the matter is, I think the bands you're mentioning range from great to deplorable, but most importantly, I don't really believe they're incredibly superior to modern music, whether it's 2000s music, or 90s music. Or even 80s music, if we want to go that far. I'm a death-of-the-author kinda guy, and I am very confident in saying that, if you hadn't heard any of these bands, had no real concept of music history, and listened to them 'blind-folded', so to speak, you wouldn't conclude that they're some sort of Gods that haven't been surpassed in 40 years or whatever.

Look at the list you posted. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the top album. You know why that record is considered 'the top record'? Because it's seen as the album that defined what it means to be 'an album'. But really, best album? Best album ever? No one has made a better album after that one? It's not even a very good album. To be honest, a lot of people don't see it as the best Beatles album nowadays, they'd rather list Revolver or maybe The White Album, and it's not because the objective qualities of the albums changed over time, it's because the decision to consider it 'the best album' was based on circumstances that no longer apply. Shocker, I know.

AceD

09-16-2009, 04:11 PM

Most of the bands mentioned are not even doing that well, so it negates the same status as Zeppelin or The Who of a band that is not only making brilliant music that will live on for decades to come, but are also superstars. Like U2 - who I hate, but can give credit to.

They're not doing that well? They're not superstars? You already said that the fact that millions of people like Nickelback doesn't matter, but now it matters that millions of people like U2? Nick Cave isn't on their level because he doens't have the same number of fans? If that's seriously your argument, not only are you completely contradicting yourself, but the standards are silly.

Part of the problem here and you all can correct me if I am wrong is the age of people posting on this thread. Me thinks that most people commenting were not living or old enough when albums by Zeppelin or The Who were released, because those albums were considered legendary even back then. It's not like 20 or 30 years later, we are finally giving respect to Led Zeppelin and The Who. Many of those albums were instant classics and I am sorry, but Arcade Fire or whatever the fuck is not in the same league.

"or whatever the fuck..."

That's why this is pointless. You don't believe ANY current band can possibly be in the same league, but you still haven't given a reason why. Is it because no one is "epic" right away? That's true, but we are in a differerent era where music gets to the public in a different way.

You can keep saying "I am sorry, but...", but that isn't an argument and it proves nothing. You act disgusted that some have different taste than you do. You don't have to agree, but my opinion is every bit as valid as yours -- not simply because I have the right to it, but because I am an informed, intelligent music fan.

You have stated that Michael Mann has made 6 Great films. I'm sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Is that an argument? No. I'm just disagreeing with you. And that's not a discussion, it's an exchange of unverifiable statements.

I am sorry, but this entire posting is a fucking joke on so many levels and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Truly laughable and I just don't even know where to start.

Stay classy, dude. And if you're going to make a statement like this, again, at least make an argument. You're just dismissive as if you're the authority here and we're all obliged to prove something to you, and that is what's truly laughable.

What are you talking about. It's FACTUAL that Elvis is The King of Rock and Roll and The Beatles are the greatest band of all time.

A fact can be indisputably proven. Elvis is the King of Rock & Roll as a brand. He pioneered things. No one is disputing that, but that's a term that doens't really mean anything.

The Beatles are the most influential band of all time, yes. They are as influential as anything in pop culture over the last 70 years. But neither of those things make them indisputably the greatest band of all time. Do I think they are? Yes. But there are other valid choices.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 05:40 PM

They're not doing that well? They're not superstars? You already said that the fact that millions of people like Nickelback doesn't matter, but now it matters that millions of people like U2? Nick Cave isn't on their level because he doens't have the same number of fans? If that's seriously your argument, not only are you completely contradicting yourself, but the standards are silly.

"or whatever the fuck..."

That's why this is pointless. You don't believe ANY current band can possibly be in the same league, but you still haven't given a reason why. Is it because no one is "epic" right away? That's true, but we are in a differerent era where music gets to the public in a different way.

You can keep saying "I am sorry, but...", but that isn't an argument and it proves nothing. You act disgusted that some have different taste than you do. You don't have to agree, but my opinion is every bit as valid as yours -- not simply because I have the right to it, but because I am an informed, intelligent music fan.

You have stated that Michael Mann has made 6 Great films. I'm sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Is that an argument? No. I'm just disagreeing with you. And that's not a discussion, it's an exchange of unverifiable statements.

Stay classy, dude. And if you're going to make a statement like this, again, at least make an argument. You're just dismissive as if you're the authority here and we're all obliged to prove something to you, and that is what's truly laughable.

A fact can be indisputably proven. Elvis is the King of Rock & Roll as a brand. He pioneered things. No one is disputing that, but that's a term that doens't really mean anything.

The Beatles are the most influential band of all time, yes. They are as influential as anything in pop culture over the last 70 years. But neither of those things make them indisputably the greatest band of all time. Do I think they are? Yes. But there are other valid choices.

I am not saying that a current band can't be in the same league and I am saying that there isn't one - but feel free to point one out to me.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard teenagers or men and women in their 20's - who used to listen to many of the bands mentioned here - but then listened to an album from some rock band in the 70's (take your pick) and then discovered a whole slew of rock bands in the 70's with the reaction being that they can't believe the shit that they used to listen to. Same with concerts - it's a long of very young people at concerts for various classic rock bands? Also Guitar Hero wouldn't sell remotely as well as it has if it JUST focused on the bands of today.

john_rambo

09-16-2009, 05:58 PM

Rolling Stone has a commemorative issue I keep seeing in stores celebrating the Jonas Brothers, are we really going by this list?

(My favorite album is number 1 on the list even)

Smarmy Douche

09-16-2009, 06:08 PM

Rolling Stone? You have got to be kidding. Does anyone view that rag as a credible source for music in the last 20 years?

*posts Rolling Stone list*

Fantastic.

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 06:18 PM

Fantastic.

The triple truth, Ruth.

BadCoverVersion

09-16-2009, 06:31 PM

Fantastic.

HAHAHA.

Seriously. I just glanced at that Rolling Stone list and can firmly say that it is just sooo horribly pedestrian and dull. No Scott 4, Tilt, Blue Valentine, Rain Dogs, Swordfishtrombones, Boatmans Call, Histoire de melody nelson!? No sign of Zappa, Roxy Music and Kraftwerk ... and Talking Book and Goodbye Yellow Brick Road in the lowly 90's. Ugh. Low is a much better album than "Ziggy". Rumours is fucking shit...and Tommy is pretty awful too. Love are at no. 40 and they deserve a top 10 spot no doubt.

The Beatles are not the be-all and end-all of music.

Prismatic Sphere

09-16-2009, 06:33 PM

Talking Book is definitely Stevie's best work.

AceD

09-16-2009, 06:37 PM

The Beatles are not the be-all and end-all of music.

True enough, but they are far and away the most influential. They're influence is everywhere in music today.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 06:38 PM

OK here are the newer bands that I listen to from 1990 and beyond:

Chris Whitley
Ben Harper
Daniel Lanois
Beck
Moby
The Black Crowes/Chris Robinson
Gov't Mule
The White Stripes
The Black Keys
The Answer
Blackstone Cherry
The Verve Pipe
The Screaming Cheetah Wheelies
Dead Can Dance
Norah Jones
Stevie Salas
Big Sugar
Big Wreck
Kenny Wayne Sheppard
Parlour Mob
Jet
Seal
Days of The New
Soundgarden/Audioslave
Alter Bridge
The Tea Party
Tonic
Eric Johnson
The Stone Roses
Blind Melon
Jay Farrar
Sass Jordan
Diana Krall
Joe Bonamassa
Robert Randolph
Ian Moore
Sonny Landham
Blues Traveler
and a slew more

Here is one of my favorite artists - not that too many people know who he is. Here is a video for a new song, where as usual - he records all the instruments and sings himself. His talent blows my mind. Eric Clapton called him a genius on guitar and Stanley Clarke said he was "not human", when they worked together in the band Vertu. And yes, he was actually in Poison for an album before getting fired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhCqEfkKa5s

But do I think any of the above compete with artists from the 60's and 70's? No.

BadCoverVersion

09-16-2009, 06:43 PM

Talking Book is definitely Stevie's best work.

I agree, which is why I can't fathom how Innervisions and Songs In The Key... are 30, 40 places above. I think Talking Book is an amazing piece of work.

I'm not dismissing The Beatles influence (although I'm not a huge fan) but I think putting 4, 5 albums in a top 20 is just lazy and unoriginal. Especially when so many influential artists fail to even place. Yardbirds anyone?

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 06:46 PM

Fantastic.

I was well aware of my comments about Rolling Stone, so your gotcha moment fails completely. Rolling Stone is not a credible source for talking about bands or music TODAY - since the magazine has switched focus to Britney Spears, Jonas Bros. and the like. However as a source compiling the greatest albums of all time since Rolling Stone Magazine has been around for a long time is still valid.

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 06:46 PM

True enough, but they are far and away the most influential. They're influence is everywhere in music today.

So?

You don't get any enjoyment from how influential a band is when you listen to their songs.

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 06:56 PM

Norah Jones and Seal should do a duet.

I've grown tired of living and I need to know the exact moment when suicide is no longer a mortal sin.

Pee-eww!

Smarmy Douche

09-16-2009, 06:57 PM

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 07:05 PM

You're adorable.

Besides, the actual list is Top 500 Albums of All Time - I just posted the Top 100 which actually reinforces how great those artists are within the top 100 out of 500 of all time. I am sure you will find your favorite band somewhere in the top 500 though.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time

QUENTIN

09-16-2009, 07:07 PM

I was well aware of my comments about Rolling Stone, so your gotcha moment fails completely. Rolling Stone is not a credible source for talking about bands or music TODAY - since the magazine has switched focus to Britney Spears, Jonas Bros. and the like. However as a source compiling the greatest albums of all time since Rolling Stone Magazine has been around for a long time is still valid.

Your dismissal of Rolling Stone as not a credible source was in relation to their list compiling the greatest guitarists of all-time (that I referenced to help demonstrate Van Halen isn't nearly as important or influential as you claimed). You know, exactly the kind of thing you went on to post a list of to demonstrate your argument and claim was valid.

It's definitely a gotcha, and you're definitely contradicting yourself.

It is adorable though.

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 07:10 PM

I was impressed by instrumental prowess when I was a 12 year old ignorant about music, too.

AceD

09-16-2009, 07:11 PM

So?

You don't get any enjoyment from how influential a band is when you listen to their songs.

So........................?

I totally agree with you. To me, on musical merit, the Beatles are the greatest rock band. Tons of credible people agree, tons disagree, and that's fine. Neither opinion changes the fact that they're the most influential.

But you're absolutely right, their influence doesn't mean you have to listen to them or like them. I never implied otherwise, so you don't have to be incredulous about it. :D

Prismatic Sphere

09-16-2009, 07:15 PM

Isn't it amazing how outdated and irrelevant that Uma speech from Pulp Fiction about The Beatles Vs. Elvis has become after reading this thread?

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 07:18 PM

Your dismissal of Rolling Stone as not a credible source was in relation to their list compiling the greatest guitarists of all-time (that I referenced to help demonstrate Van Halen isn't nearly as important or influential as you claimed). You know, exactly the kind of thing you went on to post a list of to demonstrate your argument and claim was valid.

It's definitely a gotcha, and you're definitely contradicting yourself.

It is adorable though.

Nice try, but I didn't post the Rolling Stone list to prove how right I am. I posted it as simply an example for music like the AFI List for movies which I brought up. I think both sources are questionable, but just wanted to show a greatest albums of all time list.

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 07:25 PM

Nice try, but I didn't post the Rolling Stone list to prove how right I am. I posted it as simply an example for music like the AFI List for movies which I brought up. I think both sources are questionable, but just wanted to show a greatest albums of all time list.

The list was compiled in 2003.

How right you are? What, six years ago?

BadCoverVersion

09-16-2009, 07:30 PM

Nice try, but I didn't post the Rolling Stone list to prove how right I am. I posted it as simply an example for music like the AFI List for movies which I brought up. I think both sources are questionable, but just wanted to show a greatest albums of all time list.

Eh. Didn't peeps already say that the AFi meant shit to 'true' movie fans?

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 07:30 PM

The list was compiled in 2003.

How right you are? What, six years ago?

Yes you are right, that was so long ago - music has changed so much from 2003 to 2009 that it's almost like two different reality timelines. Gimme a fucking break.

Feel free to find an all time album list compiled in 2009 jackass.

Maybe this list will be more to your liking.

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 07:31 PM

Eh. Didn't peeps already say that the AFi meant shit to 'true' movie fans?

That AFI list has been brought up a ton of times on this board to somehow settle a debate.

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 07:36 PM

Yes you are right, that was so long ago - music has changed so much from 2003 to 2009 that it's almost like two different reality timelines. Gimme a fucking break.

Feel free to find an all time album list compiled in 2009 jackass.

Shhh. I'm listening to Glenn Miller.

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 07:38 PM

That AFI list has been brought up a ton of times on this board to somehow settle a debate.

That's wrong too.

BadCoverVersion

09-16-2009, 07:39 PM

That AFI list has been brought up a ton of times on this board to somehow settle a debate.

This board or this thread?

and pipe down already...I'm rocking out to Vera Lynn right now.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 07:39 PM

That's wrong too.

Really? Read the Spielberg is overrated thread.

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 07:42 PM

This board or this thread?

and pipe down already...I'm rocking out to Vera Lynn right now.

That's just a load of bloody noise.

Greensleeves. Now there's a piece of music you can set your watch to.

Prismatic Sphere

09-16-2009, 07:46 PM

That's just a load of bloody noise.

Greensleeves. Now there's a piece of music you can set your watch to.

I like the Ritchie Blackmore version.

BadCoverVersion

09-16-2009, 08:11 PM

I like the Ritchie Blackmore version.

HA HA. Deep Purple?

I am boyotting this thread. Nothing to do with THC, Reigh, Pris and more,

Prismatic Sphere

09-16-2009, 08:18 PM

HA HA. Deep Purple?

ALL of 'em.

DP, Rainbow, even Blackmore's Night(you should hear it. It's quite lovely).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnm5isS2rHM

BadCoverVersion

09-16-2009, 08:25 PM

ALL of 'em.

DP, Rainbow, even Blackmore's Night(you should hear it. It's quite lovely).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnm5isS2rHM

My intention wasn't to criticise, it was funny in the context of the (absurd) discussion!!!

I like DP and Rainbow. Will listen to Blackmore's Night when my Son isn't sleeping so lightly.

The Heart Collector

09-16-2009, 08:30 PM

Really? Read the Spielberg is overrated thread.

how about instead of me reading that thread, you explain to us clearly and in great detail, how you are defining value and which characteristics specifically make the who and led zeppelin and ac/dc and whatever better than current bands accepted as 'good', an issue which youve been dodging for pages.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 08:46 PM

how about instead of me reading that thread, you explain to us clearly and in great detail, how you are defining value and which characteristics specifically make the who and led zeppelin and ac/dc and whatever better than current bands accepted as 'good', an issue which youve been dodging for pages.

I am not dodging anything - it's just a waste of time Why, because the general consensus is already on my side and you are just choosing to ignore that.

Why do you think that if Led Zeppelin got back together to do a tour - it would make the most money in music history and the attendence would be the biggest of all time in any genre of music known to man. It can't all be old hippies going, but plenty of the Guitar Hero generation too.

Next topic - would John McEnroe destroy Roger Federer in his prime. I say without question and easily. What do you say?

Smarmy Douche

09-16-2009, 08:53 PM

Transformers 2 is an awesome movie.

The general consensus is on my side.

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 08:56 PM

Transformers 2 is an awesome movie.

The general consensus is on my side.

Zac Efron is a great talent.

GC on my side.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 09:00 PM

Transformers 2 is an awesome movie.

The general consensus is on my side.

No actually, it got horrid reviews and even audiences were coming out saying it's a piece of shit. The general concensus is NOT that it was a great movie.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 09:03 PM

Zac Efron is a great talent.

GC on my side.

That was pretty weak - at least pick someone who has been called a great talent by more than 5 people.

labialover

09-16-2009, 09:09 PM

Next topic - would John McEnroe destroy Roger Federer in his prime. I say without question and easily. What do you say?

Unlikely.

I'm not about to get into this Rock debate. But earlier you made it sound like Jay-Z was overrated, and the people at the show were stupid for listening to him. I've listened to rap my entire life, and I can easily say every rapper that is starting out wishes they could have a career like Jay-Z. Shit I would even say a very high percent of all artists wish they could have a career like Jay-Z. He will go down as one of the 3 greatest rappers to ever live, like it or not. I'm not sure what you're talking about with Eminem either, he's still respected within the rap industry too.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 09:15 PM

Unlikely.

I'm not about to get into this Rock debate. But earlier you made it sound like Jay-Z was overrated, and the people at the show were stupid for listening to him. I've listened to rap my entire life, and I can easily say every rapper that is starting out wishes they could have a career like Jay-Z. Shit I would even say a very high percent of all artists wish they could have a career like Jay-Z. He will go down as one of the 3 greatest rappers to ever live, like it or not. I'm not sure what you're talking about with Eminem either, he's still respected within the rap industry too.

Unlikely? So you think the top players of today are better than the past greats like McEnroe, Borg, Connors, etc - when playing is so much easier now then it was then. You play with a ancient wooden racquet and tell me that the players today don't have it really easy in comparison.

If Jay-Z is better on albums - fine, but he was a joke at the MTV awards. Yes, I am sure many people with no real actual music ability hope for a career like Jay-Z.

labialover

09-16-2009, 09:22 PM

Unlikely? So you think the top players of today are better than the past greats like McEnroe, Borg, Connors, etc - when playing is so much easier now then it was then. You play with a ancient wooden racquet and tell me that the players today don't have it really easy.

Are you gonna use that argument against Tiger Woods? Or any basketball or football player today? Do you think Jerry West could guard Lebron, Kobe, or Wade? Do you think Cornerbacks in the 70s would be able to cover Randy Moss, or any other number of wide receivers in today's game?

Federer is playing with the same rackets as any other Tennis player today, and he has completely dominated everyone.

labialover

09-16-2009, 09:25 PM

If Jay-Z is better on albums - fine, but he was a joke at the MTV awards. Yes, I am sure many people with no real actual music ability hope for a career like Jay-Z.

Why was he a joke? So you think he has no music ability? That his metaphors and multis are terrible? And that he can't flow over a beat? All of which is what makes a rapper a great emcee. It must be horrible to have 11 #1 albums, start your own record label, and be worth around $500 million dollars.

You obviously know nothing about Rap music, so I'll discredit everything you've said, just like you have done to many others posting in this thread.

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 09:25 PM

That was pretty weak - at least pick someone who has been called a great talent by more than 5 people.

Didn't you quote an iMDB poster for one of your threads as a credible source and then refuse to reveal said source until the pressure was too great?

OK.

Five people.

http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm1374980/board/thread/137270601?d=137908978&p=1#137908978
http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm1374980/board/thread/137270601?d=141506300&p=2#141506300
http://www.myparkmag.co.uk/articles/celebrity/robert-pattinson/oscars-2009-zac-efron-more-talented-than-robert-pattinson.html
http://twitpic.com/gcrz4
http://www.bt.com.bn/en/movies/2009/06/13/efron_a_talented_surprise_in_17_again

Time elapsed: 1 minute, 47 seconds.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 09:37 PM

Are you gonna use that argument against Tiger Woods? Or any basketball or football player today? Do you think Jerry West could guard Lebron, Kobe, or Wade? Do you think Cornerbacks in the 70s would be able to cover Randy Moss, or any other number of wide receivers in today's game?

Federer is playing with the same rackets as any other Tennis player today, and he has completely dominated everyone.

You are missing the point - the top tennis players in general today have less ability than past champions and the bar isn't raised as high as it used to be. That's why we have so many female tennis players like Kournakova and Maria Sharapova - who really can't play tennis worth shit and are known more for being "hot". Martina Navratilova would destroy them.

As for Golf, Football and Baseball - maybe so. People also have said that Ali in his prime would beat Tyson in his prime.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 09:38 PM

Didn't you quote an iMDB poster for one of your threads as a credible source and then refuse to reveal said source until the pressure was too great?

OK.

Five people.

http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm1374980/board/thread/137270601?d=137908978&p=1#137908978
http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm1374980/board/thread/137270601?d=141506300&p=2#141506300
http://www.myparkmag.co.uk/articles/celebrity/robert-pattinson/oscars-2009-zac-efron-more-talented-than-robert-pattinson.html
http://twitpic.com/gcrz4
http://www.bt.com.bn/en/movies/2009/06/13/efron_a_talented_surprise_in_17_again

Time elapsed: 1 minute, 47 seconds.

No I didn't actually. I hope you had fun looking up Zac Efron.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 09:46 PM

Why was he a joke? So you think he has no music ability? That his metaphors and multis are terrible? And that he can't flow over a beat? All of which is what makes a rapper a great emcee. It must be horrible to have 11 #1 albums, start your own record label, and be worth around $500 million dollars.

You obviously know nothing about Rap music, so I'll discredit everything you've said, just like you have done to many others posting in this thread.

Does he write all the music (you know - piano, guitar, drum parts, etc.) himself?

Do you know how many artists have started their own record label. Doesn't take much.

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 09:46 PM

No I didn't actually. I hope you had fun looking up Zac Efron.

Apologies. It was the message board for The Huffington Post.

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132333

So, we can agree that idle chit-chat on a discussion forum has equal weight, can't we, Hey Man?

It's all credible.

Unless you have an objection?

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 09:50 PM

Apologies. It was the message board for The Huffington post.

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132333

So, we can agree that idle chit-chat on a discussion forum has equal weight, can't we, Hey Man?

It's all credible.

Unless you have an objection?

I started that thread for entertainment purposes or the lackthereof. I don't think all discussions are of equal weight. That's just being kind for the sake of it. The reality is that some people like those you might meet in real life are fucking morons or just plain retarded. Those same people go online too.

Smarmy Douche

09-16-2009, 09:51 PM

Well Hey Man, you've certainly gone all out auditioning for the role of DukeSimen. You've got the part!

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 09:54 PM

Those same people go online too.

Uh-huh? Do go on.

ericdraven

09-16-2009, 10:07 PM

I started that thread for entertainment purposes or the lackthereof. I don't think all discussions are of equal weight. That's just being kind for the sake of it. The reality is that some people like those you might meet in real life are fucking morons or just plain retarded. Those same people go online too.

I am grinning ear to ear about the irony in this post..

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 10:12 PM

Let's all hold hands and sing We Are The World.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 10:14 PM

I am grinning ear to ear about the irony in this post..

What - that it took you a few minutes to think about this and then go and completely change your post because you thought you were oh so witty?

Reigh Kaufman

09-16-2009, 10:15 PM

MTV makes me want to smoke crack.

ericdraven

09-16-2009, 10:16 PM

What - that it took you a few minutes to think about this and then go and completely change your post because you thought you were oh so witty?

No, I was just chuckling to myself that someone of your caliber thinks that you can decieve us and fuck around with us like you did on the Michael Bay thread. Quit being a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 10:21 PM

No, I was just chuckling to myself that someone of your caliber thinks that you can decieve us and fuck around with us like you did on the Michael Bay thread. Quit being a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Deceive and fuck around? Can you be any more dramatic about something so stupid?

john_rambo

09-16-2009, 11:19 PM

Talking Book is definitely Stevie's best work.

Agreed, that CD is amazing.

john_rambo

09-16-2009, 11:34 PM

Does he write all the music (you know - piano, guitar, drum parts, etc.) himself?

Do you know how many artists have started their own record label. Doesn't take much.

Besides maybe the Roots, no hip hop act is based on instrumental ability. Hip hop is about studio production, and most rappers do not produce and Rap. If you watch live video Jay Z is among the best at keeping a good flow, he writes, all of his songs, and even freestyles a large chunk of them. To say he is trash because he does not make the instrumental is laughable and shows how much you know about Hip Hop. I put Jay Z at number 1 as far as all time rappers go, and would love to see this guys show in person. The guy ay be the first self made billionaire in hip hop. I don't think he has done that by being trash.

Hey Man

09-16-2009, 11:47 PM

Besides maybe the Roots, no hip hop act is based on instrumental ability. Hip hop is about studio production, and most rappers do not produce and Rap. If you watch live video Jay Z is among the best at keeping a good flow, he writes, all of his songs, and even freestyles a large chunk of them. To say he is trash because he does not make the instrumental is laughable and shows how much you know about Hip Hop. I put Jay Z at number 1 as far as all time rappers go, and would love to see this guys show in person. The guy ay be the first self made billionaire in hip hop. I don't think he has done that by being trash.

So to confirm - he doesn't know a thing about writing music and doesn't have any sort of talent in that area.

Understood.

vesaker

09-17-2009, 12:04 AM

I am not dodging anything - it's just a waste of time Why, because the general consensus is already on my side and you are just choosing to ignore that.

please point out this general consensus you speak of.

And not to be the grammer police, since mine is usually horrible, but is there any reason you love using hyphens instead of commas so much?

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 12:20 AM

please point out this general consensus you speak of.

And not to be the grammer police, since mine is usually horrible, but is there any reason you love using hyphens instead of commas so much?

Let me put it to you this way - combine the top 50 current artists or what you all deem to be the greatest artists of today and package them all into one huge tour VS. a Led Zeppelin reunion with Jason Bonham. The Zep tour would completely outsell the top 50 artists tour without question. One band vs. 50 and it can be any mix of artists that you want. Hey maybe Jay-Z can headline. That's general consensus. People of all ages preferring to see a band of 60 year olds.

john_rambo

09-17-2009, 12:26 AM

So to confirm - he doesn't know a thing about writing music and doesn't have any sort of talent in that area.

Understood.

Well, Jack White has no ability in rapping so I guess he is trash to? You are comparing him to what makes ROCK artists great. You can not judge the two using the same criteria.

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 12:30 AM

Well, Jack White has no ability in rapping so I guess he is trash to? You are comparing him to what makes ROCK artists great. You can not judge the two using the same criteria.

It's 100 times easier to be a rapper than it is to be a real musician. You don't think Jack White could take the lyrics that he has already written and "rap" them instead of singing them?

john_rambo

09-17-2009, 12:36 AM

So rap takes no talent whatsoever?

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 12:45 AM

So rap takes no talent whatsoever?

Not in the same capacity as being a musician no - but certainly writing great lyrics in general takes talent. Be it rock or rap.

Prismatic Sphere

09-17-2009, 01:40 AM

RAP

Retards
Attempting
Poetry

Woops sorry. Was this the joke thread?[

AceD

09-17-2009, 01:54 AM

Not in the same capacity as being a musician no - but certainly writing great lyrics in general takes talent. Be it rock or rap.

I'm glad you'll concede that, seriously. Jay-Z is one of the very best lyricists, in any genre, alive. He also HASN'T WRITTEN DOWN A WORD OF HIS RHYMES since 1996! Yikes.

So to confirm - he doesn't know a thing about writing music and doesn't have any sort of talent in that area.

Understood.

So to confirm - putting together beats and producing hip hop songs from scratch, creating beats, mixing, etc, requires no musical talent?

Understood, indeed.

That's why we have so many female tennis players like Kournakova and Maria Sharapova - who really can't play tennis worth shit and are known more for being "hot". Martina Navratilova would destroy them.

True, but that has NOTHING to do with the men playing today.

Next topic - would John McEnroe destroy Roger Federer in his prime. I say without question and easily. What do you say?

Obviously like everything else you're welcome to your opinion here. Of course the equipment is much better today. Everyone knows that so you don't need to point that out.

However, while you can hold to this idea of Federer losing to McEnroe, all of the best tennis minds disagree with you -- including McEnroe himself.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

McEnroe, Agassi, Borg, Connors, Nadal, Sampras, among many others, have called Federer the best of all time. Rod Laver said he "would be honored to even be compared to Roger."

As you've said, not all opinions are equal and some people have no business in some arguments. And I think I'm going to trust these guys over you. Roger Federer is the most dominant athlete of our time and he's the best tennis player ever. You talk about "general consensus" without ever backing that up. Well, here you go: the true, validated by those who know this shit statement is that Roger Federer is the best tennis player that has ever lived. That's a whole lot more undisputable than any of the arguments you've made here. Show us the proof of what you say.

RAP

Retards
Attempting
Poetry

Woops sorry. Was this the joke thread?[

Go look up Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Jay-Z, Eminem, 2Pace, Common...many of the best poets of our time happen to be rappers.

The Postmaster General

09-17-2009, 02:10 AM

That's funny and nice try, but as I stated before - Zeppelin were considered Gods in the 70's as the albums were released. The Beatles didn't become legendary after the fact - they were legendary at the time.

No one stood around saying, "Led Zeppelin are legendary." so nice try back at you. The White Stripes are also on Rolling Stones' list of greatest bands so your entire stance in this thread is one of jibberjabber.

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 08:26 AM

I'm glad you'll concede that, seriously. Jay-Z is one of the very best lyricists, in any genre, alive. He also HASN'T WRITTEN DOWN A WORD OF HIS RHYMES since 1996! Yikes.

So to confirm - putting together beats and producing hip hop songs from scratch, creating beats, mixing, etc, requires no musical talent?

Understood, indeed.

True, but that has NOTHING to do with the men playing today.

Obviously like everything else you're welcome to your opinion here. Of course the equipment is much better today. Everyone knows that so you don't need to point that out.

However, while you can hold to this idea of Federer losing to McEnroe, all of the best tennis minds disagree with you -- including McEnroe himself.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

McEnroe, Agassi, Borg, Connors, Nadal, Sampras, among many others, have called Federer the best of all time. Rod Laver said he "would be honored to even be compared to Roger."

As you've said, not all opinions are equal and some people have no business in some arguments. And I think I'm going to trust these guys over you. Roger Federer is the most dominant athlete of our time and he's the best tennis player ever. You talk about "general consensus" without ever backing that up. Well, here you go: the true, validated by those who know this shit statement is that Roger Federer is the best tennis player that has ever lived. That's a whole lot more undisputable than any of the arguments you've made here. Show us the proof of what you say.

Go look up Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Jay-Z, Eminem, 2Pace, Common...many of the best poets of our time happen to be rappers.

No, putting together beats doesn't take much talent considering computers are other electronic equipment are often used in rap music. Now if Jay-Z got behind a drum kit and was creating beats old school on the drums - I would agree with you.

I do think that you are really pushing it with Jay-Z being one of the greatest lyricists alive in any genre of music though. Certainly the song he performed at the MTV awards was pretty bad.

As for McEnroe vs. Federer - obviously this could never be done, but if you took both in their prime and they both used wooden racquets - simple basic tennis where Federer wouldn't have the huge advantages that racquets provide today, I really believe that McEnroe would win. You can't do a lot of the tricks that Federer is mostly known for with a wooden racquet. That is my opinion. If they could do some sort of boxing like computer generated match, I would love to see it.

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 08:42 AM

No one stood around saying, "Led Zeppelin are legendary." so nice try back at you. The White Stripes are also on Rolling Stones' list of greatest bands so your entire stance in this thread is one of jibberjabber.

If the word legendary is not to your liking - how about Gods? What's most interesting in your post is even though I do think The White Stripes are great, if they sounded any more like Zeppelin in their music (not vocals obviously), they would be Kingdom Come. White is obviously a huge Page fan and The White Stripes are completely influenced by Zeppelin.

vesaker

09-17-2009, 08:46 AM

Let me put it to you this way - combine the top 50 current artists or what you all deem to be the greatest artists of today and package them all into one huge tour VS. a Led Zeppelin reunion with Jason Bonham. The Zep tour would completely outsell the top 50 artists tour without question. One band vs. 50 and it can be any mix of artists that you want. Hey maybe Jay-Z can headline. That's general consensus. People of all ages preferring to see a band of 60 year olds.

I doubt that, seriously. And not because of my taste in music but there's no band, not even Zeppelin, that could out sell 50 bands worth of touring in a single tour. I mean i doubt that's even mathematically possible but i'm no math guru.

And again that is not any kind of general consensus this is you spewing your opinion on a matter of high subjectivity without and real #'s or opinions of others far closer to these bands or the industry then you are to back your opinion.

Which, again, you have been doing for pretty much this entire thread, still.

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 08:53 AM

I doubt that, seriously. And not because of my taste in music but there's no band, not even Zeppelin, that could out sell 50 bands worth of touring in a single tour. I mean i doubt that's even mathematically possible but i'm no math guru.

And again that is not any kind of general consensus this is you spewing your opinion on a matter of high subjectivity without and real #'s or opinions of others far closer to these bands or the industry then you are to back your opinion.

Which, again, you have been doing for pretty much this entire thread, still.

You can doubt it all you want, but there is a reason why Zeppelin was offered 300 million to tour and they turned it down.

Reigh Kaufman

09-17-2009, 09:08 AM

You can doubt it all you want, but there is a reason why Zeppelin was offered 300 million to tour and they turned it down.

Merchandising and marketing rights.

Read Forbes magazine's article on the subject. Around 35-40% of the $300 million they would have actually paid for themselves by allowing the promoters to take in royalties for future album sales and merchandise over the next seven years, including downloads at the concert venues. The lump sum would be divided out straight away, but it would be from their own projected earnings. That leaves about 60%, which is still a lot. Then you the have to factor in their costs - agents, staff, etc. Of the $300 million, the band would probably make in the vicinity of around $20 million each after tax. Ticket sales would also have been inflated by 120% to milk the fanbase for every last bean and to cover the extortionate fees.

They are holding out for more.

Gods, you say?

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 09:19 AM

Merchandising and marketing rights.

Read Forbes magazine's article on the subject. Around 35-40% of the $300 million they would have actually paid for themselves by allowing the promoters to take in royalties for future album sales and merchandise over the next seven years, including downloads at the concert venues. The lump sum would be divided out straight away, but it would be from their own projected earnings. That leaves about 60%, which is still a lot. Then you the have to factor in their costs - agents, staff, etc. Of the $300 million, the band would probably make in the vicinity of around $20 million each after tax. Ticket sales would also have been inflated by 120% to milk the fanbase for every last bean and to cover the extortionate fees.

They are holding out for more.

Gods, you say?

So are you saying it wouldn't be the biggest tour of all time? I think it's interesting that they went to Zeppelin and Abba to take over for Michael Jackson as opposed to modern artists or more music more reflective of Jackson's.

labialover

09-17-2009, 09:52 AM

I'm glad you'll concede that, seriously. Jay-Z is one of the very best lyricists, in any genre, alive. He also HASN'T WRITTEN DOWN A WORD OF HIS RHYMES since 1996! Yikes.

So to confirm - putting together beats and producing hip hop songs from scratch, creating beats, mixing, etc, requires no musical talent?

Understood, indeed.

True, but that has NOTHING to do with the men playing today.

Obviously like everything else you're welcome to your opinion here. Of course the equipment is much better today. Everyone knows that so you don't need to point that out.

However, while you can hold to this idea of Federer losing to McEnroe, all of the best tennis minds disagree with you -- including McEnroe himself.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

McEnroe, Agassi, Borg, Connors, Nadal, Sampras, among many others, have called Federer the best of all time. Rod Laver said he "would be honored to even be compared to Roger."

As you've said, not all opinions are equal and some people have no business in some arguments. And I think I'm going to trust these guys over you. Roger Federer is the most dominant athlete of our time and he's the best tennis player ever. You talk about "general consensus" without ever backing that up. Well, here you go: the true, validated by those who know this shit statement is that Roger Federer is the best tennis player that has ever lived. That's a whole lot more undisputable than any of the arguments you've made here. Show us the proof of what you say.

Go look up Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Jay-Z, Eminem, 2Pace, Common...many of the best poets of our time happen to be rappers.

Thank you.

He used to write down lyrics on napkins and scrap paper that he could find when he was younger. But he got sick of doing it, so he would think of rhymes and lyrics in his head, and form it into a song on the spot. People in other genre's of music respect him for his career and how good he is. Rick Rubin has said he's one of the most talented musicians he's ever worked with. Does his opinion count?

And Hey Man I didn't miss the point on the athletic argument. You said Federer wasn't as good as McEnroe because his equipment is better. How about another example, Usain Bolt. Should his achievements this past year and half not be accepted because he has better shoes than Jesse Owens?

I get the sense you can't accept anything that's modern to be considered great.

The Postmaster General

09-17-2009, 10:04 AM

If the word legendary is not to your liking - how about Gods? What's most interesting in your post is even though I do think The White Stripes are great, if they sounded any more like Zeppelin in their music (not vocals obviously), they would be Kingdom Come. White is obviously a huge Page fan and The White Stripes are completely influenced by Zeppelin.

The White Stripes are as much influenced as old timey blues as Zeppelin is, but Zeppelin didn't have much punk rock influence. A comparison between Zeppelin and The White Stripes doesn't go much deeper, though it would be ridiculous to say they weren't fans, as most musicians are. My main issue of amusement with you saying The White Stripes can't sound anymore like Zeppelin can be reduced and illustrated by the differences in Meg White and John Bonham's drum sets. Obviously I'm putting into question your true ability to discern the real differences in the various music you listen to, if you're going to tell me how much a 2-piece band sounds like Led Zeppelin.

Plenty of publications have referred to Jack Black as a god, but I doubt you would notice anyway, so whatever.

john_rambo

09-17-2009, 10:18 AM

Plenty of publications have referred to Jack Black as a god, but I doubt you would notice anyway, so whatever.

Yes, Jack Black's work in Tenacious D is legendary, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand. :D

The Postmaster General

09-17-2009, 10:28 AM

Yes, Jack Black's work in Tenacious D is legendary, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand. :D

I knew intentionally mixing their names up would catch up to me one day.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch Adventureland. Jon Hader is hilarious!

vesaker

09-17-2009, 10:43 AM

You can doubt it all you want, but there is a reason why Zeppelin was offered 300 million to tour and they turned it down.

Well lets apply simple math then.

300,000,000/50 = 6,000,000

So you are saying that 50 of what are considered top bands today, regardless of whether you think they are "good", "rock" or are "legends" or "gods" or not couldn't pull 6 mil on a tour? Come on get your hand out of your ass cause you're reaching pretty far now.

john_rambo

09-17-2009, 10:44 AM

I knew intentionally mixing their names up would catch up to me one day.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch Adventureland. Jon Hader is hilarious!

Ha I am a huge Jack White fan and always unintentionally say Jack Black. (Or am I a huge Jack Black fan and always unintentionally say Jack White?)

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 11:04 AM

The White Stripes are as much influenced as old timey blues as Zeppelin is, but Zeppelin didn't have much punk rock influence. A comparison between Zeppelin and The White Stripes doesn't go much deeper, though it would be ridiculous to say they weren't fans, as most musicians are. My main issue of amusement with you saying The White Stripes can't sound anymore like Zeppelin can be reduced and illustrated by the differences in Meg White and John Bonham's drum sets. Obviously I'm putting into question your true ability to discern the real differences in the various music you listen to, if you're going to tell me how much a 2-piece band sounds like Led Zeppelin.

Plenty of publications have referred to Jack Black as a god, but I doubt you would notice anyway, so whatever.

I guess you can't hear the obvious Jimmy Page riffs through out their albums and the fact that Icky Thump has been called their Zeppelin album.

"The White Stripes' wildly creative music often has shown the influences of Led Zeppelin's pioneering brand of blues-rock, but the shadow of the '70s supergroup has never loomed larger than on the Stripes' sixth album"

Just type in Zeppelin and The White Stripes into Google and you will find thousands of sites that convey the very same thing.

The Heart Collector

09-17-2009, 11:07 AM

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 12:10 PM

Well lets apply simple math then.

300,000,000/50 = 6,000,000

So you are saying that 50 of what are considered top bands today, regardless of whether you think they are "good", "rock" or are "legends" or "gods" or not couldn't pull 6 mil on a tour? Come on get your hand out of your ass cause you're reaching pretty far now.

I never said that - but how many modern artists today are offered 300 million to tour? One artist. Still doesn't negate that the attendance would be greater for Zeppelin.

john_rambo

09-17-2009, 12:17 PM

I never said that - but how many modern artists today are offered 300 million to tour? One artist. Still doesn't negate that the attendance would be greater for Zeppelin.

Jay Z recently signed the largest record deal ever, so with your reasoning Jay Z is the best.

CyclicNightmare

09-17-2009, 12:26 PM

I can't even tell if this thread is on topic any more.

john_rambo

09-17-2009, 12:27 PM

believe it or not i think it is!

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 12:28 PM

this guy cant argue himself out of a wet paper bag and his defense is appealing to the fact that a vast number of retards and boring middle-aged fucks like zeppelin enough to make a tour profitable. "bitch pleeze".

What's to argue out of? The facts about Led Zeppelin's career, status and success speak for itself. You can not like them or think they are overrated, like I think about Spielberg as per that thread, but isn't it funny how in that thread - his career, status and success was considered a worthy argument by the people posting against my opinion.

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 12:33 PM

Jay Z recently signed the largest record deal ever, so with your reasoning Jay Z is the best.

Not even close - get back to me in 30 years and we will see if Jay Z is still in demand and offered hundreds of millions of dollars to tour.

vesaker

09-17-2009, 12:39 PM

I never said that - but how many modern artists today are offered 300 million to tour? One artist. Still doesn't negate that the attendance would be greater for Zeppelin.

uh sure you did in fact here is your quote, yet again....

Let me put it to you this way - combine the top 50 current artists or what you all deem to be the greatest artists of today and package them all into one huge tour VS. a Led Zeppelin reunion with Jason Bonham. The Zep tour would completely outsell the top 50 artists tour without question.

Oh i see you're nit picking cause you mean to combine the top 50 acts into a single tour that wouldn't beat the 300 mil form Zeppelin. You know what i agree with you that it wouldn't beat Zeppelin because it's not logistically possible to even do what you claim so it's not eve a valid point to begin with.

Originally i figured you you meant that the 50 top bands tours put together couldn't beat the 300 mil for Zep, since you know that statement would actually be something that might be possible but it seem what you really meant was to make some ridiculous claim that makes no fucking sense to begin with.

My apologies.

Now with that sorted out i'm not even going to bother to respond to the attendance part since as shown above what you are claiming could never happen to begin with and is pointless.

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 12:56 PM

uh sure you did in fact here is your quote, yet again....

Oh i see you're nit picking cause you mean to combine the top 50 acts into a single tour that wouldn't beat the 300 mil form Zeppelin. You know what i agree with you that it wouldn't beat Zeppelin because it's not logistically possible to even do what you claim so it's not eve a valid point to begin with.

Originally i figured you you meant that the 50 top bands tours put together couldn't beat the 300 mil for Zep, since you know that statement would actually be something that might be possible but it seem what you really meant was to make some ridiculous claim that makes no fucking sense to begin with.

My apologies.

Now with that sorted out i'm not even going to bother to respond to the attendance part since as shown above what you are claiming could never happen to begin with and is pointless.

I realize that combining 50 artists on one tour wouldn't be possible. But that's the whole point - as impossible as that would be, Zeppelin would still do better if they were able to do it. Don't like 50? How about 10 or 5? Same outcome - Zep wins.

vesaker

09-17-2009, 01:12 PM

I realize that combining 50 artists on one tour wouldn't be possible. But that's the whole point - as impossible as that would be, Zeppelin would still do better if they were able to do it. Don't like 50? How about 10 or 5? Same outcome - Zep wins.

again this makes no sense so why should anyone care? 10 or 5? how about coming up with a valid point?

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 02:01 PM

again this makes no sense so why should anyone care? 10 or 5? how about coming up with a valid point?

How does it not make sense, when there are package tours all the time with various bands combined?

ericdraven

09-17-2009, 02:10 PM

http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/OffTopic/subject.jpg

This picture would go good with Cylic's post

vesaker

09-17-2009, 04:24 PM

How does it not make sense, when there are package tours all the time with various bands combined?

That's nice, still waiting for your point.

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 04:43 PM

That's nice, still waiting for your point.

The worldwide consensus of Led Zeppelin.

vesaker

09-17-2009, 04:57 PM

The worldwide consensus of Led Zeppelin.

So the fact that a company wanted to spend a ton of money to make a ton of money off the nostalgia of what is a great rock band? That's your general consensus? That's like saying that all the shit no point movies that get made these days are fucking great cause they keep getting made and money is still getting spent on them.

Frankly Zeppelin's last good album was Houses and every one after that had a couple good tracks at best.

But in the end you still haven't even provided this list of bands you think are good these days like you said you would, you've barely given any real responses to any of the arguments put to you and you've changed the subject more then a couple of times. I really don't see the point of this thread going on so hopefully a Mod steps in and locks it down :rolleyes:

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 05:00 PM

So the fact that a company wanted to spend a ton of money to make a ton of money off the nostalgia of what is a great rock band? That's your general consensus? That's like saying that all the shit no point movies that get made these days are fucking great cause they keep getting made and money is still getting spent on them.

Frankly Zeppelin's last good album was Houses and every one after that had a couple good tracks at best.

But in the end you still haven't even provided this list of bands you think are good these days like you said you would, you've barely given any real responses to any of the arguments put to you and you've changed the subject more then a couple of times. I really don't see the point of this thread going on so hopefully a Mod steps in and locks it down :rolleyes:

The point was in response to people on this thread who deminish the importance of Led Zeppelin for people like Jay Z and other new artists as having the same impact. This is why I said that you could have a major tour with all these new artists in one room vs. a reunion tour with Zeppelin - who would bury the Jay-Z and 50 friends tour.

I did provide a list - you missed it on page 4.

Chris Whitley
Ben Harper
Daniel Lanois
Beck
Moby
The Black Crowes/Chris Robinson
Gov't Mule
The White Stripes
The Black Keys
The Answer
Blackstone Cherry
The Verve Pipe
The Screaming Cheetah Wheelies
Dead Can Dance
Norah Jones
Stevie Salas
Big Sugar
Big Wreck
Kenny Wayne Sheppard
Parlour Mob
Jet
Seal
Days of The New
Soundgarden/Audioslave
Alter Bridge
The Tea Party
Tonic
Eric Johnson
The Stone Roses
Blind Melon
Jay Farrar
Sass Jordan
Diana Krall
Joe Bonamassa
Robert Randolph
Ian Moore
Sonny Landham
Blues Traveler
and a slew more

Here is one of my favorite artists - not that too many people know who he is. Here is a video for a new song, where as usual - he records all the instruments and sings himself. His talent blows my mind. Eric Clapton called him a genius on guitar and Stanley Clarke said he was "not human", when they worked together in the band Vertu. And yes, he was actually in Poison for an album before getting fired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhCqEfkKa5s

But do I think any of the above compete with artists from the 60's and 70's? No.

jeo4

09-17-2009, 06:46 PM

vesaker

09-17-2009, 06:50 PM

hmm seems i did miss that list, sorry but i sometimes have to read through this stuff quickly while at work :D

The point was in response to people on this thread who deminish the importance of Led Zeppelin for people like Jay Z and other new artists as having the same impact. This is why I said that you could have a major tour with all these new artists in one room vs. a reunion tour with Zeppelin - who would bury the Jay-Z and 50 friends tour.

See this is what everyone has been looking for. You explained yor point of view with out resorting to shit like "they don't rock enough" or other absurd statments you've made in this thread.

At this point i can see what you are trying to say and where you are coming from without my mind just going to "wow this guy has no baking for this argument at all" cause of comments like the above example.

I agree that Jay-Z will never have the impact of Zeppelin but really only time will tell and we both could be wrong on that assumption 30 years down the road. But i also think it's somewhat unfair to compare the two since there is such a distance alot of the time between what is good Rap and what is good Rock.

Chris Whitley
Ben Harper
Daniel Lanois
Beck
Moby
The Black Crowes/Chris Robinson
Gov't Mule
The White Stripes
The Black Keys
The Answer
Blackstone Cherry
The Verve Pipe
The Screaming Cheetah Wheelies
Dead Can Dance
Norah Jones
Stevie Salas
Big Sugar
Big Wreck
Kenny Wayne Sheppard
Parlour Mob
Jet
Seal
Days of The New
Soundgarden/Audioslave
Alter Bridge
The Tea Party
Tonic
Eric Johnson
The Stone Roses
Blind Melon
Jay Farrar
Sass Jordan
Diana Krall
Joe Bonamassa
Robert Randolph
Ian Moore
Sonny Landham
Blues Traveler
and a slew more

Ok now name one of these that were as smart as Zeppelin and only ever released albums and not singles, ever. That i think is a important part to why Zeppelin was so huge cause if you wanted to hear them you had to get a whole album instead of the newest hit song. It allowed them to form a really good style that as said before has influenced so many and i don't think that's really possible these days as music like so many other mediums is just used to make the most money it can in as short a period as it can.

Here is one of my favorite artists - not that too many people know who he is. Here is a video for a new song, where as usual - he records all the instruments and sings himself. His talent blows my mind. Eric Clapton called him a genius on guitar and Stanley Clarke said he was "not human", when they worked together in the band Vertu. And yes, he was actually in Poison for an album before getting fired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhCqEfkKa5s

wow, that guy was pretty rocking though his voice sounds like a particular singer form the 60's or 70's that i can't put my finger on atm. Checked out another vid or two and will probably check out more. Not sure if he falls into your "since 2000" criteria but if he does then it just proves the other posters right that there is good music out there these days if you just dig for it.

And again no one disagreed with you that MTV is total crap ;)

But do I think any of the above compete with artists from the 60's and 70's? No.

And not to nitpick that is a hugely broad statement as there were a ton of shit bands in that time frame just as there is now.

The Postmaster General

09-17-2009, 07:11 PM

I guess you can't hear the obvious Jimmy Page riffs through out their albums and the fact that Icky Thump has been called their Zeppelin album.

"The White Stripes' wildly creative music often has shown the influences of Led Zeppelin's pioneering brand of blues-rock, but the shadow of the '70s supergroup has never loomed larger than on the Stripes' sixth album"

Just type in Zeppelin and The White Stripes into Google and you will find thousands of sites that convey the very same thing.

"I guess you can't hear the obvious Jimmy Page riffs..."

Wow. What are you smoking, Hey Man? You say you guess I can't hear something, then as proof, quote an article by a music publication that makes the exact same comparison that I did.

"The White Stripes' wildly creative music often has shown the influences of Led Zeppelin's pioneering brand of blues-rock, but the shadow of the '70s supergroup has never loomed larger than on the Stripes' sixth album"

The White Stripes are as much influenced as old timey blues as Zeppelin is, but Zeppelin didn't have much punk rock influence. A comparison between Zeppelin and The White Stripes doesn't go much deeper, though it would be ridiculous to say they weren't fans, as most musicians are. My main issue of amusement with you saying The White Stripes can't sound anymore like Zeppelin can be reduced and illustrated by the differences in Meg White and John Bonham's drum sets. Obviously I'm putting into question your true ability to discern the real differences in the various music you listen to, if you're going to tell me how much a 2-piece band sounds like Led Zeppelin.

So you do well finding that people have compared The White Stripes and Zeppelin, though I am not confident you understood why they were compared. Whereas I, who generally doesn't read articles to learn about music, was able to instinctively and accurately define why Zeppelin and The Stripes would be compared.

Thanks for the pick me up!

This all parallels how you didn't seem to understand why I would mention Bonham's 8-piece set compared to White's 3-piece. That's okay though, because I can understand why that might seem confusing if the only time you heard something referred to in pieces is when ordering fried chicken.

Anyway, you still yet have to provide anything to show Zeppelin's "legendary status" as a reflection of anything other than their longevity in the field. I love the hell out of Zeppelin, but I'm not putting some arbitrary mandate that states that any modern band will not go down in the books. I, as have others, have shown much basis for why there are many bands today that have been called "gods" or even "legendary" -- many bands have had enormous popularity and critical acclaim. It isn't like the whole world changed on the date you became less interested in hearing new artists and more interested in buying Greatest Hits compilations and you were the only music fan who thinks they are keeping it real.

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 08:15 PM

hmm seems i did miss that list, sorry but i sometimes have to read through this stuff quickly while at work :D

See this is what everyone has been looking for. You explained yor point of view with out resorting to shit like "they don't rock enough" or other absurd statments you've made in this thread.

At this point i can see what you are trying to say and where you are coming from without my mind just going to "wow this guy has no baking for this argument at all" cause of comments like the above example.

I agree that Jay-Z will never have the impact of Zeppelin but really only time will tell and we both could be wrong on that assumption 30 years down the road. But i also think it's somewhat unfair to compare the two since there is such a distance alot of the time between what is good Rap and what is good Rock.

Ok now name one of these that were as smart as Zeppelin and only ever released albums and not singles, ever. That i think is a important part to why Zeppelin was so huge cause if you wanted to hear them you had to get a whole album instead of the newest hit song. It allowed them to form a really good style that as said before has influenced so many and i don't think that's really possible these days as music like so many other mediums is just used to make the most money it can in as short a period as it can.

wow, that guy was pretty rocking though his voice sounds like a particular singer form the 60's or 70's that i can't put my finger on atm. Checked out another vid or two and will probably check out more. Not sure if he falls into your "since 2000" criteria but if he does then it just proves the other posters right that there is good music out there these days if you just dig for it.

And again no one disagreed with you that MTV is total crap ;)

And not to nitpick that is a hugely broad statement as there were a ton of shit bands in that time frame just as there is now.

If you want to pick up a couple of his albums - let me know and I will let you know which ones that you should start with, cause he has a lot if you look below.

Here he is with Poison - on a song called Stand that he wrote before joining the band, but Poison took the credit for as written by all of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmJ-Zy777Yg

Kotzen solo singing the same song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYKK_ioVZHA

(1989) Richie Kotzen
(1990) Fever Dream
(1991) Electric Joy
(1994) Mother Head's Family Reunion
(1995) The Inner Galactic Fusion Experience
(1996) Wave Of Emotion
(1996) Times Gonna Tell (EP)
(1997) Something To Say
(1998) What Is
(1999) Break It All Down
(1999) Bi-Polar Blues
(2001) Slow
(2003) Change
(2003) Acoustic Cuts
(2004) Get Up
(2004) The Best Of Richie Kotzen
(2005) Ai Senshi ZxR (Music from the animation series Gundam)
(2006) Into The Black
(2006) Instrumental Collection: The Shrapnel Years
(2007) Return Of The Mother Head's Family Reunion (Japan & Europe)
(2007) Go Faster (US only)
(2008) Live In São Paulo
(2009) Peace Sign

labialover

09-17-2009, 09:26 PM

The point was in response to people on this thread who deminish the importance of Led Zeppelin for people like Jay Z and other new artists as having the same impact. This is why I said that you could have a major tour with all these new artists in one room vs. a reunion tour with Zeppelin - who would bury the Jay-Z and 50 friends tour.

I never said Jay-Z would have the same impact as Zeppelin, I'm not sure if anyone did. I was defending the fact that you thought he didn't have talent or whatever it was we were arguing. If you want a no talent rapper that is overrated, who some people think is great, look at 50 Cent. I agree with most of what you've said about Zeppelin, they're one of my favorite bands. I just didn't like how you came off in some your posts by dismissing what others enjoy musically.

I'm still right about Federer though :D

Hey Man

09-17-2009, 09:36 PM

I never said Jay-Z would have the same impact as Zeppelin, I'm not sure if anyone did. I was defending the fact that you thought he didn't have talent or whatever it was we were arguing. If you want a no talent rapper that is overrated, who some people think is great, look at 50 Cent. I agree with most of what you've said about Zeppelin, they're one of my favorite bands. I just didn't like how you came off in some your posts by dismissing what others enjoy musically.

I'm still right about Federer though :D

People take things too seriously here.

Prismatic Sphere

09-18-2009, 03:45 PM

.
Frankly Zeppelin's last good album was Houses and every one after that had a couple good tracks at best.

I actually was just glancing through when I came across this beauty.

Really?

For me, the last great Zep record was Presence but EMPIRICALLY it is no doubt "Physical Graffiti". Every kind of Led Zeppelin song is on that record.

vesaker

09-18-2009, 06:08 PM

I actually was just glancing through when I came across this beauty.

Really?

For me, the last great Zep record was Presence but EMPIRICALLY it is no doubt "Physical Graffiti". Every kind of Led Zeppelin song is on that record.

yeah, i a huge fan of III and II but i've always been of the opinion that after Houses they started to move away from what made them rock so much. I mean i know ppl who call In Through the Out Door a counrty album, lol.

and oddly enough my fav Zep song is Friends, i've chewed ppl out for skipping that track on road trips and such :D

Prismatic Sphere

09-18-2009, 06:59 PM

yeah, i a huge fan of III and II but i've always been of the opinion that after Houses they started to move away from what made them rock so much. I mean i know ppl who call In Through the Out Door a counrty album, lol.

and oddly enough my fav Zep song is Friends, i've chewed ppl out for skipping that track on road trips and such :D

Yeah. III and Phys Graf are my faves. "Immigrant Song" was their last song driven by power chords and they moved away toward more of a folky approach.

My fave song of theirs is definitely "Achilles Last Stand". A MASTERPIECE.

The Postmaster General

09-19-2009, 08:36 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/28/flaming-lips-song-oklahoma-anthem

Reigh Kaufman

09-19-2009, 08:45 AM

The Flaming Lips - the solution to all of life's problems.

Awesome, awesome band.

Prismatic Sphere

09-19-2009, 10:36 PM

I have a gargantuan sense of humor but seriously?

Wearing a T-shirt with a hammer and sickle as a fashion statement?

Not even all the vodka in Minsk could make me that silly.

Donnie_Darko

09-20-2009, 12:59 AM

I'm glad you'll concede that, seriously. Jay-Z is one of the very best lyricists, in any genre, alive. He also HASN'T WRITTEN DOWN A WORD OF HIS RHYMES since 1996! Yikes.

LOL! You actually believe that street cred bullshit? HAHAHA!!

Do you also believe he, and every other rapper just gets in front of the mic and "adlibs" everything off the top of his head? HAHAHA!!

And all this talk of longevity and sales and LastFM artist play stats mean fucking nothing. Who's good, and who's not is completely subjective, as I've said before. Just because a band/artist sells a bazillion records in 1 second, doesn't mean they're better than anyone else, it means they're more popular.

Basically it breaks down like this, if you LIKE a band/artist BECAUSE they sell a bazillion albums, then you're nothing but a trend following, poseur bitch. Getting into a band because of hype... nothing wrong with that. "Hey, everyone is talking about this band/artist, cause they sell a shitload of albums... I'm gonna have to check this shit out.", and you end up liking them... that's cool. But liking, or even defending a band/artist you don't like BECAUSE they sell a boat load of shit... fucking stupid. I can't stand Jay-Z, but he sells a shitload of albums... still can't stand his stuff. Is he good at what he does in his genre? Couldn't fucking tell you, cause I can't stand hip-hop, don't listen to it, and therefore can't base judgment on him. But apparently, he does well.

Again, music, politics and religion... subjective, touchy subjects.

john_rambo

09-20-2009, 01:56 AM

LOL! You actually believe that street cred bullshit? HAHAHA!!

Do you also believe he, and every other rapper just gets in front of the mic and "adlibs" everything off the top of his head? HAHAHA!!

And all this talk of longevity and sales and LastFM artist play stats mean fucking nothing. Who's good, and who's not is completely subjective, as I've said before. Just because a band/artist sells a bazillion records in 1 second, doesn't mean they're better than anyone else, it means they're more popular.

Basically it breaks down like this, if you LIKE a band/artist BECAUSE they sell a bazillion albums, then you're nothing but a trend following, poseur bitch. Getting into a band because of hype... nothing wrong with that. "Hey, everyone is talking about this band/artist, cause they sell a shitload of albums... I'm gonna have to check this shit out.", and you end up liking them... that's cool. But liking, or even defending a band/artist you don't like BECAUSE they sell a boat load of shit... fucking stupid. I can't stand Jay-Z, but he sells a shitload of albums... still can't stand his stuff. Is he good at what he does in his genre? Couldn't fucking tell you, cause I can't stand hip-hop, don't listen to it, and therefore can't base judgment on him. But apparently, he does well.

Again, music, politics and religion... subjective, touchy subjects.

You really don't think rappers freestyle? Watch a battle video sometime.

AceD

09-20-2009, 04:35 AM

LOL! You actually believe that street cred bullshit? HAHAHA!!

Do you also believe he, and every other rapper just gets in front of the mic and "adlibs" everything off the top of his head? HAHAHA!!

Oh, Donnie_Darko says it's bullshit, so we must discard the facts!!

:rolleyes:

I never said Jay-Z just gets in the studio and adlibs. That's not what he does. He "writes" and memorizes in his head -- i.e., he doesn't put his lyrics on paper at any time.

You really don't think rappers freestyle? Watch a battle video sometime.

Battle rapping is rarely "true" freestying, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's the same with jam bands like Phish or the Dead: when they "freestyle" a song, it's not like they're totally playing things they've never ever played before, they're just putting new things in different patterns and on occasion coming up with something brand new.

This thread seems to have gone off track a bit. HeyMan hasn't even disgustedly dismissed anyone's opinions recently.

Hey Man

09-20-2009, 12:22 PM

Oh, Donnie_Darko says it's bullshit, so we must discard the facts!!

:rolleyes:

I never said Jay-Z just gets in the studio and adlibs. That's not what he does. He "writes" and memorizes in his head -- i.e., he doesn't put his lyrics on paper at any time.

Battle rapping is rarely "true" freestying, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's the same with jam bands like Phish or the Dead: when they "freestyle" a song, it's not like they're totally playing things they've never ever played before, they're just putting new things in different patterns and on occasion coming up with something brand new.

This thread seems to have gone off track a bit. HeyMan hasn't even disgustedly dismissed anyone's opinions recently.

But how do you really know that Jay Z never writes down his lyrics? It sounds to me like public relations hype to just to add street cred to his status. Like the need to promote 50 Cent getting shot so many times.

Look, bands and artists have lied to the public for decades about their history or who played on an album when it was really a studio musician. I am just saying that you shouldn't believe everything that Jay Z's bio states.

Anyway, Donnie Darko is right. You brought about Jay Z's money, own record label and record sales as proof as how great he is. That's bullshit. You act like he is the only artists out there that has exactly what Jay Z has or more.

AceD

09-20-2009, 02:11 PM

But how do you really know that Jay Z never writes down his lyrics? It sounds to me like public relations hype to just to add street cred to his status. Like the need to promote 50 Cent getting shot so many times.

Look, bands and artists have lied to the public for decades about their history or who played on an album when it was really a studio musician. I am just saying that you shouldn't believe everything that Jay Z's bio states.

Thanks, buddy. I didn't know that a celebrity might sometimes mislead the public to make themselves look better. :rolleyes:

There's a multitude of people who have stated Jay's ability to not write lyrics down. Producers. Other artists. Journalists. Etc. Could they all be lying? Sure. But there's a much better case to be made that it's true than that it's not.

"How do you really know..." please. This is not an argument of any sort. I could literally say that to anything you or anyone else said.

Anyway, Donnie Darko is right. You brought about Jay Z's money, own record label and record sales as proof as how great he is. That's bullshit. You act like he is the only artists out there that has exactly what Jay Z has or more.

False, false, and false. Some of that was mentioned, but not by me. Get your facts straight.

However, what is in fact true is that you keep bringing up Zepplin's money and fans and the money they got offered to do a tour as if that proves they're better, not just more popular, than any other band. That's bullshit, indeed.

john_rambo

09-20-2009, 02:29 PM

Hey Man

09-20-2009, 03:30 PM

Thanks, buddy. I didn't know that a celebrity might sometimes mislead the public to make themselves look better. :rolleyes:

There's a multitude of people who have stated Jay's ability to not write lyrics down. Producers. Other artists. Journalists. Etc. Could they all be lying? Sure. But there's a much better case to be made that it's true than that it's not.

"How do you really know..." please. This is not an argument of any sort. I could literally say that to anything you or anyone else said.

False, false, and false. Some of that was mentioned, but not by me. Get your facts straight.

However, what is in fact true is that you keep bringing up Zepplin's money and fans and the money they got offered to do a tour as if that proves they're better, not just more popular, than any other band. That's bullshit, indeed.

Sorry that I confused the comments made about Jay Z to be from you.

Yes, I brought about all those things about Zeppelin - but in addition to their MUSICAL legacy and status as one of the greatest in history by any standard. A legacy and status which Jay Z will never attain and you are an idiot if you think that Jay Z will be talked about 30 years from now.

Hey Man

09-20-2009, 03:35 PM

Jay Z just broke the record for most number 1 records set by some dude named Elvis, must be doing something right. Yes, some stuff in freestyling is thought of beforehand, but the really good ones incorporate stuff offhand too, such as direct responses to the guy before them.

Actually it's not that big of a deal anymore. It's easier for an artist to sell enough albums to land on number one now than it used to be - you don't have to sell as many albums as in previous years as the RIAA has changed the qualifications. So any big artist can land a number one charting every new release week for example.

john_rambo

09-20-2009, 03:45 PM

Actually it's not that big of a deal anymore. It's easier for an artist to sell enough albums to land on number one now than it used to be - you don't have to sell as many albums as in previous years as the RIAA has changed the qualifications. So any big artist can land a number one charting every new release week for example.

Of course! That's why it's taken 32 years for the record to be derailed.

john_rambo

09-20-2009, 03:46 PM

Sorry that I confused the comments made about Jay Z to be from you.

Yes, I brought about all those things about Zeppelin - but in addition to their MUSICAL legacy and status as one of the greatest in history by any standard. A legacy and status which Jay Z will never attain and you are an idiot if you think that Jay Z will be talked about 30 years from now.

Jay Z WILL be talked about in 30 years by the hip hop community in 30 years. Just like Zep is talked about in the rock community.

AceD

09-20-2009, 04:52 PM

Yes, I brought about all those things about Zeppelin - but in addition to their MUSICAL legacy and status as one of the greatest in history by any standard. A legacy and status which Jay Z will never attain and you are an idiot if you think that Jay Z will be talked about 30 years from now.

Jay-Z will never attain that type of reverence? Explain that to me. Because hip-hop, which is one of the biggest genres of the last 25 years, universally concedes that Jay-Z is the greatest MC of all time. Can Zep make that claim? No. Many do believe (with validity) that they are the greatest rock band of all time. Many (with equal validity) do not. Does that mean I think Jay-Z is on the same level as Zep? No. I never said that. While hip hop is huge, there's obviously been a lot more great rock bands than great MCs.

As to whether or not Jay-Z will be listened to years from now, let's take a look at the undeniable facts: Jay-Z has been popular in hip hop circles since 1986. That's 23 years. He's been popular in the mainstream since 1994. That's 15 years. Again: He's regarded as the greatest MC of all time by nearly everyone. He doesn't just dabble in businesses like many musicians, he actively oversees and incredibly successful clothing line and is a part owner of the New Jersey Nets. He's married to an hugely popular celebrity. He's building a luxury hotel in Chelsea.

Oh, and just so it's clear: He's the all-time greatest artist in one of America's most popular genres.

So. Could you make an actual argument or point as to why he won't be talked about in thirty years?

Or are you just going to call me an idiot again?

Hey Man

09-20-2009, 11:59 PM

Jay-Z will never attain that type of reverence? Explain that to me. Because hip-hop, which is one of the biggest genres of the last 25 years, universally concedes that Jay-Z is the greatest MC of all time. Can Zep make that claim? No. Many do believe (with validity) that they are the greatest rock band of all time. Many (with equal validity) do not. Does that mean I think Jay-Z is on the same level as Zep? No. I never said that. While hip hop is huge, there's obviously been a lot more great rock bands than great MCs.

As to whether or not Jay-Z will be listened to years from now, let's take a look at the undeniable facts: Jay-Z has been popular in hip hop circles since 1986. That's 23 years. He's been popular in the mainstream since 1994. That's 15 years. Again: He's regarded as the greatest MC of all time by nearly everyone. He doesn't just dabble in businesses like many musicians, he actively oversees and incredibly successful clothing line and is a part owner of the New Jersey Nets. He's married to an hugely popular celebrity. He's building a luxury hotel in Chelsea.

Oh, and just so it's clear: He's the all-time greatest artist in one of America's most popular genres.

So. Could you make an actual argument or point as to why he won't be talked about in thirty years?

Or are you just going to call me an idiot again?

And yet with all of that said, he will never ever gain the respect in the entire music community (all genre's of music) as Led Zeppelin or about 1000 other rock bands and artists.

Nobody in the mainstream knew who the fuck Jay Z was in 1986. Hip hop wasn't even that big then - pop and hair metal were the big sellers more or less for the entire decade. His first album didn't come out until 1996, so that is when his official recording career started. I don't give a shit about albums he guested on in the late 80's - he was nobody. So it's been 13 years. I am sure Jimmy Page guested on a few albums too before The Yardbirds and ultimately Zeppelin, but he isn't known for that work.

Did I say that Jay Z would be homeless 30 years from now? No - but it's fair to say that hip and rap in general - despite being huge, still don't get the same respect as mainstream artists do in rock and roll. They will always be second banana to the Paul Mcartney's and the Mick Jagger's of the world.

Why do you continue to bring up how much he owns and who he is married to? I repeat again - he ain't the only guy in music with an empire.

john_rambo

09-21-2009, 12:11 AM

And yet with all of that said, he will never ever gain the respect in the entire music community (all genre's of music) as Led Zeppelin or about 1000 other rock bands and artists.

Nobody in the mainstream knew who the fuck Jay Z was in 1986. Hip hop wasn't even that big then - pop and hair metal were the big sellers more or less for the entire decade. His first album didn't come out until 1996, so that is when his official recording career started. I don't give a shit about albums he guested on in the late 80's - he was nobody. So it's been 13 years. I am sure Jimmy Page guested on a few albums too before The Yardbirds and ultimately Zeppelin, but he isn't known for that work.

Did I say that Jay Z would be homeless 30 years from now? No - but it's fair to say that hip and rap in general - despite being huge, still don't get the same respect as mainstream artists do in rock and roll. They will always be second banana to the Paul Mcartney's and the Mick Jagger's of the world.

Why do you continue to bring up how much he owns and who he is married to? I repeat again - he ain't the only guy in music with an empire.

Jay Z must get a little respect. Outside of hip hop. He Got McCartney to perform with him. Jay Z gets lots of respect, I know many people that do not even like hip hop all that often but like Jay Z due to his ability to crossover like with Linkin Park, shit, he even performed on stage with Phish at one point. You are showing that you are truly ignorant when it comes to making ANY valid point against hip hop other than that you do not like it.