2010DigitalBoy Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 In a recent conversation between my good friend Ziggy Cygnus 6 and I, we were debating over wether new rock is as good as old rock or not. I wanted to know the opinions of other OB members. I admire and respect the older rock artists for being plain awesome. At the same time, I happen to be a bigger fan of new music. Personally, I think a lot of new artists live up to their rock ancestors. I'll further my arguement later, but I'm kinda busy now, so... lets hear your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Flasher Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 [COLOR=Sienna]I'm going to be blunt here. New Music sucks. That's my opinion, at least. I can't stand it, can't stand it all. The talent level that existed in the Golden Age is preserved only in Blues and, to a different extent, Metal. There are no original, brilliant song-writers anymore. No more Bob Dylan's or Neil Young's. There are not more brilliant guitar-players. No more Eric Clapton's or Jimmy Page's. There are no more incredible drummers. No Neil Peart's or Buddy Rich's. There are no more great bass players. No more Larry Grahame's or John Entwistle's. There are no more great singers (At least none that aren't digitally enhanced). No more Gord Lightfoot's or Janis Joplin's or Freddie Mercury's or even Axl Rose's. And above it all, there is no more heart. No more soul. It's gone. I don't know where it went, but it's gone, alive only in old recordings from the Golden Age. Besides, everyone know's Music attained perfection in 1971 and it's been downhill ever since. It's simply an undisputable fact.[/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakurasuka Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 [size=1] Old. There are some pretty good new bands, addmitedly. But honestly? It doesn't get much better than the oldies. Problem? None of my old favorites can be found on Yahoo! Music Jukebox or anything legal. So it is harder to listen to Dexy's Midnight Runners or the Bee Gees than, say, Coheed and Cambria or Panic! At the Disco. How I miss Napster. [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Flasher Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 [QUOTE=sakurasuka][size=1] Old. There are some pretty good new bands, addmitedly. But honestly? It doesn't get much better than the oldies. Problem? None of my old favorites can be found on Yahoo! Music Jukebox or anything legal. So it is harder to listen to Dexy's Midnight Runners or the Bee Gees than, say, Coheed and Cambria or Panic! At the Disco. How I miss Napster. [/size][/QUOTE] Just use BitTorrent. That's what I do anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadSeraphim Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 [QUOTE=Red 6][COLOR=Sienna]I'm going to be blunt here. New Music sucks. That's my opinion, at least. I can't stand it, can't stand it all. The talent level that existed in the Golden Age is preserved only in Blues and, to a different extent, Metal. There are no original, brilliant song-writers anymore. No more Bob Dylan's or Neil Young's. There are not more brilliant guitar-players. No more Eric Clapton's or Jimmy Page's. There are no more incredible drummers. No Neil Peart's or Buddy Rich's. There are no more great bass players. No more Larry Grahame's or John Entwistle's. There are no more great singers (At least none that aren't digitally enhanced). No more Gord Lightfoot's or Janis Joplin's or Freddie Mercury's or even Axl Rose's. And above it all, there is no more heart. No more soul. It's gone. I don't know where it went, but it's gone, alive only in old recordings from the Golden Age. Besides, everyone know's Music attained perfection in 1971 and it's been downhill ever since. It's simply an undisputable fact.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Stop living in the past, losers. You ***** about all modern music lacking heart, huh? How many of the bands of yesteryear HAD heart? You only celebrate the few that are remembered as classics, there was plenty of souless corporate sludge in the 60s, as there is today. If I judged the 60s by the most popular music at the time, not the most innovative and well-remembered, I would see a bleak landscape of souless beach boy music that slowly plateaued into harder styling as The Doors and Hendrix and co innovated. Same for the 70s, and 80s. I mean, there is some fantastic new music being produced, if you just looked for it. Powderfinger are consistently amazing, The Toadies, Local H and Say Anything demonstrate everything that's good about modern rock and roll, and Wolfmother can and do emulate and make their own the 70s sound for those people who can't deal with change. Those bands are a bit left of the centre though, so for the most part you probably never heard them. Funny how that works. So yes, go celebrate the amazingness of a dozen artists from the past and decry all modern music without even looking. Really, it's fine by me. Just don't forget that for every band you love from back then there's twenty more with wash-downed, soulless, one hit wonders, just like for all the wash-downed, soulless, one hit wonders today, there [i]is[/i] amazing artists who do amazing things with their music.[/font][/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 What DeadSerphim said. Rock didn't get worse over time, it just left the limelight. Other genres are more mainstream now, so you simply don't get as many great rock bands and musicians getting worldwide recognition. Now, if you want to find good rock, you usually have to, you know, [i]look for it[/i]. *GASP!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010DigitalBoy Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 Sweet, some kickass arguements on the side of new rock! Personally, I've never been a fan of older music (probably becuase most of what I've heard is the soulless metal of the 80s). Nowadays we have great bands all around, though, which deserve some credit as they are even better than some of the so called legends of days passed. Bands such as [COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]The Mars Volta[/COLOR], [COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Coheed and Cambria[/COLOR], and [COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Tool[/COLOR] easily live up to the old greats, and those three are even fairly mainstream, so even popular bands can be great. Rock isn't dead if you just open your mind and look around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinmaru Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I'm with Dead and John. Really, if you can't find something that you like in today's musical climate, then you've just skimmed the surface and given up. I'm not someone who thinks that everything mainstream automatically = crap, but, like John said, if you want to find the best of the current scene, then you'll have to dig a bit to do so. Honestly, it's not even that hard anymore lol. The Internet is full of good music sites that offer decent recommendations. Most of the message boards I post on have a few members who listen to [i]tons[/i] of great modern music and who are more than willing to offer suggestions. If you prefer old music to new music, then that's fine. I like them both for vastly different reasons, and I really can't say whether I prefer one over the other. But I doubt that anyone who says that new music "sucks" has bothered to look very far for the good artists and bands... either that or you have the most limiting taste ever. Come on, no original, brilliant songwriters? I guess we must live in an alternate universe where Beck, Black Francis, Will Sheff, Nick Cave, Stephen Malkmus, etc. don't exist. No brilliant guitar players? Thurston Moore, Lee Ranaldo, Josh Homme, Dean and Gene Ween , and J Mascis have all been stricken from the record. (Not to mention all of the good modern metal guitarists that I'm probably unaware of.) No great singers? Ha. Toni Halliday, Elizabeth Fraser, Maura Davis, Cristina Scabbia, Jessicka, Robert Smith, the aforementioned Nick Cave, Sam Llanas, Chris Cornell, Layne Staley, and so on and so forth must all have been figments of my imagination. They're all there: You just haven't found them yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yinyang Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I totally agree with Dead, John, and Shinmaru. You can't just turn on the radio and think that is all there is out there. You also can't judge todays music by the 80's. Musical styles and trends change, music is not static. Here are a few bands I like: Lacuna Coil (Shinmaru mentioned the lead singer Cristina Scabbia), System of a Down, Lostprophets, Atreyu, HIM, Coheed and Cambria, Fuel, Hinder, Three Days Grace, and a bunch of others. Instead of sitting on your butt whining about how music isn't as good as it used to be, just go find some that you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retribution Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 [quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Just don't forget that for every band you love from back then there's twenty more with wash-downed, soulless, one hit wonders, just like for all the wash-downed, soulless, one hit wonders today, there [i]is[/i] amazing artists who do amazing things with their music.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote] [size=1]I agree [i]wholeheartedly[/i] with DeadSeraphim. How odd, how rare. I personally like avant garde artists who try new things out. Radiohead (oh, and Mogwai too) jumps to mind first, but I'm sure there are others who get their feet wet so to speak, and dive into the musical deep end. I will readily admit, though, that it has been hard finding new and innovative music out there. I guess I'm more exposed to the mainstream and I'm not really sure where to begin my search aside from last.fm. Let's just hope the music of the future isn't unadulterated techno.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 [QUOTE=Red 6][COLOR=Sienna]I'm going to be blunt here. New Music sucks.[/COLOR][/QUOTE][size=1]No, [i]you[/i] suck.[/size] [quote name='Red 6][COLOR=Sienna']No more Eric Clapton's or Jimmy Page's. There are no more incredible drummers. No Neil Peart's or Buddy Rich's. There are no more great bass players. No more Larry Grahame's or John Entwistle's. There are no more great singers (At least none that aren't digitally enhanced). No more Gord Lightfoot's or Janis Joplin's or Freddie Mercury's or even Axl Rose's.[/COLOR][/quote][size=1]You can't possibly put Freddy Mercury in one example with Axel Rose. Axel Rose is an asshole and Freddy Mercury was one of the best artists who ever lived. Their (Queen's) best music came as time progressed, anyway.[/size] [quote name='Red 6][COLOR=Sienna']Besides, everyone know's Music attained perfection in 1971 and it's been downhill ever since. It's simply an undisputable fact.[/COLOR][/quote][size=1]Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd was released in 1979 and The Show Must Go On by Queen was brought out in 1991. Music didn't go downhill from 1971, it was just getting started. I'm going to be blunt here. You're just being an ignorant little git.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakurasuka Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 [size=1] Boo's my new hero. Axel Rose sucks, heh. But I still think the majority of old music beats out new music. You really just can't beat the Beatles. Honestly. [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadSeraphim Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 [size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Problem is, The Beatles represent less than [i]1%[/i] of the music from that time period. The good artists as a whole that you celebrate would represent less than [i]5%[/i]. And unless you celebrate every single one hit wonder and David Bowie/Beatles ripoff that ever saw the light of day, that means there's [b]95% of ****[/b] right there. How does all that rubbish beat out all new music again? The Beatles might have something (somewhere deep down) over new artists, but [i]the majority of old music was utter ****[/i]. Also, I've never liked The Beatles and don't see the attraction. There, I said it.[/font][/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakurasuka Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 [size=1] I realize there are good and bad from every generation. And I don't think there's any generation that is 'better' or 'worse'. But I have a few favorite bands, and the majority happen to be older. But, as for things that have come out recently [As in, last five years/sometime in my lifespan], I have much less taste for. I happen to love a few newer bands and such, but few are really rock. It's more indie or metal. So really, it's all a matter of opinion. [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodbye, Face Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 [font=arial][size=1]I am generally not a fan of older music, especially popular artists. All my parents ever listen to when driving are the classic rock stations. I bring a CD player in the car with me, because if I have to hear any more AC/DC or Lynyrd Skynard, I'll dramatically kill myself. Use your imagination. I am a big fan of Rush and King Crimson, but that's all I listen to as far as older music is concerned. Aside from that, the newer [url=http://www.purevolume.com/hotcross]Hot Cross[/url] stuff, [url=http://www.purevolume.com/christiansen]Christiansen[/url], [url=http://www.purevolume.com/cinemechanica]Cinemechanica[/url], [url=http://www.myspace.com/aswefasdvgfasdfg]Drive Like Jehu[/url], [url=http://www.myspace.com/davidmccormack]David McCormack[/url], etc... they basically own my soul. So, yeah, new rock kind of wins. Change my mind. (and the modern rock band names are linked)[/font][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadSeraphim Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 [QUOTE=sakurasuka][size=1] I realize there are good and bad from every generation. And I don't think there's any generation that is 'better' or 'worse'. But I have a few favorite bands, and the majority happen to be older. But, as for things that have come out recently [As in, last five years/sometime in my lifespan], I have much less taste for. I happen to love a few newer bands and such, but few are really rock. It's more indie or metal. So really, it's all a matter of opinion. [/size][/QUOTE] [size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Indie isn't even a genre. lol It's just a mindset of DIY music making, and about 70% of what people label indie is a derivative of rock, or failing that, is just plain old rock and roll. For example, heaps of people label Say Anything 'indie' as a genre, when they're just more intelligent modern rock. I mean, this being pedantic of course, but people using indie as a genre annoys me about as much as anyone using the word 'Metal' to describe Korn does to Jake. Indie can describe any genre of music, from hip hop to grindcore. It's not a 'sound', MTV just wants the world at large to think so.[/font][/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakurasuka Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 [quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Indie isn't even a genre. lol It's just a mindset of DIY music making, and about 70% of what people label indie is a derivative of rock, or failing that, is just plain old rock and roll. For example, heaps of people label Say Anything 'indie' as a genre, when they're just more intelligent modern rock. I mean, this being pedantic of course, but people using indie as a genre annoys me about as much as anyone using the word 'Metal' to describe Korn does to Jake. Indie can describe any genre of music, from hip hop to grindcore. It's not a 'sound', MTV just wants the world at large to think so.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote] [size=1]Let me re-phrase that, then. I listen to somewhat rock/alternative derived forms of music reffered to as 'Indie' by both the majority, and the bands themselves. Better? [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Shears Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 [COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]I am on the fence. My all-time, not disputible favorite band is the [B]Beatles[/B], but, as stated in my avatar, signature, and profile, I am pretty obsessed with the [B]Mars Volta[/B] too. The way I see it, old rock has to be respected because it pioneered what music sounds like today. But new rock is making it better by putting their own spin and sound to it, forever changing the face of music. They both are good and bad in their own ways. However much you hate one or the other, you must respect rock and roll itself, or it will kick you in the balls. :animecry: As for labelling music, do what I do. "Good" or "Bad". BTW, King Crimson= awesome. [/SIZE] [/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 [quote name='Billy Shears][color=DarkRed][size=1]BTW, King Crimson= awesome. [/size'] [/color][/quote] Seconded, homie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidaboy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 rock wise, i have to go old. any thing else the stuff from the mid to late 90's is pretty good (90 is current right) i also like alot of stuff from 00' to 03' after that alot of music to me became pop corupted. later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now