Metallica rocks! Admittedly, the old school stuff was better.
Metallica has been a disgrace since 1987. And Justice For All was the last album they put out that I can tolerate. They sold out and became complete FM wussies after that album.
I’m gonna agree, if you want real metal and hard rock there is no better place than europe.
Not that I listen to that stuff on purpose, I have a friend, he likes to listen to germans scream about whatever they are screaming about. It’s a little unnerving for me.
I like JCL. He’s my kind of music cynic. LOL.
BTW - Nickelback vs Creed in the battle of which band better represents all that is wrong with rock music today. It’s a coin flip game. Then we need to drag in a couple of these emo dorks as cage match fodder. AFI?? And how about that Queen ripoff band - damn i cant even remember their name - the ones that just put out The Black Parade? Ugh. And there are worse things on MTV, but I can’t even care to remember their names. Just a bunch of whining over power chords. It’s so bad.
Well I guess I’m one of the few that enjoyed the hair band era. I still prefer the hairbands to what is now considered rock, although I never considered the hairbands as “hardrock.” I think a lot of bands today just scream. What’s happened to the guitar solos, those rocked.
Couple bands I’ll stick with that still carry an old school torch are:
Velvet Revolver
Audioslave (although I’ve read that Chris Cornnell has left the band so that band is done in my book).
Queensryche, these guys are still rocking it out.
Metallica, there next album will be produced by Rick Rubin who said he’s bringing back the old Metallica?
A few bands that I think that are good but some are probably considered "pop rock"
Fuel (wait and see what happens with a new singer)
Daughtry (surprisingly good first album, the song with Slash is very good)
Evanescence
Godsmack (songs may sound the same but they still rock out)
Disturbed, Shine Down and Seether (growing on me lately)
no no no cpaniner.
You gotta get angry.
Here, let me fix it for you:
F--K ALL OF YOU! HAIR BANDS RULE!
Much, much better! So much more rock n roll! :shades:
[QUOTE]None of whom are real music. Only teenagers and soccer moms listen to anything on MTV or broadcast radio. [/QUOTE]
Exactly my point… but they are a part of today’s music scene… so they have to be included. There were many metal bands in the 80’s that didn’t get much/any airplay that were better than the popular bands as well.
[QUOTE]I’d put up the first 20 random performers saved on my Sirius s50 against everyone listed above, confident that 9 out of 10 of them are better muciscians than anyone SCK named. [/QUOTE]
Are you a musician? If so, how long and what instrument(s)? No offense to you as I like you as a poster and all, but I can already tell probably what your answer is going to be based on this statement. People can all like whatever they want to like of course, but when it comes down to musicianship and talent with an instrument (which is what I believe we are discussing here… if I’m mistaken, then I take this paragraph back)… it sort of takes one to know one, IMO… I know that’s not going to be a popular statement on here, but that’s honestly how I feel. And, I can assure you, I have heard all of the arguments opposing this statement before.
[QUOTE]The point is, there is some really great music being made, it just isn’t being played by MTV or clearchannel and as a result, music fans are going elsewhere (in droves!) to listen. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. But, at least back in the 80’s, there wasn’t American Idol. If MTV hasn’t/doesn’t ruin rock music forever, American Idol will for sure… like that Daughtry (sp?) guy.
[QUOTE]
Do not compare the above to boy bands or R&B pop acts. I cant name one person I know that actually listens to that crap.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not talking as much about that as I am your Nu metal and prog rock waste-of-time that’s out now. It’s the contemporary stuff that you can really compare to it.
[QUOTE]It should have nothing to do with music. [/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE]But unfortunately in the 80’s, how big your hair was had as much to do with whether you got a record deal as your music did. Nowadays, if you’re a barely dressed skank who will “sing” (lots of studio pitch correction) over a bad R&B beat with some hot rapper filling in the gaps while you display yours, you’re money. [/QUOTE]
Agreed again. The difference is back in the eighties, most of these metal bands had to have some talent to get a deal (and, I said MOST). Today, it doesn’t matter as long as you’re “sexy” or controversial… whatever. We can just digitally enhance every aspect of your performance.
[QUOTE]The folks I listen to have probably honestly shopped at goodwill and really don’t care much how they look. [/QUOTE]
They’re poor, so they’re good? That has nothing to do with musicianship at all. The members of Led Zeppelin are very wealthy. And, I can guarantee you they are better musicians than anyone contemporary you can name.
[QUOTE]The only trend that matters is the corporatization of music. It has almost put the artform on its deathbed, but real artists are finding ways to get heard anyway.[/QUOTE]
Agreed again.
[QUOTE]Bowie and Queen were talented innovators with a timeless body of work. Those other groups are just derivative hacks. Although I will say that Bowie needs to hang it up now. His live show is a bit boring anymore. But damn do I love his old stuff. Even most of the 80’s stuff he did. [/QUOTE]
I can’t stand Bowie, but I won’t deny his influence… just fwiw. Disagree with the derivative hacks statement. Everyone is influenced by someone… and really you wouldn’t believe how much. Ex: pentatonic minor.
[QUOTE]Aerosmith? Damn Yankees? Ratt? (okay they at least had one good song). Aerosmith wiped out the 70s with their truckload of absolute crap since then. Ask the band about “Angel” - They’re too embarassed to even talk about it. And whatever integirty Metallica had went out the door when Lars Ulrich opened his dumbass mouth. What a douchebag.[/QUOTE]
Aerosmith is great… all very talented. The 80’s wasn’t their best work. But, they had some good stuff come out in the 80’s, but you probably only heard what MTV wanted you to hear. A lot of what you’re saying can be applied to the 80’s as well. Damn Yankees had Ted Nugent and their music was quite good (except a ballad that MTV had to latch on to and promote to a sickening degree). The problem is that the industry promoted what they wanted to promote. And, the general public who makes or breaks bands with demand and $ doesn’t have a high musical IQ nor does it have the sophistication to discern … These are the people who generally decide what we hear… a shame for sure.
We actually share a lot of the same opinions concerning the music business/industry and the character of performers. Of course, I don’t let that influence my opinion of musicians. Most things, though, I think you’re right on.
[QUOTE]
PS - ATL - I really love talking about music. Bring it on!
[/QUOTE]
Me, too, man. And, I agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately, it’s one of the three things I don’t like to discuss (because it always just leads to disaster and does no good for anyone): 1. Religion, 2. Politics, 3. The value of Art/Music. I could write a book on this subject which would be very boring to everyone on this board except me, so I’m trying to keep it pretty short. I made the mistake of starting in with religion on the Tabor thread and had to stop myself for that very reason… length and complexity. I could write a book and it would change nothing. And, people get emotional too much over it.
[QUOTE=NinerATL2CHA;223100]Are you a musician? If so, how long and what instrument(s)? No offense to you as I like you as a poster and all, but I can already tell probably what your answer is going to be based on this statement. People can all like whatever they want to like of course, but when it comes down to musicianship and talent with an instrument (which is what I believe we are discussing here… if I’m mistaken, then I take this paragraph back)… it sort of takes one to know one, IMO… I know that’s not going to be a popular statement on here, but that’s honestly how I feel. And, I can assure you, I have heard all of the arguments opposing this statement before.[/QUOTE]
I am a living God on my daughters fisher price piano…does that count as being a musician 
I used to be more like you…used to think that in order to be “good” music, they have to be masters of their instrument and what not. Mainly because my Dad felt this way and is a pretty big music snob. Now I dont care.
I dont think like that anymore…not sure why or what happened. If it sounds good…has a catchy melody or a good hook…I’ll probably listen. I dont listen to MTV or the radio…just becasue I feel like “rock”/“pop rock” all kinda sounds the same for the most part. But I certainly dont think that these people need to have the ability of Jimmy Page or Steve Vai to put out a good record.
I am an absolutely shitty musician. I have tried to learn acoustic and bass, but I just cant get the hang of it, but I understand it. Getting boringly serious, I think the problem with discussing musicianship lies in the science versus art aspect of it. There are plenty of guys who can play what seems like a dozen notes a second, reverse handed, with their eyes closed, on a fretless rig, at lightning speed. That’s the science/pratice aspect. I appreciate it, but as a famous performer once instructed some session musicians (and I forget which one now), “just don’t play too many notes”. The art of mucicianship is knowing what a song needs, not how much you can cram in it. I call that overplaying. Songwriting to me is the balance of art versus science/techinical skill. I hear a lot of really competent, no outright gifted players who play too many notes and overplay on songs. I wish I could think of a more mainstream example, but I absolutely loved what Ray Davies said about Elliott Smith (who played all the instruments on his own solo albums, but was mostly known for his guitar work) - it was something like “[elliott] doesn’t play drums like a musician, he plays what the song needs and no more.” I think that’s what I mean. And I love his drum work BTW. He used that full but slightly muffled sound - maybe even doubletracked it. I loved that, despite it being non-technical.
I dont mind people getting emotional over music. It’s the perfect topic for doing so because it is non-threatening. Call me an idiot for who I like. I don’t care. I’ll just return the favor with gusto. At the end of the day, we’re both passionate fans and that’s what’s cool.
I like all the stories too. Especially the crazy crap and reputation stuff.
Hey BTW - Led Zep are great, but you’d be surprised who they like from the last couple of decades. SOme of the same guys I like, and they’ve shown deference to them.
[QUOTE=jcl49er;223093]Metallica has been a disgrace since 1987. And Justice For All was the last album they put out that I can tolerate. They sold out and became complete FM wussies after that album.[/QUOTE]
Hence the “older stuff was better” add on. I personally like Kill 'Em All, originally titled “Metal Up Your A$$” the best.
I am a living God on my daughters fisher price piano.....does that count as being a musician :wink:I used to be more like you…used to think that in order to be “good” music, they have to be masters of their instrument and what not. Mainly because my Dad felt this way and is a pretty big music snob. Now I dont care.
I dont think like that anymore…not sure why or what happened. If it sounds good…has a catchy melody or a good hook…I’ll probably listen. I dont listen to MTV or the radio…just becasue I feel like “rock”/“pop rock” all kinda sounds the same for the most part. But I certainly dont think that these people need to have the ability of Jimmy Page or Steve Vai to put out a good record.
I agree with you that you don’t have to be the absolute master of the instrument… but, I think you have to have talent to fully express musical ideas/innovation.
IMO:
You also have to have creativity, otherwise you can have all the ability in the world and your music will be repetitive, mechanical, boring… etc.
I just think you have to have a good 50-50 mix. Most out today have some creativity but none of them can really fully express…
I know which paintings I like best because I know which “fit” me the best, but I am not an expert in art and have no skill with brush strokes, materials, light effects, etc, so I will not claim to know which is the truly better artist in technique, etc. Only the one I like best.
Music, IMO, is also similar to literature.
You have great/talented/skilled writers in literature… then you have Ann Rice.
You have great/talented/skilled musicians in music… then you have Rick Springfield.
There is a difference, I think.
You’re probably right, cass. If that’s being a snob, then I guess I am one. I’m just trying to express my opinion. I’m not trying to be someone that everyone will dislike because of a musical opinion. It’s just what I believe… being honest. It’s hard to not have this kind of opinion when you spend 20+ years playing specific instrument(s). And, most musicians I have met agree with me, but most definitely won’t say it publicly.
I am an absolutely shitty musician. I have tried to learn acoustic and bass, but I just cant get the hang of it, but I understand it. Getting boringly serious, I think the problem with discussing musicianship lies in the science versus art aspect of it. There are plenty of guys who can play what seems like a dozen notes a second, reverse handed, with their eyes closed, on a fretless rig, at lightning speed. That's the science/pratice aspect. I appreciate it, but as a famous performer once instructed some session musicians (and I forget which one now), "just don't play too many notes". The art of mucicianship is knowing what a song needs, not how much you can cram in it. I call that overplaying. Songwriting to me is the balance of art versus science/techinical skill. I hear a lot of really competent, no outright gifted players who play too many notes and overplay on songs. I wish I could think of a more mainstream example, but I absolutely loved what Ray Davies said about Elliott Smith (who played all the instruments on his own solo albums, but was mostly known for his guitar work) - it was something like "[elliott] doesn't play drums like a musician, he plays what the song needs and no more." I think that's what I mean. And I love his drum work BTW. He used that full but slightly muffled sound - maybe even doubletracked it. I loved that, despite it being non-technical.I dont mind people getting emotional over music. It’s the perfect topic for doing so because it is non-threatening. Call me an idiot for who I like. I don’t care. I’ll just return the favor with gusto. At the end of the day, we’re both passionate fans and that’s what’s cool.
I like all the stories too. Especially the crazy crap and reputation stuff.
Hey BTW - Led Zep are great, but you’d be surprised who they like from the last couple of decades. SOme of the same guys I like, and they’ve shown deference to them.
Sorry, I posted the response to cass before I saw yours… just look at that one…:biggrin:
I agree with you on most of your thoughts. You’re definitely knowledgeable about music.
Usually, in these discussions (unless I was talking to fellow “music snob” musicians or whatnot 
), I find myself the target of mob violence or a witch hunt… and I’m the one wearing the hat.
I love the hair band stuff. All of it. The cheese which I KNOW sucks but still like as a guilty pleasure, but all of the others from the 80s too.
If you’re looking for that rocking European flavor, might I suggest Rammstein. One of my favorite bands, they REALLY know how to put on a show. I think the lead singer was on the German Olympic swim team, I believe. They did a song for the XXX soundtrack, and since have a couple of releases. A really good album to try would be Reise! Reise! released in 2004.
[QUOTE=lake49er;223053]Audioslave anyone?[/QUOTE]
Love me some Audioslave. First album was awesome, second album was mediocre, and the newest one (Revelations) rocks. I was kind of disappointed that Cornell left, but I am interested in hearing his solo album this summer.
[QUOTE=NinerATL2CHA;223115]
You’re probably right, cass. If that’s being a snob, then I guess I am one. I’m just trying to express my opinion. I’m not trying to be someone that everyone will dislike because of a musical opinion. It’s just what I believe… being honest. It’s hard to not have this kind of opinion when you spend 20+ years playing specific instrument(s). And, most musicians I have met agree with me, but most definitely won’t say it publicly.[/QUOTE]
I didnt mean to call you a music snob…I was speaking about my father. Guess I worded that wrong.
And on top of that…there is nothing wrong with being a music snob IMO…we need them to balance out all the mindless idiots who buy up everysingle piece of trash put out today.
I didnt mean to call you a music snob....I was speaking about my father. Guess I worded that wrong.And on top of that…there is nothing wrong with being a music snob IMO…we need them to balance out all the mindless idiots who buy up everysingle piece of trash put out today.
It’s cool… all good. I wouldn’t care if you did.
One time, I was threatened with violence at a bar for expressing my unpopular opinion though… true story. And, I wasn’t even doing anything threatening or demeaning, etc. I was being nice. So, I try to be more careful these days…! 
Well I guess I'm one of the few that enjoyed the hair band era. I still prefer the hairbands to what is now considered rock, although I never considered the hairbands as "hardrock."
I’m there with ya CPA, as evidence by the Hair Band mix I burnt you a few years ago. 
Though, I will say that for me, those bands appeal to me primarily for nostalgic reasons. I was in high school when some of the more popular hair bands hit it big. So at that time (long before Sirius), that’s the stuff that was played on the radio. However, I certainly couldn’t ever say that bands like Poison, Winger and Nelson were “talented.” They found a nitch and made a fortune off it. It was fun music and the concerts were very entertaining. But as far as depth to lyrics, complex instrument play and overall talent, those guys were performers/entertainers more than musicians. That’s not to say I didn’t thoroughly enjoy listening to the music though and it will always be part of my past, good or bad.
[QUOTE=lake49er;223053]Audioslave anyone?[/QUOTE]
they broke up… Chris Cornell left the group. Rage Against the Machine is back together for a show this summer.
[QUOTE=jcl49er;223093]Metallica has been a disgrace since 1987. And Justice For All was the last album they put out that I can tolerate. They sold out and became complete FM wussies after that album.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, I thought the Black album was pretty good, Sad But True? Man, I crank that song up all the time, Enter Sandman got a bit overplayed but the intro is cool.
I still MUST insist that anyone who likes fast, hard, loud, aggressive music checks out mastodon.
I saw them at Amos’ 2 weeks ago. Unbelievable.
I didn’t know there were this many bands out there. I’ll have to look.
Why aren’t they covered by the press?
I don’t necessarily like big hair, the bands I liked just had big hair. I like Hard, but not to hard. I want to be able to understand the song. I like loud, but not so loud you get a headache.