Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I was thinking (tick-tock) about why rock music is not selling anymore, well, I always think about it, but I've given some thought to another reason as to why it's in a shit state.

Pop culture.

Yeah, I've said that before, but lets start a serious discussion. Hopefully we can keep people like  Matt (Blink rule, duuur) and Sky (when I'm proved wrong, I run) out of the conversation.

Are we too concerened with our looks? Has what looks good, taken over musical substance?  As Korn said "you'll never get signed unless teenage girls find you attractive".

Looking back Axl was fucking ugly, so was Kiss, Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop, Freedie Mercury, Ozzy, Metallica. Iron Maiden, Judas Priest.

I'm not just talking about looks, ok? And I don't want any girls posting "Axl is a hunk" because if he wasn't famous and you passed him in the street, you wouldn't give him a second look.

What I'm asking is, do you think pop culture has forced it's way into rock n' roll?

You've got to look rock, before you are rock. We've got desinger rock gear now, all created for those who want to fit in.

Hopw many people do you see now, look alternative, but own no CDs and don't have a fucking clue about rock music ?(and saying that, there only seems to be maybe 5 people here who have a clue).

Some of this rock gear costs shitloads, new rock boots, designer t-shirts, ?50 baseball caps, designer jeans. I have no problem with people who want to be stylish, but  those pretending to be something they're not, piss me off.

Whatever happened to a t-shirt and a 2 year old pair of crap jeans bought from oxfam?

I remember meeting people, when I was young, who looked like rockers, who I could have a serious musical discussion with, because WE BOTH BELIEVED IN ROCK N' ROLL. Now we have too many fakers, too many 5 minute wonders, who care more for their looks than the muisc.

Discuss.

I think it started with MTV becoming popular.

First it seemed like the image and look was only an important factor if you were in a boy band or a pop artist. But nowadays it's taken over every genre.

But I think it's still the worst among the "pop stars". People who can't sing but "hey, they have awesome videos and they can dance!" are selling records.

I remember back when "grunge" became popular. Along with it the clothes became "cool" too. The "stars" themselves wore second hand and army surplus clothes while the rest wore expensive grunge wear.  :hihi:


I think you can see how important image is when you read some interviews with a band like VR. They were telling people they were a real rock band and dangerous way before their album was out. Just to make sure people knew.



/jarmo

Rock nowadays is a big joke. It's played by white trash idiots that banged two guitars and a drumset all day long in their daddys's garage thinking they're soooo cool,when,in fact,they had no idea what rock music is. What are today's rock bands? Nerdy idiots like Linkin Park,Blink 182 or Good Charlote,bands with no real skill or musical knowlege.

  But the fact that irritates me the most is that all these morons list bands like GNR as their "musical influences". Probably their manager gave them a few band names to learn,for them to mention in interviews.

  It's clear to me that Nirvana destroyed Rock music,making it OK to sing when you have absolutely no voice,guitar skill or songwriting ability. Listen to all teen-rock "bands" of today and you'll find a little bit of Kurt Cobain in all of them.

Allthough their frontman is a fuckin pussy,The Darkness has the best music,instrumentally speaking,that I've heard in many many years.

Except them who the real rock bands of today? Bands like Red hot chili peppers,U2,Bon Jovi,bands that were born when singing on radio and MTV required skill and talent,not only a teen-idol image.

But the situation was about the same in 87/88,but something happened(we all know what!!!). Maybe it will happen again...

Well, can't really argue about Blink or GC, but I'd bet my life that Brad Delson has about three hundred times more "musical knowledge" than Slash, Duff, Izzy, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry, Eric Clapton, and about every other rock icon you'd care to name.  At least when they were in their heyday.

Marty Freidman did this.  Dave Mustaine told him to say in interviews that he was influenced by Michael Schenker, because when he started talking about Segovia, the metal fans got confused and didn't like him.

If you look back, I think you'd find almost every big rock band just went with what the public wanted.
Look how Maiden proclaimed that they were metal and everything.  Now in magazine articles they say "We're not metal, we never were, it was just something that was tagged on us.  We just play heavy rock.  Melodic rock"
Now I love Maiden, but that is the biggest crock of shit I ever heard.


This is silly.  You can hate his voice, but he was in tune.  You can think his guitar playing was crap, but point of fact, it wasn't.  You can critisize his songwriting ability all you want, that is subjective, but a lot of people would disagree with you.


That's because they just ripped of AC/DC and Queen.  Weren't you critisizing every modern "band" for copying Nirvana?

You know, there were shit bands in the 80s too.  And in the 70s, and in the 60s.  Just because only the good ones get remembered, it doesn't mean the bad ones weren't there.  MTV never required skill and talent.  MTV always played what was popular.

It's called punk.

Look up a guy named Sid Vicious. He was in one of the biggest punk bands ever and he couldn't play.


/jarmo

MTV was huge in the 1980's as well. Image was more important back then. The thing is now, talent is not as appreciated as much as it used to be. Part of it was a backlash against the guitar "wankery" of progressive bands, like Queenscryche, Yngwie Malmsteen, and others.

However, now the opposite is the problem! People don't care to develop musical skill because bands like Linkin Park and Nirvana got away with the basic power chords, and they think they can do the same thing. We've just gotten sick of the same, boring songs.

In my opinion Grunge was the death of Rock N' Roll, the whole world turned their backs on rock n roll and went with the new hip alternative stuff. Then when Grunge died people couldn't really go back to what they rebeled against in a sense. This left the door open for all kinds of music and untalented artists to come through the door. And we're still in this phase. Maybe this will never end. I can't honestly see a band revolutionise music the way other big bands have done. I mean what else can they do that hasn't been done. Sure the next big band (if it comes) can have legions of fans and change the industry but it's already been done before numerous times.

i think tv combined with music is what is causing problems in general. i don't really care for video clips unless they're just of the band playing the song......like in a live situation.

as soon as you ad a visual aspect to music, well, you're gonna have to expect that people will also look at the image of a band etc. people watch music now, not listen to it. yeah its fine sometimes, but let me use an example.

rap music, i know this is a topic of rock music but the same problem occurs. rap that is played on mtv and vh1 is based tremendously on image. i think 90% of the people that listen to the pop rap on mtv listen to it for the image that comes a long with it. You know the ones, riding in their done up cars, with massive sound systems playing some 50 cent song driving down a main street nodding their head while looking out the window with a look taken from Zoolander........like the blue steel look.......or maybe the ferrari look. They could care less about the musical content, it's all about looking "hard" and like a gangsta. That's why they have the music playing, to convey an image to whoever's out on the street.

very few people these days when asked why they like a song say "oh its got a kick ass solo, the drums are real good or i like the chords changes they came up with in the bridge or its got a mad rhythm or rhyme or whateva". The teeny boppers would say they love music because its cool, or i like the dancing. I'm not saying you need musical knowledge to justify why you like a song, but a lot of people justify why they like it for the wrong reasons. "its got a mad ass ill video clip".

rock music has had the same thing happen to it, when ironically thanks to kurt kobain it was trying to become less about image. well sorry kurt, all you did was make songs for people that feel like outcasts and losers. They think "ah welll kurt is a loser and is proud of it.........i should listen to his music". Then you get the people that like something because its not the cool thing to like. A lot of punks do this. they dress in ways and such that associate them with being punks and like obscure bands just to show that they're not "suckers" for mainstream music like the rest of us pop music folk. me and my friend tried to start a band, he's a big fan of punk. i'm a big fan of blues rock n roll and heavy rock. whenever we would play he would stop me and say "that sounds too old rock...........or that doesn't sound "punk" enough". Hell apparently i didn't dress punk enough, and i needed stickers on my guitar. Too much worrying about the genre of music we fall into and how we look etc i mean what the fuck i just wanted to play guitar. It seems music has become lost in this way.

i mean because of the image of a band we have people that try to follow the fashion of a particular band. you know, wear the same clothes and stuff. Before, the fashion came from the music you know? But now it seems like the music comes from what you wear.....like if you like wearing big baggy clothes you start listening to rap or if you buy some chains and some studded wrist bands because they're fashionable........hell you might aswell start listening to punk.

i tell you what would be real interesting, if there was no tv. imagine if the only image of a band is what you see live and the pictures on the back of their album. all you would have is their music. It's like today we're dependent on something visual to like a song. we must see the band playing or whatever. If someone just only received an album........no pictures on it.....nothing just a name of a band and some songs.........they're forced to judge it only on the music. Once you bring in video clips and everything.......well they can like it because they look cool or dislike it cuz "that guy wears cat suits and is a fag".

Ofcourse music will always be subjective.........everybody likes different things. and ofcourse videos aren't the bad thing.....its just they help portray the image of a band nice and quick. it's the image that causes the problem and gets in the way of the music.

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...............aaaaaaam not a crooooooooook *shakes cheeks making flappy noise*  :peace:

3 reasons for me

1-Record Companies dont let Bands build
2- Lack of lead guitarist
3-All new rock songs are about break-ups.

I think Record Companies dont let bands build. THey sign them for one or two records put out there regional single that made them big in their terrortory and push it at us. when the single has run the course its off to the next band.  I think this is one of the biggest problems.

I also believe the lack of Bands with Lead Guitarist help to demise rock. So many bad ass bands of the 60's to 90's Had Bad ass Lead Guitarist which made the Band usually have two frontmen. LEAD SINGER and LEAD GUITARIST. Now without the lead guitarist bands just used a distorded guitar to keep a shitty beat.

All songs nowadays seem to be written about Breakups. I would say 9 out of 10 new "rock" songs you hear are about breakups.  I want songs about Drugs, Alcohol, Parting, Sex, the core that made Rock what it was from 70's-90's. I dont need to know how you cried when your gf left you.

I agree. In the 70's with bands like Maiden, Priest ect the record companies would ensure that the bands they release do extensive tours, to build up a fan base.

But with modern technology they don't have to spend the money on tours, and can drop a band, if things start to go wrong, instead of sticking with them and doing what they should.......support them. Get a cute guy, sling a guitar on him, write a so-so song about his girlfriend....you've got 20,000 single sales. Stick them on a few festivals, if he crashes, no worry, there's 40,000 other cute bands awaiting.




Yeah, probably blame punk for that one. But rock n' roll is out there, I tend not to listen to bands who have no lead guitarist, because solos make me orgasm.

I'm surprised more GnR fans don't listen to bands like EF, Dog Toffee, Hellacopters, Backyard Babies, Wildhearts, Silver, Turbonegro ect ..... because these are the bands that GnR influenced, and you can hear it in their sound.


Yeah. See if you agree with this point........

Right. When punk first became huge, the whole system was taken over by leather clad gimps (see Sid Vicious), who took it as a battle cry to act violently towards anybody or anything. The whole point of punk was missed. Of course alot of people will say punk is dead, but it's not. To those who see it through the eyes of MTV, yeah, that's dead, because like every genre, it will only sell for so long. That applies to very genre.

So what we've got, when a genre is exposed on MTV, is the generation of idiots who miss the point of the music, and just see image. It's pop culture. These people don't care for the genre.

When a scene first starts out, it's hard to get the records in shops. Would you say that the person who aquires the CDs by searching and seeking the out is the true fan?

Obviously my above point doesn't apply to everyone, beacsue I'm sure there have been people who have got into metal, beacsue they saw a Linkin Park video. But it's still safe to say most Linkin Park fans, have no idea about metal, and are into it, beacsue the lyrics, and image relate to them, and thosands of others because it's inoffensive, compared to other forms of metal, but still protrayed as rebelious, in a child like way.

OK,first of all,thank you for not agreeing with me in a decent manner.Lots of people in this board just call you a fuckin idiot when your opinion doesn't coincide with theirs
 And to answer your critics:

1. I don't mean "musical knowledge" as in stuff you klnow about music,but how they play their instruments. All I care about is that they can't play it like a real rock band.

2. Of course lots of people won't agree with me about Nirvana,they're still a popular band.But in my opinion Kurt Cobain's charisma wasn't about music at all.He just appealed to young people that felt they didn't fit into society.He was a reject,just like them.

3. It's ok to be inspired by other bands.Even GNR has a little Aerosmithor Led Zeppelin in their sound. But,like I said before,musically speaking,Nirvana are not an example to follow.

4. True,there have allways been shitty bands.But there were also good ones. Right now almost no good music makes the charts.

i think the change in the rock attitude over the last 20/30/40 years has a lot to do with the increase in people's disposable income... sure it was rock and roll in the 60's and 70's to have a t shirt and jeans but now i think most people associate that image with being poor...and bands can buy custom guitars and expensive gear because they can afford it...unfortunately any joe doe seems to think they can pick up a guitar and be a great guitarist now because they can afford it

and kids are easily manipulated anyway...plug them with hours upon hours of crap and they will think its good...so i guess the rise in advertising and selling the product has been influential albeit not a good influence...

there is also a negativity associated with rock music in general, none of my family like the current rock music, they say its either its too depressing, or its in your face or there isnt much fun involved with it...too many bands are hitting a guitar as hard as they can and shouting expletives thinking its rock and roll when its actually just crap..rock and roll used to be uplifting and intelligent but 90% of rock music now is just a waste of time

I must say that MTV is been having a lot to do with it..they basically only play pop and all of their reprsentatives, you know, Britney, Christina,......they also play lots of Hip-hop, and that has everything to do with the ratings, they know that rock and metal ain?t very accesi ble tothe kind of audience that give them the ratings. has any of you had the chance to watch MTV latin America? I must say it?s ten times better, they ply a lot of rock, and even videos that you don?t get to watch that often.

Someone said something about rockers being ugly....well I guess it also has lots to do with image, people love to see their share of well-manicured guys and that brings us to the crappy boy bands, that?s also why they are so accesible other than because of their music. The most talented guys in rock throughout history are not the best looking(Hendrix, Slash,Page,to name a few)and I?m sure tyhat has a lot to do with the topic being discussed. Anyway, rock?s quality has clearly gone downhill but there?s still good stuff out there, the thing is that is not exactly the stuff you hear on the radio, you?have to know where to look.

No good music ever made the charts consistently, because it's all about flavour of the month.  That's what the charts are.  Like Chris said, it's all about what's 'cool'.  Things get old and are no longer cool, and it's then bad for your image to be associated with it.  So one week they buy a busted CD, then 50 Cent the week after, then the Cheeky Girls the week after that.

I think Chris pretty much hit the nail on the head in his first post.  The reason rock died is because people these days aren't concerned with music.  They're concerned with whether their jeans are torn, whether their mobile phone can take pictures, and Big Brother.

Having a conversation with most teenagers is like having a lobotomy.  I talk to people, I talk to my friends, and about three of the people I know have a clue.    A lot of people listen to one or two bands that I'd consider have integrity, or a genuine belief in what they do, but for the most part, they listen to MTVisms.

That's the problem, because that's what rock is, it's a feeling, it's about the desire to make music.  Look at all the artists who make rock or rock n' roll.  Compare Les Paul, to Deep Purple.  You see, some of them are so far removed from each other, that you couldn't even try and argue they play the same kind of music.  That's because they don't.  But they do the same thing.  They live it.  They have a geniune talent, and creativity, and love of music.
But people now don't.  They don't care.


That and money.

I dont know... image & look was important for the Beatles way back in the 60's. (The haircut, the clothes, my mom told me all about it).  I know some people consider them 'pop' and others call them rock, but I think image is an important part of rock, as it was for GNR.    And MTV was very popular in the late 80's.  What year do you say that rock died?


Everybody always says that about the current generation - no matter what decade we're in!  It's always "their" fault b/c they're so image-conscious blah blah.  But you know what - you're right in a way.  In every generation, the majority of people dont really give a fuck about music.   They consume what they see on mass media such tv and radio.  So, from 'doo-wop' in the 50's to disco in the 70's to hip-hop of today, they'll eat what is marketed the most.

So do we just blame it on MTV?  Yeah... we could.  But we have an advantage these days that other generations didnt.  We can communicate with each other through the Internet without the intervention of tv and radio.  There are now many more sources of information than before.  I've learned about bands I'd never hear of otherwise b/c of this board.

So with this advantage, why isnt rock taking the underground by storm to rise up and conquer the masses one day?   Is there a Mick & Keith, or Axl & Slash waiting in the wings somewhere?  Maybe they havent been signed because record labels dont believe in the relevance of rock anymore?


yes...and these people are also more culturally diverse.  Not all of them will identify with a long-haired, guitar playing rockstar.  You can dislike them for it, but it's all about representin'.   If they identify with Tupac more than Bob Dylan, why should we automatically hold them in contempt because of that?  At the risk of getting beaten up, I say I like some of Tupac's songs & lyrics.

So among the rockbands of today, is there anyone who represent a large portion of today's youth?  Is there some angry young male that a lot of us can identify with?  

The spokesman of this generation is.... _________    ???

You see, the rap world has Eminem, who do we have?  Jack White?  :-\

It can't happen, it won't happen. Never, ever. The 4 major companies have made sure there will never be another hugely sucessful rock n' roll band. Not only do the companies dictate what people wear, they also control the airwaves, the promotion, the bands, the producers, everything.

The only way rock n' roll can possibly rise to the surface again, is if those who care about it, support it, but that ain't gonna happen.

Either way, i don't care. Rock n' roll bands will always release music, so I'll always have my fix.



Me?

Nah, that's a good point. Maybe there's just so many genres of music now, we don't know what to like. Nope, that's not it.

I think even the best rock music is usually a fad. Kiss was a fad because people thought the blood vomit and fireworks were cool. How long did GnR last, 6 years? Some fads are better than others, but they're all fads. Sometimes they pop up again to satisfy nostalgia, like Aerosmith and Kiss.

Metal doesn't care about selling records, just about the music. Didn't Metallica's Kill 'Em All peak at 143 on the charts?  :hihi: I think popular rock is history, but there is still great metal being made.

The truth is, great music is being made, but it isn't found on the charts. The current fad of rap sucks, and maybe there will be another rock fad sometime, like the glam bands of the 80's.

I would like to add something here. A lot of music seekers are discouraged by the underground fans who rave about hardcore punk, black metal, true alternative rock, and other inaccessible genres. Pop music fans aren't used to it. You have to be so patient and open minded when looking for new music, because 90% of underground bands suck, no matter the genre.

A lot of people look to music for entertainment, not art. Pop music is music for people who don't like music. It requires a degree of thought to appreciate more complecated music, and this is too much to ask for some people.

Could it be the 'decline' of rock' is more to do with the ''death'' of the major rock acts out there rather than anything MTV did

Look at the late 80's early 90's the dominant rock/metal groups either fell to bits or produced shite music

Queen and Guns N Roses broke up, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden changed lead singers, Van Halen and Motley Crue are generally regarded to have churned out substandard music, Metallica took 6 years to release another album -  i could go on with an endless list i think we could all name major bands that vanished in the late 80's early 90's

The new rock acts that emerged weren't sufficiently good to replace them (Pearl Jam and Nirvana are rare exceptions) and so the genre slowly faded into obsurity while other genres gew in strength

Its just a point of view,

True, image was important before MTV. But I think it became too important when MTV came around.

The Beatles had an image, but they could play and sing. Same thing with the Rolling Stones, Aeromisth, Led Zeppelin etc.


Rcok isn't dead for me. I stil listen to it, several of my favorite bands still release records.... Maybe they're not on MTV as much as they used to because rock isn't the most popular genre at the moment.

Rock is probably dead as a way to make lots of money for the record companies. They'd rather sign a Justin Timberlake than a rock band. A Backstreet Boys clone rather than a rock band.

And it seems like hip hop is where rock music was at one point. I wouldn't be surprised if people get tired of it soon.



/jarmo

     There's still some good rock out there, it's just a little harder to find then it was in 1991. Bands like the Darkness and Jet in my opinion are going to be the next generation of rock.

     I just miss bands that have lead guitarists and great singers, etc. Take me, I just turned 14, have been a rock fan all my life and while my peers are growing up on Good Charlotte and Linkin Park, I'm listening to KISS, Guns N' Roses, and Alice Cooper, which isn't a bad thing. I've already turned quite a few of my friends into GNR fans, with Greatest Hits, Appetite and VR.

     Rock isn't popular as of right now, and if it's true that history often repeats itself, then we will have an uprising in rock soon.

Great thread by the way!  : ok:

Could the "politically correct" revolution have anything to do with it? It seems the music industry tries to be as "diverse" as possible now. They don't try to appeal to rock loving white people anymore, just wiggers.  >:(

thats so true...

theres also no larger than life personalities in recent rock history...its almost like they are afraid to be popular

and even though in the past the phrase sex drugs and rock and roll was associated with rock music, when you listen to rock music now, the sex part is almost invisible...its more associated with hiphop now that rnr...isnt that sad

For all this talk of rock being unpopular - i see the opposite, intrest in rock is as big as ever - just no one is there to satisfy the proverbial thirst

Look at the press The Darkness, Muse and Jet get

They are pretty damn average but people are just desperate for anything and are happy to get what they can

The chance is there for the taking -  a group with genuine ability would take the world by storm, its not MTV is screwing rock fans over (look at the way they show the Darkness and Linkin Park) its that nothing is out there - its all so average, rap on the other hand has managed to put out some intrigueing characters and there is some great songs too

There's no consiracy against rock

If GNR returned with some genuinely good music - well its scary how big they would be again....

But look at how long GnR had to tour to become a hit. They were dangerous. You can't sell dangerous easily. And no record comapny will take the steps to promote a band without guarantee.


But they're both bands selling something that is used, not anything new. Linkin Park came out 6 years after Nu-Metal first struck, and The Darkness, well?


Are independent dance distros counted for the charts? Yes. Are rock? No.

I think Izzy is right, there is plenty of interest in rock. But it's piss rock. Stuff that girls and my granny listen to. Real balls to the wall rock n' roll is being shunned for medicore groups like Muse. Bollocks it is. No more charatcers in rock? Yes there fucking is, of course there is, you'll just never see it on TV.

Big corporations are part of the problem.  Think about it, if a rock n roll band, with real values, and a love of music, not money, toured their asses off, released independantly, and devloped a fan base they still probably wouldn't get signed, because no CEO is going to want to have to deal with someone with an opinion.  Thing is, the record companies won't have anything to do with you unless you do what they want.
Why sign someone who would offend people when you can have Busted who sell more singles and will make you more money anyway.

And anyone with an opinion wouldn't want to deal with a clearchannel executive who controls 99% of the music venues in Europe and the States.  Because if you sign to them, and piss them off, then you basically get barred from every large venue across the world.

I'm sure Electric Frankenstein could've secured a major label deal if they'd wanted to but I'm guessing they didn't want to be told what to do by people who only care about money?

What about RATM?  I know many of you despise rap-rock, but Zack de le Roche's lyrics were anything but fluffy, unopinionated songs about breaking up with bimbos.

Militantly left-wing ideology should make any record label guy gulp for air and pull at his tie nervously, but they were signed to a major label.  Is it because Americans are really left-wing & liberal?  :rofl:   No, of course not.  But Rage did well because, like GNR, they had all the elements: good lyrics, frontman and guitarist.  And an image to boot.  Too bad they broke up.

Yeah, they were offered one after their Monster Magnet tour in 98/99. Fact is, they've always done it for themselves, by themselves. They've released Cds/ albums/singles on thousands of record labels from Subpop, to Nitro to Victory (the only deal they ever signed, and got screwed, 1999 they signed that one. 2 albums.) They are offering various companys THEY like, sponsorship on their new Cd so they can put it out, without a major label, or any label. The sponsorship will pay for the CD, EF get the profits. An idea that if more bands follow, could elimanate major labels for good.

But most metal/punk/rock n' roll bands are better on indies, majors wouldn't have a clue how to promote their music anyway. With majors if the band don't sell, the band pays, or owes. With Labels, because you only get paid after you make the money, if the band fail, so does the label. There's a lot of hard work involved in promoting an album released on an indie.


Dog Toffee had a deal with Sony in '97. Two album deal I think. Sony wanted them to get a frontman. Dog Toffee had 2 great singers for fuck sake! They spent two years fighting to get off Sony, and got a good payout from the contract, but it was nothing compared to losing 2 years, where they couldn't release anything.
You'd think that would be the end of it? No. When Dog Toffee's single Radio was getting airplay on err, Radio 1, a few years back, Sony made a point of telling Radio 1 to take it off their play list (Remember, Sony are big bucks for any radio station, don't fuck with them.).

You gotta keep fightin' for rock n' roll. As Dog Toffee say "The Future Of Rock N' Roll, Is In Your Hands"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another point about rock. Since day one, it's been loud, and mostly good fun. And always parents despised it. Now half the rock songs on the radio can be liked by elders. That is not fucking right. And you know that everyone here, has a Granny that thinks Muse are "Lovely young men". There's no balls. We need it fast, loose, hard, heavy, yet beautiful. To be honest I do find enough bands to satisfy my craving, but I'd like more people to like what I do, then I could act all elitist and say "I liked them when they were nothing, you're not a tr00 fan like me, fuck you batman, fuck you."

Rock isn't dead, it's just changing. Things always change. It's a fact of life. Some people in their 60s will say that Elvis was rock n' roll and everything after him was dirt. People in their 50s will say that Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were rock n' roll and everything after that was crap. People in their 40s will say that Aerosmith was rock n' roll and everything after was poop. People in their 30s will say that GN'R was rock n' roll and everything after sucked! People in their 20s will say that Nirvana was rock n' roll and everything after has blown. ETC.....

i don't think that is necessarily true. when i'm in my 30's or 40's (im 18 now) i won't be saying "Nickelback and Linkin Park were the greatest.......everything after that sucked". There's no great rock n roll band in mainstream music for my generation. My generation is the rap & rnb generation. So fans of rock n roll have to go back in time to find music they like. Its a lot easier than finding new bands especially when a lot of the underground ones are really terrible.

In regards to my music i'm basically living in the 60's and 70's. When i grow old i will probably say "the best rock n roll bands were in the 70's........everything after that sucked". Ofcourse there's one or two exceptions, like GNR but even now that was a long time ago.

The problem is that so many bands are created because they're inspired by other bands. Ok its a good thing to be inspired, but there's a difference being influenced by a band.......and bloody wanting to "play like that band" ah i'm not really making sense. The whole nu metal thing erupted because teens got inspired to make a band like that and now we had the flood of them. There's not much inspiration in the current scene for a young budding guitarist to make a rock n roll band.

The reason i started learning guitar is because the music scene of today didn't satisfy my listening needs so instead of whining complaining and bitching about it i'm playing guitar like no tomorrow to make my own fucking rock n roll. In the 70's a kid probably wanted to learn guitar to be just like Jimi Hendrix, or Jimmy Page. Now who the hell do kids have to look up to. Chad Kroeger? Nu metal shite was created.......and its inspired a whole generation of bands.....which will spout more and more.

Ah well all i'm gonna do is keep playing guitar and join a band and fucking rock out infront of two drunks at a shady pub.  :smoking: And if the pub circuit is as far as my band gets i'll be happy.  :beer:

I totally agree with you Oddy. I to, love rock music from all generations.  And, I think there are great rock n' roll bands out there just waiting to be discovered.

Let's take the Uk rock n' roll scene over the last 10 years:

The Darkness
Dog Toffee
Wildhearts
3 Colours Red
Psycho A Go Go
Manic Street Preachers (before they went indie)
Cheesemakers
Yo Yos

All these bands have released astounding albums, only the Darkness sell. Why? Because they are the only ones playing 70s style rock. Could it be that because of the media, people are not willing to accept anything new, or interesting, and only listen to bands who remind them of old school bands or something thats been already played out?


I don't think that's correct. I'd be hard pushed to find a band that I've heard over the last 3 years that I'd call crap. Maybe Manic Hispanic, they were a let down.

But I do tend to listen to stuff that has been released by 20 Stone Blatt, Junk, Mans Ruin, I Uesd To Fuck People Like You In Prison..

if you keep your finger on the pulse, you'll feel the beat.

Where's Therapy? on your list?

They were pretty succesful back in the 90s as far as I remember.


/jarmo

Only the stupid ones.

sorry to flatter you but not everyone is like you chris misfit. not everyone searches for underground bands or bands that aren't shown on mtv or other music channels. i was speaking generally. a lot of people don't know the underground or local rock scene.

and did you ever think the darkness are selling because people actually like 70's rock. not because the media says so or anything, but they actually like the style the song structure the solos etc. I like the darkness for the riffs........i don't care if they're obviously stolen............the harmonized guitars and solos. I also like young heart attack. can you see a patteren here. I like 70's rock. I downloaded a monster magnet album powertrip, i love it, when i find some money i'll buy it. I learnt of them from this site. i like 70's rock not because the media tells me to, because i genuinely like it. It just so happens that thats all the media wants to show, and other bands don't get to be seen. I will accept new stuff definetly if its good. so far they have been, we'lll see what other bands i learn from this site that i like. if they play rock n roll hell i won't discriminate as to whether they're in the public eye or not. hmmmmm next on my list.......i guess i'll check out the wildhearts.

I'm very aware of that. But as I said, you shouldn't comment about something, if you don't at least try it. If you keep your finger on the pulse, you'll feel a beat.

In reply top the Darkness cooment: Of course they like it. They like it because it reminds them of something else. We're not going forward.

Great to know the Monster Magnet word keeps on spreading.  I realise what's being said about the music people listen to and the rock that is 'popular' sucks but like it's been mentioned by looking around for stuff you can find great music.  I believe it was Misfit who mentioned Gluecifer to me when i was going to see Monster Magnet since they were the support band i thought they were great and have got several of their albums.  Hurricane Party a band who ive mentioned are ten times the band The Darkness are and are on the verge of making it big i started a thread on them.  The point is these days there does seem to be more crap rock bands if you just watched MTV you would be hardstruck to find any good music but all you need to do is search for it as long as there is good music out there i don't care whether it's big or not id rather it was but Monster Magnet are an example of a band who had very little success until Powertrip their fourth full length album but all their music is great and i love all Gluecifer's stuff but without Misfit mentioning them i probably would not of got there early to see them.  I hope the demise of rock is temporary it's been on a downer for years and hopefully it will get a boost again if it doesn't well ill get over it cos there are plenty of bands i like who i know will never make it as big as they deserve but as long as i can listen to them and enjoy them im happy enough.  Even if great bands do make it big there will always been great ones who never get a chance who need searching out, and there will always be crap that makes it big from Culture Club to Busted, Linkin Park to Nirvana [Just my view]

fine i won't comment on something i dont know enough about. cover bands have taken over my local pubs and stuff. its a lot easier for people to digest, they don't have to really listen to the song of the lyrics because they know it already. if i hear mr jones one more time i'll go nuts.

in regards to your darkness comment about not moving forward, well there's a good saying, if it aint broke don't fix it. Ofcourse the darkness remind people of something else. You can say that about any song or band "oh they remind me of this or this or this". It's pretty much impossible for a band today to be completely unique and not sound remotely like anything else. And the bands that try to just tend to scare the common fan away with their weirdness. I like the darkness because of the songs and particularly the guitars. I guess their guitars sound 70's so technically they sound 70's so technically i like them cuz they sound like the 70's so technically i like them because they remind me of something else. god i hate the word technically. reminds me of year 2 arguements he he he woops gave you a reason to disregard that point doh!

and in australia there's a show called rage on the weekends. it shows music clips. along with the pop of today they show a lot of obscure stuff. i wouldn't call it underground because obviously its on tv........but a lot of the clips are cheaply made by small time bands. they show a lot of stuff (8 hour show).....so there's tonnes of stuff on there that's not on vh1 and mtv and i love it. i sit there with a pen and a notepad writing down songs and bands. but a lot of the unknown bands IMO suck. not because they're bad, but they're just not my type of music. obviously some people like them if they've made it on tv, even though its not a primary tv channel. but yeah occasionally there's a rock n roll band on there that i aint never seen before that are good. anyone ever heard of 67 special? anyway.

oh i downloaded a wildhearts songs called caffiene bomb and news of the world. fuck they rock! : ok: good guitars, good drumming, catchy lyrics. they remind me of an old school punk band with a heavy rock n roll influence.........does that mean i like them cuz they remind me of something else..........or because i like the guitars drumming lyrics etc?

is their newest album monolithic baby(i think?) better than powertrip? i dont wanna seem like a bastard downloading their powertrip album and not buying it, but money is real tight.......i'm thinking of just getting monolithic baby.

I got Monster Magnets GH today (to add to Monolithic baby!) - awesome band

There is quality music out there - i got the new Nightwish album today too - fanastic stuff

So far its been a good year for rock music its just so much harder to find u need to go through places like HTGTH to find out about it, this place has introduced me to hundreds of new bands

Both of those songs rule. They're just an excellent band. And you're the first person to mention how heavy the riffs are, I fucking love it, they'd put most metal bands to shame.

Try downloading Everlone, Love You Til I dont, Suckerpunch, Nita Nitro, Red Light, Green Light, I wanna Go Where The People Go, Weekend and My Baby Is a Headfuck.

I would say Powertrip is better but only just most reviews think Monolithic Baby! is the best album to date, if you want psychadelic Hawkwind style rock go for Spine of God or if you really love Powertrip i would pick that over Monolithic Baby! fact is you can't go wrong with either though if you love Powertrip then Monolithic Baby! is the album most like it.  But for a more chilled psychadelic thing anything from Tab...25, Spine of God or Superjudge [they cover Hawkwind's Brainstorm] will do while Dopes To Infinity is like a cross between the 2 whereas God Says No is probably their weakest overall album and should be bought last they also have a good slef titled EP available.  So much stuff and all worth having but in conclusion my advice is start with Powertrip : ok:

P.S. If i was you i would download both and make my own decision

Yeah, but it's obviously not just that.  I mean did you see a huge increase in interest in Zep, Queen or AC/DC last year?  No.  Because they just market the Darkness as The Darkness.  And kids just buy the Darkness.  If you went to a Darkness gig, you'd probably see 2% of the people there were old and hairy, maybe 5% actually owned an album by a AC/DC and the rest were kids without a clue.

Sounds far more like a punk attitude than a rock and roll attitude

its also a fallacy that older people dont like current music, the people who grew up listening to sabbath, zeppelin, aerosmith and many other good rock bands would be in the 50's now...and there isnt anything wrong with those bands

the wildhearts are a good rock band but lets face it theyre not exactly producing anything new


so how do you define balls to the wall rock? you mean it has to be more offensive?  ive heard bands sing about mutilations, rape, and killing...is that not enough?...and you wonder why these kind of bands arent popular...the answers damn obvious dont you think? id rather listen to a band that rocks singing about current issues than listen to offensive crap like that

Not more offensive, are you six?

I'm talking about BALLS, good strong riffs, solos, attitude. Not a fucking college prick standing on stage singing about tulips, and boring the crowd to death with Radiohead B-side songs.

nope I'm not Nicky, my name is Axl  :yes:

Also rock bands make a single, maybe two singles and fill in their album, so after the first single has run its course there is nothing left to push out as a single.  Look at Audioslave they have gotten 5 singles off their last album. Not many rock bands get past their second single. 10 years ago you would see this, nowadays...

It's one single, and you're done.

-- 1  ASHLEE SIMPSON GEFFEN 407,950 -- First week sales debut.

That depresses me and proves how much more a created girly fronted band without anything prior and be crafted to sell big.

Isn't that Jessica Simpsons sister?  So basically, TV sold these records.

The world sucks.

Yes its her little sister with black hair and she has a "band" her debut has debuted better then anything her sister has released.

I was thinking this today, while by some strange chance, VH1 actually was playing videos. I wondered if there were any ugly talented people I could see again one day. Seriously though. I mean, MTV was great in the begining, but they really did ruin the industry too, because everybody had to be perfect looking. It's the same way with TV shows, almost everybody has to be perfect looking. It gets so old.

The title of the first video played by MTV really predicted the future to a T.

I'll be thruthful here. Y'know since I've been on the net, and in real life, aside from bands, I've met/spoke to maybe 5 people who like the bands i do. When I joined here, I thought for sure there'd be people who are open minded regarding music, but I found the opposite, and to be honest I probably came across as a cunt trying to force the bands I like on people (that being said I never tried to get anyone into Anal Cunt, I always tried a band I'd thought they'd like)(and that being said I never tried to push bands on anyone who didn't say "Music is shit now")


So no more. I can't be assed. I will continue the good fight via my personal life. I couldn't be bothered with the whole it's gotta be big, girly and downright 1987 attitude.

"All I see are little MTV babies, playing their little MTV games"

ah thats too bad. im addicted to monster magnet and the wildhearts because of this board. And remember i think when people were saying that music was shit, i think they meant popular music ie everything on tv and radio. Well thats what i meant i can't speak for everyone, but they'd compare the popular music of today to the popular music of the 70's like ACDC or the Stones etc and think we've gone downhill. Ofcourse i know there must be some bands out there that i like.........but now its just a lot harder to find them.

and...........yes you did come off as a cunt hehehehehehhe :rofl:? :smoking:

Video Killed the Radio Star? Is that the first video?

Well if MTV got rid of REAL WORLD, ROAD RULES, PUNK'd, Vive le Bam, ect (not saying cancel them but put them on another station.
And if VH1 got rid of A-Z celebrity, Best Week Ever, I love the ....(everythign under the sun)

Both these stations could play alot more music shows, Like Headbangers ball, Music Videos, BTM's, Concerts, and what not so people could see something besides whats on TRL. I only have MTV and VH1 and I have to wait like til 4 am to catch some videos on VH!.

The problem with MTV and popular FM radio is that these stations only play music that is supported by loads of cash.  You have to pay big bucks to be exposed on these formats.  Record companies these days are also only looking to sell a certain product to the masses.  It's not about the music so much as what the people will purchase.  So if you want to hear some good rock music that hasn't already been popularly exposed, go to local rock shows, find out what musicians you like are listening to, and listen to XM radio.  XM radio stations have a couple Top 40 and Hits stations set aside to play whats popular right now, but the majority of the stations, including Boneyard (older hard rock, including GN'R), Deep Tracks (classic rock), Liquid Metal (modern metal), XMU (underground college rock and alternative), Fred (70s and 80s alternative, punk, and grunge), XM Cafe (mellow alternative), Top Tracks (big cuts from the 60s, 70s, and 80s), Ethel (modern alternative rock), Squizz (post-grunge metal-rap-funk fusion), Fine Tuning (classical, jazz, and rock melded together), The Loft (lyric-based soft rock), XM Music Lab (progressive rock, jazz fusion, and jam bands), Unsigned (unknown rock bands unsigned to major record labels), Fungus (punk fock, ska, industrial, surf and other DIY styles), Lucy (the most important and well known songs in alternative rock).

So there is your listing of a few XM radio channels, and those are just the rock stations.  There are many more that delve into the genres of blues, jazz, world, hip-hop, country, and more.  So go ahead and subscribe to XM radio now.

Rock isn't dead, I'm open to most music except for rap but anway here's some of my factors

Clearchannel (Nothing do with Axl)
Vitcom (horribly reality shows)
Music trends
Nu metal (gets old quick)
Internet (Yeah motherfuckers need to stop download only hit songs and open up to listening to non hit songs)
Record labels (just keeping doing same thing not looking to take a risk)
Pop shit (ALways will come back but where at the new kids on the blocK ?)

As Chuck Berry once said 50 percent of rock is roll is basic on trends.

Right. I mean, right now on VH1 (maybe it's mtv) it is a show about Hulk Hogans daughter going into the music biz. Look, I don't give a shit about that. I want to see different music formats (in video) and watch that. I don't care about a bunch of stupid reality shows where stupid 20 yr olds are desperately trying to hump one another. The should not even call it music television anymore if they only play videos maybe 10% of the time.

Video did kill the radio star. But you can thank corporate attitudes for ruining MTV a long time ago. That is a major player in it's demise, and the demise of music as a whole. I read an article about a company that researched the beats and tones of number one hits through the years. They found a certain (at least they thought they did) underlying beat, tone, or whatever and say they will try to incorporate that in their songs they produce. (Sorry but I can't remember the exact details.) But you get my point. It was a group of bean counters sitting around trying to figure out what has made something number one before, and COPY it. What is inspirational about that? Creative? Hardly. That is not music, but that is what we are being told music is. A damn shame. But we do have the most powerful tool (well two of them) to find real music and artists out there: Our brain, and the internet.

^ And most people don't don't. They sit on their fat asses saying things like "AXl RoSe iS gOd!!1111111111EHHHARRRFFAFFAFADFAF!!!111" or my favourite "VaN hAlEn WeRE ThE lAsT TR00 Rcokk BnaD Rkcoockl!!!!"

It's fucking stupid, and I'm fucking sick of it. Most of you in this thread are sitting agreeing with what I'm saying, but yet none of you have bought a CD that has been released this century. The majority don't want rock n' roll, they want someone to look up to, a hero...........so they can sit all day on messageboards talking about his hair, his girlfriend, what type of condom he uses. You don't want rock, you want a Robbie Williams that is more of a rebel, to hold him, to cuddle him, and to wank over.

^ Most of you say this is untrue. But ask yourself how many bands you listen to that the frontman of, isn't built up by the media, to be a star. You want pop. Go listen to fucking Ramsus.

There's probably more Madonna fans here than there is of real rock.

I've said my last (although my last was my last) in this thread. It's a pile of balls, and was absolutely stupid of me to think I could get an honest response from anyone.

I've had it with this section, you fucking 5 minute wonders can haver it. Fill it with Limp Bizkit and Van Halen. Fuck you.

I don?t have much to add, but those bands Chris mentioned are from Europe. Backyard Babies, Hellacopters and Turbonegro are very popular and well known in all over the Scandinavia.

You gonna crush me, but I think there?s differences between europeans and americans. Mostly people (not everyone) here, whining about todays music, are from US.. Those bands above are great rock n? roll. Rock n?roll, that you guys said is dead.

Maybe it is harder to find new rock bands in US? I don?t know.


But they still keep whining, that rock is dead. Or todays rock n?roll is Linkin Park, Blink 182 and Good Charlotte..

Mark Lanegan's new album is gonna be out tomorrow in Europe. The week after in USA.

There's some rock n' roll for you.  : ok:



/jarmo

I used to think along the same lines as a lot of you guys - "man, rock is dead.  All current bands suck."  But I'm not really worried about that so much more.  I think that you don't really need to worry about the DEMISE OF ROCK.  I know that there's a lot of shitty, bland modern rock out there (like, personally, I can't stand Evanescence).  But there's also a lot of great bands that are just getting into their groove.

Linkin Park, Good Charlotte, and Blink-182 are often cited as examples of "soulless modern rock shit".  But I think Blink-182 are actually one of the better bands out there.  Personally, they're one of my favourite bands.  People always say Green Day is the only 90s punk-pop band that was any good, but that's being close-minded.  Blink are one of the best bands out there today.  I mean, they write catchy songs, they experiment with their music (listen to their new record) and image, and they're a blast live.  And one of the best things about them is that they write songs that a suburban teenager like me can relate to.  I mean, as much as I enjoy listening to bands that sing about shooting up heroin on the Sunset Strip, I can't really relate to that, strictly speaking.  Blink sings about getting dumped, being bored, and bathroom humour.  They're a fun rock band, basically - something that you guys keep saying you want to hear.  Plus, their songs are really easy and fun to play.  They're one of the main reasons I decided to form a band - the Ramones of Generation Y.

But there's a lot of great bands out there.  Bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers and Green Day are in the same position as The Who and the Rolling Stones were in the early 70s...groups that had found massive success in the previous decade and are now taking chances with ambitious new efforts.  RHCP are writing melodic songs influenced by the Beach Boys...Green Day's next album is a "punk rock opera".  Something innovative by a great band.  I think a lot of rockers think that "real rock" is just stuff like Aerosmith.  I think that the future of rock is more alternative.  The rock that survived in the 90s, like Rage Against the Machine and Green Day, had a certain alternative viewpoint about it.  I prefer 80s glam-metal to 90s grunge, but I still think grunge was a positive thing, because it gave a much-needed kick in the ass to a music that was getting a little too full of itself.

As for the dearth of vital NEW rock bands, I'm not worried.  The fact is, if you look at history, you'll see that there have always been transition periods between rock movements.  The current atmosphere in music is almost exactly like the early 60s.  All the big 50s rock stars were gone - Elvis joined the army, Chuck Berry was in jail, Buddy Holly was dead, Little Richard was a minister.  In its place was an overwhelming atmosphere of watered-down teen pop.  It was the era of the teen idol - slick, smooth, safe songs sung by nice boys you could take home to mom.  But does anyone give a shit about Frankie Avalon or Fabian today?  No, because they were wiped out by the British Invasion, when REAL rock 'n' roll made a triumphant comeback.  That's pretty much where we are today, right?

Except it's doubtful if there's gonna be another Beatles anytime soon.  Maybe it's more like the early 80s.  That was after the first wave of punk was over, and New Wave was king.  There certainly weren't much popularity for hard rock...you had to wait a few years before acts like Def Leppard and Motley Crue brought that kind of thing back.  That's what it was, same as today - a transition period.

Look, just the fact that we have a thread like this shows that rock is still alive and well in the hearts and minds of us fans.  If I know anybody who's really passionate about music, it's almost invariably for rock.  So don't worry so much.  Rock will be dead only when we stop caring about it.

Simple songs that are easy to play doesnt make good rock. I like a musician who can use his imagination and create a masterpiece. If its something anyone can play thats not special

I agree with you on many of your arguements.  I think that, even though there are many boring and uncreative rock bands out there today, many modern groups do have their fine points.  I agree that the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Blink 182, and Green Day are legitimate as quality rock bands.  They may not be the most listened to in my music library, but at least they are entertaining and fresh.  I am mainly a big fan of the so-called grunge movement that came out of Seattle in the transition period between the 80s and 90s.  I feel that it was at that point that rock bands like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, Smashing Pumpkins, and others were looking at their predecessors from the 60s and 70s for motivation and influence.  This came with the extensive alternative movement that further had the quality of down-to-Earth minimalism with a focus on making noteworthy, original music.

In a way you can see that today.  Bands like the White Stripes, the Hives, and the Strokes are playing music remniscent of decades-old rock bands with that same minimalist attitude.  It is also apparent that the public is hungering for a return of rock music as we knew it ten years ago by the success of supergroups like Audioslave and Velvet Revolver.  I have become tired and bored with rehashed pop-punk and nu-metal material, as I'm sure most of you have.  So if something new comes around to take over, I will welcome it with open arms.  Yet, if it doesn't come soon I will continue to listen to what I consider to be real rock, while still delving deeper into the roots and hidden treasures found in past music.

You picked the best bands of the decade to make your point.? One can do the same for the 80's as well...the best bands of the 80's also looked to the 60's and 70's for motivation and influence.? There were plenty of copycat bands in both decades that did nothing original or noteworthy including many grunge bands that were signed by record labels to milk the cash cow.? Also, I dont think all the Pumpkins albums have that "down-to-Earth' minimalism as you put it (Mellon Collie...).? Perhaps only PJ and Nirvana fit in the category.


First, I dont know where you're going with this whole "minimalist" argument.? The 60's and 70's had countless, noteoworthy, landmark albums that were not minimalist, with experimental production, vocals and instruments besides guitar:? The Beatles Sgt Peppers, the Stones' Let It Bleed, and Beach Boys' Pet Sounds off the top of my head...? Minimalism is not a requirement for a great album.

Maybe you are referring to music like Bob Dylan, Jackson Browne, etc?? i.e.? a single singer-songwriter strumming on a guitar without too many bells & whistles?? ?Or more along the lines of Iggy Pop's dirty, raw dangerous sound?

Second, I happen to like the bands you mentioned because they do sound 'rock', but many people argue that this new crop of rock bands is not moving forward - as in, they are not adding anything new to the mix.? GNR was influenced by the Stones, but it wasnt a mimic.? ?You didnt mention the Australian band, Jet.? I like them, but it's definitely a retro sound.? Hell, they even steal an Iggy Pop riff and add their own silly lyrics to it.


You have become tired of it - does that imply you liked it earlier as many people did?? It's a fad that is showing signs of decay, but if we ever see the dominance of rock on the charts once more (hence ending its so-called demise), then I hope it comes from a young person.? It's not that I dont like VR or Audioslave - I like them, but I want to see someone of my generation step up to the plate.

Name a rock n roll song that's difficult to play.

What are you talking about.  Anyone can play smoke on the water for instance but does that mean it's a shit song?  Anyone who's played the guitar for about 3 months could play sex pistols songs or nirvana but that doesn't mean they suck.

You're talking rubbish.

you mistakingly associate a hero with being a pop star...there is nothing wrong with having a hero...

asking female fans not to talk about these things is just as bad as asking male fans to stop talking about boobs butts and shagging...its just not going to happen...rock and roll without shagging just isnt rock and roll :hihi:

Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead, but I saw this article basically saying the kinds of things we talked about in this thread:

The slow death of punk
The well-adjusted, polite, politically inert, prize-winning Franz Ferdinand is the ultimate bland band

John Harris
Thursday September 9, 2004
The Guardian

Roll over Sid, and tell Joe Strummer the news: whereas the kind of British musicians who attracted words like "alternative" were once duty-bound to affect a mixture of rage, debauchery and indolence, their modern heirs are a terrifyingly well-adjusted bunch. Tuesday evening provided conclusive evidence: when Alex Kapranos, singer with the allegedly iconoclastic Franz Ferdinand and fan of the word "fantastic", accepted the Nationwide Mercury Prize, his speech proved that the last embers of punk attitude have been long since snuffed out.
"We didn't really expect to win this," he said. "We are truly gobsmacked. It's fantastic. We feel very chuffed, very honoured - particularly this year when we're surrounded by such fantastic music. The bands this year do reflect a trend in the UK towards fantastic music."

His words were rather reminiscent of another ceremonial oration, made at the 1996 Brit Awards: "It's been a great year for British music. A year of creativity, vitality, energy. British bands storming the charts; British music back once again in its right place, at the top of the world." Tony Blair said that.

The fact that Franz Ferdinand are fond of such un-rock notions as politeness, humility and a New Labour-ish sense of national renewal shouldn't be a shock. Though their music (designed, in Kapranos's words, "for girls to dance to") marks a welcome break from the kind of drab balladry that dominated the airwaves in the slipstream of Britpop, it is not as revolutionary as their champions are wont to suggest. To this slightly cynical mind, their records and videos are suggestive of a school play about the early 1980s. Scabrous guitar lines, side partings, a bit of stilted white funk, some Dadaist intellectual exotica - older listeners will find themselves back in the world once defined by the likes of Wire, Gang of Four and A Certain Ratio. That Franz Ferdinand are a pretty good group is beyond doubt, but in historical context, they're also depressingly conservative.

Coverage of the Mercury Prize,as with the current discourse of what remains of the music press, was couched in terms of a British musical renaissance: a belated return to the glory days of Blur and Oasis, and a revival of the national myth, whose source lies in the story of those four young godheads from Liverpool. In terms of such mundane requirements as hummable tunes and high chart positions, there might be something to all that. But listen to the varied work of lauded groups like The Zutons, Kasabian and Keane, and the deficits that tie them together become clear. British rock has become scared of technology, retreating into an arid world of old-fashioned instruments, analogue recording equipment and supposed "honesty".

It has divested itself of most of its old pretensions to social comment and political dissent: something best illustrated by the fact that, aside from the relatively geriatric Radiohead, not a single high-profile British group has written a song pointedly about Tony Blair. For those of us whose insurrectionary instincts were stoked by the music of the 1980s - Stand Down Margaret, Margaret on the Guillotine, innumerable covers of Maggie's Farm - that seems flatly bizarre.

Then there's one of modern rock's most glaring shortcomings. Where have all the women gone? As the Mercury Prize suggested, where once there was the idea that a new, feminised kind of rock might one day seize the initiative from guitar-fixated boys, music's gender-line now seems more rigid than ever. On one side stand the women: solo artists, backed by session musicians, and expected to squeeze themselves into low-cut frocks on requisite occasions (cf Amy Winehouse and Joss Stone). On the other are the lads, united by stubble, functional casual wear, and the pleasures of life within a band.

Naturally, blaming the musicians for all this is a little unfair. The fact that they seem trapped in pastiche is traceable to our residence in a world in which an endless past is built into the present: how do you slough off the hegemony of The Beatles, Stones, Clash, Smiths et al when their supremacy is fixed by CD reissues, DVDs and those nostalgia-crazed TV stations? When it comes to their dearth of substance, it's hardly the bands' fault that 21st-century pop culture is built on a mix of political quiescence and gormless machismo. Underneath that, one encounters another explanation: a seemingly endless economic boom, and the seductive effects of multi-coloured consumerism.

So, our beloved rock may well have drawn to a halt at the same point at which modern jazz arrived in the late 1960s: hamstrung by an exhausted vocabulary, largely cut off from the everyday, and content to chase its own tail. It might have had its guts excised by the multinational corporations on whom it depends. The wash-out that has so bedevilled British music, however, seems to me to have its roots in the inclusivist, well-behaved, cosseted place that the UK has largely become. Think about it this way: have you heard any good Swiss music recently?

? John Harris is author of The Last Party: Britpop, Blair and the Demise of English Rock

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1300413,00.html

---

sigh... just because Franz Ferdinand is "well-behaved", it doesnt mean I cant like their music.? Not everything has to sound like Korn or RATM, and be labeled as bland instead.? Another thing I thought was interesting was how it talked about 'sloughing off the hegemony of the Stones, the Clash, Beatles, etc'.? I dont think the premise is true - are there that many young people who listen to those old bands today?

Yeah, that's one thing I notice.  When I look around at kids my age these days, the "rocker" types aren't that interested in new bands.  Many of them like bands like Nirvana, Weezer, and Green Day.  But the most popular bands among the current teenage rocker set are ones like Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Guns N' Roses, and vintage Metallica.  These are old bands, but they're the most popular among kids that actively play music.  Why is that?  Right now, the big thing is to wear Led Zeppelin and AC/DC t-shirts.  In the past week, I've seen about a dozen guys wearing the EXACT SAME Zep t-shirt.  Why aren't there newer bands that inspire people?  The thing is, nobody wants to be Linkin Park.  What we need these days are bands that people want to emulate.  When was the last time you saw the archetpyal image of the teenage kid with a guitar, sitting in his room, looking up in awe of a poster of a current rock star, thinking, "I want to be him"?  People did that all the time with Robert Plant, Eddie Van Halen, or whoever.  There are fewer bands like that today.

They should bring back the concept of the "rock god".  Bands right now look exactly like normal guys, and play on a level that's not too much higher.  Why try to climb to the top of the ladder when the stars are only one step higher?

I couldnt agree more, but I would say more or less the Rock Frontman. Look at all the great groups of the 70's and 80's They usually had a singer who could stand up and belt out some good songs, and a lead guitarist who could also front a band. A real rock frontman could commmand the attention and respect of the crowd. People who look in awe when they get close and not believe its actually them (I dont know how many people who went to see VR said they were so close they couldnt believe it was slash, I felt the same way seeing him)

i think the very problem is that teenagers will always want to emulate what is "cool".

it was just lucky for us that in the late 60's and 70's complex music which required excellent musicianship was "cool". The solos were cool, the singers were cool. thus you had teenagers back then stick up a hendrix or clapton poster and play all their licks on guitar and become as good as them if not better. they had a motivation, sure it may have been for the wrong reasons ie: to be like hendrix or to be famous. (i only call them wrong imo because i think the biggest motivation should be to want to make music)

i know this may be hard to believe, but many teenagers of today see bands like blink 182 or linkin park and want to emulate them. they pick up a guitar or drums or sing or something and want to make music like that. kurt cobain influenced a ton of people with his grunge music. that influenced some people to make a band.......which influenced someone else to make a band like that band and so on. nobody wanted to make an acdc like band. solos weren't cool. instead on guitar you emulate 3 chord songs but practice jumping up and down, throwing the guitar around your neck with it real real low and so on. more power to them if they're making music its fine.

music is cyclical. rock in mainstream terms is in the recession part of the cycle. i'm sure there are plenty of bands that are doing the rock thing, but why the hell would a typical teenager of today want to hear a 1min solo. it doesnt interest them. if it became cool again, and rock n roll was in the mainstream sure there'd be many teenagers sticking up posters of [insert new guitar hero here] and wanting to emulate them.

i just wanna make music. i dont wanna be "as good as so and so" or "famous". i wanna make music, and perform, i'd rock out at a retirement home i dont care.  being as good as hendrix or famous are only secondary things, if they happen they happen they're not part of my main goal.

and about the rock frontmen, teenagers of today look up to that chester bennington character from linkin park as their idol. chester is the "frontman" to them. they look in awe at him. or that chino guy from the deftones. same deal. just because its not rock n roll doesn't mean it doesn't have the same characteristics. we just need to learn to accept that this is what the majority of kids like, these nu metal or pop punk people are their idols, their heroes, just the same way as slash or axl rose of eddie van halen is ours or whatever.

and don't sit and whine about music today, go make some yourself, go learn guitar or another instrument. sorry that isnt directed at anyone in particular, i know a lot of you are making your own music good work  : ok:

Also i believe Record Companies dont build of their acts anymore. Look at bands like "The BEatles" "Guns N Roses" "The Who" if you look at their early stuff compared to their latter stuff they have advance quite a bit and come along ways as artist. It seem noways they find a band with a local or regional hit and plug it nationwide and when the hype dies down they are done with the band rather then working with them on another big project.

record companies take a formulaic approach to music now...make the most money in the fastest possible way...they know what will be successful and they know that the successful formula bands are easily acquired...and they know they dont have to pay them as much as a band that wants to be successful in the long term...

the sad thing is that women arent really respected in the music business...if they dont show 90% of their skin they can find another woman who does...i think rock music is intolerant to that sort of thing

Hey. that's me right there.  I love classic rock, but Blink-182 is one of my favourite bands and they're a big influence on my songwriting.  That's because their songs are easy to play, but catchy, well-constructed, and they sing about things I can relate to.  As much as I might enjoy a band that sings about banging groupies and shooting up heroin on the Sunset Strip, I relate more to a band that sings about getting dumped, being bored in suburbia, and hanging around the mall, because that's my life (although now that I'm in university it might be different).

Blink is one of the few modern bands that elicits that prized "awe" reaction when looking at a poster of them with a guitar in your hands.  Thing is, though, when I fantasize about being a rock star, I don't think so much about being a Blink-type band, because there are so many of them.  Rather, I imagine myself doing a wild guitar solo or screaming like a banshee with a bandana on my head (ahem).  Classic rock influenced so many people because being a rock god of the old sort is the ultimate teen fantasy.  Modern bands have a bit of that, but it just seems to me to be to a lesser degree.


As a member of the category of "teenagers of today", I can say that most people who like Linkin Park or the Deftones don't think about Chester Bennington or Chino on the same level as a "frontman" that teenagers of yesteryear might look at Robert Plant or Ozzy Osbourne.  People think about groups as a whole...they like Linkin Park for the general look and sound, for the songs and the lyrics.  Self-pitying emo kids are greatly attracted to the lyrics of modern rock bands, but they don't think about specific members of the groups that they want to emulate...it's more of a general "I like that band, I should form a band' thing.


I'll tell you one of the big problems with today's music.  Pop music since the 60s has subgenred itself to death.   When I talk to older people or read books about the sixties, what I hear is that to them, it was all just "rock".  But then in the 70s it started to split, you had glam rock and bubblegum pop and heavy metal and soft rock, then you had punk, then in the 80s new wave and pop metal and alternative, and now every kid likes a different kind of music.  You don't have a bunch of bands that everybody follows; everyone has their iPod and goes off listening to their own highly specific music.  I think we miss something in that lack of communal experience.

don't you think Kurt Cobain killed that archetype? The grunge movement made it uncool to be a rock demi god. and his death immortalized his preference. i don't know if we'll ever go back to worshipping the larger than life, charismatic, tempremental frontman, though i certainly wish we would.

I think Kurt (and his death) did kill it - in America.  However, the rest of the world was enamored with Liam Gallagher of Oasis - a larger than life, temperamental frontman, I am told.  Also, Billy Corgan achieved a fair amount of noteriety and larger-than-lifeness while Smashing Pumpkins was still together.  Then he just faded away into Zwan land.  I feel he was the closest thing Americans had to 'rockstar' after Kurt's suicide.

But maybe Axl is also reponsible for killing the archetype, by essentially being an overdose of rock god-ness, and taking all those traits to the extreme.  Thus becoming an easy target for Kurt and his drones to deride his indulgences and equate rock godness with being pretentious and egotistical.  This equation is the reason we dont have any rock gods right now - everyone is too afraid of seeming pretentious.

In fact, maybe only Axl can bring it back, by proving to the world that being a charismatic, temperamental rockgod does not mean being superficial or pretentious.

sorry mattman i was generalising from the younger people that i know.

a lot of them wish they could scream like chino or sing like chester bennington. none of them want to sing like axl rose or bon scott. could be different in america i dont know.

still has the same effect on young girls, they think chester is hot or that guy from incubus is hot or whatever.

rock will come back......when it does however, depends on when a young band doesn't have anything post nirvana grunge punk pop etc in their influences. it'll be a band that plays rock n roll their way if you get what i mean. not led zeppelin's way or guns n roses way. rock n roll needs a new modern context without being too modern. tough job.  i'll do it  :smoking:  :hihi:

yeah, i agree that Axl brought it all to a head and Kurt initiated the final blow.
were you the one who said that the next BIG band is not going to be from this generation (the bands out now), but from the next, the kids who are growing up now...? or was that Falcon..?

I personally don't expect, even if Axl returns, that he will bring "it" back. I like and respect Axl as much as the next person, but to really be effective in "that" way, you need to be younger, new on the scene. His return will be great, but i don't expect it to usher in some new great movement in rock n roll.  :-\

Well, I just got totally shafted. Have been orginzing a 3-9 date uk tour for an American band, and they've fodded me off for some shitty company, that fucked up their last tour.

I have been pulling my hair out for 3 months meeting the demands (which were extreme) of this band, have managed to pull something out of nothing, and now...well, they're taking all the work I did and fucking off with it (not even a thank you, just "****** ****** are taking over the gig now"). Next time I'm gonna draw up a contract.

They still think I'm doing their Nottingham gig (because I guarnteed them alot of money) they've got some cheek.

I know this tour will fail now, but it's their decision.


I ain't mentioning the band for various reasons, but mostly because I held them in very high regard.

Not one to be nosey, but their is no respect in this world. Always make people a contracrt before you give them information you went out and worked and earned.  If you did booking and gigging and all the hard work you deserve your fair pay. If the band doesnt respect you like that, take what you can from this tour and dont do them any favors in the future.

Kids today.  I hate them.

There are many reasons rock went on a big downturn.  The early nineties brought in "rock star is uncool" as many have mentioned and the influence of urban rap music really made a difference.  There are probably a lot of surburban, white kids that would rather be Eminem than pick up a guitar these days. 

Plus, MTV in the eighties was more a young company with young people working for it, they were more supportive of all kinds of music, more idealistic.  Now, MTV has become the very thing it was against in the first place.  That last award show sealed it.  There is also less money to be made off of rock bands and easy money to be made off hack song writers and T&A showcases, so there is less patience for guiding a band, I  mean if your first album fails that's pretty much it for you, and that's if the record company doesn't interfere with your songwriting and image. 

It's pretty dire, but I agree it's cyclical, you would think that people would start to hunger for that kind of musical ethic again, it really only takes one trendsetter to set it off.  I can't wait, because if I ever have to hear another pop/punk band with whiney vocals it will be too soon. 

Yeah, but here's the clincher: it's a lot easier to buy a guitar and make your own music than it is to hire a producer to put really good beats behind your rhymes.  I know lots of kids who play guitar and are in bands, but only one who writes raps.  I think it's because rock 'n' roll has such a do-it-yourself attitude and spirit about it that kids will always be able to find refuge in that proverbial six-string.


It wasn't all roses in the early 80s; early on, MTV almost never played clips by black artists.  It took Michael Jackson and Thriller for that to happen.  I think if you contrast MTV now to MTV in its very early stages, it's actually MORE supportive of different kinds of music.  Now the quality of the music they play...that's another story.

You're under the impression that promoters make money. It has nothing to do with money, it was a lack of respect on their part, I made a huge mistake.

Rock died thanks to the big 5 and MTV. When "alternative" music started gaining ground, the record companies branded as many bands as "alternative". They diluted the rock scene with sub par bands and there was never any huge bands that installed themselves in the new generation. After Jane's Addiction, Soundgarden, Pear Jam, Alice n' Chains and Nirvana made a splash, there was nothing. I think Smashing Pumpkins were the last mainstream rock band that capped the alternative era with Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness. Electronic music started gaining ground, but wasn't really pushed by labels in America(Chem Bros had a few great albums). The last gasp for alt-rock was probably Radiohead's OK Computer. Then nothing. Here we are in 2005 with caca. Sure there are the White Stripes and a select few pretty cool bands that have entered the mainstream, but none sell more than platinum. After that nice burst of big bangs, there were just so many phony bands; I guess that's one of the reasons hip-hop got a foot-hole. To this day, I don't see any genuine mainstream bands. At least concert-goers in Portugal recognized this and pelted rocks at Nickelback  :hihi:

What are you talking about?  Chester Bennington, for all his shitty lyrics, is an incredible singer.  This is the problem with "rock".  People just hate Linkin Park because it's cool to hate Linkin Park.  Then they just say stupid things.  Chester would be an excellent rock or metal vocalist, in fact he is an excellent vocalist, but he can't write lyrics.  You critisize him for not wanting to be Axl, yet if he sounded like Axl (in the way the the Chad Kroeger and Scott Stapp sound like a certain grunge singer)  you hate him even more than you do.  Why?  Because you're all hypocrites.  Ever heard of Nazareth? I've never heard a single person complain that Axl ripped off Dan McCafferty.

What the hell are you talking about?  Did you read my post?  Can you read my post?  Incase you're incapable, I'll tell you what's going on.  I was replying to someone who said that if songs are easy to play they're shit.  I was saying that you don't have to be a great musician to write a great song.

And as it happens, Oasis are pretty damn good at writing Beatles songs...

when did i say chester bennington couldn't sing, fuck you.  I don't hate linkin park because its cool to hate linkin park. I hate(hate maybe to harsh, more like dislike) them because i dont like the music, i still respect that they're making music lots of people love, but im not one of them. In my opinion chester would make only a good metal vocalist, he doesnt have the roar or huskiness for a rock voice ala bon scott or brian johnson.

fuck you just assumed a lot of stuff, stuff that i didn't say.  I never criticized chester for not being axl, i was just explaining why kids don't wanna sing like axl rose or bon scott, they'd much rather like to sing like chester bennington these days.  You automatically assumed that i thought chester can't sing and that any musicians who dont sing like axl are crap.

I don't criticize chester bennington, well i dont think i have. if he sounded like axl or steve tyler or robert plant or any fucking rock n roll vocalist for that matter i wouldn't say "oh that fucker sounds like axl what a dickhead". I'd think "he's got a good rock n roll voice".

Hell i think Chester can't sing! He has two voices...that's it.  He sings in his hush hush emotional voice.  And then immediately goes into his full blown scream.  Quiet, scream, quiet, scream.  Thats how he sings every song.  and his scream sounds just like...a scream...its not even good like an axl or Halford scream

I don't like how people try and blame Nirvana for the death of rock. Granted I am not the biggest Nirvana fan, for the most part I think they're extremely overrated. But I don't think its fair to nor it is accurate to blame Nirvana for the death of a scene. The scene in the late 80s early 90s was played out. Every band looked the same, every band sounded the same, people were tired of it. The scene killed itself. If anyone would be to blame it would be the fans that jumped on the bandwagon or MTV for spitting in the face of rock and basically saying that grunge is cool and everything else sucks. I fully believe that if Kurt Cobain hadn't killed himself, nobody would have given him the savior of rock title. If Eddie Vedder had killed himself in 94 people would say the same about him. As for the Linkin Park thing, yes Chester can sing, but most of their lyrics aren't very good, and everything sounds the same. I don't understand the love for this band.

Chester won't even have a voice in 5 years; his screaming (not singing, screaming) will ruin his vocal cords. Nu-metal is full of losers who can't sing. Real heavy metal requires real singing abilities. Even death and black metal vocals require technique and skill. Chester's screaming is just stupid. Anyone can do it.

Thank you!

Have you heard bands like Cannibal Corpse?  The vocalist sounds like the Cookie Monster.  At least Chester has his two voices.  But the Cookie Monster death metal vocalists only have one voice - loud throaty growl.  Just another reason why that genre is pure shit.

Only hair metal bands looked and sounded the same. Real rock groups like GNR,Bon Jovi,Alice Cooper,Metallica,U2,RHCP,AC\DC,Aerosmith,etc. had great albums in the late 80s/early 90s.But MTV and the record companies realized that society rejects that hate their lives had money to buy albums too