The demise of Rock

[Mattman]

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.

[Mr Cowbell ?]

Plus, their songs are really easy and fun to play.  They're one of the main reasons I decided to form a band

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

[VolcomStone]

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.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

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.

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.

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.?

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.

I have become tired and bored with rehashed pop-punk and nu-metal material, as I'm sure most of you have.?

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.

[Miz]

Plus, their songs are really easy and fun to play.? They're one of the main reasons I decided to form a band

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

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.

[axls_locomotive]

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.

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

[Doc Emmett Brown]

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.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

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?

[Mattman]

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?

[Mr Cowbell ?]

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?

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)

[Oddy]

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 

[Mr Cowbell ?]

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.

[axls_locomotive]

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

[Mattman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[badgirl]

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?

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.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

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?

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.

[Oddy]

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   

[badgirl]

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?

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.

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. 

[Chris Misfit]

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.

[Mr Cowbell ?]

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.