MR

...but conversely, what groups hit it big by their timing, and timing only.

post your groups, and reasons why their timing accounted for their success.

It has been said that grunge killed rock, I disagree.....Rock went to Europe. it was the people of the country who bailed on rock.

Rap has done more to ruining the musical landscape in this country than any other genre of 'music'.

Anywhoo....what groups benefitted only from their timing?

in the early 90's the combination of rap exploding in sales and then country exploding in sales already started cutting into the rock market.then when the grunge thing hit it took even more people so from the late 80's to the mid 90's there was a huge decrease in melodic and hard rock listeners.the teens started either listening to garth brooks,dr. dre and snoop dogg,or stuff like nirvana and green day.

StocktontoMalone wrote:...but conversely, what groups hit it big by their timing, and timing only.

post your groups, and reasons why their timing accounted for their success.

It has been said that grunge killed rock, I disagree.....Rock went to Europe. it was the people of the country who bailed on rock.

Rap has done more to ruining the musical landscape in this country than any other genre of 'music'.

Anywhoo....what groups benefitted only from their timing?

Totally agree, Europe and Japan have always loved their Rock. They don't seem to get as swept up in the grunge, poptart, rap/hiphop genres.

I have always felt there are 3 stages to every musical 'revolution'. They used to happen with in an overlapping 12 year period. Stage 1: The Innovators. Usually the first 2 years of a decade. They are "something new", exciting, different. Generally overlooked as the previous 'revolution' is waning. Stage 2: The Pop. The sound of Stage 1 becomes mainstream and is good. Quality music, bands. Usually blows up around the 3rd or 4th year of a decade. These bands enjoy success throughout the reast of the 'revolution' and might carry on past. Stage 3: Everyone else. This is the D-list acts. These bands get signed to take advantage of the scene. Usually more about image than talent. This is the group that gets attention/success strictly due to timing. Ultimately, this is the group that marks the end of the 'revolution', even contributes to it. The scene usually implodes 2-3 years into the next decade and Stage 1 is starting again with a new 'revolution'.

Of course this theory is created around the '80's metal/rock scene but it seems to work for the 70's arena scene as well. With Grunge the time frame became much shorter. And since grunge, with the advent of the internet among other catalysts, it has been very difficult to even "see" scenes like this. Nowadays there are too many niches. Too many 'revolutions' existing simultaneously. But the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and early 90's fit pretty well into this model.

jrnyman28 wrote:I have always felt there are 3 stages to every musical 'revolution'. They used to happen with in an overlapping 12 year period. Stage 1: The Innovators. Usually the first 2 years of a decade. They are "something new", exciting, different. Generally overlooked as the previous 'revolution' is waning. Stage 2: The Pop. The sound of Stage 1 becomes mainstream and is good. Quality music, bands. Usually blows up around the 3rd or 4th year of a decade. These bands enjoy success throughout the reast of the 'revolution' and might carry on past. Stage 3: Everyone else. This is the D-list acts. These bands get signed to take advantage of the scene. Usually more about image than talent. This is the group that gets attention/success strictly due to timing. Ultimately, this is the group that marks the end of the 'revolution', even contributes to it. The scene usually implodes 2-3 years into the next decade and Stage 1 is starting again with a new 'revolution'.

Of course this theory is created around the '80's metal/rock scene but it seems to work for the 70's arena scene as well. With Grunge the time frame became much shorter. And since grunge, with the advent of the internet among other catalysts, it has been very difficult to even "see" scenes like this. Nowadays there are too many niches. Too many 'revolutions' existing simultaneously. But the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and early 90's fit pretty well into this model.

Post of the day.....

I'm getting tired of using the quote feature only to have my screen keep scrolling up....

Your theory seems to hold water.....

U2 - 1980
Beatles - 1961(?)
Styx - 1970
Kiss - 1973-74
Rush - 1974

StocktontoMalone wrote:I'm getting tired of using the quote feature only to have my screen keep scrolling up....

jrnyman28 wrote:I have always felt there are 3 stages to every musical 'revolution'. They used to happen with in an overlapping 12 year period. Stage 1: The Innovators. Usually the first 2 years of a decade. They are "something new", exciting, different. Generally overlooked as the previous 'revolution' is waning. Stage 2: The Pop. The sound of Stage 1 becomes mainstream and is good. Quality music, bands. Usually blows up around the 3rd or 4th year of a decade. These bands enjoy success throughout the reast of the 'revolution' and might carry on past. Stage 3: Everyone else. This is the D-list acts. These bands get signed to take advantage of the scene. Usually more about image than talent. This is the group that gets attention/success strictly due to timing. Ultimately, this is the group that marks the end of the 'revolution', even contributes to it. The scene usually implodes 2-3 years into the next decade and Stage 1 is starting again with a new 'revolution'.

Of course this theory is created around the '80's metal/rock scene but it seems to work for the 70's arena scene as well. With Grunge the time frame became much shorter. And since grunge, with the advent of the internet among other catalysts, it has been very difficult to even "see" scenes like this. Nowadays there are too many niches. Too many 'revolutions' existing simultaneously. But the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and early 90's fit pretty well into this model.

Winger

Gunbot wrote:

jrnyman28 wrote:I have always felt there are 3 stages to every musical 'revolution'. They used to happen with in an overlapping 12 year period. Stage 1: The Innovators. Usually the first 2 years of a decade. They are "something new", exciting, different. Generally overlooked as the previous 'revolution' is waning. Stage 2: The Pop. The sound of Stage 1 becomes mainstream and is good. Quality music, bands. Usually blows up around the 3rd or 4th year of a decade. These bands enjoy success throughout the reast of the 'revolution' and might carry on past. Stage 3: Everyone else. This is the D-list acts. These bands get signed to take advantage of the scene. Usually more about image than talent. This is the group that gets attention/success strictly due to timing. Ultimately, this is the group that marks the end of the 'revolution', even contributes to it. The scene usually implodes 2-3 years into the next decade and Stage 1 is starting again with a new 'revolution'.

Of course this theory is created around the '80's metal/rock scene but it seems to work for the 70's arena scene as well. With Grunge the time frame became much shorter. And since grunge, with the advent of the internet among other catalysts, it has been very difficult to even "see" scenes like this. Nowadays there are too many niches. Too many 'revolutions' existing simultaneously. But the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and early 90's fit pretty well into this model.

Winger

No, there's at least some talent there, not just a pretty face. Poison!

StocktontoMalone wrote:...but conversely, what groups hit it big by their timing, and timing only.

Jeff...oh wait, nevermind.

jrnyman28 wrote:I have always felt there are 3 stages to every musical 'revolution'. They used to happen with in an overlapping 12 year period. Stage 1: The Innovators. Usually the first 2 years of a decade. They are "something new", exciting, different. Generally overlooked as the previous 'revolution' is waning. Stage 2: The Pop. The sound of Stage 1 becomes mainstream and is good. Quality music, bands. Usually blows up around the 3rd or 4th year of a decade. These bands enjoy success throughout the reast of the 'revolution' and might carry on past. Stage 3: Everyone else. This is the D-list acts. These bands get signed to take advantage of the scene. Usually more about image than talent. This is the group that gets attention/success strictly due to timing. Ultimately, this is the group that marks the end of the 'revolution', even contributes to it. The scene usually implodes 2-3 years into the next decade and Stage 1 is starting again with a new 'revolution'.

Of course this theory is created around the '80's metal/rock scene but it seems to work for the 70's arena scene as well. With Grunge the time frame became much shorter. And since grunge, with the advent of the internet among other catalysts, it has been very difficult to even "see" scenes like this. Nowadays there are too many niches. Too many 'revolutions' existing simultaneously. But the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and early 90's fit pretty well into this model.

Great post - and totally backs up what I've always thought: that it was Bon Jovi who killed AOR and not Nirvana. For it was them (a Stage Two act) who gave us Stage Three and the subsequent backlash to it.

StocktontoMalone wrote:
Anywhoo....what groups benefitted only from their timing?

The Clash.

StocktontoMalone wrote:Rock went to Europe. it was the people of the country who bailed on rock.

Rap has done more to ruining the musical landscape in this country than any other genre of 'music'.

Rap came to Europe too...plus we had house, techno and trance which never really took off the the US. Melodic rock has been a very underground scene here for well over twenty years now....

Matthew wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:Rock went to Europe. it was the people of the country who bailed on rock.

Rap has done more to ruining the musical landscape in this country than any other genre of 'music'.

Rap came to Europe too...plus we had house, techno and trance which never really took off the the US. Melodic rock has been a very underground scene here for well over twenty years now....

You live there so I won't overly contradict you, but when European and Asian releases get Bonus tracks, and AMERICAN melodic and rock acts would rather play over there than the States....I'd beg to differ with you. Plus, European acts won't play America. Pretty Maids - nope. Gotthard - Nope. Fair Warnng - Nope.....the list goes on.

A progressive group I used to follow, from Concord, California has played in Europe....plays alot in the Bay Area of California. But they refuse to travel to other parts of their OWN country due to interest.....Hell - I wasn't able to see Harem Scarem in the states - and its been 18 years since they released S/T.

StocktontoMalone wrote:

Matthew wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:Rock went to Europe. it was the people of the country who bailed on rock.

Rap has done more to ruining the musical landscape in this country than any other genre of 'music'.

Rap came to Europe too...plus we had house, techno and trance which never really took off the the US. Melodic rock has been a very underground scene here for well over twenty years now....

You live there so I won't overly contradict you, but when European and Asian releases get Bonus tracks, and AMERICAN melodic and rock acts would rather play over there than the States....I'd beg to differ with you. Plus, European acts won't play America. Pretty Maids - nope. Gotthard - Nope. Fair Warnng - Nope.....the list goes on.

A progressive group I used to follow, from Concord, California has played in Europe....plays alot in the Bay Area of California. But they refuse to travel to other parts of their OWN country due to interest.....Hell - I wasn't able to see Harem Scarem in the states - and its been 18 years since they released S/T.

Sure - we get bonus tracks and a handful of second-division European bands can't tour the US...but there was hardly any airplay for AOR/hard rock/prog rock on the mainstream stations even in the 1980s and absolutely zero now.

At least you have hundreds of specialist rock stations available in the US...

Plus a band like Gotthard would struggle to fill a major venue in the UK anyway. AOR/Melodic Rock has an ageing cult following but not much more than that.

Maybe it's different in Sweden though...but somehow I doubt it.

Europe will have had SIX Firefests after this year....what do WE get? Poison and friends for the umpteenth time...

Second Division?

Most of the bands I'm refering to would mop the floor with the so-called FIRST division.

Scorpions? Overrated
Europe? Done nothing great since Final Countdown
Def Leppard? Since Pyromania they've become pussified. Pyro's my fave actually. They've lost their rock edge.


I can't even name any other alleged First Division acts....

My mind is failing me.....

StocktontoMalone wrote:A progressive group I used to follow, from Concord, California

Which band? Enchant? Puppet Show?

verslibre wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:A progressive group I used to follow, from Concord, California

Which band? Enchant? Puppet Show?

Enchant.....

I love their early stuff. Once Break came out, though, I knew I was done with 'em. But ABotW, Wounded, Time Lost...classics.

jrnyman28 wrote:I have always felt there are 3 stages to every musical 'revolution'. They used to happen with in an overlapping 12 year period. Stage 1: The Innovators. Usually the first 2 years of a decade. They are "something new", exciting, different. Generally overlooked as the previous 'revolution' is waning. Stage 2: The Pop. The sound of Stage 1 becomes mainstream and is good. Quality music, bands. Usually blows up around the 3rd or 4th year of a decade. These bands enjoy success throughout the reast of the 'revolution' and might carry on past. Stage 3: Everyone else. This is the D-list acts. These bands get signed to take advantage of the scene. Usually more about image than talent. This is the group that gets attention/success strictly due to timing. Ultimately, this is the group that marks the end of the 'revolution', even contributes to it. The scene usually implodes 2-3 years into the next decade and Stage 1 is starting again with a new 'revolution'.

Of course this theory is created around the '80's metal/rock scene but it seems to work for the 70's arena scene as well. With Grunge the time frame became much shorter. And since grunge, with the advent of the internet among other catalysts, it has been very difficult to even "see" scenes like this. Nowadays there are too many niches. Too many 'revolutions' existing simultaneously. But the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and early 90's fit pretty well into this model.

You are spot on with this. Oversaturation sends the genre into the underground or kills it more so than the next revolution.

Re the Europe vs. America thing, my experience of living in the UK and travelling around Europe a lot was that it's not so much a case that MR is more popular in Europe, or that rap (and techno, trance, etc) didn't make it, but that people are less inclined to be swayed by ideas of what is cool once they get out of their teens, and are also more likely to embrace older music. I've heard many people make the comment that a lot of guys in the US don't like admitting that they're into Journey, because it's seen as a 'chick' band; that's a concept that I didn't come across very often in Europe. Possibly it's because there are so many different cultural differences every fifty miles or so, but people seem to be less afraid that they will be 'branded' by the music they listen to, and more open to listening to a wide range of musical genres. It's ok to listen to both heavy metal and love opera, to be into techno and jazz, to like equally delta blues and glam rock, and no one makes any comment. Once someone is out of their teens, or past their mid-twenties at the worst, the concept of your musical tastes defining what sort of person you are becomes completely irrelevent. I get the feeling that this isn't the case in the US (of course, I may be completely wrong in that regard.)

StocktontoMalone wrote:Europe will have had SIX Firefests after this year....what do WE get? Poison and friends for the umpteenth time...

Second Division?

Most of the bands I'm refering to would mop the floor with the so-called FIRST division.

Scorpions? Overrated
Europe? Done nothing great since Final Countdown
Def Leppard? Since Pyromania they've become pussified. Pyro's my fave actually. They've lost their rock edge.

I can't even name any other alleged First Division acts....

My mind is failing me.....

hmm scorpions, they early works are soo good, that i forgive them for all the rest...europe is great, still kick some ass till today, they make a good live show, ..def leppard hmm haven't see them live, but i like a couple more albums than just pyromania

Tito wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:...but conversely, what groups hit it big by their timing, and timing only.

Jeff...oh wait, nevermind.

You fuckin blow hard

yeh i didnt listen to radio,turned to fuckin country, then Journey came on board with Steve Augeri.I got into Journey again hardcore

i once loved men at work although that crosseyed loony ass singer scared the shit out of me sometimes.

MIKE99 wrote:i once loved men at work although that crosseyed loony ass singer scared the shit out of me sometimes.

#1) Colin Hay is AMAZING

#2) He is currently touring into the fall around the country (and of course every date he's on the east coast I will be far, far away)...

MIKE99 wrote:i once loved men at work although that crosseyed loony ass singer scared the shit out of me sometimes.

Looking For Jack, the solo album from MAW's singer, Colin James Hay is outstanding.

I disagree with this...Grundge did not kill melodic rcok/AOR. Glam did that in the mid to late 80's. Grundge was a revolt towards the excesses of Glam...not a revolt against melodic rock/AOR. True, they both get lumped together nowadays....but they were not at that time.

StocktontoMalone wrote:...but conversely, what groups hit it big by their timing, and timing only.

post your groups, and reasons why their timing accounted for their success.

It has been said that grunge killed rock, I disagree.....Rock went to Europe. it was the people of the country who bailed on rock.

Rap has done more to ruining the musical landscape in this country than any other genre of 'music'.

Anywhoo....what groups benefitted only from their timing?

I disagree with this...Grundge did not kill melodic rcok/AOR. Glam did that in the mid to late 80's. Grundge was a revolt towards the excesses of Glam...not a revolt against melodic rock/AOR. True, they both get lumped together nowadays....but they were not at that time.

StocktontoMalone wrote:...but conversely, what groups hit it big by their timing, and timing only.

post your groups, and reasons why their timing accounted for their success.

It has been said that grunge killed rock, I disagree.....Rock went to Europe. it was the people of the country who bailed on rock.

Rap has done more to ruining the musical landscape in this country than any other genre of 'music'.

Anywhoo....what groups benefitted only from their timing?

I look at it as Grunge being an alternative response to all the copy cat hair bands trying to cash in on the genre, making for some stale music at the end of the nineties. Melodic Rock on the other hand sort of drifted off into the adult Contemporary market as the musicians got older, no outside force did it in.