MR

I hear a great song from a young band:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzdoOGUsEKg&feature=related

I think it revives a 70's vibe for me .

fredinator wrote:I hear a great song from a young band:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzdoOGUsEKg&feature=related

I think it revives a 70's vibe for me .

I admit, I like it.

That being said. Rock IS on life support. And it will continue that way til it finally draws it's last breath. The reason I say that is that rap, country, and R&B/soul, nu-metal, alternative is far and away way too popular. In order for this too become a true revival is for the masses to embrace it. Sadly, they will not. The guitar solo has become a thing of the past. And that is a shame. The music scene is more akin to Wrestling now. Image trumps talent.
In wrestling you have the bad guy, the goodguy, the hillbilly, the guy with the mask, the Asian, the guy in leather, the midget, the indian....etc.

In music you got the same thing: the guy with different color eyes, the he/she, the girl who married that rap producer, the girl who wears less than a newborn, the over-the-hill has been that is making a comeback, the group that changes singers more than Deano changes Avatars....etc.


It becomes less and less about the actual music and more about the artist's personal life. Music has become samey. and that is it's death knell.

What the hell will people do when bands like Journey, Def Leppard, Aerosmith, U2, Bon Jovi, and others are too old/dead to perform?

People will be committing suicide for sure. They'll be like, "Hey, do you want to go see that new band in concert?" "No thanks, let's pour antifreeze in our beers instead."

I understand how you feel but I'm wondering if it's not because there are just so many musicians out there now vs the 60s and 70s... I have hope: the radio station I usually listen to here is a public radio station and caters to a college crowd (University of Texas). They've played this band regularly; I just forgot about them until I heard that Monsters of Folk song this morning... Anyway, UT has (I think) 50,000+ students and KUT (the station) is very popular--so I am hopeful. Why a band like this is not bigger than a, let's say, Beyonce, is open for discussion...

The music scene is more akin to Wrestling now. Image trumps talent.

You said a mouthful there...

The problem is that it's so hard for bands to get a good record deal nowadays, and then once they do, the chances of selling 100 million albums is a part of history... it just doesn't happen anymore. I mean, how many albums have bands like Velvet Revolver, Coldplay, or 3 Doors Down sold? They just are not in the same category as Aerosmith or Bon Jovi, and probably never will be that big. You can probably blame that on the Internet.

fredinator wrote:I understand how you feel but I'm wondering if it's not because there are just so many musicians out there now vs the 60s and 70s... I have hope: the radio station I usually listen to here is a public radio station and caters to a college crowd (University of Texas). They've played this band regularly; I just forgot about them until I heard that Monsters of Folk song this morning... Anyway, UT has (I think) 50,000+ students and KUT (the station) is very popular--so I am hopeful. Why a band like this is not bigger than a, let's say, Beyonce, is open for discussion...

Beyonce is big, no pun intended, because her videos and songs are played, ad nauseum, 10 times an hour on MTV, MTV2, VH1, VH1 Classic, BET...and every radio stations whose format is making money....Beyonce is shoved down our throats.

Kids today are told what to listen to.....they don't/can't decide for themselves, in general.

Maybe bands like U2, Journey, etc., ought to let some of these obscure but great bands open for them... Seems like that is what used to happen way back when. Do these big acts underestimate their live audiences? Is it the promoters? I don't know... People know good, rockin' music when they hear it. It is baffling but I thank God the Republicans were unable to do away with public broadcasting!

Kanye West is the best artist of all time. Just ask him.

fredinator wrote:Maybe bands like U2, Journey, etc., ought to let some of these obscure but great bands open for them... Seems like that is what used to happen way back when. Do these big acts underestimate their live audiences? Is it the promoters? I don't know... People know good, rockin' music when they hear it. It is baffling but I thank God the Republicans were unable to do away with public broadcasting!

The problem lies not with the artists themselves, but with the record companies, radio, and the fans.....

80% of the bands out today would never have made it in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s.

Record companies should just seek out talent, let the group record what the GROUP wants, and let the music listening people like what they like...instead of pidgeon-holing an act to a pre-determined demographic.

Instead of researching to determine that Lady Gaga appeals to overweight males aged 25-36, with early signs of dementia and acid reflux.

80% of the bands out today would never have made it in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s.

U2, Kiss, and even Journey to an extent had their first 3 or so albums pretty much flop (low charting singles, etc)...yet they were allowed to keep making music and develop...this pretty much doesn't happen anymore. Had Coldplay or 3 Doors Down not had a hit on their first, maybe second, album they'd have disappeared years ago.

Pelata wrote:

80% of the bands out today would never have made it in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s.

U2, Kiss, and even Journey to an extent had their first 3 or so albums pretty much flop (low charting singles, etc)...yet they were allowed to keep making music and develop...this pretty much doesn't happen anymore. Had Coldplay or 3 Doors Down not had a hit on their first, maybe second, album they'd have disappeared years ago.

I don't know what's worse, hits on your first couple of albums - then releasing crap for 10 years, or failing on your first two - then hitting it big on your next few...then coasting until you eventually fade away 20 albums later?

U2 is a phenomenon to me. Huge college band back in the 80s. Moderate underground success until 'The Unforgettable Fire'....then a bunch of average, at best, releases til the present. U2 is a niche band. No offense to U2pians, mind you....just my opinion.

U2 always tries to do new things...which is good, IMO...but I can see why they lose some people along the way...I just saw them last Saturday and they were fantastic.

Hello?? Rock is very much still alive... not only are many of our old favorite bands still recording and touring but there's a ton of newer, fresh bands out there today that kick ass and offer something different yet still very good:

Muse
Porcupine Tree
Shinedown
Anberlin
Coheed & Cambria
Avenged Sevenfold
The Answer
Airbourne
Mastodon
The Black Keys
Disturbed
Dredg
Franz Ferdinand
Interpol
The Killers
Lacuna Coil
The Mars Volta
Wilco
!!!

And then there's the many independent/small-label melodic rock bands out there that are covered on the frontpage of this very site.

ALSO, there's plenty of bands who became popular in the 90's still recording and touring: Pearl Jam, Collective Soul, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Incubus, Tool, Stone Temple Pilots, Smashing Pumpkins, Dream Theater, Queens of the Stone Age, The Offspring, Radiohead, and many more.

Come on people.. the shit's out there.

StocktontoMalone wrote:

Pelata wrote:

80% of the bands out today would never have made it in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s.

U2, Kiss, and even Journey to an extent had their first 3 or so albums pretty much flop (low charting singles, etc)...yet they were allowed to keep making music and develop...this pretty much doesn't happen anymore. Had Coldplay or 3 Doors Down not had a hit on their first, maybe second, album they'd have disappeared years ago.

I don't know what's worse, hits on your first couple of albums - then releasing crap for 10 years, or failing on your first two - then hitting it big on your next few...then coasting until you eventually fade away 20 albums later?

U2 is a phenomenon to me. Huge college band back in the 80s. Moderate underground success until 'The Unforgettable Fire'....then a bunch of average, at best, releases til the present. U2 is a niche band. No offense to U2pians, mind you....just my opinion.

Do "niche bands" release a dozen chart-topping albums, get played frequently on a variety of radio stations, sell out to crowds of 60,000+ routinely, AND still maintain artistic credibility??

StocktontoMalone wrote:
That being said. Rock IS on life support. And it will continue that way til it finally draws it's last breath. The reason I say that is that rap, country, and R&B/soul, nu-metal, alternative is far and away way too popular.

Rock is not on life support. The WHOLE INDUSTRY is. Rock music will survive just as other genres will. May not always be in the form we prefer, but it will be there.

StocktontoMalone wrote:God the Republicans were unable to do away with public broadcasting!

The problem lies not with the artists themselves, but with the record companies, radio, and the fans.....

80% of the bands out today would never have made it in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s.
[/quote]

Correct. But at the same time, Billy Joel, Bon Jovi, Journey, Def Leppard and Styx ALL would have been dropped before making it big going by the structure of record label laziness and ignorance in today's world.

It's too late for the labels to recapture what they screwed up - an indie world is coming your way and with any luck, the infrustructure for bands to get to the masses will be there.

ProgRocker53 wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:

Pelata wrote:

80% of the bands out today would never have made it in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s.

U2, Kiss, and even Journey to an extent had their first 3 or so albums pretty much flop (low charting singles, etc)...yet they were allowed to keep making music and develop...this pretty much doesn't happen anymore. Had Coldplay or 3 Doors Down not had a hit on their first, maybe second, album they'd have disappeared years ago.

I don't know what's worse, hits on your first couple of albums - then releasing crap for 10 years, or failing on your first two - then hitting it big on your next few...then coasting until you eventually fade away 20 albums later?

U2 is a phenomenon to me. Huge college band back in the 80s. Moderate underground success until 'The Unforgettable Fire'....then a bunch of average, at best, releases til the present. U2 is a niche band. No offense to U2pians, mind you....just my opinion.

Do "niche bands" release a dozen chart-topping albums, get played frequently on a variety of radio stations, sell out to crowds of 60,000+ routinely, AND still maintain artistic credibility??

Being played frequently is an example of being shoved down one's throat, and 'chart-topping', as you call it, reflects the delusional masses that run out and throw money at mediocre music...IMHO, of course.


Saying that U2 still has artistic credability is like going to a museum and seeing a piece of shit in a rubber toilet attached to a piece of PVC piping and calling it art.

I DO know this however...Iron Maiden never had a number one song in close to 30 years, however they still sell out 60,000+ stadiums worldwide.

fredinator wrote:I hear a great song from a young band:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzdoOGUsEKg&feature=related

I think it revives a 70's vibe for me .

Great find. You're picking up some good music there in Austin. I'll check out KUT online, my 16 year old son will like it. He only likes classic rock, but I'll bet he likes some of this new stuff you're posting.