MR

Everybody's sober! If you think about it, the greatest music in rock and roll history was written and/or recorded while under the influence of something. I bet if all these shit bands out there now starting dropping acid or something you would see music get a hell of lot better.

ebake02 wrote:Everybody's sober! If you think about it, the greatest music in rock and roll history was written and/or recorded while under the influence of something. I bet if all these shit bands out there now starting dropping acid or something you would see music get a hell of lot better.

They need some Lysergic acid diethylamide #25.

ebake02 wrote:Everybody's sober! If you think about it, the greatest music in rock and roll history was written and/or recorded while under the influence of something. I bet if all these shit bands out there now starting dropping acid or something you would see music get a hell of lot better.

Perhaps if we got drunk or high today's music would sound better!!

Perry has certainly turned into a creatively bankrupt stick in the mud since going sober. He went from threatening fans that threw bottles at Neal to sipping water at baseball games. Have a fucking drink, dude. We need a reunion tour!:lol:

ebake02 wrote:Everybody's sober! If you think about it, the greatest music in rock and roll history was written and/or recorded while under the influence of something. I bet if all these shit bands out there now starting dropping acid or something you would see music get a hell of lot better.

Sober? You don't watch TMZ, do you? I'm not seeing a lot of sobriety.

Memorex wrote:

ebake02 wrote:Everybody's sober! If you think about it, the greatest music in rock and roll history was written and/or recorded while under the influence of something. I bet if all these shit bands out there now starting dropping acid or something you would see music get a hell of lot better.

Sober? You don't watch TMZ, do you? I'm not seeing a lot of sobriety.

lol, that's the truth ...they aren't utilising it well, are they?!?!

Saint John wrote:Perry has certainly turned into a creatively bankrupt stick in the mud since going sober. He went from threatening fans that threw bottles at Neal to sipping water at baseball games. Have a fucking drink, dude. We need a reunion tour!:lol:

Michigan Girl wrote:

ebake02 wrote:Everybody's sober! If you think about it, the greatest music in rock and roll history was written and/or recorded while under the influence of something. I bet if all these shit bands out there now starting dropping acid or something you would see music get a hell of lot better.

Perhaps if we got drunk or high today's music would sound better!!

So i guess that will get me through a miley cyrus album

Michigan Girl wrote:

Memorex wrote:

ebake02 wrote:Everybody's sober! If you think about it, the greatest music in rock and roll history was written and/or recorded while under the influence of something. I bet if all these shit bands out there now starting dropping acid or something you would see music get a hell of lot better.

Sober? You don't watch TMZ, do you? I'm not seeing a lot of sobriety.

lol, that's the truth ...they aren't utilising it well, are they?!?!

I can't think of any INSPIRING musicians right now; no Claptons, Pages, Schons, Perrys- the real musicians don't make it big anymore. Everything is built for the tabloids.

Michigan Girl wrote:

ebake02 wrote:Everybody's sober! If you think about it, the greatest music in rock and roll history was written and/or recorded while under the influence of something. I bet if all these shit bands out there now starting dropping acid or something you would see music get a hell of lot better.

Perhaps if we got drunk or high today's music would sound better!!

I've tried. No. That doesn't work either.

maverick218 wrote:I can't think of any INSPIRING musicians right now; no Claptons, Pages, Schons, Perrys- the real musicians don't make it big anymore. Everything is built for the tabloids.

Butch Walker comes to mind immediately as one who is having a little bit of success here and there. Probably better known as an in-demand producer, but a very good songwriter, good singer, and one of the best live shows out there period--and an absolutely fanatical following of fans.

maverick218 wrote:I can't think of any INSPIRING musicians right now; no Claptons, Pages, Schons, Perrys- the real musicians don't make it big anymore.

Very sad too. When these guys die real music dies with them. There's nobody's following in their footsteps. I've heard quite a few musicians who could but they are too wrapped in this cookie cutter corporate pop shit. So enjoy it while you can because when it's gone we're never gonna see it again.

only problem with todays music is I am older and dont care for it... just like our parents didnt care for our music tastes, while we were growing up...

lights1961 wrote:only problem with todays music is I am older and dont care for it... just like our parents didnt care for our music tastes, while we were growing up...

Bingo.

Justin Bieber

The kid is making a ton of money. Overall, the market has gone to shit and people have poor taste these days. Talent is not a requirement for success
as much as pop culture acceptance. I mean, look at Lady Gaga....and the list goes on and on.

Jana wrote:

lights1961 wrote:only problem with todays music is I am older and dont care for it... just like our parents didnt care for our music tastes, while we were growing up...

Bingo.

I think it's more complicated than that. I have found music from all eras since the 50s (roughly the start of popular--as opposed to secular--rhythm and blues which would evolve into rock & roll) up to today that I can appreciate. A good song is a good song regardless of the production and arrangements. It doesn't have to have tenor vocals, a choir of background singers and wailing guitars to be a good song. You can strip it down to a singer with a piano and acoustic guitar, and a quality song will shine through.

That said, I'd say the 70s and 80s were probably the prime time for sheer amount of talent in the music scene. The effect of Elvis, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones (among others) prompted nearly every neighborhood to have a band. Radio wasn't nearly as corporate as it is today either, so if you had talent, you had a fairly decent shot. Looks and stage presence were immaterial. Not surprisingly, there was a flood of musicians out there trying to strike it rich.

Starting in the mid to late 90s, everything changed. MTV changed the rules to where you had to have star-power and look good in front of a camera in addition to talent in the 80s, and then it got worse. Radio became corporate and not controlled by the djs anymore, and breaking in got considerably more difficult. With today's economy and lack of sales in general, it's surprising that as many people make it in as they do, considering how low sales are. The easy track to wealth and fame without having an 8-5 job is long gone however. What it means is that there is less actual talent on the scene these days than there was 20 years ago.

Either way, I don't think age is anything more than a state of mind when it comes to music. As long as one is willing to be open-minded and have the willingness to try something new, there is still a lot of great music being produced. Some of it, you just have to search for.

Jana wrote:

lights1961 wrote:only problem with todays music is I am older and dont care for it... just like our parents didnt care for our music tastes, while we were growing up...

Bingo.

To a point....

I see my nieces and nephews.......especially one nephew, getting right into alot of the great 70s/80s classic rock of our era. He is always talking to me or my brother about 80s hard rock music like ACDC, G'n R, Aerosmith, etc. Me and my brother have always been rockers, where as my sis (his mom) was a preppy (or pop)....i.e., Duran Duran, Corey Hart, etc. LOL can't imagine their kids talking up Kanye West or having to have that old school Britney Spears album, 20 years from now.

And, stellar post Kev, couldn't agree more.

steveo777 wrote:Justin Bieber

The kid is making a ton of money. Overall, the market has gone to shit and people have poor taste these days. Talent is not a requirement for success
as much as pop culture acceptance. I mean, look at Lady Gaga....and the list goes on and on.

True dat! If you stripped down all the dance moves, glitz etc. and had no videos........just Vocal, instrument, and song writing talent, alot of acts/artists from this generation would be lost. Most couldn't play an instrument if their life depended on it, where as musicians from our era were more multitalented..........vocals and sometimes even more than one instrument.

steveo777 wrote:Talent is not a requirement for success

Talent, no. Marketability and star power? YES. As I have said before, someone like Roy Orbison with a golden voice and no stage presence whatsoever would have zero chance of making it these days--and that's a shame.

kgdjpubs wrote:

Jana wrote:

lights1961 wrote:only problem with todays music is I am older and dont care for it... just like our parents didnt care for our music tastes, while we were growing up...

Bingo.

I think it's more complicated than that. I have found music from all eras since the 50s (roughly the start of popular--as opposed to secular--rhythm and blues which would evolve into rock & roll) up to today that I can appreciate. A good song is a good song regardless of the production and arrangements. It doesn't have to have tenor vocals, a choir of background singers and wailing guitars to be a good song. You can strip it down to a singer with a piano and acoustic guitar, and a quality song will shine through.

That said, I'd say the 70s and 80s were probably the prime time for sheer amount of talent in the music scene. The effect of Elvis, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones (among others) prompted nearly every neighborhood to have a band. Radio wasn't nearly as corporate as it is today either, so if you had talent, you had a fairly decent shot. Looks and stage presence were immaterial. Not surprisingly, there was a flood of musicians out there trying to strike it rich.

Starting in the mid to late 90s, everything changed. MTV changed the rules to where you had to have star-power and look good in front of a camera in addition to talent in the 80s, and then it got worse. Radio became corporate and not controlled by the djs anymore, and breaking in got considerably more difficult. With today's economy and lack of sales in general, it's surprising that as many people make it in as they do, considering how low sales are. The easy track to wealth and fame without having an 8-5 job is long gone however. What it means is that there is less actual talent on the scene these days than there was 20 years ago.

Either way, I don't think age is anything more than a state of mind when it comes to music. As long as one is willing to be open-minded and have the willingness to try something new, there is still a lot of great music being produced. Some of it, you just have to search for.

True. But when people say there's NO good music being made, it does bring to mind my parents hating my music. LOL
I think a lot of good music came out of the '90s, also, not just '70s and '80s. It just depends if you're open to different genres of music. I am.

steveo777 wrote:Justin Bieber

The kid is making a ton of money. Overall, the market has gone to shit and people have poor taste these days. Talent is not a requirement for success
as much as pop culture acceptance. I mean, look at Lady Gaga....and the list goes on and on.

Lady Gaga is seen as talented. She writes, is classically trained in piano, has a strong voice, no lip-syncing, auto-tuning. She co-writes all of her music and has come out with a huge amount of pop hits that are a little more unique from her young pop contemporaries, and is definitely using pop culture to elevate herself, re her theme concerts, outlandish outfits, music videos. But as she evolves into what she calls more creative, deeper music on her upcoming album, it will be interesting to see if she has the stuff or will be a couple-album phenomenon and fade away.

Lady Gaga when she was just Stefani Germanotta, around 18 in school:

2005 live performance - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/1 ... 64026.html

I consider myself an outsider in my age group because just about everybody in my age group listens to Lady Gaga and all this other pop/dance crap. I prefer to stick with classic rock, 80s metal and 90s grunge. I think that kind of explains why I've never been the "cool popular crowd".

Jana wrote:

steveo777 wrote:Justin Bieber

The kid is making a ton of money. Overall, the market has gone to shit and people have poor taste these days. Talent is not a requirement for success
as much as pop culture acceptance. I mean, look at Lady Gaga....and the list goes on and on.

Lady Gaga is seen as talented. She writes, is classically trained in piano, has a strong voice, no lip-syncing, auto-tuning. She co-writes all of her music and has come out with a huge amount of pop hits that are a little more unique from her young pop contemporaries, and is definitely using pop culture to elevate herself, re her theme concerts, outlandish outfits, music videos. But as she evolves into what she calls more creative, deeper music on her upcoming album, it will be interesting to see if she has the stuff or will be a couple-album phenomenon and fade away.

Lady Gaga when she was just Stefani Germanotta:

2005 live performance - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/1 ... 64026.html

That's true. Like her or not, when it comes to "talent" she shouldn't be in the same sentence as Beiber.

Bieber to me is nothing more than a Disney corporate "robot". Miley Cyrus grew too old to maintain that squeaky clean goody goody image that Disney loves so Bieber became their new poster boy and when he grows too old they'll throw him out too and mold another one.