Hedwig and the Angry Inch soundtrack!
For those of us rock “purists” who grew up on Beatles, Rolling Stones and Jefferson Airplane, rock is very dead. i’m talking about music based on rhythm and blues and 12-bar delta blues, as most of the early rock was indeed based. Just because a band has a wannabe acid-rock name, has boatloads of insincere screaming vocals, alot of synthtetic noise disguised as clever guitar work, and wierdos disguised as serious muscians, does not mean that what they play and/or foist upon the unsuspecting public is even rock, has a message or is anything more than a passing fad. And yes, what #%@^*& Alternative music are you talking about? That was just more insubstantial noise that polluted our airwaves not so long ago, courtesy of the music industry. Noise with a catchy label and nothing more.
Dave Mathews.
Susan Tedeschi. (Sometimes wanders into rock.)
Pete Yorn.
Cracker.
There are more.
Whaddya want, man? Quit complaining and listen.
Peace,
mangeorge
Sounds to me like you’re the one who’s dead, grandpa.
Don’t believe everything you hear on the radio. As Woodstockbirdybird so eloquently put it, there is plenty of good rock ‘n’ roll out there if you’re willing to look. And if you’re not an old fart with his head up his ass.
>>>>Sounds to me like you’re the one who’s dead.<<<<
Wrong sissyboy. How else could i write this response, hmmmm?
>>>>Don’t believe everything you hear on the radio.<<<<
Wrong again you-know-what-for-brains. i don’t listen to that much radio anyway, or cable TV, perhaps that could explain your confusion. What ever gave you that idea?
>>>>As Woodstockbirdybird so eloquently put it, there is plenty of good rock ‘n’ roll out there if you’re willing to look.<<<<
Wrong again Butterballs! i think what you mean is if i’m willing to pay for it. And on top of that i disagree with the gist of what you’re saying. You say there’s still rock and roll to be had out there? i say show me the kwon.
Purists? Sounds like a eugenics argument…
Frankly,and I know I shall never be allowed back in here again for this, I think the Beatles suck ditch water. Twist and Shout was their ONLY imaginative song period. My CD collection probably looks a lot like okielady’s little bit of everything (but Beatles)and I am pleased that I enjoy new stuff as well as music that was OLD when I was born in '65. So I have everything from 50s blues to Fuel…
*Originally posted by dragonfly98 *
**For those of us rock “purists” who grew up on Beatles, Rolling Stones and Jefferson Airplane, rock is very dead. i’m talking about music based on rhythm and blues and 12-bar delta blues, as most of the early rock was indeed based. Just because a band has a wannabe acid-rock name, has boatloads of insincere screaming vocals, alot of synthtetic noise disguised as clever guitar work, and wierdos disguised as serious muscians, does not mean that what they play and/or foist upon the unsuspecting public is even rock, has a message or is anything more than a passing fad. **
You’ve never listened to a single band I mentioned in my post, have you? It’s obvious you just looked at the names and assumed like mad. Oh, and real “rock purists” would have listed the MC5 and Radio Birdman, too. But wait, have you even heard them either?
P.S. On a “wet blanket” note: last I checked, we save namecalling for the Pit. Ok? Ok.
toshirodragon : i disagree. The Beatles were much more than just another flash in the pan rock act. They added scope and creativity to rock and roll, and thusly energized it, widened its horizons if you will.
Rock-n-Rolga: i still don’t grasp the gist of what you’re saying here. Still, i will answer your questions as stated.
>>>You’ve never listened to a single band I mentioned in my post, have you?<<<
Prolly not. Like i said before what does it matter?
>>>It’s obvious you just looked at the names and assumed like mad.<<<
Exactly. Want to know the reason why? i, like so many others, just sat there in mock amusement/extreme horror as The Rolling Stones and even Black Sabbath just burned out after a few good ablums. Todays bands, though i admit that many of them do sound like they have talent and extreme potential, just aren’t able to fill the bill. One exception does come to mind though… Green Day.
>>>Oh, and real “rock purists” would have listed the MC5 and Radio Birdman, too. But wait, have you even heard them either?<<<
Yes i have heard of MC5. And i have heard of the Dave Clark Five, The Monkees and Paul Revere and the Raiders as well. What’s your point?? Seems to me like you are bending over backwards to prove something that just isn’t possible or even true, namely that rock and roll is still fresh and pure as it was during its inception, and not the 3 ring circus freak show that it obviously is today.
*Originally posted by dragonfly98 *
**
Rock-n-Rolga: i still don’t grasp the gist of what you’re saying here. Still, i will answer your questions as stated.>>>You’ve never listened to a single band I mentioned in my post, have you?<<<
Prolly not. Like i said before what does it matter?
>>>It’s obvious you just looked at the names and assumed like mad.<<<
Exactly. Want to know the reason why? i, like so many others, just sat there in mock amusement/extreme horror as The Rolling Stones and even Black Sabbath just burned out after a few good ablums. Todays bands, though i admit that many of them do sound like they have talent and extreme potential, just aren’t able to fill the bill. One exception does come to mind though… Green Day.
>>>Oh, and real “rock purists” would have listed the MC5 and Radio Birdman, too. But wait, have you even heard them either?<<<
Yes i have heard of MC5. And i have heard of the Dave Clark Five, The Monkees and Paul Revere and the Raiders as well. What’s your point?? Seems to me like you are bending over backwards to prove something that just isn’t possible or even true, namely that rock and roll is still fresh and pure as it was during its inception, and not the 3 ring circus freak show that it obviously is today. **
And it sounds like you’re all too glad to display an awful lot of ignorance about the state of Rock-n-Roll today. Honestly, if you have to ask “What does it matter?” then you’re displaying a disappointing amount of intolerance. I have zero patience for that, especially when it comes to giving bands a chance. If you’re gonna publicly dismiss my opinion/advice wholesale, you’ll have to do a lot better than covering your ears and shouting “I don’t wanna! Lalalala I can’t hear yoouuuu!”
What have you got to lose by checking a few of them out? I’ll tell ya what: nothing. Those bands I mentioned had NO synthesized anything, no screaming, no insincerity, no “weirdos” - just pure rock that’s true to its roots. Now you show me “the kwon”!
By the way, I didn’t say have you heard of those bands, I said have you heard them. One preposition makes a big difference, no? Please don’t twist or flat out dismiss my words like that. Thanks.
P.S. Bending over backwards? Sheeit, honey, I can’t even see the ceiling yet!
Take the road that leads to ALT-COUNTRY.
*Originally posted by dragonfly98 *
**One exception does come to mind though… Green Day.
**
Let me get this straight…the Beatles revolutionized Rock ‘n’ Roll, and then nothing even vaguely comparable happened in rock music between the decline of Sabbath and the Stones and…well, Green Day, of course. The saviors of modern rock. Looks like you win, gramps.
Glass Onions
Uhhhh, yeah… that’s WHAT i thought…
Originally posted by dragonfly98 *
**For those of us rock “purists” who grew up on Beatles, Rolling Stones and Jefferson Airplane, rock is very dead. i’m talking about music based on rhythm and blues and 12-bar delta blues, as most of the early rock was indeed based. Just because a band has a wannabe acid-rock name, has boatloads of insincere screaming vocals, alot of synthtetic noise disguised as clever guitar work, and wierdos disguised as serious muscians, does not mean that what they play and/or foist upon the unsuspecting public is even rock, has a message or is anything more than a passing fad. And yes, what #%@^& Alternative music are you talking about? That was just more insubstantial noise that polluted our airwaves not so long ago, courtesy of the music industry. Noise with a catchy label and nothing more. **
I’ll let someone else reply:
For those of us blues “purists” who grew up on Louis Armstrong, Big Boy Crudup and Robert Nighthawk, this “rock music” is very dead. i’m talking about music based on rhythm and blues and 12-bar delta blues, as most of the early blues was indeed based. Just because a band has a wannabe rock name, has boatloads of insincere screaming vocals, alot of synthtetic noise disguised as clever guitar work, and wierdos disguised as serious muscians, does not mean that what they play and/or foist upon the unsuspecting public is even music, has a message or is anything more than a passing fad. And yes, what #%@^*& Alternative music are you talking about? That was just more insubstantial noise that polluted our airwaves not so long ago, courtesy of the music industry. Noise with a catchy label and nothing more.
- dragonfly98’s old relative
Sorry, dragonfly98, the problem isn’t today’s music. The problem is you’re just too damned old. I suggest you move to Florida where you can live in an attached-bungalow retirement community, wear black socks with shorts, get confused by voting machines, and beg for government handouts. If yiu’re lucky, the nurse will let you play backgammon or watch General Hospital, as long as you don’t get too excited and overwork your heart. Put some pictures of your grandchildren up on the mantle, because you’re just too old to know what’s cool.
*Originally posted by dragonfly98 *
**Glass Onions
Uhhhh, yeah… that’s WHAT i thought…
**
:rolleyes: Sorry, but you gotta respond to my challenge first before you can up the ante. Besides, I listened to some Glass Onions sound files and they’re a nostalgia act. They’re not exactly original and innovative, and are rather insipid to boot, IMO. Frankly, if that’s the best example you can come up with, you probably can’t handle what Sweden has to offer these days.
Ok, your turn! Here’s three bands to get ya started, linked to the right spot and all. Now you have no excuse. Claim that you still don’t want to give them a try and you’ve earned yourself a one-way ticket to Coventry, because everyone knows that trolls can’t rock.
Hellacopters sound clips
Radio Birdman sound clips
Backyard Babies sound clips
Wow. I am surprised by the reaction to this album. It is a good album, I would even say great. It, however, did not “save rock & roll”. Anybody who thinks that it did, or buy into its mythical status, has been misled. Greenriver, Mother Love Bone and Soundgarden had been making that “grunge” type of music for a few years by the time Nevermind swept over the radio.
As Jaimest said, rock works is cycles. Every time there is a bog down in the cycle people ask if rock is dead. There was a clear bog down with hair bands in the mid-late 80’s. There was a time when everyone thought that Warrent clones were going to keep on coming. Thank god they didn’t, but that is another thread.
What Nevermind did was help people realize that there was music out there that broke the mold of what they had been listening to. Of course there is now another bog down in the cycle, and it is the after effects of Nirvana.
In a couple of years a new band will come along and be credited with saving rock. They won’t save rock, they will just change listening habits of the general public. Of course the media will turn them into another Nirvana. I guess that like many other things it is easy to blame the media for all this. After all, it was the media that gave us the term “alternative rock”. There is no such thing as alternative - only stuff that you aren’t listening too.
And if you don’t believe me about the media then you’ll have to try and explain Hootie and the Blowfish.
Let me see if i have this right…Because i don’t like the crapola that you don’t like means that rock and roll is still a viable art form??
Yeah right. Who are Hootie and the Gold fish anyway?
Serious question.
Medium/old fart checking in.
Let’s not forget that in the time when Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Genesis and many others made their classic albums, the charts and TV shows were dominated by the likes of Osmonds, Bay City Rollers and Rubettes. Singles charts have rarely been the right benchmark for good musical taste.
There are still plenty of bands in the nineties up to the present that manage to make good rock in the widest definition of the word. Names that (I think) have not been mentioned so far in this respect are Cranberries, Coldplay and Travis.
Last great rock album? Well, Smashing Pumpkins “Mellon Collie & the Infinite Sadness” springs to mind (1994). Look up any review of this album, and you’ll read words like “pompous” “bombastic” “over the top” “eclectic” “epic” - all the things a good rock album should be :).
If rock is dead…where have all the talented young musicians gone? They can’t all be sulking in their garages. The music industry sucks, for sure…the charts suck, absolutely…but nah, rock isn’t dead. You just have to look harder to find the good stuff.
If you want good old-fashioned rock-n-roll, complete with sex-n-drugs, you can get it (the afore-mentioned Chili Peppers are great for this, the Pumpkins…well, they imploded like any super-ego-driven band should…and there are lots of others - the survivors of Nirvana have done some great stuff as Foo Fighters)
If you want something progressive…how about Frank Black, who changed the face of rock in the late 80s with the Pixies (and if you don’t believe me, ask all the grunge bands of the 90s who followed the soft-verse-loud-chorus concept that the Pixies trademarked - including Kurt Cobain, who admitted that Smells Like Teen Spirit was a tribute to the Pixies).
Well, I’m leaving myself open to sneers here (don’t hit me wid dem negative waves so early in the morning), but I reckon right now is a golden age for rock. And I never listen to the charts.