Originally posted by Lana
Tool
Radiohead
Depeche Mode
Queens of the Stone Age
System of a Down
Foo Fighters
Deftones
Audioslave
Metallica
WeezerJust a taste; those I all just named off the top of my head without even having to think about it.
I saw Mode in 82 before Dave got long hair
Foo Fighters 93
Metallica around 90
new bands 😂
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I saw Mode in 82 before Dave got long hair
Foo Fighters 93
Metallica around 90new bands 😂
I didn't say new. I said ones that are currently around. Foo Fighters and Depeche Mode both released albums this year; Metallica last year. I know how old they are, being as Depeche Mode and Metallica I've listened to all my life, and I have been a fan of Foo Fighters since they started.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Tool an not "cool" tahts a shame for you ACThe Cure were cool in the circles I moved in at the time which was University.
Like the Stone Roses were cool when I saw them at spike island and Nottingham Poly.
Yes shit as PVS stated was common in the mainstream.
Music has not really changed for the better - I would put "Waterloo Sunset", "Penny Lane" most of "Pet Sounds" etc against anything today.
That first sentance made no sense.
Exactly, in certain circles. It wasn't Curemania was it? No.
There are undoubtedly phases in music, movements, but if bands are genuinely great then their lifespan is not dictated by the lifespan of the phase.
You choosing those older albums over anything today is fine with me. I love Pet Sounds, it's one of the best albums of all time. That doesn't mean that music today is shit though, it's not.
To PVS: Great, is subjective. So I can't prove any bands are great anymore than you can prove they're shit. I could name you all the bands I personally believe to be great and you could think they're shit, vice versa. Although I know for a fact we share some tastes (Slayer, Metallica, Priest? etc)
Lana, St. Anger came out in 03. Not 04.
In light of your reply to Lana, Whirly: You've proven that you don't actually believe there are no good bands today. You just don't like the fact that the music of your youth is no longer around or prominent. Which is tough shit.
If you'd deprive music of it's evolution then you're no music fan anyway.
-AC
Tool-old
Radiohead-very original, but again, old
Depeche Mode-old
Queens of the Stone Age-ill give you that
System of a Down-that too
Foo Fighters-cool band, but only hyped and successful because of nirvana.
Deftones-old
Audioslave-successful based on rage and soundgargen's legacy
Metallica-old (and now suck major ass...sorry)
Weezer-old
now before you reply let me explain.
when i say 'old' i simply mean that these bands exist today and are able to be promoted while at the same time not allowing their creativity to be hijacked and sterilized ala metallica. the reason is because their sound is tried and true, so producers give them freedom. thats why they still sound cool, because they are considered to be a low risk investment.
foo fighters and audioslave are new bands, but instantly shot to fame because of who's IN those bands, so really they are just spinoff mergers of old sucessful bands with loyal followings. so...OLD
unfortunately for new bands, big business takes no risks. they want a sure winner and thus stick to a formula. the proof being all these new bands which sound like carbon copies of eachother, but when you get your hands on an old track or even demo, its like listening to another band entirely. record companies like to think of it as polishing a rough diamond, i think of it as grinding a diamond into dust.
:edit: again, "old" does not imply anything negative. just that they are veterans who's success is proven
Originally posted by PVS
Radiohead-very original, but again, old
Depeche Mode-old
Queens of the Stone Age-ill give you that
System of a Down-that too
Foo Fighters-cool band, but only hyped and successful because of nirvana.
Deftones-old
Audioslave-successful based on rage and soundgargen's legacy
Metallica-old (and now suck major ass...sorry)
Weezer-oldnow before you reply let me explain.
when i say 'old' i simply mean that these bands exist today and are able to be promoted while at the same time not allowing their creativity to be hijacked and sterilized ala metallica. the reason is because their sound is tried and true, so producers give them freedom. thats why they still sound cool, because they are considered to be a low risk investment.foo fighters and audioslave are new bands, but instantly shot to fame because of who's IN those bands, so really they are just spinoff mergers of old sucessful bands with loyal followings. so...OLD
unfortunately for new bands, big business takes no risks. they want a sure winner and thus stick to a formula. the proof being all these new bands which sound like carbon copies of eachother, but when you get your hands on an old track or even demo, its like listening to another band entirely. record companies like to think of it as polishing a rough diamond, i think of it as grinding a diamond into dust.
I don't think it's at all fair to say Foo Fighters, today, are praised because of Nirvana. Their live show is absolutely outstanding, that's not because of Nirvana. You can't make good music because of who you WERE. You make music because of who you are.
In that case, which I mostly agree with you, we're saying that many great bands exist. They're just not new. Which I never denied.
-AC
Originally posted by PVS
Radiohead-very original, but again, old
Depeche Mode-old
Queens of the Stone Age-ill give you that
System of a Down-that too
Foo Fighters-cool band, but only hyped and successful because of nirvana.
Deftones-old
Audioslave-successful based on rage and soundgargen's legacy
Metallica-old (and now suck major ass...sorry)
Weezer-oldnow before you reply let me explain.
when i say 'old' i simply mean that these bands exist today and are able to be promoted while at the same time not allowing their creativity to be hijacked and sterilized ala metallica. the reason is because their sound is tried and true, so producers give them freedom. thats why they still sound cool, because they are considered to be a low risk investment.foo fighters and audioslave are new bands, but instantly shot to fame because of who's IN those bands, so really they are just spinoff mergers of old sucessful bands with loyal followings. so...OLD
unfortunately for new bands, big business takes no risks. they want a sure winner and thus stick to a formula. the proof being all these new bands which sound like carbon copies of eachother, but when you get your hands on an old track or even demo, its like listening to another band entirely. record companies like to think of it as polishing a rough diamond, i think of it as grinding a diamond into dust.
This is why I could never put you on ignore sometimes I agree with you 😕
AC - was it 03? I couldn't remember, actually, I thought it was 03 or 04 but didn't feel like looking it up right now.
PVS - Tool's not been around for 15 years, and they're one of a very few bands who can consistently get better with each album. But how old they are is not my point. My point was that there ARE bands today, currently still recording and putting out music, who are well-known or mainstream, and are very good. Audioslave sounds nothing like either Rage or Soundgarden; with their first album it was mostly because of the former bands of the members that they were known, I'll give you that, but with their second they have certainly grown into their own band. Same with Foo Fighters - they sound nothing like Nirvana, they simply both have Dave Grohl as a member. I have heard many demo and unreleased tracks of these bands, and there are just as good as the polished stuff on the CDs.
Yes, most bands today sound exactly the same - just look at MTV. But there are many bands who are very different and very good. Just they are not always well-known.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't think it's at all fair to say Foo Fighters, today, are praised because of Nirvana. Their live show is absolutely outstanding, that's not because of Nirvana. You can't make good music because of who you WERE. You make music because of who you are.In that case, which I mostly agree with you, we're saying that many great bands exist. They're just not new. Which I never denied.
-AC
Exactly not much original stuff from "new bands" around which is what I said.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't think it's at all fair to say Foo Fighters, today, are praised because of Nirvana. Their live show is absolutely outstanding, that's not because of Nirvana. You can't make good music because of who you WERE. You make music because of who you are.In that case, which I mostly agree with you, we're saying that many great bands exist. They're just not new. Which I never denied.
-AC
you make a poor assumption.
im not talking about their sound.
david grohl (spelling?) was famous before foo fighters existed.
thats why they were instantly hyped and promoted. not because
he's so damn talented, but simply because he was part of the most
popular band at the time. producers saw dollar signs and promoted
the hell out of him without question and most important: without suggestion/intervention.
all im saying is that foo fighters, in the eyes of the industry NOT THE FANS was basically (potentially) nirvana 2.0
same goes to your reply lana. im not talking about sound. im talking about artistic freedom, which those (8 out of 10) were granted simply because of their lagacy, not because of their sound. producers dont hear music, they see profit.
Originally posted by Lana
AC - was it 03? I couldn't remember, actually, I thought it was 03 or 04 but didn't feel like looking it up right now.PVS - Tool's not been around for 15 years, and they're one of a very few bands who can consistently get better with each album. But how old they are is not my point. My point was that there ARE bands today, currently still recording and putting out music, who are well-known or mainstream, and are very good. Audioslave sounds nothing like either Rage or Soundgarden; with their first album it was mostly because of the former bands of the members that they were known, I'll give you that, but with their second they have certainly grown into their own band. Same with Foo Fighters - they sound nothing like Nirvana, they simply both have Dave Grohl as a member. I have heard many demo and unreleased tracks of these bands, and there are just as good as the polished stuff on the CDs.
Foo Fighters are not a new band and whilst I enjoy their music the are very derivative and typical of there genre. PVS is right they were promoted to hell.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Foo Fighters are not a new band and whilst I enjoy their music the are very derivative and typical of there genre. PVS is right they were promoted to hell.
Do you read anything? I did not say anything about new, I said current. Meaning currently recording/releasing music, touring, etc.
And what does them being promoted have to do with anything? They still make good music. Many bands who are promoted to hell make shit, and many who are all but ignored are great.
Originally posted by PVS
you make a poor assumption.
im not talking about their sound.
david grohl (spelling?) was famous before foo fighters existed.
thats why they were instantly hyped and promoted. not because
he's so damn talented, but simply because he was part of the most
popular band at the time. producers saw dollar signs and promoted
the hell out of him without question and most important: without suggestion/intervention.all im saying is that foo fighters, in the eyes of the industry NOT THE FANS was basically (potentially) nirvana 2.0
I didn't say you were saying that about their sound. It was an independent point I was making in connection to yours.
I agree with you. My point was, you said music today is horrible or something to that effect (I'm not quoting you). It's not is it? You mean new bands. Not necessarily bands today.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say you were saying that about their sound. It was an independent point I was making in connection to yours.I agree with you. My point was, you said music today is horrible or something to that effect (I'm not quoting you). It's not is it? You mean new bands. Not necessarily bands today.
-AC
Which is what I'm trying to say. Current does not equal new.
Originally posted by TwisterGameX
Lana is doing something illegal msn-oh
No I'm not....
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say you were saying that about their sound. It was an independent point I was making in connection to yours.I agree with you. My point was, you said music today is horrible or something to that effect (I'm not quoting you). It's not is it? You mean new bands. Not necessarily bands today.
-AC
Unfortunatly most music today is less original and horrible.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say you were saying that about their sound. It was an independent point I was making in connection to yours.I agree with you. My point was, you said music today is horrible or something to that effect (I'm not quoting you). It's not is it? You mean new bands. Not necessarily bands today.
-AC
yes, i mean new bands. new bands who were selected for fame because of their sound and more importantly, their following.
then they are taken in with the attitude of "now we'll make a REAL band out of these kids" and their sound is systematically ripped apart and amputated. whats left is the same abomination thats already on the radio from dozens of other generic crap bands. sometimes they find exceptional whores and thus a boy band is born 😂 sugar ray anyone?
and as far as the old bands, they can only pump life into the industry for so long, until they're just another rolling stones. touring when they should have retired years ago, while there are cover bands playing their own classics far better than they can.
then they are taken in with the attitude of "now we'll make a REAL band out of these kids" and their sound is systematically ripped apart and amputated. whats left is the same abomination thats already on the radio from dozens of other generic crap bands.
And THAT is why I rarely listen to the radio and NEVER watch MTV 😉
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you are of the belief that great bands exist to pump life into the industry as opposed to existing WITH the industry, then I don't know if someone of your point of view will ever believe that great bands can last.-AC
I stood next to Roger Daltrey in the Crumbles Cinema toilets in Eastbourne, you would not believe how short he is. He was cool I hummed "My Generation" and he laughed, He was taking his grandchildren to the pictures this is a few years ago 😕 Maybe 5.