Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
SO, how about instead of nitpicking and bringing up the crappiest arguments imaginable, you guys tell me what YOU think relevant music is.I'll just do a quick review of what mine is for some of those who are kinda slow...
I’ll give some examples to be more clear. Again, I'm just looking at these artists according to my definition of being relevant. Go ahead and disagree with the definition itself...but if you start defending the individual examples then you're missing the point.
My Chemical Romance. Relevant? I'd say no.
-Not because they aren't a reflection of the times, but because they haven't made any significant contribution whatsoever to the art of music.
Tom Petty. Relevant? Again, I'd say no.
-Not because he doesn't make good music anymore, but because his sound is in no way pushing the musical envelope. I still think he makes quality music though.
M.I.A. - Relevant? Absolutely.
She's managed to reflect what's very "now" in her songs (on many levels, not just the social aspect), and it's been done in a very innovative and fresh way musically. Her album "Arular" was a mega hit and critically praised for both those reasons.
And for you RocasAtoll...as is the case with Lily Allen's "Alright, Still". That's exactly why she's relevant.
That's my take on it.
And btw The Core...I actually had high hopes for you. I like how you managed to side step giving your opinion on the debate, and just threw another pot-shot at me with the 2-Pac reference. Typical.
So she relevant because she has modern themes and how her music sounds?
Then what, again, keeps RATM or Smashing Pumpkins from evolving?
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
So she relevant because she has modern themes and how her music sounds?Then what, again, keeps RATM or Smashing Pumpkins from evolving?
I'll tell you right now that I don't think Allen or MIA have what it takes to be as relevant over as long a period of time as The Pumpkins were...
But...as I said earlier about bands who have already been around a while maintaining relevance..."it means being a sponge and an antenna for what's goin on in the world (both musically and socially), AND at the same time managing to hold close to the peak of your artistic powers."
I think the Pumpkins, for as well as they've done in the past on the musical end of things, don't have their mojo anymore...the same goes for Rage. I don't think they'll offer anything new to the table or make a significant, fresh contribution to music today. So I think they're done.
Of course I can't prove that...the same way I can't "prove" that Sgt. Peppers was one of the most relevant albums in rock history, but I've learned to develop a sixth sense about this stuff...and if you are looking for some kind of proof, then just look at the track record of MOST bands in the past who have attempted to do the same...it's overwhelmingly been pretty bad.
That's as best as I can explain it.
Thanks for being patient.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I don't think they'll offer anything new to the table or make a significant, fresh contribution to music today.
But you just said that those artists (M.I.A and Allen) are relevant, partially because they speak about the now, which anybody could do. So in that sense, The Pumpkins and Rage can quite obviously be relevant to what's going on today.
That's one use of the word relevant, I'm not sure what nonsense you're talking about when you say being relevant by being innovative.
-AC
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm not sure you got all of it though. It's what you said, AND "it's been done in a very innovative and fresh way musically".
So wouldn't Rage be "innovative and fresh" because there style of music has basically died out?
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES But...as I said earlier about bands who have already been around a while maintaining relevance..."it means being a sponge and an antenna for what's goin on in the world (both musically and socially), AND at the same time managing to hold close to the peak of your artistic powers."
And Rage has shown before they have artistic ability beyond the point of others. What keeps them from doing it again? Audioslave showed that Rage still had musical ability.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES I think the Pumpkins, for as well as they've done in the past, don't have their mojo anymore...the same goes for Rage. I don't think they'll offer anything new to the table or make a significant, fresh contribution to music today.
But, again, SP has shown the ability to adapt and thrive in changing times. Rage is still relevant in middle schools and high schools now, even though they haven't had a studio album in 6 years.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES Of course I can't prove that...the same way I can't "prove" that Sgt. Peppers was one of the most relevant albums in rock history, but if you are looking for some kind of indication, then just look at the track record of MOST bands in the past who have attempted to do the same...it's overwhelmingly been pretty bad.That's as best as I can explain it.
Thanks for being patient.
And Rage and Smashing Pumpkins aren't just "most" bands.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
That's all very nice, but your original post's sole focus was on RATM's comeback being a waste of time because they are no longer 'relevant'. Despite the fallacy of this belief, you didn't mention anything about them being a great band, so it would appear that you base your judgement on a band's supposed 'relevancy'.
Basically you're saying, I could've made the distinction and said...
..."I don't think Rage will ever write good music again"...
...which, according to me, doesn't have anything to do with being "relevant"...and wouldn't in fact make them a waste of time (as I appeared to suggest due to my usual bold and flippant tone).
Then fine. Right.
WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY WHAT I JUST SAID?
Still, there was the assumption however...Because I don't in fact think they will write good music, or make a fresh contribution, and I do indeed think they will be a waste of time...could've said that better though.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
So wouldn't Rage be "innovative and fresh" because there style of music has basically died out?......Audioslave showed that Rage still had musical ability.
And Audioslave showed that Audioslave had musical ability. But apart from that, musical ability does not a fresh and innovative contribution to music make.
Still, in terms of being relevant again, I do think these artists would have a better chance at not reuniting, but exploring more options and challenging themselves musically with other artists...like they've been doing. Didn't quite happen with Audioslave though. There was really no relevant music making there. They WERE Soundgarden meets Rage (which isn't the worst thing in the world)...but only after Soundgarden and Rage were relevant.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...an innovative and fresh contribution to the art of music...they can release an album full of fart noises if they'd want...and that could essentially be different from their old sound or style.And Audioslave showed that Audioslave had musical ability. And apart from that, musical ability does not a fresh and innovative contribution to music make.
Still, in terms of being relevant again, I do think these artists would have a better chance at not reuniting, but exploring more options and challenging themselves musically with other artists like they've been doing. But with Audioslave, there was really no relevant music making there. They WERE Soundgarden meets Rage...after Soundgarden and Rage were relevant.
Redundant indeed.
Ok. Then I won't bother explaining something for you when you ask. Thanks.
And it actually wasn't redundant...you made a lame point about them being fresh...simply because their music MIGHT be different than it was. And even still, you misundertood what "fresh" and "innovative" are referring to.
And you cited musical ability as some kind of connection to relevance.
I also thought I'd elaborate a bit to help you out.
You're a joker dude.