Discussion in 'The Sound Hound Lounge' started by LP Freak, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:30 PM.
Quoted because you're right.
Having lived through its inception, I remember rock being called the devils music, sinister, & outrageous among many other negative labels that were attached to it at the time...all of which kind of made it fun & mysterious to us kids and our parents didn't "get" it so it scared them. Since then, IMO, society in general has become more outrageous than that evil rock music, so rock became nothing much to get excited about. Reading the daily paper or listening to the evening news is more outrageous...and now rock is even played in churches...and many of you are playing electric guitar with no amps. Go figure...where are we headed? What happened to the good old days when you cranked your amp and flipped the world the bird.
That's why it's called The GEAR Page, not The Musician Page.
Old guy using computers to make money decries computers.
Is Rick auditioning for Old Rock Guy ESPN? He's the Stephen A. Smith of Hot Takes In Music.
Point missed, again.
Oh no. I got it. I just don't feel like it's worth typing up a whole rebuttal.
ONLY if you're too lazy to actually try to find new music that doesn't conform to your prejudices.
For an extra credit exercise, try going back and listening to some of the other stuff that was popular in whatever year you think was perfect, but isn't part of the classic rock rotation today. You'll find some truly cringeworthy crap in there.
There was a lot of lousy music in the 1960s, and I'm not just talking about Ray Stevens and the Archies.
What added value to the music that was good, though, was that most of your friends were into many of the same 30 bands you liked, and went to 30 of the same concerts you saw. You built a bond, from common experience. You could meet new people from other towns, etc., at parties and often they listened to the same people you did - maybe they knew a few additional ones in the same vein. Band names/artists names were a shorthand form of language; a simple enough vocabulary you could learn and speak this language in no time.
There's tons of great music being done now. The best of it is usually recorded without fancy software. What's deficient in it, in my view, is there's only a small number of people who know this band and that guy, this girl and those bands. Without the essential element of shared experience, you get less. A composition is robbed of its potential simply because not enough people know about it and are influenced by it. This is a terrible shame.
So, lay down on my lawn if you want, because you must have the wrong guy you're complaining about.
It depends on where you live. I hang with my much younger brother in Brooklyn a bit and there are whole vital scenes around bands most people have never heard of. A lot of music out of the Top 40 has become regional again.
So I'd guess that in a lot of places, it feels lost. It isn't. It's just not where everyone looks anymore. That's not the fault of computers, it's more the fault of radio consolidation. Thanks Clear Channel/iHeartRadio.
Disco is probably the first thing people picture when they think danceable, either way that's not the point. I love music with groove just as much as anybody but I also love a lot of other music with no intention of being danceable. That's really narrowing down what you are calling valuable and ignores a vast part of music. I don't care what you or anyone else likes but to place that specific of a parameter for what you find worth listening to or playing seems extremely limiting. I think part of that mindset here is from the cover band mentality, which is probably more applicable in those cases. It's just a strange mantra I've seen repeated here for years, especially in this subforum. Sometimes I love playing a song that has a killer groove but sometimes I want a different feel and luckily there are people out there that want to hear that as well, there is no one crowd with singular tastes.
I'm interested to hear it as well. I will be doing the same thing soon and I don't want to go with a hifi modern recording like I have done in the past. We did the drums at a nice studio with a lot of room sound to get more vibe, the rest will be done in my basement ITB.
It's always about the music or art until money comes into the equation. Then it's all about the money.
Rock ruined itself. Computers ruined society. We no longer use our brains.
I go back to the 70s. I have seen the rise and fall of rock. The big arenas, the big hair, the big amps and the big stage show. You want to know what was common with the 70s, 80s and 90s??? It was ALWAYS about imagery, a certain niche sound and of course the big one............drum roll...............Profit!!! God forbid you had real talent and wanted to be original. They would ask security to stomp you out of the record label office.
Since we are talking computers lets use cut, copy and paste.
Motley Crue, Poison, Warrant, Skid Row, Cinderella, LA Guns, Guns N Roses, Ratt, Van Halen, etc.
Yes some will argue that there is great music with some of who I mentioned. Agreed. However it is still cut, copy and paste formula music.
Things go in cycles and rock has a very long way to go before it comes back around.
You are right, it is partially about money to begin with. And there is nothing about that that is wrong. Making money at music allows artists more freedom to create.
That isn't the point. When money becomes the objective and not the tool, that is the problem.
And the reality is that the music industry is indeed an industry, and is by necessity more concerned with the buck. Some musicians are more about the music.
What got promoted to radio and TV was not "pure raw rock", what was promoted and became the mainstream focus was the parody of rock that the industry found far easier to exploit and promote. They didn't exactly do away with it, it just became overshadowed by the desire to make the huge bucks.
Don't misunderstand me, I am all for musicians and labels making money. That isn't the problem.
The problem is, like everything else, when accountants and lawyers run the industry rather than musicians and music fans.
He literally took the drum track from the SG song and quantized a section of it and it had no hugely discernible effect on the song. The song was still good. He also tossed in that well--their drummer is so tight what he's playing is basically quantized lol ok. The nickelback song sucked and no amount of 'humanizing' will change that imo. Sorry I'm just not buying that nickleback etc were some great band that got quantized into vapid trash(it was trash going in). I still agree there's still something inherently off-putting about it fwiw. Kinda curious what some people's opinions are of(would have otherwise been) great tunes that got ruined by this?(wouldn't there be live performances proving the 'truth') Because what I remember from that era he's referencing was a bunch of crappy songs.
And I'm not sure I believe that if the Police played your favorite tune of theirs live and the stars aligned that night and everything happened to be bang on that it would then turn it into something else altogether that you don't like. Because the song is good.
LOL! Sad to go through life with that mindset but it's your life. Just FYI Rock n' Roll is very much alive & well in 2019! It isn't 'ruined', 'dead' or any of the other nonsense you guys think, feel & talk about. Plenty of great new music & I go to a ton of shows - they're all packed, cool & fun.
One guy who would have had a ball and really could dig into that type of editing tools would have been Frank Zappa, especially considering how he liked to cutup and re-contextualize improvisations. He was doing those with the equivalent of a meat cleaver to the mad detail he could have been able to get out of modern editing tools.
I think perhaps a bit overlooked in the whole techno/house/edm music is how well this type of technology has been done in making film and soundtrack music. I think there is some pretty cool stuff done in that type of music and shows what you can do with this technology.
Indeed. Rock era musicians used the technology to augment their talents and to help them be even more creative.
Now instead of modern music merely using it to augment creativity, far too often it is used in place of creativity.
It isn't an original, I copped it from somewhere but use it because it paints the picture with far fewer words. Aside from it is cleverly funny.
This is only a little bit true. Men with long hair is nothing new historically. Rock musicians dressed masculine until Alice Cooper ( the band, not the singer) appeared on album covers looking a bit feminine. But even then most of the bands during the rock era didn't buy into it, it was only the peripheral stuff, the more pop stuff like Bowie and hair bands and other stuff that was more a parody or exaggeration of rock that went that direction. Up until then rock bands mostly appeared on stage in blue jeans and T shirts. And without a need for insanely expensive stage shows with props and pyrotechnics the way the pop stuff that followed rock (but pretended to be rock) did.
Isn't that a bit racist? Do you assume that only white men are capable of hearing the damage modern production techniques do to the music?
Trust me, I am an old hippie and jumped on the anti-establishment bandwagon for a bit, until I realized that without the establishment my favorite bands would have never been heard on the radio or anywhere else other than their home towns. I was never really so much anti-establishment as I was anti- abused establishment.
There is indeed a difference. Establishment isn't bad, and is a necessity for societies to exist. Without establishment, there is anarchy, and anarchy destroys everything, it doesn't promote anything including art.
Becoming the establishment helps promote and keep artistic endeavors healthy. Corrupt establishment destroys art and every other pursuit.
Every artist you have heard of is either establishment or has created their own establishment for you to have heard them, unless they live on your block and their reputation goes no further than that.
Those are all artists that came along well after rock and are of another style, sadly they are saddled with the ancient term "rock". They are an offshoot of rock, and rock era influenced , but they deserve their own nomenclature.
I don't complain about music, and I do make music. But I do feel responsible to speak out about it when the music culture gets poisoned by outside influences that do not have the best interest of artistic endeavor.
That is no more complaining than being a witness to an accident and recounting it is complaining.
I don't know what you have been exposed to that calls itself "rock" , but much of the rock era music was a hell of a lot more than a "bunch of basic chords".
Your comment seems to ignore all the rock music that carried a jazz influence or fit into the "progressive rock" category".
Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles before Bernie Leadon left were every bit as much rock as Zeplin and Deep Purple. When rock was happening there was no distinction.
It was all just "rock".
One of the main elements of rock was that it was no certain style, it was a generation and a mindset toward creating music.
Relegating it to some revisionist notion of being about nothing more than loud drums and fuzz pedals is a serious over simplification of what rock was.
Doing so is what brought it down , by creating a stereotype based on the extremes and bands then trying to fit into the mold of that stereotype.
THAT is what the major factor in causing rock to no longer be a new creative force was.
Don`t worry guys, I read that the European Union destroyed the internet today!
You may be right, there, but it's not where I came from with my own thought. I haven't thought in cover band terms for a very long time, and have no wish to. I don't like playing in them, and I don't like going out to hear them when it doesn't cost me a thing to listen to a rather large music library of my own. But good luck in my burg trying to find players willing to try original music even if it's got a solid groove---the very thought of that plus improvisation makes them want to run home to mommy at the first chance.