|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
falco
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:10 pm Post subject: Rock and roll is dead. |
 |
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Stamos jr.
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Namsan
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's been dead since the mid-late 70s. Genres come and go, but some sad, pathetic people with bad ears keep dragging them around like Bernie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Stamos jr. wrote: |
| It's been dead since the mid-late 70s. Genres come and go, but some sad, pathetic people with bad ears keep dragging them around like Bernie. |
So says the guy who named himself after a sitcom actor from the '80s who also happens to be a musician for The Beach Boys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3YpwwXAsdc
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Stamos jr.
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Namsan
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, I love the Beach Boys but they also started sucking around the time I mentioned, and most likely even before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rock died when the record companies went Wall Street. They started to only sign bands that could fit a niche that made money.
Talent wasn't the focus, image was. The labels in the past would take a chance on a rare talent. Nurture it/them. Nowadays when they do sign a talented person or group they try and change them to play certain songs that appeal to the demographic that is buying certain sounds.
Not just rock either, country, hip hop, etc. has been compromised by corporatizing for record labels run by Harvard MBAs who wouldn't know good music if it bit them in their assets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
Rock died when the record companies went Wall Street. They started to only sign bands that could fit a niche that made money.
Talent wasn't the focus, image was. The labels in the past would take a chance on a rare talent. Nurture it/them. Nowadays when they do sign a talented person or group they try and change them to play certain songs that appeal to the demographic that is buying certain sounds. |
You mean as opposed to the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Seems to me that most of the music these days is fairly mass market, even the pretentious/trendy stuff.
| Quote: |
| Not just rock either, country, hip hop, etc. has been compromised by corporatizing for record labels run by Harvard MBAs who wouldn't know good music if it bit them in their assets. |
Meh, I think it's just that the novelty has worn off. In the 60s and 70s it all sounded new and fresh. Now we're just living off the scraps of those eras, and its all become a giant cliche. I don't see the point in blaming the record labels, I just don't think there's that many good bands anymore. There are a few, to be sure, but they just don't have the novelty of the big rock bands in decades past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Beatles and Rolling Stones wrote music they felt for the most part. Their musical progression on albums showed the changes they were going through. Yes, there is always some mass appeal to songs but no where near what it is today where artists don't even write their own songs.
John and Paul would have had producers, writers, image consultants assigned to them today. No way you'd hear some of their classics and the direction they went often times under todays more corporate environment where they'd scrap many of their experimental songs because it didn't appeal to their fan base or that almighty 18-36 age group niche we keep hearing about.
Not sure how anyone can see todays overall music scene as anything but a far more manufactured and run with a banker's mentality than the '70s and '60s.
Bands from those eras do massively well in arenas today I think because people long for 'real' unadulterated music. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
The Beatles and Rolling Stones wrote music they felt for the most part. Their musical progression on albums showed the changes they were going through. Yes, there is always some mass appeal to songs but no where near what it is today where artists don't even write their own songs.
John and Paul would have had producers, writers, image consultants assigned to them today. No way you'd hear some of their classics and the direction they went often times under todays more corporate environment where they'd scrap many of their experimental songs because it didn't appeal to their fan base or that almighty 18-36 age group niche we keep hearing about. |
The Beatles were the very embodiment of slick, packaged, commercialized pop rock (and they actually played a whole lot of cover songs in their early days, as did the Stones). Not to say they didn't have huge natural talent and charisma, but for the most part their image was manufactured by their label and promoters (i.e. Brian Epstein).
Moreover, I can't think of any rock bands today who don't write their own music. Care to provide any examples?
| Quote: |
Not sure how anyone can see todays overall music scene as anything but a far more manufactured and run with a banker's mentality than the '70s and '60s.
Bands from those eras do massively well in arenas today I think because people long for 'real' unadulterated music. |
There's not much "real" about Mick Jagger getting up on stage and doing the same old thing at age 70. Sure the music is still good and they put on a great performance, but the main appeal is nostalgia for back when they were packaged as being rock and roll "bad boys". We like to romanticize the past, but in reality pop culture was only slightly less of a cliche back then than it is today. It just seemed more novel at the time because the audience was probably less discerning. Nowadays to be "cool" you pretty much have to be ironic to the 20th degree (layers within layers). Think Lady Gaga. There's only so far you can take it before the whole thing loses credibility.
But to blame the record labels is, I think, to miss the point. They're pretty much interested in making a buck like they've always been. It's just the culture has become exhausted, and I think that is what has resulted in less talented bands putting out quality music. It's not like there isn't other avenues for artists to get their stuff out; there just isn't that much happening right now. Gen-X bands in the 90's (Nirvana etc.) were all picked up by record labels, but it quickly became a cliche too. There may be something else that'll come along, but I'm not holding my breath at this point (and frankly I don't really care all that much). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree and I would think most wouldn't agree with your view that nothing has changed.
Just like the movie studios, the labels were once owned by music lovers. Weren't shares traded on Wall Street, they were owned by one person who believed in certain artists, etc. They took chances on talent. Today's corporate owned labels are far, far less likely to take risks. They are going with a formula.
If you believe the labels which are primarily part of conglomerates, traded are no different than the visionary owners of yesteryear so be it.
For me the point is not even worth debating so you can have the last word on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
We'll have to agree to disagree and I would think most wouldn't agree with your view that nothing has changed.
Just like the movie studios, the labels were once owned by music lovers. Weren't shares traded on Wall Street, they were owned by one person who believed in certain artists, etc. They took chances on talent. Today's corporate owned labels are far, far less likely to take risks. They are going with a formula.
If you believe the labels which are primarily part of conglomerates, traded are no different than the visionary owners of yesteryear so be it.
For me the point is not even worth debating so you can have the last word on it. |
It's actually a non-point, since there's nothing stopping new companies from forming and taking chances on new artists outside the mainstream. The problem is that:
a) a lot of people like the mainstream. They eat up the Nickleback and Justin Beeber and whatever else they are spoon-fed. It sells, so there's little incentive for major labels to change.
b) there simply isn't many amazing bands making any groundbreaking music. If there was, then it would be popularized (either by smaller labels willing to take risks or by larger labels being forced to sign the groups due to high demand). Ultimately the culture these days is just too worn out and uninspired to come up with anything amazing. And that's the bottom line (maybe it will change, but I highly doubt it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Los Angeloser
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
The Beatles and Rolling Stones wrote music they felt for the most part. Their musical progression on albums showed the changes they were going through. Yes, there is always some mass appeal to songs but no where near what it is today where artists don't even write their own songs.
John and Paul would have had producers, writers, image consultants assigned to them today. No way you'd hear some of their classics and the direction they went often times under todays more corporate environment where they'd scrap many of their experimental songs because it didn't appeal to their fan base or that almighty 18-36 age group niche we keep hearing about. |
The Beatles were the very embodiment of slick, packaged, commercialized pop rock (and they actually played a whole lot of cover songs in their early days, as did the Stones). Not to say they didn't have huge natural talent and charisma, but for the most part their image was manufactured by their label and promoters (i.e. Brian Epstein).
Moreover, I can't think of any rock bands today who don't write their own music. Care to provide any examples?
| Quote: |
Not sure how anyone can see todays overall music scene as anything but a far more manufactured and run with a banker's mentality than the '70s and '60s.
Bands from those eras do massively well in arenas today I think because people long for 'real' unadulterated music. |
There's not much "real" about Mick Jagger getting up on stage and doing the same old thing at age 70. Sure the music is still good and they put on a great performance, but the main appeal is nostalgia for back when they were packaged as being rock and roll "bad boys". We like to romanticize the past, but in reality pop culture was only slightly less of a cliche back then than it is today. It just seemed more novel at the time because the audience was probably less discerning. Nowadays to be "cool" you pretty much have to be ironic to the 20th degree (layers within layers). Think Lady Gaga. There's only so far you can take it before the whole thing loses credibility.
But to blame the record labels is, I think, to miss the point. They're pretty much interested in making a buck like they've always been. It's just the culture has become exhausted, and I think that is what has resulted in less talented bands putting out quality music. It's not like there isn't other avenues for artists to get their stuff out; there just isn't that much happening right now. Gen-X bands in the 90's (Nirvana etc.) were all picked up by record labels, but it quickly became a cliche too. There may be something else that'll come along, but I'm not holding my breath at this point (and frankly I don't really care all that much). |
Darn good post! The Beatles has less talent than the Backstreet Boys IMO. I want to hold your hand, She loves me yeah yeah, please Lady Gaga has more talent. Not that I listen to any of that crap anyways. I am just saying Rolling Stones or the Beatles weren't any better than the crap that is out now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Los Angeloser wrote: |
Rock n Roll radio might be dead but not the music. Black Country Communion, although the members have been around forever (Glen Hughs, Joe Bonnamasso) they are making new music and touring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_5rqoeghRs
|
Very interesting. I thought Joe Bonamassa was now only recording the same kind of mishmash of pop and blues that John Mayer usually plays.
(Not being judgemental at all, by the way. If you know anything about the history of the blues, you'd know that the old bluesmen were accomplished musicians who prided themselves in being able to play whatever a gig demanded (Robert Johnson, for example). In fact, many of the legendary bluesmen considered themselves primarily bluegrass players, not bluesmen. Moreover, some only played the blues once: when they cut the record that made them famous. I strongly recommend the book Escaping the Delta if this is of interest to you). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
