Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JZLP-AmendsUltimateFan

Mike's Response To "Rock Music Sucks Now"

Recommended Posts

Mike once again proves himself to be a very eloquent writer who just "gets it." I just posted a very lengthy reply to that article, kind of hoping he responds. Looks like he's been checking it periodically and replying to the more interesting comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just posted a very lengthy reply to that article, kind of hoping he responds.

Good comment, I just want to add this:

In my opinion, the different between rock music to all of the other genres, is that every song is a package. The artist (especially in the rap music) write the lyrics and sing it over instremental that someone else made. Or even more than that, some of the singers just sing lyrics that someone else wrote over instrumental that another one made. In the rock music you basically (need to) do everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The artist (especially in the rap music) write the lyrics and sing it over instremental that someone else made.

 

Most times rappers work together with their producer.

Edited by graveguard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed with alot of what Mike said here.

 

Rock music and its fans (in particular the Metal scene) is so focused on arguing over what's heavier, harder and faster while sacrificing meaning or passion. I am so bored of hearing songs that are made purely for the purpose of a pit, sure it's fun live, but there's no art to that - it's not hard to get people to fling themselves at each other...

rock/metal is way too focused on determining who is part of their special little club and it's just sad - it's far too busy fighting itself in some weird, self-conscious brawl, when it could be making something genuinely exciting to listen to.

 

my list of gigs is really starting to reflect my impression of the rock/metal scene as "tedious" - I still love all these old bands from my youth (I am still on my mission to see Down live), but I'm bored of hearing the same old copy of a copy of copy of a copy bands. Download 2013 made me realise how much I'd grown apart from the metal/rock scene.

These days, I go to alternative/independant festivals - off-kilter time signature, math-rock, beardy stuff - I barely know any of the bands, and yes, sometimes it is all a bit too much for my little head, but I'm at least an engaged listener. I'd far rather hear a baffling brain-fuck than some paint-by-numbers effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rock music and its fans (in particular the Metal scene) is so focused on arguing over what's heavier, harder and faster while sacrificing meaning or passion.

Yeah, this is why some of the people didn't liked LP - "they're not heavy enough to be a nu-metal band". This is why some people didn't like Metallica after the self titled album, etc..

 

People wants "their" band to stay as much as they wants them to be. If *name* listen to his "not commercialized" band for a few years and now they're releasing softer/different album, they will bring new and different fans. No more "his" band. Just imagine that - After a years that *name* telling to everybody how much "his" band is magnificent because of their "not commercialized lyrics/screams/riffs/drums/blabla" he need to stand next to a little girl in the front row. So he starts to whine.

 

Only in the rock music. I never heard even one person said that Jay-Z, Madonna or Tiesto became commercialized.

 

Sometime it seems like people more care about what the band that they like represents, and not the music itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime it seems like people more care about what the band that they like represents, and not the music itself.

nailed it - it's so shallow.

 

people dislike bands for an image or for playing upon different styles of music, and that's so pointless. people hated BMTH for their 'emo' look - the fringes, the tons of tattoos etc. but they have gone on to release some of the finest albums modern metal has to offer (post-Suicide Season, in my opinion).

but then again there are also people who will like bands purely for an image, yes we all have a rebellious teen stage where we want to appear intimidating or shocking, but it gets to a point where bands simply use the image as a go-to thing, just because it inspires other people to spread their name by criticism alone, thus gaining publicity*

it's not wrong to have an image, in fact, it's almost a requirement to set yourself out with an original identity - it's your calling card. But let's face it, if your sound is nothing different to the last band that used heavy make-up, an all-seeing-eye logo, or a varsity font, why the hell are you famous?

 

bashing a band's image has no real meaning other than "they're different from me, and I'm not into that" - which is really nothing to do with the sound or the meaning. it's ok to not like something, but you can't really call into question someone's sexuality every time you come across them (which is all too often in metal, another of my issues with the scene). I make no secret of the fact that I dislike Black Veil Brides, but I'm at least basing my opinion on having listened to their record a fair bit, and then being thoroughly disappointed with their live effort. I dislike them, but I'm so over being that person who jumps up an down about it to their fans - it's a waste of time.

 

Rock/Metal is so stuck in its ways, and so ardently vocal as to what's "right" for a rock band that it'll never move forwards, its fans prevent it from happening, and the bands cater to that.

 

* further reading outside of Rock/Metal: Miley Cyrus. I have not seen/heard that VMA performance, but I don't want to give her - and the manager that told her to do whatever it is that she did - the satisfaction of another view on the youtube account...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not wrong to have an image, in fact, it's almost a requirement to set yourself out with an original identity - it's your calling card.

Exactly, and like I said before the Grunge and the Nu-Metal were the only things that happened in the last two decades. Why is that? Because in the rest of the Rock genres the bands are still trying to-be-like. I mean it's okay that bands are playing style that already exist (it's impossible to make a specific genre for every band), but when they're trying to sound-like or to-be-like they don't have an original identity.

 

Which bands are the biggest right now (not because they were huge in the 80')? Linkin Park, Green Day, Muse, Coldplay, The White Stripes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead and more. All of these bands are unique inside their sub-genre. You'll hear about other bands' songs from their sub-genres "this song sounds like Linkin Park/Green Day/Coldplay/etc" but almost never the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree with the above posts.

 

my list of gigs is really starting to reflect my impression of the rock/metal scene as "tedious" - I still love all these old bands from my youth (I am still on my mission to see Down live), but I'm bored of hearing the same old copy of a copy of copy of a copy bands.

I've got through all my "bucket list" nostalgia bands now, after seeing System of a Down and Nine Inch Nails. The future's just going to be what excites me now, which is cool.

 

Only in the rock music. I never heard even one person said that Jay-Z, Madonna or Tiesto became commercialized.

To be fair, in pop, it's very rare for an artist to not start out extremely commercial.

 

people hated BMTH for their 'emo' look - the fringes, the tons of tattoos etc. but they have gone on to release some of the finest albums modern metal has to offer (post-Suicide Season, in my opinion).

I think Sempiternal is finally starting to change peoples' opinions, but it's still a a gradual process.

 

In the entirety of rock today, there only seem to be two types of bands starting up- indie bands all trying to imitate the legends of the genre to get successful, and metalcore bands who only care about starting moshpits and selling t-shirts. There's no middle ground at all- when was the last time you heard a big new heavy rock band with a singer who can actually sing? The whole genre has polarised completely. My favourite type of music is melodic metal, but there's just none around any more aside from a few radio-humping American bands (FFDP are guility of this).

 

EDIT: I would like to add that there are bands making genuinely exciting new music in the genre like Bring Me the Horizon, Letlive, Karnivool, Rolo Tomassi and Enter Shikari but that for the most part the media, particularly in America, don't give them the support they need to break through and instead focus on bands like Bullet for My Valentine and Avenged Sevenfold that are just repeating the same old trends.

Edited by Ducko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

further reading outside of Rock/Metal: Miley Cyrus. I have not seen/heard that VMA performance, but I don't want to give her - and the manager that told her to do whatever it is that she did - the satisfaction of another view on the youtube account...

For the sake of your sanity, NEVER view that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, in pop, it's very rare for an artist to not start out extremely commercial.

This is the problem, in all of the genres and especially in the Pop and R&B music.

 

Let's take a few random CDs:

 

1. Boy band #1 - Someone wrote, they sings.

2. Boy band #2 - The band members have a connection to every lyrics in the album.

3. Rock band #1 - The band changed their style to somethong softer/different.

4. Rock band #2 - The band members have a connection to every lyrics in the album.

 

Most of the people think 1 and 2 are commercialized, half of the people think 3 is commercialized, and no one thinks 4 is commercialized. You have here 3 "real" album, but people see only one and a half.

 

---

 

I think the problem starts with the commentary of the word "commercialized". If artist selling his song for commercial, or collaborate with some company, or any other commercial-related thing - that means his music isn't real? How many people likes the lyrics of some Pop song but they will not going to say it because the artist is too commercialized? All the problem of people with commercial things it's because they think that's not real because it's too famous/catchy, while when they like it but don't say it they're the not real ones. Absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which bands are the biggest right now (not because they were huge in the 80')? Linkin Park, Green Day, Muse, Coldplay, The White Stripes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Radiohead and more. All of these bands are unique inside their sub-genre. You'll hear about other bands' songs from their sub-genres "this song sounds like Linkin Park/Green Day/Coldplay/etc" but almost never the opposite.

in this^ vein, it totally doesn't help that festivals (uk ones at least) always seem to have the same nostalgia acts as big headliners, where's the new blood? the lack of exposure for makes smaller bands force themselves into pigeon-holes just so they can climb the line-up, and how is that exciting!?

 

 

I've got through all my "bucket list" nostalgia bands now, after seeing System of a Down and Nine Inch Nails. The future's just going to be what excites me now, which is cool.

 

I think Sempiternal is finally starting to change peoples' opinions, but it's still a a gradual process.

 

In the entirety of rock today, there only seem to be two types of bands starting up- indie bands all trying to imitate the legends of the genre to get successful, and metalcore bands who only care about starting moshpits and selling t-shirts. There's no middle ground at all- when was the last time you heard a big new heavy rock band with a singer who can actually sing? The whole genre has polarised completely. My favourite type of music is melodic metal, but there's just none around any more aside from a few radio-humping American bands (FFDP are guility of this).

 

EDIT: I would like to add that there are bands making genuinely exciting new music in the genre like Bring Me the Horizon, Letlive, Karnivool, Rolo Tomassi and Enter Shikari but that for the most part the media, particularly in America, don't give them the support they need to break through and instead focus on bands like Bullet for My Valentine and Avenged Sevenfold that are just repeating the same old trends.

mine is Down, Circa Survive, Smashing Pumpkins, Four Year Strong, Jane's Addiction, Pulled Apart By Horses, and The Cure. PABH and FYS are the only ones I'm likely to see with ease since they're not one of those big "we'll do a few dates here and there"/nostalgia acts but I'll get there...

 

I seem to recall some magazine (the name evades me) did feature where they brought in a bunch of members from old-school metal bands, Def Leppard etc. and played them There Is A Hell... they didn't really know BMTH, but they had tons of praise for it, it goes to show that listening without prejudice makes your experience so much more impartial and open, enjoyable even! people needn't be afraid of modern music, and its sad that so many in the rock/metal community act like you have to hate anything that isn't Ride The Lightning (confession: I prefer the Black Album)

 

yes, yes, and yes. I used to read Kerrang a fair bit, I still buy it occasionally, and I remember thinking that Rolo Tomassi must have just stopped making music or gone on haitus or something since I'd not heard anything about them from K! in years, flash forwards to 2013 and they were pulling massive crowds at the festivals I was attending - they must have been deemed to be irrelevant for K! readers and simply dropped off the list of "bands to shove down people's throats". it surprised me how powerful, how vital a magazine is in determining who becomes noticed or not. If magazines, and the readership in general fail to adapt to modern (different!!) music, the scene stagnates. simple as. rock and metal is so against change, but it must happen whether it likes it or not...

 

 

For the sake of your sanity, NEVER view that.

noted. I saw pictures, figured that was enough.

I don't fancy ceremonially cleansing my laptop with fire - it did cost me a few pennies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in this^ vein, it totally doesn't help that festivals (uk ones at least) always seem to have the same nostalgia acts as big headliners, where's the new blood? the lack of exposure for makes smaller bands force themselves into pigeon-holes just so they can climb the line-up, and how is that exciting!?

Adding or asking? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

yes. so this.

 

you (as a band/artist) put your name on a flyer, a shirt, a poster, you press a CD, a vinyl, (god forbid) a casette tape, and then as soon as you accept money for these items - and you have to, because you paid for these things to be made for you - you are technically a "sell out" or "commercialised" because you are marketing yourself.

it is clear that even after all that time figuring out how life works and how art is so deep and meaningful, there are a ton of people that haven't grasped that it's called an industry for a reason, or that capitalism is kind of how the modern world functions.

bands employ people to promote them, to move them around the country, light stages and tune their guitars - bands sign a contract in which an exchange of money is the central theme. sorry hipsters.

 

yes, there are times where bands go overboard - Kiss Pinball machines!? - but no band is ever truly about music alone. I find it so weird that tons of people don't grasp this or, like you say Skipees, choose to see it in a totally selective, biased way, it's fascinating

 

Adding or asking? :unsure:

adding, I mean that I agree with you that bands must feel like they have to be the next X or Y just to get a good spot, when in reality, the best thing they could do to be noticed is to say "fuck that, we're Z!!" :lol:

look at BMFV and A7X - last I heard Bullet, they were just saying "ri-ot" alot over 2 notes, and the last I heard Avenged they had become so cheesy they had a problem with mice - I have not heard Hail To the King yet (so I reserve the right for these statements to be revoked) but all the "yeah-eh's" and "woah-oh's" are painful. I've grown pretty tired of both of them as they appear to have tried to hard to grow into, respectively, Metallica and Iron Maiden's shoes. but yet, they are probably the most likely two bands, both national and international who will become the new bunch of big headline acts, and that fills me with dread for the next installment of bands on the "yearly rota", which is currently -

 

Download 2009 - Slipknot, Faith No More, Def Leppard (nostalgia, big american metal band)

sonisphere 2009 - Linkin Park, Metallica (big american metal bands/nostalgia?)

Doenload 2010 - AC/DC, Rage Against The Machine, Aerosmith (nostalgia)

sonsiphere 2010 - Alice Cooper, Rammstein, Iron Maiden (cult bands, nostalgia)

Download 2011 - Linkin Park, System Of A Down, Def Leppard (big american metal bands/nostalgia?)

Sonisphere 2011 - Metallica, Slipknot, Biffy Clyro (big american metal bands, heavily criticized curveball)

Download 2012 - Metallica, Black Sabbath, The Prodigy (big american metal bands, ultimate nostalgia, curveball)

Download 2013 - Rammstein Iron Maiden, Slipknot (cult band, nostalgia, big american metal band)

 

^this is a bit reductive since that's headline only, and many of these bands couldn't sub- anyone else, but you see my point... sure it's nice to go and see a big band you know and love, but it's a bit of a safe (stale) bunch that rotates every couple of years, and once these acts finish, it'll be the next bunch fresh out of the cookie cutter. joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is clear that even after all that time figuring out how life works and how art is so deep and meaningful, there are a ton of people that haven't grasped that it's called an industry for a reason, or that capitalism is kind of how the modern world functions.

bands employ people to promote them, to move them around the country, light stages and tune their guitars - bands sign a contract in which an exchange of money is the central theme.

It's funny, because the same people that you're talking about, buying every other capitalism-product (iSome, McSome, PepSome). They want to choose for their "art" to do something that they don't even think to do. I wonder if the same people are willing to not get paid for their work.

 

Sonisphere 2011 - Metallica, Slipknot, Biffy Clyro (big american metal bands, heavily criticized curveball)

The first day of this festival is a great example - "The Big Four" aka "The Same Four" aka "Metallica and Co.", four bands, same sub-genre, while the main four are playing exactly (

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last I heard Bullet, they were just saying "ri-ot" alot over 2 notes

This is the best summary I have yet seen of the Temper Temper record :lol:

 

I have not heard Hail To the King yet (so I reserve the right for these statements to be revoked) but all the "yeah-eh's" and "woah-oh's" are painful.

It's a decent enough album, but some of the songs are so obviously ripping off other artists it's hilarious.

 

 

It's also interesting to look through the bands who will be festival headliners in the near future:

 

Avenged Sevenfold - Sound like Metallica / Iron Maiden.

Bullet for My Valentine - Ditto.

Queens of the Stone Age - Sound like a 70s rock band.

Paramore - Sound like No Doubt.

Alter Bridge - Currently on the cover of "Classic Rock" magazine.

30 Seconds to Mars - Slightly original at least, but to me they sound like Muse with the fun stripped out.

 

So only Mars are really trying to do something particularly interesting, and when/if they headline Download the shitstorm will be immense.

 

One step further down the ladder and you've got Bring Me the Horizon and Enter Shikari who have a huge young fanbase but very few older fans, and increasingly old-sounding 90s relics like Machine Head and Marilyn Manson.

 

The sad truth is that the most hyped hard rock band of the last three years was Black Veil Brides, and where are they? Watching their teenage fanbase slowly dwindle as they play smaller venues because they didn't bother writing a decent album to go with it. Now Sleeping With Sirens are filling the Tumblr/Drop Dead scene girl void and are getting all the magazine attention but where they'll be in two years is anyone's guess.

 

What I don't understand is that the magazines give perfect or near perfect ratings to underground bands like While She Sleeps, Letlive and Rolo Tomassi but then doesn't put them on the cover or even in any prominent features. In the US it's more the radio that controls rock tastemaking, but here in the UK the magazines are kingmakers and they're really not picking the right bands at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol Paramore sounds nothing like No Doubt except for Now

There's a lot on the new album (Fast in My Car, Grow Up, Still Into You) that reminds me a lot of No Doubt, admittedly more in the vocals than the music itself.

Nonetheless, I don't really think Paramore are doing anything groundbreaking in the grand scheme of things. They write some good tunes, yes, but they're not the sound of the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot on the new album (Fast in My Car, Grow Up, Still Into You) that reminds me a lot of No Doubt, admittedly more in the vocals than the music itself.

Nonetheless, I don't really think Paramore are doing anything groundbreaking in the grand scheme of things. They write some good tunes, yes, but they're not the sound of the future.

Never liked Paramore too much after their first album. Don't know why really.. I hear Aaron Gillespie is playing drums with them on tour now though, which is cool. (off-topic interjection, don't mind me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is that the magazines give perfect or near perfect ratings to underground bands like While She Sleeps, Letlive and Rolo Tomassi but then doesn't put them on the cover or even in any prominent features. In the US it's more the radio that controls rock tastemaking, but here in the UK the magazines are kingmakers and they're really not picking the right bands at the moment.

Money. More people will buy it if there's a famous singer/band on the front cover. They need money to release the next month magazine especially when everything is one the web/apps. So they give those bands high rating, but they can't put them in fornt until they'll be famous - and the circle starts again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money. More people will buy it if there's a famous singer/band on the front cover. They need money to release the next month magazine especially when everything is one the web/apps. So they give those bands high rating, but they can't put them in fornt until they'll be famous - and the circle starts again.

But if they took the time to develop bands with genuine substance they'd have guaranteed magazine-sellers for years to come rather than the next few months. The whole music industry, including journalism, only wants to focus on the short term sell and that simply doesn't work in the rock world. I understand and agree with what you're saying but the focus is on making a quick buck rather than long term investment in the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if they took the time to develop bands with genuine substance they'd have guaranteed magazine-sellers for years to come rather than the next few months. The whole music industry, including journalism, only wants to focus on the short term sell and that simply doesn't work in the rock world. I understand and agree with what you're saying but the focus is on making a quick buck rather than long term investment in the scene.

So you're saying magazines should risk all their money for a few years just to help some new artists with absolutely no guarantee for profit at all? Yeah, seems pretty reasonable for me ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if they took the time to develop bands with genuine substance they'd have guaranteed magazine-sellers for years to come rather than the next few months. The whole music industry, including journalism, only wants to focus on the short term sell and that simply doesn't work in the rock world. I understand and agree with what you're saying but the focus is on making a quick buck rather than long term investment in the scene.

Right, but as the CEO of the "Duck Of Rock"* you care about how much bonus you're going to get in this month/quarter/year, you don't want/need/think to plow the ground for the others to reap. One more important thing - the people that works in the music industry aren't necessarily care about music.

 

*;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...