p-rock........wtf is goin on ?????

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by mank!
on the subject of music today being better than music of yesteryear:

<Add> sorry but saying that music today is as good as music from the 60s and 70s
<Add> it's like saying AIDS is better than really nice food

He's right you know.

Muhh?

Do you have any idea of the ammount of shit that was around in the 60s and 70s? Saying that all modern music is rubbish is just retarded. You're picking 4/5 bands from 20 years of music and holding them up as proof that it was a 'good time'.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Xtro
God gave us punk. God gave us kids. God gave us record companies. God bless the corporate dollar.

P-Rock, keeping it real.

Please, please, please, please, please listen to the Dead Kennedys and THEN come back and post.

The Dead kennedys fucking rock

I went to Nottingham Rescue Rooms the other day, (for indiepop Track & Field night) but one of 'em is having a kid so they cancelled.

In the bigger room there was a night called Home Taping Is Killing Music, run by John Robb (who Xtro may know of) he played some excellent punk stuff Dead Kennedys, Stranglers, Sex Pistols, the Damned, peaches, Joy division etc, we also had a long chat with John, whos a really cool guy, and example of a good journalist, currently doing little spots for 'Careless talk costs Lives' if you can pick up an issue of that, hes just written a pretty good article on rock history and its lineage, or lack of.

 

[nath]

It was a good time.

There were loads of great acts, I mean *great*. Nowadays, there's still great music being made but not as much as there was back then. And of course there was shit back then too.

Oh and he didn't say all modern music is shit.

 

[maxi--]

fuck this,

name some GREAT bands that you LOVE and know o from 'back then' please nath, i'd love to hear this. I'll name you just as many artists that are making amazing music today.

my bet is you don't know of all the great music thats being made today, because its not thrust in your face, like The Rolling Stones(overated), The Beatles(overated), Led Zepplin(overated), The Who(overated), Bob Dylan(overated) are, constantly.

You just have to look for it,

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
Muhh?

Do you have any idea of the ammount of shit that was around in the 60s and 70s? Saying that all modern music is rubbish is just retarded. You're picking 4/5 bands from 20 years of music and holding them up as proof that it was a 'good time'.

I dare you to name more than 4/5 bands in the current chart that are still going to be well known in 20 years time.

scratch that, name 4 or 5 bands who have released an album in the past 12 months who are likely to be well known in 20 years time.

I can think of one.

 

[nath]

Who's that then?

(I'm thinking radiohead.. but then I would as I'm a total radiohead fanboy :\)

 

[hoggsboss]

Originally posted by gd_deathscythe
keep ur opinion to ur self
prick

lol, at least mank! knew what i meant.


oasis, blur, radiohead all bands that have been about for nearly if not more than 10 years already, you may not like them but im sure they wont be forgotten too quickly.

 

[old.Fweddy]

He's thinking of the manics.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by nath
Who's that then?

(I'm thinking radiohead.. but then I would as I'm a total radiohead fanboy :\)

Correct.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by mank!
I dare you to name more than 4/5 bands in the current chart that are still going to be well known in 20 years time.

erm, this is a useless and pointless excercise anyway. YOU name me some bands, and I can tell you that the most well known from the 60s/early 70s commercially successful bunch made music over a course of 8/10 years or so, so you'd have to look at the last 10 years of music to get a good bearing, bands that will be remembered include Radiohead, Eminem, Oasis, Pulp, The Stone Roses, Nirvana, i could go on for ages, and thats if you go by todays media writing,

I made a comment about Jon Robb and his article about how the media write bands in and out of history, depending on weather they fit the lienage, in 20 years time WHO FUCKING KNOWS what people will claim to have liked in 2003 or the nineties, you can only make guesses.

A perfect example of re-written rock history are the Velvet Underground, undeniably one of my fave bands ever, and in my opinion one of the best bands of the sixties, but during that decade they were fucking nobodies, experiancing ZERO commercial success. these days you read any mainstream mag, and they'll bleet on about VU being a massive band, but they werent.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by hoggsboss
oasis, blur, radiohead all bands that have been about for nearly if not more than 10 years already, you may not like them but im sure they wont be forgotten too quickly.

Oasis and Blur perhaps, although they're unlikely to be influential in years to come. After all the only reason they'll be famous is the Britpop fights etc.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by mank!
Oasis and Blur perhaps, although they're unlikely to be influential in years to come. After all the only reason they'll be famous is the Britpop fights etc.

again, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

the chances are that Oasis & Blur will be hugely influential, just look at the Kinks and the Small faces to justify this, they're MASSIVE bands who appeal to a MASSIVE fanbase, they can only go on to influence people, christ, just look at the influx of bands we're getting now like Jet, The Hiss. Whether the media will choose this music to play a big part in mainstream alternative, is another thing.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by maxi--
erm, this is a useless and pointless excercise anyway.

Yes, it is.

Originally posted by maxi--
YOU name me some bands, and I can tell you that the most well known from the 60s/early 70s commercially successful bunch made music over a course of 8/10 years or so, so you'd have to look at the last 10 years of music to get a good bearing, bands that will be remembered include Radiohead, Eminem, Oasis, Pulp, The Stone Roses, Nirvana, i could go on for ages, and thats if you go by todays media writing

I'm not naming any because very few have pushed the boundaries of done anything original that many bands of the 60's, 70's and possibly even the 80's did. Radiohead have reinvented themselves over and over, and for that they're likely to go down in history. Nirvana? All they did was ripoff bands the whole time they were around. To coin your own phrasing they were 'fucking shit'.

Originally posted by maxi--
in 20 years time WHO FUCKING KNOWS what people will claim to have liked in 2003 or the nineties, you can only make guesses.

It's a pointless exercise, like you said. However it's interesting to see who people rate as bands who are going to stand the test of time and be influential to people in years to come.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by maxi--
the chances are that Oasis & Blur will be hugely influential, just look at the Kinks and the Small faces to justify this, they're MASSIVE bands who appeal to a MASSIVE fanbase, they can only go on to influence people, christ, just look at the influx of bands we're getting now like Jet, The Hiss. Whether the media will choose this music to play a big part in mainstream alternative, is another thing.

Blur becoming more influential than The Kinks?

Originally posted by maxi--
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by mank!
I dare you to name more than 4/5 bands in the current chart that are still going to be well known in 20 years time.

scratch that, name 4 or 5 bands who have released an album in the past 12 months who are likely to be well known in 20 years time.

Blur, Radiohead, DJ Shadow, 3 off the top of my head I'd expect to still be well known in 20 years.

Howabout in return I ask you to name 4/5 bands who released an album in, say, 1974 who are well known now?

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by mank!

It's a pointless exercise, like you said. However it's interesting to see who people rate as bands who are going to stand the test of time and be influential to people in years to come.

I don't think you get it, its not really about how good a band is, or what YOU think of a band, its about what the people of the coperate world in twenty years will want people to be listening too, commercial success of a band means fucking zero in terms of how good they are, you just made that point yourself.

Its ironic that you have this inbuilt hatred for commercial pop, yet you base your opinions of bands on their commercial success, i can name you quite a few bands that are inventive and 'pushing more boundaries' as much/more than Radiohead, or any other band you care to name thats considered 'alternative'. YOU wont of heard of them, but will that make them any less influential in twenty years time? unlikely, again i point to The Velvet Underground, Nick Drake etc.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
Howabout in return I ask you to name 4/5 bands who released an album in, say, 1974 who are well known now?

Eaxctly, people reel off bands from the sixties/seventies as though they released classic albums in the same bloody month or someshit! jesus.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

muhh, who'd have thought me and Maxi would agree?

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
Blur, Radiohead, DJ Shadow, 3 off the top of my head I'd expect to still be well known in 20 years.

I disagree with Blur, can't comment on DJ Shadow but I've mentioned Radiohead.

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
Howabout in return I ask you to name 4/5 bands who released an album in, say, 1974 who are well known now?

Mike Oldfield - Tubular Bells
The Who - Quadrophenia
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon
David Bowie - Aladdin Sane
Led Zep - Houses Of The Holy

And that's just from what I own.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by maxi--
I don't think you get it, its not really about how good a band is, or what YOU think of a band, its about what the people of the coperate world in twenty years will want people to be listening too, commercial success of a band means fucking zero in terms of how good they are, you just made that point yourself.

Without commercial success during their current lifespan it's unlikely they're going to become huge after they've been and gone, at least in the current climate of throwaway pop.

Originally posted by maxi--
Its ironic that you have this inbuilt hatred for commercial pop, yet you base your opinions of bands on their commercial success.

I base my opinions on bands on whether I like them or not, but that's aside to the point isn't it? In my opinion there are very few new bands who catch my ear, they all sound the same. Nothing original, nothing new.

Originally posted by maxi--
i can name you quite a few bands that are inventive and 'pushing more boundaries' as much/more than Radiohead, or any other band you care to name thats considered 'alternative'. YOU wont of heard of them, but will that make them any less influential in twenty years time? unlikely, again i point to The Velvet Underground, Nick Drake etc.

I'm sure you can, but we all know you're an indie fan anyway - if you wish to expand my narrow-mind with your mindblowingly new music then feel free to name some of it, I'd be quite happy to find some new stuff to listen to. I doubt the fact you've heard of them are going to make them any more influential, commercial success simply helps the cause.

Also, why refer to VU and Drake as if I don't know who they are?

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by mank!
Mike Oldfield - Tubular Bells
The Who - Quadrophenia
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon
David Bowie - Aladdin Sane
Led Zep - Houses Of The Holy

Tubular Bells - 1973
Quadrophrenia - 1973
Dark Side of the Moon - 1973
Aladdin Sane - 1973
House of the Holy - 1973

I'll ask again 5 bands who released albums in 1974 who are still known today.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
Tubular Bells - 1973
Quadrophrenia - 1973
Dark Side of the Moon - 1973
Aladdin Sane - 1973
House of the Holy - 1973

I'll ask again 5 bands who released albums in 1974 who are still known today.

I've got Tubular Bells down as 1974. The rest were all 73, fair enough. I was slightly flexible, I was expecting you to spot it but nevermind.

I only one the one album from 1974, but nevermind - I'm such a fraud and my intelligence has been thwarted.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

My original copy of Tubular Bells says 1973, I'm inclined to trust it.

 

[mank!]

I hope you and your original copy of Tubular Bells are very happy together, whatever year it was printed.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by mank!
Without commercial success during their current lifespan it's unlikely they're going to become huge after they've been and gone, at least in the current climate of throwaway pop.

Iok again once more THE VU RECIEVED VERY LITTLE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS DURING THEIR ORIGINAL INCARNATION, JOY DIVISION DITTO, NICK DRAKE, SONIC YOUTH, THE PIXIES.

I'm not being derogatory, but it depends when your tastes lay anyway, metal fans will reel off a whole bunch of different influences, indie pop fans (and i can vouch for this ) will reel off another set, dance fans another...

I'm sure you can, but we all know you're an indie fan anyway - if you wish to expand my narrow-mind with your mindblowingly new music then feel free to name some of it, I'd be quite happy to find some new stuff to listen to. I doubt the fact you've heard of them are going to make them any more influential, commercial success simply helps the cause.

I wasn't trying to impress with my knowledge, and it was a pretty predictable reply of yours really, believe it or not there are bands out there that YOU havent heard of, and that I havent heard of, that are making totally original, new and brilliant music.

Its boils down to the fact that magazines/coperate companies are giving us their abridged version of music history. You seem to be taking it as gospel, IRONICALLY again, expressing your distaste for the corperate machine/magazines and their shitty journalism at every available oppurtunity. THEY make bands successful.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by mank!
I hope you and your original copy of Tubular Bells are very happy together, whatever year it was printed.

Don't be so bitter, you big lemon.

Anyway, who decides what influential is? I'd say that someone like Kool Herc/Africa Bambaata via Kraftwerk directly (and indirectly) inspired virtually every form of dance music. That's literally hundreds of thousands of bands and +20 sub genres. I doubt any single other band/artist could legitamately be suggested as that influential.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by maxi--
Iok again once more THE VU RECIEVED VERY LITTLE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS DURING THEIR ORIGINAL INCARNATION, JOY DIVISION DITTO, NICK DRAKE, SONIC YOUTH, THE PIXIES.

I'm not being derogatory, but it depends when your tastes lay anyway, metal fans will reel off a whole bunch of different influences, indie pop fans (and i can vouch for this ) will reel off another set, dance fans another...

Even so, the bands you and Scooba both listed have receieved commcercial success. Personally, from the music I've heard that's been released over the past few years nothing has stood out like the bands you listed above have. That's just my opinion, you'll probably beg to differ. The way I see it is that music during the 60's, 70's, 80's or whatever is more influential than the current set of influenced-by bands you've got nowadays, commercial success or not. This really is getting to be a pretty pointless and fruitless argument now, because you're right - it's all down to where your tastes lay and therefore it's all opinion.

Originally posted by maxi--
I wasn't trying to impress with my knowledge, and it was a pretty predictable reply of yours really, believe it or not there are bands out there that YOU havent heard of, and that I havent heard of, that are making totally original, new and brilliant music.

I'm fully aware there are plenty of bands around I've never heard of. I wouldn't know where to look for them. But honestly, out of all the hundreds of bands that have released albums in the past two or three months anyone who hasn't got press coverage isn't going to get very far. It was (supposedly, I wasn't there obviously) different in the sixties and seventies so bands like that had a chance. IIRC, Led Zep were derided in their early reviews so that adds weight to your argument, I guess. Aside from that, I'm genuinely interested in some of these bands. You seem to know my music tastes pretty well for some reason, so is there anything you could recommend to me?

Originally posted by maxi--
Its boils down to the fact that magazines/coperate companies are giving us their abridged version of music history. You seem to be taking it as gospel, IRONICALLY again, expressing your distaste for the corperate machine/magazines and their shitty journalism at every available oppurtunity. THEY make bands successful.

Yes, they make bands successful - did I ever say they didn't? I know VU were virtually unknown when they released Loaded et al as have many other bands, but I'm not taking anything anyone has written as gospel. Neither of us were there throughout this, so how can we comment?

Bands who have been successfully commercially are more likely to become more influential and remain well known in the future because of the high proportion of shite in the charts that hog all the music coverage. That's my opinion, anyway.

We're not really going to get anywhere with this, are we?

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
Don't be so bitter, you big lemon.

You're the one baseing your argument on one randomly chosen year of musical history. If for instance you had have said "name 5 albums released twenty years ago that are still well known" my list would have stood. If you had have chosen 1971 my list would have been entirely different, once again. I'm not bitter, just seems futile when you insist I'm wrong because of your randomly selected years.

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
Anyway, who decides what influential is? I'd say that someone like Kool Herc/Africa Bambaata via Kraftwerk directly (and indirectly) inspired virtually every form of dance music. That's literally hundreds of thousands of bands and +20 sub genres. I doubt any single other band/artist could legitamately be suggested as that influential.

Nobody decides, it just happens. Two things help - being highly original and having media coverage. Neither, however, are imperative. I can't comment on whose influential in the electronica/dance scene because I'm not into that, I guess you could sort-of say the same about Led Zep and rock. Either way, it's a huge assumption.

 

[CptDoom]

Ner ner ner, i met jello biaffra at a von bondies gig about 1 year ago in london, he was with these 2 lovely looking lasses from Iowaska a band he was on tour with/pimping and i believe they are on his record label.

And fyi the pixies are clearly the greatest guitar band ever.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by mank!
Yes, they make bands successful - did I ever say they didn't? I know VU were virtually unknown when they released Loaded et al

Loaded was their last album, with Lou reed, he walked out before it was finished, and it flopped.

Nobody decides, it just happens. Two things help - being highly original and having media coverage. Neither, however, are imperative. I can't comment on whose influential in the electronica/dance scene because I'm not into that, I guess you could sort-of say the same about Led Zep and rock. Either way, it's a huge assumption.

well this is my point, yes people decide, bands like the Hellacopters (Datuns-esque, there fro 70s cock rock-esque) have been going since 1994! only now with current trends have such bands recieved commercial success, the Datuns have said they'll still be going when the NME etc doesnt find them cool anymore,

what i mean is, there will ALWAYS be bands about that have been influenced from ALL sorts of things, its just the current popular trend ins sixties garage, and what not, so thats going to seem more influential a peroid. despite the stooges, gang of four, mc5 etc not actually being successful then, really, and The Rolling Stones being the only big band of note that played this sort of music.


and whoeevr said the sixties was a better time, was a fucking dick, these days we still have all that great stuff from the sixties, but we've go the great stuff from the 70s, 80s and 90s too! thats fucking great, isnt it?