Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
himtroy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 20 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1601
|
Posted: February 20 2010 at 13:27 |
Well assuming it follows the consistent pattern, the generic and poppy music keeps filling in, and the actual interesting music keeps getting pushed out to the margins. Margins which are becoming smaller and smaller. While I like some modern "art" bands and feel snobbish saying this, I have yet to discover one that truly compares to the 70's prog bands. Well the ones I like, I don't really like Yes, so I'd take the Flower Kings over Yes any day.) People always rave about Dream Theater being so amazing....just sounds like generic prog metal to me.
|
|
FusionKing
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 28 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 522
|
Posted: February 20 2010 at 11:28 |
The reason why I feel rock is losing its hold over the youth of today is because now, thier whole life and personality is marketed to them. One can only discover new and unusual music on the internet if they have the incentive to do so. These kids don't, they are sheep for the most part.
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: November 29 2009 at 12:35 |
Never fear, Prog is seeing a rebirth and that will kill music.
|
|
Kazza3
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 29 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 557
|
Posted: November 29 2009 at 01:51 |
For starters, there will always be rock. Many people still play classical music from all periods, ragtime and jazz that are now long gone from the mainstream- the same will happen to rock.
I still don't think rock will disappear from the mainstream either, however. Particularly looking at Radiohead and Muse of this decade.
I know that Radiohead are mostly known as more of a 90s band, and that they've gone electronic, but they are today's 'art rock' band, and introduced more complex rock music back to the mainstream. It's probably more bands influenced by them that are likely to continue on.
Muse are a better example, being a much rockier band. While they too have focused less on rock in later albums (mixing it with classical, pop, RnB, opera, and jazz), they are still essentially a rock band, close to the mainstream.
An added bonus is their progressive tendencies (like having a 3-part symphony on their latest album, which reached #1 in over 20 countries. Although the same album did have an RnB track on it.)
But yeah, I think rock will live.
|
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: November 03 2009 at 12:34 |
harold pig wrote:
Oh I was responding to some dude who said that GBV is pretty terrible...somewhere in this thread...
I think too many prog fanatics get to Dream Theater on here when it comes to music today... I mean, how irrelevant is Dream Theater or any of these over-blown, silly bands that play state fairs? I simply feel music needs to be smarter and unique... and Pollard and Todd Tobias provide these qualities with great influence... Bee Thousand is great... and there is so much more to GBV and post-GBV music by Pollard. |
Nice job, couldn't agree more! Even if one doesn't have a personal yen for GBV... I don't know, I just wish at least people would stop backing the "over-blown, silly bands" and take an interest in the... interesting. What makes, for instance, Dream Theater "prog" is beyond me. (I'm sorry, I shouldn't get into this stuff.)
|
Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
|
The Truth
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795
|
Posted: November 02 2009 at 20:37 |
^Nice to see someone likes Guided By Voices, I started an appreciation thread in general music discussions not to long ago but it died pretty quickly... sadly
|
|
|
harold pig
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: November 02 2009 at 19:37 |
Oh I was responding to some dude who said that GBV is pretty terrible...somewhere in this thread...
I think too amny prog fanatics get to Dream Theater on here when it comes to music today... I mean, how irrelevant is Dream Theater or any of these over-blown, silly bands that play state fairs? I simply feel music needs to be smarter and unique... and Pollard and Todd Tobias provide these qualities with great influence... Bee Thousand is great... and there is so much more to GBV and post-GBV music by Pollard.
|
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: October 25 2009 at 12:39 |
^ Who's post are you responding to? Personally, I don't know how anyone could deny an album like Bee Thousand, just to name one. Lots of great stuff in the Fading Captain Series too.
|
Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
|
harold pig
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: October 24 2009 at 19:32 |
I'm not quite sure how you could say that Guided By Voices is "pretty terrible"... I feel as if you must have listened to some other band by mistake. What album did you hear? There is so much to hear in their catalogue that one can surely find something to like. Not to mention that they were one of rock's most enduring and prolific bands. Each album provides something different... whereas most bands just pump out the same old same old. Guided By Voices has sooo much music to choose from. Some of it is lo-fi and some of it is polished hi-fi. Vocalist Robert Pollard is still going strong today with Boston Spaceships, solo work and perhaps his most prog-tinged music with the Circus Devils. A lot of his music has such a rich prog undertone and you're likely to find something new everytime you listen to it. I find that with each listen, the music grows on you until you can't hear it enough. I feel his style of songwriting envelopes a perfect blend of all that is great about rock music. Not everything he produces is perfect, but most of it is rather brilliant, and that's a pretty damn good acheivement considering his output. The lyrics are quite original and poetic. The songs aren't too over-blown like much of prog rock's royalty, yet it's not rudimentary by any stretch of the imagination, either. I strongly suggest revisiting GBV and Pollard's catalogue.
|
|
keiser willhelm
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1697
|
Posted: August 05 2009 at 12:26 |
MrMan2000 wrote:
I am responding to the OP and have not read the entire thread so forgive me if I cover ground already trod by others.
I don't disagree with your conclusions...but think you largely miss the reason for the "demise" of rock. You say no band has become as big as Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin in the 70's. The reason is not that there aren't good bands or that radio / mainstream coverage has abandoned them. It's because the record company's grip on distribution has been broken.
In the 70's there was virtually no music heard by even enthusiastic music fans that wasn't:
- Produced and distributed by major record companies
- Aggressively marketed through radio payola and well-financed marketing efforts
- Covered widely by a thriving and profitable music media (think multiple "album-oriented" radio stations, Rolling Stone Magazine, Creem, Circus, Don Kirshner's Rock Concert, The Midnight Special, nationwide radio shows, etc.
In short, virtually every means that potential music fans could access music was controlled by major media outlets. That allows those media companies to control distribution, limited access to a (relatively) small number of bands. With attention (and thus dollars) hyper-focused on few bands, those bands invariably became monster acts.
That has all been completely wiped out with the internet. Today, bands can create, record, distribute and market themselves with little or no assistance from record companies. More importantly, fans can discover new music / different bands through an endless array of sources (from MySpace to Amazon recommendations to internet fan sites). This has created a more fragmented music scene, with fans interest (and dollars) distributed among far more bands.
The days of "mega bands" like Led Zeppelin are history; we'll never see that again. Instead you will will have a much larger number of small bands appealing to a small, but dedicated audience. The "big' bands of today are not bands at all but corporate brands. Kelly Clarkson and all the American Idol "artists" represent that approach with music simply being part of a multi-media effort to sell a wide variety of goods (clothes, movies, posters, key chains, ringtones.....music plays a relatively small part).
I think it's a good development any time the means of production are taken away from moneyed gate-keepers (which is what has happend to music and newspapers...and will eventually happen to all forms of media). Yes, there are no more "mega bands" but the sheer variety and number of rock bands out there represents a more robust and organic music scene than the 70's.
|
pretty much hit the nail on the head this has been happening throughout history with all forms of language. if you control a cultures language/ means of expression then you control that culture. the internet is bringing about the same revolution that the printing press did.
|
|
|
SgtPepper67
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 17 2007
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 530
|
Posted: August 05 2009 at 08:18 |
progkidjoel wrote:
What do people here think of "The Kings Of Leon"?
I find them to be a little too poppy.
Anyone else? |
After the first albums I thought they were ok and have a couple of nice songs, I eeven saw them live when I went to see The Strokes and they didn't impress me that much, they sounded just like another southern rock band. But their last album was a nice surprise, I really liked it and to me it sounds more interesting than their earlier stuff.
|
In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made...
|
|
Hyardacil
Forum Groupie
Joined: August 04 2009
Location: Estonia
Status: Offline
Points: 70
|
Posted: August 05 2009 at 05:34 |
Personally, what I would best like to see is Rock music following the route of Jazz.
Becoming an academically accepted genre, with talented, educated musicians continuing it's tradition and a very select niche of people going to late night small scale concerts to listen to them.
Perhaps It's way too far fetched and even might defeat the purpose of rock... rebelling and all that, but I'd love to see that happen. School of rock together with the classic and jazz music schools of theory. hah! I don't think rock is going to die, but it's mainstream days are over very soon.
|
"I am sitting in your eyes..."
|
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: July 05 2009 at 05:26 |
dzx wrote:
Keltic wrote:
Nirvanna, like Oasis and many, many others, borrowed ( nay, make that stole ) indiscriminately from other artists. Even Kurt Cobain admitted as such.
It's hardly news. They all do it and will continue to do it. |
Like all classical composers as well. To quote Brahms when someone pointed out that one of his melodies ripped off Haydn he replied 'Any idiot can hear that' Music is limited by having only so many keys only so many notes and chords. its obvious they are going to be reproduced but used (as in influences) in different ways. I tend to think of it as a sort of Musical Scrapyard. You write music and you are obviously influenced by your influences and blend them into your 'ideal' music. |
And more, listen to his First Symphony and try not to think of Beethoven's last. When people talked about the near quotes extant in his new symphony Brahms' answer was basically, "No..., really?" It was something he was made to feel historically obligated to do, such a long shadow had Beethoven cast. After this he got down to the business of writing the great Second, the first symphony that was truly his.
|
Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
|
dzx
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2008
Location: france
Status: Offline
Points: 117
|
Posted: July 04 2009 at 16:08 |
Keltic wrote:
Nirvanna, like Oasis and many, many others, borrowed ( nay, make that stole ) indiscriminately from other artists. Even Kurt Cobain admitted as such.
It's hardly news. They all do it and will continue to do it. |
Like all classical composers as well. To quote Brahms when someone pointed out that one of his melodies ripped off Haydn he replied 'Any idiot can hear that' Music is limited by having only so many keys only so many notes and chords. its obvious they are going to be reproduced but used (as in influences) in different ways. I tend to think of it as a sort of Musical Scrapyard. You write music and you are obviously influenced by your influences and blend them into your 'ideal' music.
|
was that just an Am augmented minor 9th i heard? nice!
|
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: July 04 2009 at 08:36 |
MrMan2000 wrote:
In the 70's there was virtually no music heard by even enthusiastic music fans that wasn't:
- Produced and distributed by major record companies
- Aggressively marketed through radio payola and well-financed marketing efforts
- Covered
widely by a thriving and profitable music media (think multiple
"album-oriented" radio stations, Rolling Stone Magazine, Creem, Circus,
Don Kirshner's Rock Concert, The Midnight Special, nationwide radio
shows, etc.
In short, virtually every means that
potential music fans could access music was controlled by major media
outlets. That allows those media companies to control distribution,
limited access to a (relatively) small number of bands. With attention
(and thus dollars) hyper-focused on few bands, those bands invariably
became monster acts. | Them's sage words for a newbie . Welcomen. You said about it all being wiped out with the internet. Actually their greed well keel-hauled it before that. I'm starting up a band myself, and we're discussing with some excitement, I can tell you, the strategies possible to get us into interested ears all over the world, something that would have been impossible years back without a hairy-chested lying manager-vampire.
|
Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
|
MrMan2000
Forum Groupie
Joined: September 18 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: June 24 2009 at 17:09 |
DJPuffyLemon wrote:
We need to wait for about 20-30 years to be able to see whether this is right, as its only now that we are realizing that some bands from the 70s and 80s are still popular. |
Realize that demographics and "shared experience" plays a large role in this. The Baby Boomer generation came of age in the 70's...and anything that is aimed at them is always going to have appeal. Basically much of that generation is happy to listen to the music they listened to in their teen / 20's and they haven't embraced any music since then. Also realize that back then, because distribution of music was controlled by a very small group of media companies, all young people across all demographics and geography heard the same (relatively) small group of bands. Just as EVERYONE used to watch I Love Lucy b/c there were only three channels broadcasting inthe 60's...EVERYONE listened to Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd in the 70's. That's how acts like FMac and Golden Earring and Bachman Turner Overdrive can still somehow draw crowds 30 years after they were relevant. To some extent the same is true of 80's bands, especially those aggressively marketed on MTV. Bands from the 00's will not be able to hold concerts in the 20's and 30's on nostalgia alone; they will have to continue playing relevant, contemporary music to keep their (relatively) small audiences interested.
|
|
MrMan2000
Forum Groupie
Joined: September 18 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: June 24 2009 at 17:02 |
I am responding to the OP and have not read the entire thread so forgive me if I cover ground already trod by others. I don't disagree with your conclusions...but think you largely miss the reason for the "demise" of rock. You say no band has become as big as Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin in the 70's. The reason is not that there aren't good bands or that radio / mainstream coverage has abandoned them. It's because the record company's grip on distribution has been broken. In the 70's there was virtually no music heard by even enthusiastic music fans that wasn't: - Produced and distributed by major record companies
- Aggressively marketed through radio payola and well-financed marketing efforts
- Covered widely by a thriving and profitable music media (think multiple "album-oriented" radio stations, Rolling Stone Magazine, Creem, Circus, Don Kirshner's Rock Concert, The Midnight Special, nationwide radio shows, etc.
In short, virtually every means that potential music fans could access music was controlled by major media outlets. That allows those media companies to control distribution, limited access to a (relatively) small number of bands. With attention (and thus dollars) hyper-focused on few bands, those bands invariably became monster acts. That has all been completely wiped out with the internet. Today, bands can create, record, distribute and market themselves with little or no assistance from record companies. More importantly, fans can discover new music / different bands through an endless array of sources (from MySpace to Amazon recommendations to internet fan sites). This has created a more fragmented music scene, with fans interest (and dollars) distributed among far more bands. The days of "mega bands" like Led Zeppelin are history; we'll never see that again. Instead you will will have a much larger number of small bands appealing to a small, but dedicated audience. The "big' bands of today are not bands at all but corporate brands. Kelly Clarkson and all the American Idol "artists" represent that approach with music simply being part of a multi-media effort to sell a wide variety of goods (clothes, movies, posters, key chains, ringtones.....music plays a relatively small part). I think it's a good development any time the means of production are taken away from moneyed gate-keepers (which is what has happend to music and newspapers...and will eventually happen to all forms of media). Yes, there are no more "mega bands" but the sheer variety and number of rock bands out there represents a more robust and organic music scene than the 70's.
|
|
mr.cub
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971
|
Posted: June 03 2009 at 10:32 |
progkidjoel wrote:
mr.cub wrote:
The Kings are one of the few true rock bands out there. A unique vocalist, an edgy sound and great songwriting defined their first two albums. Older fans might not like the changes they've made sound wise over the last two albums but to me it seems like a natural maturation and progression of their sound. I enjoy their music, it is certainly more refreshing than other 'poppy' music out there |
Fair enough
I just seem to find their "The Killers" sort of sound a little bit too generic at times, particularly on "Use somebody"...
To each his own, though. |
Their first two albums consist of raunchy rock and roll a la Let It Bleed. I would give them a listen if you have not heard them because they are nothing like the new album.
|
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: June 03 2009 at 07:55 |
mr.cub wrote:
The Kings are one of the few true rock bands out there. A unique vocalist, an edgy sound and great songwriting defined their first two albums. Older fans might not like the changes they've made sound wise over the last two albums but to me it seems like a natural maturation and progression of their sound. I enjoy their music, it is certainly more refreshing than other 'poppy' music out there |
Me too
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
progkidjoel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
|
Posted: June 03 2009 at 03:32 |
mr.cub wrote:
The Kings are one of the few true rock bands out there. A unique vocalist, an edgy sound and great songwriting defined their first two albums. Older fans might not like the changes they've made sound wise over the last two albums but to me it seems like a natural maturation and progression of their sound. I enjoy their music, it is certainly more refreshing than other 'poppy' music out there |
Fair enough
I just seem to find their "The Killers" sort of sound a little bit too generic at times, particularly on "Use somebody"...
To each his own, though.
|
|
|