What band will be the next Nirvana for rock music?

Well, I guess people like The Strokes for the same reasons why they liked the Monkees.

Perhaps the fact that they aren't (weren't) pop and released a catchy song, people over look the fact that they actually suck.

Society has such a penchant for 'the next big thing' that they're willing to overlook talent and hype bands who don't deserve to tune equipment for bands with actual talent.

 

Okay, nice signature, Ludacris.

And I'm sure Luda is gonna have a bigger impact on music, what with his durty hoes and big weed stash, than the Strokes.

The Monkees were a manufactured ripoff of the Beatles, to cash in on Beatlemania. The Strokes on the other hand, are not manufactured. Overly hyped perhaps, but definitely fresh.

 

You caught me red handed Ninja. My signature is a testament to my belief that Ludacris will make a huge impact on the music world.

They are fresh? Man, you need to turn off the radio and MTV.

And how do you know The Strokes aren't manufactured?

Just for the record Ninja, good music to you might suck to me, and vice versa. I just think they suck is all.

 

The deal with The Strokes is pretty much the deal with all of the 'glam rock' bands, like NY Dolls, VU, Stooges, etc. It's sorta 'revival rock' or 'proto-punk'. Rush and Steely Dan fans need not apply.

It's sorta a 'Bauhaus' (arcitectural style, not band) approach, and some people just can't understand beauty through simplicity. That's why some people can't get the Strokes.

 

Or maybe....

Just maybe....

They really do just suck.

 

The Strokes are nothing like theMonkees. The Monkees' songs were written by super-slick pop tunesmiths like Neil Diamond. The Strokes have more in common with rockabilliy artists and such, with the I-IV-V, and the straight up 2/2 time. Think, perhaps, the blissfull monotony of Baroque classical music.

 

Coma, if you honestly think the Strokes' music sucks, I gotta respect your opinion, but what do you consider good music? Bruh, I don't have cable, and MTV enrages me anyway. And I only listen to the radio to keep up with the times. So don't call me out on something that makes no sense.

I hafta say though, you have no basis for your opinions, you just keep saying The Strokes suck, and you compare them to the Monkees for some reason.

Don't get me wrong, comz, I'm all for pop in small doses, I think Luda is one of the cleverest, entertaining rappers out there. But I think you've mistaken me for an Abercrombie and Fitch wearing, lacrosse playing 12 year old.

Please don't tell me you like Creed and Nickelback. I will die. From laughter.

 

to get back on topic:

...And you will know us by the trail of the dead *phew!*

 

I listen to all kinds of music, R&B being my second favorite genre of music. So I turn the radio on, and hear this Ludacris song, and I hear that line and I think it's really clever. I don't own any Ludacris albums, and no nothing about him other than what I hear on the radio.

As for the Strokes, I think they suck because their music is nothing new. Fine, be influenced by your favorite artists, but for God's sake, write some lyrics why don't you. It's all stuff I've heard thousands of times before. I read all this stuff about how they are going to be the saviors of rock.

Please.

Isn't that what I read about *gasp* Creed a few yrs ago?

Until I hear something that hasn't been done before, which I have in some of the new Guns N' Roses stuff, give me something other than fleeting lyrics to hold my attention.

I have hundreds of CD's that I'd rather listen to instead of trying to convince myself that the Strokes are worth listening to over the Stones' Exile on Main Street.

No, I do not like Creed or Nickelback, whoever that is.

Is that something you listen to on your way to lacrosse practice? Kidding!

 

why do people hate creed so damn much. i can see the sappy argument fairly easily but what about the music do people hate so much. i guess i've never really understood the "it's been done before" thing b/c really what hasn't been done before. also maybe i'm not enough into the nuances of music to even know what people mean by its been done before. could someone explain it to this poor lost fool.


as for the thread, i hope nothing really saves rock cuz i generally like it right now (except for nickelback type songs, just can't get into them) with bands like creed and linkin park (damn i love their songs and never would've thought i would 6 months ago) and others. i seem to be one of the few who hope we never return to the dark days of the early 90's. luckily i didn't listen to music back then but when i hear what used to be big back then i'm glad. not that there isn't some stuff i like, just not enough to want to go back.


and that is now 4 posts after 4:30 am for me. also the last 4 posts in the entire hangout, man i stay up late.

 

I think you mean "For as long as there's been a music industry ..."

So, an alt-rock version of Prince, you mean?

I think your general point is right, but that it's due to continuing fragmentation of markets more than overhyping (which has always been with us, hasn't it?).

 

Unfortunately, there will never be another Nirvana. The notion that the Strokes are going to change music is pretty far-fetched. What Nirvana did was something new, what the Strokes do is nothing new. The only band I could possibly see changing rock is a band that utilizes a lot of new technology along with good 'ole guitar playing. I don't ever see a simple guitar band changing anything anymore. After OK Computer, I thought Radiohead could possibly be the next Nirvana. It was new, experimental, and catchy. Unfortunately their last two albums have become more and more experimental and they just don't get much airplay. Eventually a Radiohead album will consist of modem noise and a series of randomly placed bleeps with Thom Yorke singing into a water-proof microphone while being underwater in the deep end of a swimming pool. And music critics will still call it the best album of the year.

I definitely think there are some bands out there that could change music, but their music would probably be considered too <i>weird</i> for the majority of the public to accept. If the bands making all this new and different music don't even get played on the radio, how is popular music ever going to change?

 

Actually, Nirvana's music wasn't exactly original. It was a mix of the Pixies' skewed pop and the Melvin's sludgy heavy metal. Even Kurt Cobain admitted that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was a Pixies' ripoff. But Kurt was fortunate to record this kind of music at a time when audiences were really sick of the poodle hair **** rock that had been dominating MTV and radio for the previous 5 years. Thus it sounded fresh to the majority, who was not very familiar with college radio.

However, what made Nirvana stand out was the fact that Kurt was an amazingly charismatic frontman who lacked the oversexed misogyny that was so prevalent among the rock stars preceding him (Axl Rose, Vince Neil, the guy from Poison). Because of what seemed to be an unusal paradox (it's not really - sexism and charisma are not synonymous), it grabbed people's attention and they checked out the music. Nevermind was a well-recorded album with great songs and that hooked them. The video to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" helped alot too - it was funny and rocking at the same time.

My guess is that the first electronica artist who is more frontman than computer geek and who comines the electronica aesthetic with classic songwriting will be the next big thing. Electronica has tended to be sound collages over a very elementary structure performed by reclusive types. If someone can break this mold, they might be huge.

BTW, Jeff, the Beastie Boys are pretty much a fit for your description of the next big thing (except that they're white of course).

As far as the Strokes and Andrew WK, they're the type of bands that the Brit press loves (like they did Oasis), but they'll be gone in a blink. Music that gimmicky rarely stays fresh past one album. I hate to say this, but it's usually only really pretentious bands that grow (see U2, Radiohead and to a lesser extent, REM). The Beastie Boys are an exception. I don't think the Strokes are even remotely in their league.

 

I'm aware of the Pixies influence, but Nirvana just made it a little more radio friendly. The Pixies were a lot <i>wackier</i> than Nirvana, which is why the Pixies never really made it too big and Nirvana did. Plus, I think there was a difference in the production quality of the two bands. I think Nevermind sounded a lot better than Pixies albums.

 

I was just tossing around what you'all were saying...

and maybe it's the listeners who change. Not the music. So there will alway be innovation for that reason alone. Much like revolution. Eventually we become so tired of what we have we simply latch onto the exact opposite of it. whatever that may be.

 

not by anyone containing an ounce of musical taste. creed was, is and always will be regarded as the shining example of the music business' slow ascent into middle of the road mediocrity.

well, if your argument is that the strokes are nothing unique (and they're not, though i really dig their album), referencing the stones doesn't necessarily augment your position.

 

not really. nirvana was the spawn of husker du, fugazi, the pixies, plus seattle contempories like green river, the melvins and soundgarden. there was nothing really "new" about nirvana, except their mainstream success and acceptance.

 

it's obvious they're trying. bands like the strokes and the white stripes are being pushed because the industry knows the end is very, very near for all their pop stars.

"artists" (term used so very loosely) like nsync and britney spears all have an extremely short shelf life because their audience has the audacity to grow older, to change tastes and to shift priorities.

problem is, you can't manufacture a revolution. nirvana broke and caught everyone in the industry flat-footed. everyone. you can't predict the next big thing (remember when they predicted electronica would be the next big thing), it just has to happen, naturally.

and it will. music is cyclical; we're now seeing a generation of kids who grew up amidst the boy band surge of the late 90s find their footing and musical perspective and from that, genius will emerge. count on it.

 

Interesting stuff all around. I think the "this band is cooler than this band" stuff is really not worth arguing. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

Probably a decent concept, but we'll see.

I think the fact is that bands that have longevity and become larger than life are also bands/artists who have legitimate talent. They know how to craft songs and they understand how to make themselves sound good. It isn't really just about how fast they can play or how catchy their songs are. It is mostly about how well their talent transfers itself to the masses.

The problem with Radiohead is that they didn't really capture the spirit of a large group of people. That is what the big bands do. Nirvana really captured the "spirit" (all puns intended) of the way Gen X felt at the time. It was as much talent as it was timing.

Radiohead never quite did that. They had the critical audience's ear and they developed a following but they didn't have that one identifiable sound that people could identify with on a large scale.

NIN actually did that. Reznor was about as palatable a front man as you could get for that type of music and he has an abundance of talent. Plus, everything he does has an identity and a good hook. I just think mass audiences weren't quite ready for "I wanna **** you like an animal."

The key being that they are white. I think that the time is coming when there will be a crossover black artist. R&B/Hip Hop/Rap artists, right now, have more intensity and drive in the business world than most of the alt.rock artists and they know that tapping into the 14-24 year old white guy market is the one they want. It's only a matter of time before they find a way into that market without being attached to r&b, rap or hip hop.

That was EXTREMELY well said. How does anyone think the Stones got where they were? They were just British white guys playing Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf. Nothing original there at all, just different.

True, but that acceptance made it new. There is something to Nirvana - a certain energy - that was unique mainly due to Kurt Cobain. That severe anger mixed with abject apathy is what made them unique. Sure, the chords, the sounds and much of the way the songs were phrased were very similar to other bands. They were just able to actually convey a FEELING using those elements. That made them unique.

Outstanding point, Ric. I TOTALLY agree. Shouldn't you be working on the draft about now???

 

Why do people care about which bands suck or not? I have a pretty big list of bands that I really enjoy listening to, and only a few are really big commercially. I could give a rat's ass. I don't enjoy DMB because they're one of the biggest grossing tours and I don't enjoy moe because they're not that financially successful. I enjoy the music I listen to for one reason-because I do. It's all a matter of taste. Do I care that Major doesn't like DMB? No. Do I care that hundreds of millions of people like Creed? No. There's no reason for me to.