Making a distinction between alt. rock and Rock is kind of silly, isn't it? Was "Pet Sounds" a rock album? Was "Nothing's Shocking" alt. rock? One sounds like it came from another planet and the other sounds as much like Led Zeppelin as anything else. "Classic rock" is not necessarily a question of quality, is it? People *hated* the Ramones when they started, yet they have at least as much in common with Phil Spector (pop) as they do with the MC5 (proto-punk). In hipper places *they* are what gets played on classic rock stations as much as the Eagles. This is all about exposure, in my opinion. The reason young people respond more to hip-hop and pop music goes beyond market manipulation and hype, in my opinion. I think kids want something of their own. I imagine kids get tired of hearing how much better it was in 1967/1977 or 1992. I think there is a part of establishing your own identity in having your own thing, having your own heroes. More than likely the average Mom and Dad will hate Eminem and think Christina Aguliera is a ho bag....shocking your parents is reason enough some times, right? Anyway, how can new "good" Rock (as defined by Jeff) flourish when the marketplace is still being dominated by the same people who did 20 or 30 years ago? Queens of the Stone Age released an album that kicks Bruce Springsteen's ass from here to Nebraska this year, but there is simply no willingness of mainstream rock radio stations to take a chance. I could give you dozens of examples. The conservatism of the marketplace *and* the audience is the culprit in the increasing irrelevance of rock. The safer the big record labels play it- and what is Creed but a triumph of using successful formulas (The po-faced self-importance and warbling of Pearl Jam + time honored Zeppelin riffs)- the more they shoot themselves in the foot.
The reason young people respond more to hip-hop and pop music goes beyond market manipulation and hype, in my opinion. I think kids want something of their own. You know at the end of the day all bands play the same notes. Looking at all that is gone before, how much new music is really original. Grunge itself was not even original.; grunge bands borrowed heavily from Neil Young. I think kids want and have always wanted their own culture, that was different than the culture of their older brothers and sisters. But that does not necessarily mean that what they settle for is all that original. Anyway, how can new "good" Rock (as defined by Jeff) flourish when the marketplace is still being dominated by the same people who did 20 or 30 years ago? Queens of the Stone Age released an album that kicks Bruce Springsteen's ass from here to Nebraska this year, but there is simply no willingness of mainstream rock radio stations to take a chance. Mainstream radio is too corporate to take chances. Playlists are used to lock in a certain demographic, versus bringing new cool music and bands to listeners. This makes playlists very rigid. DJs get actually reprimanded/fired for not sticking to their playlist. The reason older artists dominate the marketplace is that they have established fan bases that will never go away. These artists developed their fan base over a long period of time and many albums. Most artists today are dropped after their first non-platinum album, which for a lot of artists means they get one chance. Something else that I find disturbing is that so many bands sound the same. Jeff mentioned Hoobastank. There are so many bands that sounds like that. In years past, successful sounds would be mimicked but the majority of bands would not mimick. Now it is just the opposite. Diversity is out and homogeneity is in. I think the music scene suffers for it.
Elvis: No Worries covered some of it, but what I was trying to point out was that much of rock music today is dominated, as he put it, by bands that sound identical. The reason that happens is because of a concept discovered by record labels during the grunge era. They found out that, if you find and release artists that sound strikingly similar to the original, you manage to sell a lot of records without having to work very hard. Pearl Jam was THE big seller on mainstream radio, so labels went our and signed bands like Silver Chair and Stone Temple Pilots. STP eventually found their own thing, but at the time, they were a "sound-alike." This has roughly the same effect as signing only one band - it narrows the entire scope of the industry. You got Britney Spears? We need Christina Aguilera or Mandy Moore or Jessica Simpson. You have Backstreet Boys? We'll have N'Sync or 98 Degrees. You have Korn? We'll have Limp Bizkit or Linkin Park. Even the NAMES sound similar. My point was that most artists don't have the time they need to develop into what they could be. GREAT artists require all kinds of time to learn and develop. And, I'm not talking about generalizations of who is good or who is bad. I'm talking about bands or artists that are widely recognized as the top of their field. I don't really care for Springsteen, but there is no disputing his talent. I never cared for Bob Dylan as performer, but I'd be blind not to notice his tremendous ability as a songwriter and icon. I'm talking about concensus greatness, not the subjective version.
This is the worst argument ever. Yep, you caught me subtomic. My fascination with Creed stems from their dead sexy appearences, their tight butts, and that nice bulge in their pants. I didn't even know what the hell they looked like till the "Higher" video came out. I just love the damn music man, and its good.
a) The concept you're describing isn't a new grunge-era thing at all. During the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties (and, for that matter, since the beginning of recorded music!) the record industry has been honing their 'find a guy that sounds the same as that popular guy and sign him' technique. Now, it's possible that they're *better* at it now because the same 5 companies own practically everything and can cross-promote, but it's not a new thing. Elvis goes into the army and then look! Lots of 'safe' teen heartthrobs appear. The Beatles hit with Please Please Me - what do the English record companies do? They sign Gerry and the Pacemakers and Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas. In 1964, the boys conquer America, and then there's a whole 'British Invasion'. (I mean, who in their right mind really *liked* Herman's Hermits or Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Titch? [Were they American? I just wanted to use that band name somewhere!]) Same with disco - Donna Summer hits and suddenly there are a thousand black divas singing over 'Teutonic beats', to quote David Bowie. The Sex Pistols make number one in Britain and the doors are opened for hundreds of punk bands, some of them marginally talented. The charts have always, *always* been filled with dross. Go back and look at the Billboard charts and there will always be a pile of obviously imitative and derivative crap on there. There are only a few exceptions to that rule, and they're the ones people think about when they say how much better it was in the good old days. But I have Have a Nice Decade , the seventies box set, and I *know* that lame music has been there always... b) 'Consensus greatness' is only as consensus as the next advertisement or remake or radio format. Who gave a **** about 'Lady Marmalade' before the Aguilera et al. poon-caressing video? Labelle's original is great, but no one cared before it got repromoted. Buzzcocks' 'What Do I Get?' advertises cars now, so they're 'classic'. Who even knew who they *were* before, apart from us? There are objectively great soul artists whose back catalogue is languishing in a vault (or occasionally being rereleased by Rhino, bless them) but 'classic rock' is such a ridiculously narrowminded format, and its listeners are so conservative, that no one will ever hear them and form that consensus. Wait for it to be on a commercial, *then* it's classic. I'd much rather listen to 'No One Knows' or 'Keep Fishin'' than 'The Rising'... And Nomar: Creed really, really f*cking suck. They suck on a *Jewel* level. And I do not use the comparison lightly.
That's what I meant. They are MUCH better at it now. Having only 5 major labels makes the practice more devastating because fewer records get released. I know you are not from the states, but where did you come up with this? Arguably, the original was MORE popular than the re-make. Labelle's version of Lady Marmalade (also a remake by the way of the song by the Eleventh Hour) reached number 1 on the Billboard charts in March of 1975. It was in the top 100 for 25 weeks and spent 8 weeks in the top 10. Prior to reaching the Billboard charts, it was a huge hit in discos. Maybe Christina, et al 's version spent more time on the charts, but to suggest no one cared about the Labelle version is simply not true.
No. Not what I said. I said no one cared about it as a 'classic' until it was remade. It was a big hit in 1975, as we both knew already (I bought the Labelle album in my teens in the early nineties, when I found out who it was) and then died. You never heard it on classic rock stations. Everyone knew 'voulez-vous coucher avec moi, ce soir?' but hardly anyone knew where it came from, unless they were of a certain age (or actually gave a crap, like me). *Now* everyone thinks it's a classic, because it was remade. My point, thus: 'general consensus' about classic songs and bands isn't anything to do with talent or greatness, but is based almost entirely on commercials, remakes, and narrow radio formats. Edited to add something Elvis said to me yesterday: you'll hear 'Horse With No Name' more on classic rock stations than any Neil Young song, right? But America were a naff band and Neil Young objectively rules, and 'Horse With No Name' is just a lesser rip-off of his vocal style. So why do we hear 'Horse With No Name' all the time? I don't get it.
If you had bothered to read the quote of mine that you used, you'd see that I said MTV's standards, not Nomar's standards. I have no idea (and don't care) whether your wet dreams involve Scott Stapp, but there is no denying that the music business has allowed looks to become the primary criteria for signing new bands. And this practice is mostly due to MTV (although things weren't helped when all the crappy "ugly" bands of the 80s like Loverboy and REO Speedwagon insisted on appearing in their own videos). As for Creed's music, they combine the worst aspects of Pearl Jam (warbly vocals, self-righteous lyrics) and Whitesnake (lead-footed drumming, cheesy LZ-inspired riffs). It wouldn't suprise me at all if their next video had Scott Stapp pretending to be a suicidal teen named Jeremiah who is saved only by the good heart of his teacher Tawny Kitaen. If you like this, that's your prerogative, but I'd bet that you'd find Creed laughable if you spent a few weeks with some Fugazi records. Then again, you might not. On the problem with rock in general, here is a couple of points that I thought I'd bring up: 1) Technology - Rock music is significantly influenced by the equipment used to make it. Rock musicians has become a surprisingly conservative group when it comes to musical equipment. The music instrument community is (self-admittedly) reluctant to pursue new sounds because rock musicians (the bulk of their customers) are so resistant to change. As a result, most of today's artists are using gear that was available 20-30 years ago. And audiences are bored of these sounds - when Jimi Hendrix used a Strat guitar through a Marshall SuperLead amp, it sounded revolutionary because the SuperLead was brand new. However, when Lenny Kravitz uses a Marshall stack today, it sounds retro. Every once in awhile, you'll get an artist who really embraces new technologies (Trent Reznor comes to mind). But unfortunately, most rock musicians are content to use the same sounds as their influences. So often time, rock music sounds very similar and stale upon initial listening. 2) Quick signings - When many new bands form, their primary goal isn't to build up a collection of good material but to get signed. To do this, they write one or two songs, make a professional sounding demo and start shopping themselves to major labels. This has become much more prevalent in recent years, and as Jeff noted, many bands simply aren't developing the way they need to in order to make good music.
You probably don't know this, but Creed wasn't built by MTV. It was built by touring, and by radio. I don't think radio gives a **** about how a band looks. Creed is a throwback to an era before MTV made or broke artists.
This is oh so true. Jimi had sounds in his head which he would describe to John Mayer (who created the octave pedal for Jimi) and Eddie Kramer (Jimi's producer). These men would use all the technology of that time to recreate the sounds Jimi had in his head. The Beatles were also always on George Martin to recreate the sounds they had in their heads. Today's rock music relies more on power chords with the distortion turned up to the max. Not very creative.
*Really*? Wow, there's hope. I heard 'Horse With No Name' on classic rock stations throughout Louisiana and Texas *and* New Zealand. I just thought it was a universal naffness. Where do you live?
