It seems as if each decade has made an impact (or trend) that conveniently lasts about 10 years and begins with the new decade and ends with the 9th year or so... For example the 70's was known for a certain kinda disco type music. the 80's was about awful "bop" music...and the 90's spawned the "depressed/pissed off music starting with grunge sound and more emergence of "hate" type music, but also utter depressing sound with counting crows, the smashing pumpkins and such.... and for the naughts, or single digits (or whatever you want to call it...) what do you think this decade is shaping out in terms of the decade's theme? Perhaps you don't agree with me, but I'd like to hear what you think.
This is an interesting topic and I thought about posting something similar to this but more geared towards rock music. I think that this past decade (the '90s) saw more artists become well-known for a song and then disappear within 2 to 3 years. This not only goes for pop but for rock music. I mean there are so many of these "new rock" bands out there like 3 Doors Down, Nine Days, Fuel, Lifehouse, etc. It's like a new band a week comes out. Combine this with, what I think is a disturbing trend, the "New Metal" of Slipknot, System of a Down, Deftones, etc. or this rap-metal of Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock as well as Korn and you can see that this music is radically different from heavy metal of the late '70s and the '80s of bands like AC/DC, Pantera, Motorhead, Slayer, early Metallica, etc. It just seems like it is all one big band and that there is no identity that distinguishes these new groups from one another. The only hard rock band that I think defies this thinking of mine is Tool. I see them lumped in with some of these bands with "similar artists" off Amazon and it makes me laugh. I feel that Tool blows all these rap-metal bands away and doesn't fit the "typical" genre that is selling right now. Man, I could probably think of some other things to say about this, but I'll have to maybe come back with some more thoughts. However, as a music lover who has wildly changed their tastes in music over the past year, it is disturbing to see that there are so many of these "bands of the week". It's made today's rock music for me bland and generic. Thank God, I have enough CDs that I won't ever have to listen to the radio again unless I want to.
Manny, you act like all of those bands you list are one hit wonder piece of **** bands. Come on. Stop hating on anything that is halfway popular...Fuel, 3 Doors Down, SOAD, Bizkit, Rock, and Korn all have had multiple hits and all of them but 3DD have had at least a couple of hit albums, not just one album and then they disappear...
SCF: Sorry that you feel that way when I post about today's bands, but that's how I feel about it. I guess I have a tough time in expressing my disdain for what is popular. I have accepted the fact that you like those bands and that nothing will change your mind about it. That's great. I'm not out to change your mind on your musical taste, but I will not let that stop me from posting what I feel or think. You should accept that fact about me where I have accepted that you like matchbox20, 3 Doors Down, etc. . Nothing is stopping you from posting in this thread that you think that music is going in the right direction with these bands. There is no right or wrong answers here. Purely, a matter of conjecture and opinion. I actually admire the fact that you always stand up for these bands, but I just don't see myself listening to them all the time compared to other stuff I have. Believe me...in time, your tastes will change and you'll see what I'm talking about. Maybe, you will do a better job than me in explaining it to other people.
From what I've read in the past months (over Elvis' shoulder) of Manny's taste in music, I don't think he 'hates on popular artists' so much as he hates on a lot of lame-ass ones. I totally agree with him about nu-metal (and that goes for all those annoying Orange County punks too). Come on, what the hell do a bunch of middle class white guys in the suburbs have to be so faux-aggressive about? (Fred Durst is the worst offender in that regard, the whiny little wanker.) Musically uninteresting, lyrically banal, no fun... what's the point of releasing any more of this crap? (A rhetorical question more than anything. And please don't try to convert me to their merits, I've heard all I care to hear. Ad nauseam. ) I think the nineties were as much about hiphop and dance music as they were about 'alternative' rock, actually. I'm not sure where the aughts will go, unless it's a pendulum swing away from angst-ridden rawk to more interesting power-pop influenced stuff. Oh, and dance music (aka electronica or whatever they're calling it now) isn't going away any time soon, either. I suppose we can always count on increasing fragmentation. Manny: I think there were always one-hit wonders and bands of the week, during every period of popular music. Have you seen that Rhino box set of 70s hits, Have a Nice Decade? It's kind of astounding how much fun-but-cheesy crap is released in an average year...
Manny--its not like I love the music you hate on, but I just find you a little reduntant. Of all of the artists you've listed I own one Kid Rock CD and 2 limp CDs, one of which I won off of the radio. It's not like I think any of them are the best bands around, but I would like to know how many of these artists albums you've listened to all the way through.
See this is the crux of the matter. You seem to believe you have moved on to some higher plane of musicdom and left the crap behind rather than just changed musical tastes. Earlier you say you have no problem with what people like and then seem to say but it sucks and eventually you will learn what Manny has learned. There is no right or wrong you say but that is in contrast to almost everything you post musically. I guess you in essence you allow your opinions (these bands are all the same, they say nothing, etcetera, etcetera) to dictate what you feel are the facts of music. There are none. Now, in all seriousness, do you post at rollingstone.com because your views are so much like the people that post there. Well I haven't looked in about six months but the way I last saw it you would be a good fit and would probably enjoy talking with those people. They hate everything that's popular too. And are you gonna let Mrs. JB get away with saying Moby isn't the end all be all of music.
That's a really interesting question. The following post is fairly long (be forewarned) because this is something I pay VERY close attention to given my interest in this business. Actually, I agree with Manny but for a very different reason. I don't think there is a derth of quality in music today. I think there are plenty of talented bands and musicians. The problem I see is with the industry itself. Pre-1985, the music industry was fairly diverse in terms of the choices artists had when it came to releasing music. There were a large number of record labels and looks didn't play much of a part in your success. The advent of MTV as a medium for music altered music in the sense that looks became a significant factor. That didn't help (I'll leave that to a different thread though). However, the bigger problem was on the horizon. In 1985, the last of the Big 7 (now Big 6) record labels formed. The now Big 6 swallowed up all of the indie labels throughout the US and Europe. If they didn't buy them, they bought their catalogs or they bought their distribution rights. Over the next decade, those same labels began merging with multi-national conglomerates who owned media outlets (like radio stations for example), production houses, distribution facilities, even instrument manufacturers. The industry was reduced to one giant behemoth. The sad fact is that, like most industries with only a few big corporations, market share became more important than profitability or artistic merit. Companies would scramble to get the next big thing to the market and then rid themselves of it just as quickly to preserve their market share. That kept their stock prices high. One practice that became frighteningly pervasive in the 90's was the practice of copycatting. Basically, this amounted to taking whatever was out there that was popular and bringing in an artist just like them on each label. For example, Pearl Jam's sucess spawned Stone Temple Pilots, Candlebox and Silver Chair among others. Female artists like Alanis Moirsette and Sarah McLaughlin created the need for other labels to "discover" Sean Colvin, Meridith Brooks, Paula Cole and Fiona Apple. Ricky Martin's success led to the "Latin craze" of Jennifer Lopez, Ernique Iglesias, Marc Anthony and Lou Bega. Today, you can't have the Backstreet Boys without N'Sync, O-Town or 98 Degrees. You can't have Brittany without Mandy Moore, Christina Aguilera and Jessica Simpson. You don't get Korn without Limp Bizkit and Alien Ant Farm. Obviously, these artists aren't EXACTLY alike, but they fit a genre and they are almost always on a different label from the original. It is part of the invention of new categorizations that record companies are doing to create a buzz. It's not just "alternative" or "progressive," it's "rap rock" or "underground." Every day is a new term for the new "thing" and that's how they hook you. To make matters even worse, they began to segregate radio stations. Now, you have these huge companies owning dozens of radio stations (hundreds even) and marketing them all the same. In Houston, it's the Buzz (alternative rock) and in Dallas it's the Edge. Same company, same format, different city. There is now a Mix in every major city and there are fewer and fewer independents left. To take it a step further, recording contracts are worse now than ever. You always got screwed as a rookie artist but it is much MUCH worse now. You are forced to sign contracts that are pretty much awful and deal with it until you are successful. Once you get to that point, the company offers you a slightly better deal that is laden with incentives. If you don't produce (in record sales they largely manufacture themselves with promotion budgets that will either make or break you), you get dropped and no other label will touch you with a ten foot pole. A perfect example of this is the fact that alternative radio is now bereft of female artists. To be a successful female artist today, you either have to be an r&b singer or a pop star. The short time in the 90's when the airwaves were packed with female singer/songwriters is over. Where did they go? Did they stop making music? Nope. The record labels just decided that a rookie pop act will make them more money than a veteran rock act because they ask for less money up front. On the positive side, the more stringent elements of the music biz has given rise to more internet promotion of unsigned artists and an exploding home recording industry. With the development of new digital technologies, artists are finding they can make as much money (probably more) on their own as they can on a label. But, it has a ways to go. To illustrate, I subscibe to several recording and music magazines. In one, there is a monthly feature sponsored by TAXI, a musician advocacy and support group. They interview an A&R (artist and repitoire - the people who sign bands) person or someone high up in the industry every month. There is no more sickening monthly read for me than this column. They ALL say that bands, to be worthy of signing, have to: 1. Look great. 2. Have a huge following in their home town (selling out 1500-seat venues is "a good start" as one put it recently) 3. Have their look and stage attitude together. Oh, and if they have good songs, mainly a good hook that drunk people can remember, that's good too. In the same vein, a producer, independent A&R person wrote in a magazine article a couple years ago that Monday morning A&R meetings at his former label were brutal for him because he loved great music. He would go in and say, "I saw this amazing band over the weekend. They were terrific." The response would be, "How did the singer look? Was he good looking? Did the band have coordinated outfits and a good stage attitude?" No, "did they have good songs? Were they good musicians?" The only thought was how quickly and efficiently they could package their "product" (if you are uncomfortable with that term, better not become a musician) and get it out to the masses. I fear that the music industry is headed for a gigantic fall. The Napster issue is just the tip of the iceberg for them. As they continue to act ONLY in the interest of their market share and not in the interest of music or art, they will continue to strangle the music world. And, by not developing artists over time, they will lose longevity. Look at the business today. How many bands can you count that have released their first record since 1987 but before, say, 1998, are still POPULAR AND VALID today? Not the bands that are still playing, mind you. I mean, Foghat is still playing. That doesn't make them valid. Now, compare that to the number of artists who are still POPULAR AND VALID today who released their first album prior to 1987. When you think about it, how many U2's or Bruce Springsteen's or Sting's or Elton John's will we have to look forward to 15 or 20 years from now. Those artists got time to develop and hone their craft. They didn't really make a significant impact on the music world until well into their development as artists. Once they did, they were not only solidified as artists but as strong sellers who could carry a record label during rough times. There is literally no artist development today. It doesn't exist. Without it, we are doomed to an industry full of one-hit wonders that exist not because of something they did or even because of a lack of talent but rather due to a lack of support from a narrow-minded music industry. All I can say is, if you don't want to be stuck with music that is practically worthless 20 years from now and are sitting around wondering, "Why the hell did (insert band or artist name here) not survive beyond their third record?", then you owe it to yourself and the survival of popular music to hit all the underground and unsigned artist websites and support them. They may hold the key to the survival of pop music for the next century, let alone decade.
Actually, SCF, I have "Devil Without a Cause" by Kid Rock and "Significant Other" by Limp Bizkit plus Nine Days CD and the Fuel CD, "Something Like Human" and I have listened to them all the way through about 3 or 4 times. I'm sorry but after listening to "Ace of Spades" by Motorhead, "Blizzard of Oz" by Ozzy Osbourne, "Danzig" by Danzig, and even "Sonic Temple" by Cult (I say that because that is their most mainstream CD - I'm listening to it right now), that stuff by Kid Rock and Limp, etc. just doesn't hold it. Hell, that is what I feel, but obviously you might not see it like that. It is like dimsie said (excellent post, BTW, tell Elvis I just got the Chemical Brothers new CD and it kicks ass!) those groups are just lame compared to what I consider real rock or heavy metal like Motorhead, Ozzy, Danzig, and the Cult. f4p: you're like 20 or 21 right? You know what I like when I was that age, seriously? R&B and pop - which is not bad, but my sister who is 3 years older than me was listening to groups like The Cure, The Smiths, Love & Rockets, Bauhaus, Front 242, etc. while they were still out-of-the-mainstream bands for the most part. She always made fun of my musical tastes, but I see now what she was trying to tell me. The music that is popular on the radio is for the most part formulaic although there are exceptions to the rule. I believe that Jeff explained that phenomenon pretty well. Do you ever remember a guy named Rick Astley? He had 2 #1's in a row around 1987 to 1988 & they were the same exact f*cking song! Little wonder, no one has heard of him now. That is my whole point of how radio determines what is a hit and how these "artists" try so hard to come up with that formula that radio craves. I guess I do come across as an arrogant ass sometimes. So, what?? Music is a big hobby of mine and it is upsetting to see how much music has fallen recently. I know that is my opinion, but I guess I do a poor job in biting my tongue about it. You know I have already told SCF that I have tried Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, etc. Have you ever listened to Radiohead? or Massive Attack? or Smashing Pumpkins? or NIN? If you give those bands a chance like I did with Kid Rock and Limp Bizkit, maybe you will have an epiphany like I did, but I'm not going to hold my breath on it. Oh, and I wished that I wrote for a magazine like Rolling Stone because that would kick major ass to sit around and listen to CDs and then write reviews about it. I'm flattered that you would think that I could work for them. That made my weekend. But they have changed, Mrs. JB. I'm buying Jazz CDs by Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Dave Brubeck, Thelonious Monk, Vince Guaraldi, and Sonny Rollins, some of which were recommended by your hubby. Plus I have bought or ordered CDs by Joy Division, the Cult, Peter Gabriel, Smashing Pumpkins, Danzig, Slayer, Metallica (early), Pantera, Chemical Brothers, Front Line Assembly and that goes with existing CDs by Nine Inch Nails, the Orb, Orbital, Liz Phair, Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, Ozzy Osbourne, Black Sabbath, Tricky, New Order, Radiohead, Fatboy Slim, Everclear, Temple of the Dog, Mother Love Bone, Skinny Puppy, ZZ Top, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Tool, Beck, A Perfect Circle, Soundgarden, and Coldplay just to name a few. I would be more than glad to tell you all of them, but I have taken up enough bandwidth as it is. Tell you what...let me know if you want me to email you an excel file that is my "CD inventory" to you that way you'll know all of my CDs including Limp and Britney Spears.
also, how do you have so many CD's again. were you one of the people on here who works some place or knows someone who can get them or do you just buy that many. damn that may be my longest post ever (and you know no one will read it) edit: damn i also may have set a record for typos in a non-LHutz post.
LOL! I can't stop laughing... "Together Forever" and "Never Gonna Give You Up", right? I remember a year after they came out I said to myself, "damn, those are the same song!" I remember playing them back to back and thinking, "holy damn, they are the same song!". To be honest, though I thought Rick had a good voice, but he was "built" for top-40. ... oh wow, I can't stop laughing
i didn't reply to quote b/c its so long, but i agree with Jeff. i just want to add a little bit of my opinion to the question asked by Roxran orginally. i'm a 35 year old musician who was raised on early 70's rock. i was learning to play piano & drums during that time and was a working musician in the early 80's back in my home state of Lousisana. the eighties was also a time of learning for me, b/c as i was enjoying the rise of Metal, i was emercing myself in late 60's music of the Rolling Stones/Beatles/Pink Floyd & Jimi Hendrix and the like (the Faces/Yardbirds etc.) the nineties brought more learning b/c as i got older i started to appreciate Blues music more so i dove further into the 60's & 50's and beyond. unfortunately, my career as a musician left me in the early ninties and i pursued more (ugh!) corporate endevours to pay the bills so to speak. i don't play much anymore, but my love for music remains as high as ever. my opinion is this.......people can say what they want about rap music, but it will and has been a swift kick in the *ss. i don't like everything in rap anymore than i like everything in rock. i am in totally agreement with Jeff that artist developement has been thrown out the window, but the internet was there to break the fall. support your favorite bands via thier web pages or indy label web pages. there are still opportunities out there...the corporate still hangs on too mainstays like S/SW in Austin......which have been lauching pads for years and probably still be viable outlets for people to get off the streets so to speak, but what awaits them are just what Jeff said.........a lousy contract in exchange for fame and just enough money to keep you there. i have no idea what the next big thing will be, but from what i've seen so far.........the 70's were not the 60's and the 80's was different from the 70's and the 90's b*tched slapped the 80's......the late 90's early 2000 Raging Rap Revolution will probably be the index of the end of what we now know. as a fan of music...........i find it exciting to find out..........i wanna know what we as people can do.......we keep finding new things and the creative process just amazes me. one thing is for sure.........it'll be different, but i betcha its good.
Manny & F4P: If you want my honest opinion, I think you guys are both relatively closed minded, but so what. That is your choice. If you really want to open yourself to music, you will bypass the "pop" and "rock" sections at the record store or even bypass the record store altogether for something different, you may have the opportunity to discover something you like. You don't discover music in some passive listen-to-the-radio-and-see-what-I-like or even buy-every-artist-from-the-same-genre-because-I-like-one method. Learning about music is a process that requires understanding not only what is popular and what is unpopular (or underground, or geeky, or pase), it requires finding what is unknown. The process of that discovery is what usually reveals the greatest insights and experiences when it comes to music. You have to try to think differently. I understand F4P's taste in music and even he realizes how he goes about it. I don't think there is any reason for him to have to defend himself for his tastes. But, I do realize why he says what he says about you, Manny. Telling him that he's 20 and "he'll learn" as if you've moved on to some greater plane of musical existence is arrogant and pretty silly. I mean, buying some Miles and "discovering" Joy Division doesn't make you all that innovative. In fact, even thinking that it does is kinda funny.
Manny - You seem to get pretty bent out of shape in just about every music thread I see you in. What's going on there? Do you feel that you are somehow defined by your musical tastes? That seems like pretty superficial way to define yourself and others. I've known some amazing people who could care less about music and I've known some real jackasses who had some of the best record collections I've ever seen. So it seems pointless to judge. And in regards to your offer: Why on earth would I want you to e-mail me a list of the CD's you own? So you can prove how diverse your musical tastes are? If you really enjoy what you listen to, it shouldn't matter to you what other people think about it. Besides, I choose my music based on what I like, not what other people say I should. So thanks, but no thanks.
Dimsie: I didn't see this question when I responded before. Yea, I've seen these things before. I actually remember seeing one on Amazon because I was looking for a CD, ANY CD that had Emotion, not the Destiny's Child version but the original by Samantha Sang. Some people might be surprised by this but I have almost every Bee Gees CD they have released. To me, there wasn't much to get excited about in the '70's, but thankfully I don't remember much of that decade considering that I was born in '73. The funny thing is that the Bee Gees had some great songs before the "Main Course" CD like "I Started a Joke", "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart", "I've Just Gotta Get a Message to You", and "New York Mining Disaster 1941". Two of their greatest CDs that no one ever talks about are "Odessa" (incredible concept CD, released back in '68) and "Mr. Natural", their first CD under the production of Arif Mardin - it paved the way for "Main Course". So, yea, with the exception of the Bee Gees, I think that most of the '70's was a cheesy one. ADDENDUM - It's interesting to read that the brothers Gibb regret how big the songs off Saturday Night Fever got. I remember hearing or reading Barry saying that he wished that he could get that whole CD mix it with some gold chains and a jacket from that era and burn them! I think that they are admitting in an indirect way that they sold out when they did those songs. The stuff that they have released with their latest CD, "This Is Where I Came In" is a lot more like their pre-Main Course music. DoD: You are exactly right about Rick Astley. I actually liked both of those songs and I use to get upset when people told me it was the same song...lol....then I really listened to those 2 songs and realized that it was true. f4p: "Rat in a Cage" by Smashing Pumpkins is actually "Bullet with Butterfly Wings". I am surprised that you have never heard of "Tonight, Tonight" and "Disarm"...they were pretty popular songs on alternative radio. LOL about Massive Attack...they have never to my knowledge been a group that you would hear on the radio, but then maybe I missed something here. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I got the impression that you have heard of some Massive Attack songs on the radio but you just didn't name any. As for NIN, I'm sure that the song that you have heard is "Closer" with the lyric "I want to **** you like an animal". As much as I love that song, "Head Like a Hole", "Terrible Lie", "Sin", "Hurt", and "Starf*ckers" are all just a few of the great NIN songs as well as Trent's re-makes of "Physical" (no not the ONJ song) and "Suck". Also, it was late last night, so after reading your post again, I just want to clarify that I wished that I worked for Rolling Stone because it would be cool. Jeff: I have a little bit of everything in my CD collection. I didn't even count the 100+ Classical CDs that I have like Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th Symphonies or stuff by Bach, Debussy, Dvorak, Grieg, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Handel, Stravinsky, etc. I'm sure that I'll continue to like more different things as I'm starting to get more into Industrial past NIN. I guess I really like anything except bluegrass and this rap-metal stuff. I still like pop music, but like you said in your first post, I don't know if it is something that I will be listening to in 20 years. One of the last pop CDs I got is Dream's "It Was All a Dream". Not a bad pop CD, but definitely something that won't be as remembered over 20 years from now like a "Who's Next" or "Dark Side of the Moon". I guess I just like to listen to things that I feel rewards the listener. And maybe I didn't handle or approach things with f4p in the right way, but I was just going by my personal history with music. Also, I'm sorry that I have given you the impression that I think I'm some kind of innovative music person because I now listen to Miles Davis and Joy Division. I feel that it has made me more diverse, but hardly innovative. I guess I do a piss-poor job in relaying those thoughts across. Seriously, thanks for pointing that out. EDIT - I didn't see Mrs. JB's post until after I posted. No, I get bent out of shape when I see flippant comments. I pretty much explained things to Jeff up earlier in this post. Once again, I did not mean to come across as being superficial in defining myself and others by their musical tastes. For the record, I wish I was like Jeff because I respect his views on music a lot, but realize that he does a much better job than me in discussing all types of music (even the ones he doesn't like). The offer was pretty much my way of letting you know that I like other things besides Radiohead, New Order, Moby, etc. which you seemed to imply with that comment about Moby. I didn't really expect you to take me up on it, but it was my way of saying "don't pigeonhole me to one genre of music, when I like various kinds." I can be a very emotional person sometimes on this BBS...Jeff knows that. Anything that I'm passionate about will cause me to maybe come across as a jackass sometimes, but I guess that is a weakness that I need to work on.
<b>To me, there wasn't much to get excited about in the '70's, but thankfully I don't remember much of that decade considering that I was born in '73... So, yea, with the exception of the Bee Gees, I think that most of the '70's was a cheesy one.</b> Seriously? Led Zepplin Steely Dan Van Halen (both VH1 and 2 were released in the 70's) Aerosmith The Eagles Joni Mitchell James Taylor Supertramp Boston Earth Wind & Fire Stevie Wonder Heart Kansas Rush Yes Deep Purple Queen Bruce Springsteen Billy Joel Elton John Pink Floyd Parliment Funkadelic Sly and the Family Stone Al Green Kiss The Rolling Stones Wings Paul Simon Three Dog Night Todd Rundgren Eric Clapton Van Morrison Genesis Steve Miller Rickie Lee Jones David Bowie Journey And I know I'm missing some and not even including jazz or other genres of music. I don't even like everyone on that list, but I realize they are important. From 1976 through 1978, some of the most important albums in the history of rock music were released. You just said you were going to buy some Lynard Skynard! I'm not trying to pick on you here, but you are being rather dismissive of an entire era that anyone could easily argue was one of the most important in the history of popular music.
