Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
Rock and Roll still viable?
| Message Board > Music Chitchat - Heavy > Rock and Roll still viable? |
| Dirtymac User Info... | Just out of interest, is the art of Stones styled rock and roll still good, or is it dead, save for all the cover bands who do Brown Sugar? - Wed, 11 Jan 2006 9:43am | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | That question gets asked continuously. If you can answer it, you might just be the second coming of Lester Bangs Most cynics say R&R has been dead a long time. As we see though everything is cyclical. if it is indeed dead now (a matter of opinion at best), It wont be long before some young generation begins to appreciate it again. Or possibly they begin to appreciate old covers, or simply a style which is a musical extension of the past. . . - Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:30am | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | I think it's just about over. Sure I like seeing Aerosmith play a few songs here and there, but times change and new music and styles have plenty of place in this world now. - Wed, 11 Jan 2006 4:44pm | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | For me, Queens Of The Stone Age are the last "huge" rock band. However, since Nick Oliveri got the boot things haven't been quite as nice. - Wed, 11 Jan 2006 5:43pm | ||
| adrian User Info... | If you need a Stones-influenced keyboardist, drop me a line. - Wed, 11 Jan 2006 6:55pm | ||
| Steve Knoffler User Info... | I LOVE old music from the 50's 60's and early 70's; so much that I am in 2 tribute bands that portray some of the best works of those era's but I am getting tired of all these new "original" bands that are trying to pass themselves off as retro or vintage sounding, in my view they are just copying what has already been done and you can't convince me that the copy is better than the origonal especially when comparing themselves to the likes of the stones the beatles and zeppelin. These musicians will never evolve or grow from the stuff that they have ripped off and tried to pass off as their own, for instance I'd be very surprised if Jet, the Trews, or dare I say it Hot Hot Heat, could rip off enough material to make another 2 records each and if they did im convinced that by then people will realize that their music hasn't evolved at all since their break through. Either do something totally original or join a tribute band. I'd rather be in a band that played the stones than sounded like I was ripping off the stones. Leave the stones for who they are and get into an outfit that tries to copy their vibe not their sound. Rock & Roll isn't dead but its lost its way. Where it was once about sticking it to the man, and writing complicated yet simple understandable songs it's now all done using a formula and usually being writen by someone other than the artist and being run more like a business than a band to pinch every dollar that they can out of a consumer by selling out to IPOD or Burger King. I'm not saying that it's only the new artists selling out; we've all heard Led Zeppelin on the Cadillac comercials or the Who on CSI but doesn't it make you agry when you hear it? In closing this "Attack" if you will, has been directed more at the mainstream as aposed to the local scene and is not directed at towards any local bands in particular but it does apply to them aswell I suppose. I'm not trying to step on anybodies toes I just wanted to get it out of my system. HOMIE DON'T PLAY DAT! - Thu, 12 Jan 2006 8:58am | ||
| Zippgunn User Info... |  | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | A lot of the new shit sounds like the old shit I first heard when I was a kid. Thus, I continue to play the old shit (Gang of Four) instead of the new shit (Bloc Party? Franz Ferdinand? I dunno). But for a kid who never heard the old shit, the new shit is probably the greatest shit they ever heard and might eventually lead him or her back to the old shit. Which, of course, is the good shit. - Thu, 12 Jan 2006 6:55pm | ||
| Steve Knoffler User Info... | I can understand how you may prefer to listen to a new "original" band more than a cover band but personally I'd take That 70's Band over the Darkness anyday of the week. And there are ALOT of "old classics" out there to learn so I personally don't mind playing them over and over if I get tired of playing them I learn new ones. The reasons I choose to be in tribute bands is because I really dig old rock and roll and I feel the best way for me to express it is to play it true to form. There are usually three main things you do in a band Rehearse, Gig, and Record, the last two being the best parts. For me though I don't enjoy recording at all but I am very passionate about playing live and the best way to get gigs is to be playing in a cover band so in my situation it's a win-win situation and at least this way I know what a 9 or a minor 7 chord is and I am not just constantly playing power chords. Besides some of the biggest highlights with original bands are their covers: this summer Oasis finished their show up with "My Generation" by the Who, No Doubt covered "It's My Life", Def Leaperd redid "No Matter What" by Bad Finger, Don't forget that the Beatles were a "Cover band" for almost 3 years before they ever recorded "Love Me Do", Joe Cocker did his versions of "With A Little Help From My Friends" and "She Came In THrought The Bath Room Window", Leon Russel is famous for is "Jumping Jack Flash/Youngblood" medly, also a good chunk of Nirvana's Unplugged album were covers and then there were the really ugly ones like Limp Bizkit doing "Behind Blue Eyes" and Finger Eleven doing "Imagine". If you don't dig it don't do it, but you can't deny that some of these "Original" bands are cutting it a little to close and not giving enough credit where it is due (i.e. Jet's "Cold Hard Bitch" which bears a very close resemblance to AC/DC or the other one slow one by them that nibs pieces from John Lennon's Imagine and The Beatles Sexy Sadie). I Think it would be fine if they were to use the old stuff as a jumping off point but when all you are doing is taking minor and 7th chords and dumbing it down to power chords it just becomes silly and doesn't prove how good of a musician you are. I can however agree with the statements made by Chris because that is the only viable reason to allow the new stuff to hit the steets because hopefully with any luck it will lead the listener back to the old stuff. - Thu, 12 Jan 2006 7:21pm | ||
| der User Info... | I'm not a big fan of tribute bands in which the entire set list is AC/DC or Led Zeppelin or whatever it is. On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with playing covers, although it's better to toss in at least some of your own original tunes. If you look at folk music or blues or jazz, there's no shame in interpreting well known tunes. But in rock, for some reason, it's considered bad by many to do covers. Doing originals is considered the only way to go, even though (let's face it) many original bands are pretty horrible. Not to mention super derivative. - Fri, 13 Jan 2006 7:14am | ||
| Jesse The Malcontent User Info... | I think cover bands are the artistsc equivelent to paintings of dogs playing pool. - Fri, 13 Jan 2006 9:24am | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | Dogs playing pool??!!? Wha...?!!? But that's....that's MADNESS!!!! Bwahaaa hha ?*&*^%^&*^$^%^*??>?:(*&%$#^&^&^%&%&^.............................. - Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:10am | ||
| der User Info... | That's "equivalent", Jesse. And it's "artistic". But... .yeah, good point. - Fri, 13 Jan 2006 6:28pm | ||
| Jesse The Malcontent User Info... | Yeah yeah - I was multi-tasking man. That and pretending to look busy. - Fri, 13 Jan 2006 7:18pm | ||
| Zippgunn User Info... | I cut my teeth in the terrible '70's when any band that didn't do 100% covers had no chance whatsoever of getting a gig anywhere so perhaps I am a bit hardcore about this (one band I know got fired for playing an original during their third set) but it sounds like some people here are what I call "nostalgists"; people who think that the good old days were the shit and that music will never be that good again. I say that if everybody thought that way we would never have any good music to listen to 20 years from now and that "rock and roll" music would go the way of classical music with bands doing the umpteenth version of, say, "Born To Run" in a version that is barely any different than dozens of others. Let's not forget that the reason that "classic rock" got so big was that, with the CD revolution, the big record companies discovered that they could sell their old back catalogues all over again (most of which they now own outright) instead of the much more costly and uncertain process that is involved with discovering, signing, recording and promoting new artists. sure I like CCR etc. But I grew up with that stuff and now, quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Forward into the past... - Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:37pm | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | Zippy, surely you don't include me in your calumny??!! I'm nostalgic for the eighties and early nineties, not the seventies. Surely that gets me a pass. - Sat, 14 Jan 2006 4:52pm | ||
| der User Info... | I don't think anyone wants to hear bands playing old AC/DC tunes or Led Zep tunes. On the other hand, what not revive - or rather, reinterpret - a few cool tunes by the Buzzcocks or MC5 or even lesser known Stones. The obsession in all the arts these days is to completely ignore the past and focus on what's new. That's fine, of course we need the new stuff. On the other hand, I is short-sighted to pretend what's gone before has not happened. There's got to be a compromise. Ignore the past at your own peril, but don't be a dumb revivalist or a numb-nutted juke-box. - Sat, 14 Jan 2006 6:07pm | ||
| wanless User Info... | Zippgun has a point, times change, music changes, sounds change. Then they come back to a point and recreate the old with a new. Look at zeppelin, then about 19 years after they first came out, Guns n roses came out but with modified rock. Then there was the punk era of the 70s, then the punk of the 90's with modified punk. The only difference is that the music that is coming out now is music that is played for the sake of being famous, not the sake of making good music. Not until the day that a company comes out and signs bands because they are good at playing what they want to play will a true band take over like classic bands did back then, But there were also lots of mainstream pop bands aswell. Rock will come back, don't worry. All it is going to take is some creativity to recreate the rock sound, when that comes rock will take over again, and then repeat - Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:24pm | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
Featured Events
Featured Historical Events
Featured Article
Newest Profiles
West Coast REACH Association
Utilizing music & the other performing arts for social good
722 Cormorant St. Victoria BC
Open / Operational
Thursday Night Jam at The Loft
Cancelled - no jam. Drummer's head wouldn't fit through the ...
229 Gorge Road East Victoria BC
Closed / Inactive
First Metropolitan United Fellowship Hall
Large hall in the First Metropolitan Church Building.
Open / Operational
