Today's "music"

[mrcoaster]

It seems like there are so many splintered genres relative to when I was younger. We talked about rock, metal, country, punk, etc. Nowadays, everybody has 10 sub-classifications for everything.

In any case, there is plenty of great music out there. You just have to find it - don't wait for your FM radio to start playing great music. I have Sirius XM, and that is a great start, but even their playlists aren't as diverse and extensive as they used to be when XM started airing. Whether you use music blogs, Last FM, Pandora, Slacker (or any similar thing), iTunes, etc., you can find music similar to artists you like, styles you like, etc.

There IS great music out there (it isn't all going to be rehashing your favorite decade, however), and if you look for it, you will find it one way or another. I have lots of newer bands I really enjoy, but a lot of them aren't really that familiar to the average Joe. If you are waiting for FM top 40 to start delivering you the new Fleetwood Mac, however...you are going to end up getting zip.

 

[Servo]

Todays music is shit, there are a few exceptions but generally its totally utterly shit. Stupid rnb crap, skinny jeans indie bullshit, lame teeny bopper metal, screamo or whatever you call it, it all sucks.

So nice to hear from the educated half of our panel.

I heard similar comments 20 years ago and I'm sure contemporaries of my own parents were saying similar stuff in the 70s. the bottom line on that "point" is-there's always been piles of crap and mediocrity in pop music. Hindsight highlights the gems and the works of wonder but when the music was current the listener had to wade thru the garbage to get to it. As an 80s teen, if I NEVER hear "Abracadabra" by Steve Miller again I'll still go to my grave loathing it. Its taken 20 years to learn to tolerate Men At Work. But the 80s gave us Tears For Fears, Simple Minds and The Eurythmics too. You take the good with the bad-and there is usually plenty of both in any era.

No, history follows a wave function and right now were in a trough for music, its not a dc offset. This is the worst period ever. This is a trough. We don't have artists coming up like Supergrass, Radiohead, Nirvana, NIN, Alice in Chains, RATM, Suede, The Pixies, Beck of Limp Bizkit anymore. All we have now is Lady Gaga and indie rock for wimps sung in faux mockney accents. Theres one word for it, bullshit.

You're seriously gonna try and say that Limp fucking Bizkit are anywhere near the same league as Chains, RATM, NIN, Nirvana or Radiohead? Seriously?



And you have the nerve to call modern music bullshit?

 

[Geckothan]

Nirvana are almost as bad as Limp Bizkit

 

[Servo]

Nirvana are almost as bad as Limp Bizkit

Erm, no. Regardless of what you personally think of their music, Nirvana defined a genre. Limp Bizkit are just a nu-metal band with a fat-headed vocalist. And I use the term vocalist very loosely.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I am in no way making this an indictment on any music era. If it seems I have, then I definately want to change that perception.

Rob

 

[john titor]

So nice to hear from the educated half of our panel.

I heard similar comments 20 years ago and I'm sure contemporaries of my own parents were saying similar stuff in the 70s. the bottom line on that "point" is-there's always been piles of crap and mediocrity in pop music. Hindsight highlights the gems and the works of wonder but when the music was current the listener had to wade thru the garbage to get to it. As an 80s teen, if I NEVER hear "Abracadabra" by Steve Miller again I'll still go to my grave loathing it. Its taken 20 years to learn to tolerate Men At Work. But the 80s gave us Tears For Fears, Simple Minds and The Eurythmics too. You take the good with the bad-and there is usually plenty of both in any era.

No, history follows a wave function and right now were in a trough for music, its not a dc offset. This is the worst period ever. This is a trough. We don't have artists coming up like Supergrass, Radiohead, Nirvana, NIN, Alice in Chains, RATM, Suede, The Pixies, Beck of Limp Bizkit anymore. All we have now is Lady Gaga and indie rock for wimps sung in faux mockney accents. Theres one word for it, bullshit.

You're seriously gonna try and say that Limp fucking Bizkit are anywhere near the same league as Chains, RATM, NIN, Nirvana or Radiohead? Seriously?



And you have the nerve to call modern music bullshit?

I have the nerve???

No, I have the right.

 

[john titor]

Nirvana are almost as bad as Limp Bizkit

Erm, no. Regardless of what you personally think of their music, Nirvana defined a genre. Limp Bizkit are just a nu-metal band with a fat-headed vocalist. And I use the term vocalist very loosely.

What? Limp Bizkit are just like Nirvana in that they too defined a genre, Nu Metal.

 

[Brent]

Since I was born in '79, for the first 10 years of my life, through the 80's, I really didn't pay too much attention to the music at that time, heh, but in the 90's, that is where my music generation is. I loved 90's music, gotta tell ya, I loved (what is now called) old school rap. I'm talking about the beginnings of rap, when rap was GOOD. Not this rap crap they have now. I went through that rap phase anyway, and had the pleasure of listening to good rap. But mainly, I was an alternative guy listening to alternative bands through the 90's. Until the late 90's, when I started getting into techno and electronic music, then a whole new world was opened up to me.

Now a days, I can't stand a lot of the new music, but not all of it is bad. I think the rap has gotten worse, and I really do loath it. But what I'm noticing is that a lot of current songs are very electro-pop in sound, and I like electro-pop music now. So honestly, there are many songs I do like now, but I find that now a days I'm listening more at the lyrics than I am just at the beat. So if I don't like the lyrics, I don't like the song. I'm also finding that I like a lot of overseas groups coming from Europe, they seem to have the kind of style of music I like now. I'm always open to finding new music, new groups and giving it a try. I've really gotten into Christian music lately as well and am discovering many bands I hadn't heard of before, so really expanding there. Their style is really becoming very palatable to my ears.

 

[Servo]

Nirvana are almost as bad as Limp Bizkit

Erm, no. Regardless of what you personally think of their music, Nirvana defined a genre. Limp Bizkit are just a nu-metal band with a fat-headed vocalist. And I use the term vocalist very loosely.

What? Limp Bizkit are just like Nirvana in that they too defined a genre, Nu Metal.

No, they really didn't. They jumped on a bandwagon that had already been set in motion by bands like Korn and Deftones.

 

[john titor]

Erm, no. Regardless of what you personally think of their music, Nirvana defined a genre. Limp Bizkit are just a nu-metal band with a fat-headed vocalist. And I use the term vocalist very loosely.

What? Limp Bizkit are just like Nirvana in that they too defined a genre, Nu Metal.

No, they really didn't. They jumped on a bandwagon that had already been set in motion by bands like Korn and Deftones.

you could say the same about Nirvana, like Limp Bizkit they didn't start the genre but they did come to define it.

 

[Mistral]

Limp Bizkit defined something? I must have missed that. They released some pop-driven (what you call) Nu Metal that climbed the charts. Really didn't notice much of anything else where they are concerned. That would be like saying The Knack defined the early 80s-sorry, they had a few pop-y songs but didn't come to represent a movement. Now Nirvana-different story. I still hear them on the radio-but not much Soundgarden. See the difference?

 

[john titor]

Limp Bizkit defined something? I must have missed that. They released some pop-driven (what you call) Nu Metal that climbed the charts. Really didn't notice much of anything else where they are concerned. That would be like saying The Knack defined the early 80s-sorry, they had a few pop-y songs but didn't come to represent a movement. Now Nirvana-different story. I still hear them on the radio-but not much Soundgarden. See the difference?

Nu metal and grunge as genres not as movements, there is a difference. Radio play is an experiential thing and not a valid barometer of determing whether a band defines a genre or not. For example cannibal corpse are the archetypal death metal band but you'll never hear them on the radio.

 

[john titor]

the reason no ones replied is because I'm right about everything

 

[Mistral]

Limp Bizkit defined something? I must have missed that. They released some pop-driven (what you call) Nu Metal that climbed the charts. Really didn't notice much of anything else where they are concerned. That would be like saying The Knack defined the early 80s-sorry, they had a few pop-y songs but didn't come to represent a movement. Now Nirvana-different story. I still hear them on the radio-but not much Soundgarden. See the difference?

Nu metal and grunge as genres not as movements, there is a difference. Radio play is an experiential thing and not a valid barometer of determing whether a band defines a genre or not. For example cannibal corpse are the archetypal death metal band but you'll never hear them on the radio.

Pardon, "genre" not movement-poor choice of words. "Experiential' ? Not sure what you mean. So, what determines if a band "defines" anything or not? Be the first? Be the most played? Be in the headlines the most? Or just plain change the sound, demarcating a line where you say, "Before(the band) it sounded like this, and after it sounded like that."
I can think of only a few acts that defined a sound and they had names like The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Chuck Berry, Led Zepplin. I'm not sure Limp qualifies, particularly since the modern music landscape isn't defined so much by genres. Its kind of all over the place. There's a lot of stuff called "rock" but it doesn't really follow a defining sound the way music once did. I think that has to do with the variety of outlets(see earlier post) for getting music to the masses.

 

[Servo]

the reason no ones replied is because I'm right about everything

The reason I didn't reply til now is cause I was out having a meal, and you're still wrong. Limp Bizkit have defined nothing. The only good thing about that band was Wes Borland, and even he had the good sense to leave. Twice.

And if you think Cannibal Corpse are the archetypal Death Metal band, then you now even less about that genre than you do about Grunge and Nu-Metal.

ETA: I'm off to play MW2 for a while, so if I don't reply for a few hours, you're not right, I just have better things to do.

 

[john titor]

the reason no ones replied is because I'm right about everything

The reason I didn't reply til now is cause I was out having a meal, and you're still wrong. Limp Bizkit have defined nothing. The only good thing about that band was Wes Borland, and even he had the good sense to leave. Twice.

And if you think Cannibal Corpse are the archetypal Death Metal band, then you now even less about that genre than you do about Grunge and Nu-Metal.

ETA: I'm off to play MW2 for a while, so if I don't reply for a few hours, you're not right, I just have better things to do.

I knew you would say that about Cannibal Corpse. I have taste in music and so don't listen to growly hate music but my point is even more valid than it was before because ask anyone the first band that comes to mind when they think of death metal and the average person who isn't into the genre but is aware of it will say cannibal corpse. That to is the definition of a genre defining band, the band that is most stongly associated with a genre. This is in a quantitative sense, in the qualitative sense, for the unmanly soft scientists, then you could argue till the cows come home who is the tr00 band of genre x y or z, like Opeth are more progressive death metal than Meshuggah or whatever.

Anyway Limp are incredible, I play Rollin' really loud in my car as I cruise through my neighbourhood, I'm a huge Limp fan and am looking forward to Gold Cobra. They're going to be everywhere soon enough and you won't be able to ignore them.

 

[Crash]

Anyway Limp are incredible, I play Rollin' really loud in my car as I cruise through my neighbourhood, I'm a huge Limp fan and am looking forward to Gold Cobra. They're going to be everywhere soon enough and you won't be able to ignore them.

I managed to ignore them the first time around. Should they ever become popular again I don't see that I'll have any issue doing so again.

And, for the record, nu metal was a genre that grew out of post-hardcore bands like Quicksand, Into Another, Orange 9mm and Helmet mashed together with dash of the Chili Peppers. Kinda sad that Quicksand was one of the most unknown influences on modern rock music, and yet they never did cash in on any of that besides a bit of modest success in '94 and '95.

As for Nirvana, they were basically a synthesis of the 1980s punk rock scene. No Minor Threat, Husker Du, or Black Flag, no Nirvana. However, they were immensely influential, and whether you consider them a good band or not that is certainly a fact.

 

[Servo]

I have taste in music and so don't listen to growly hate music...

An uninformed response that I should have expected from someone who seems to base their opinion of what is genre-defining, on how many people have heard of the band in question.

but my point is even more valid than it was before because ask anyone the first band that comes to mind when they think of death metal and the average person who isn't into the genre but is aware of it will say cannibal corpse.

Absolute unsubstantiated bollocks. Just because a lot of people who aren't into Death Metal think of Cannibal Corpse when asked to name a band, doesn't make them genre-defining. Honestly, that above quote is going on my list of "Stupidest things I've ever read on the internet".

That to is the definition of a genre defining band

Then you have no idea what the term "genre-defining" means, and it goes a long way towards explaining your posts.

Anyway Limp are incredible, I play Rollin' really loud in my car as I cruise through my neighbourhood...

Wow. I bet you're the coolest guy in your neighbourhood. I bet you pretend you're Fred Durst in the video, too.

I'm a huge Limp fan and am looking forward to Gold Cobra. They're going to be everywhere soon enough and you won't be able to ignore them.

They'll be everywhere for about 5 minutes, then they'll fade into obscurity again. And I've managed to ignore them well enough for the last 10 years, so I can't see that changing anytime soon.

 

[john titor]

I have taste in music and so don't listen to growly hate music...

An uninformed response that I should have expected from someone who seems to base their opinion of what is genre-defining, on how many people have heard of the band in question.

but my point is even more valid than it was before because ask anyone the first band that comes to mind when they think of death metal and the average person who isn't into the genre but is aware of it will say cannibal corpse.

Absolute unsubstantiated bollocks. Just because a lot of people who aren't into Death Metal think of Cannibal Corpse when asked to name a band, doesn't make them genre-defining. Honestly, that above quote is going on my list of "Stupidest things I've ever read on the internet".



Then you have no idea what the term "genre-defining" means, and it goes a long way towards explaining your posts.

Anyway Limp are incredible, I play Rollin' really loud in my car as I cruise through my neighbourhood...

Wow. I bet you're the coolest guy in your neighbourhood. I bet you pretend you're Fred Durst in the video, too.

I'm a huge Limp fan and am looking forward to Gold Cobra. They're going to be everywhere soon enough and you won't be able to ignore them.

They'll be everywhere for about 5 minutes, then they'll fade into obscurity again. And I've managed to ignore them well enough for the last 10 years, so I can't see that changing anytime soon.

You presume that your definition of what constitutes genre defining is fact but in actuality you know you're wrong as its clear you don't like being challenged on this topic. My argument is predicated on hard logic, yours is not. Cannibal Corpse epitomize death metal, they're hairy weirdos, they sing about hate stuff in stupid growly tones, those are the generic markers of DM which they've capitalized on. Same with the other bands I mentioned. Any other definition is sophistry.

I don't pretend to look like or be Fred Durst, I'm an ex marine but I'm not Fred Durst. But yeah, I do look hardcore like Fred Durst. Limp Bizkit are living legends, you just have to get over your musical snobbery and accept that.

 

[Servo]

You presume that your definition of what constitutes genre defining is fact but in actuality you know you're wrong as its clear you don't like being challenged on this topic. My argument is predicated on hard logic, yours is not. Cannibal Corpse epitomize death metal, they're hairy weirdos, they sing about hate stuff in stupid growly tones, those are the generic markers of DM which they've capitalized on. Same with the other bands I mentioned. Any other definition is sophistry.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Your argument is based on stupidity, uninformed speculation, and your own bias.

"Genre-defining" encompasses many aspects of a band, from the influence they have on their peers and contemporaries, to how they develop over time. If you think genre-defining is all about a band using pre-defined stereotypes, and being more well known amongst people who don't even listen to the genre, then you need to read more.

I don't pretend to look like or be Fred Durst, I'm an ex marine but I'm not Fred Durst. But yeah, I do look hardcore like Fred Durst. Limp Bizkit are living legends, you just have to get over your musical snobbery and accept that.