Today's "music"

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.
:guffaw:

ah but you see I already mentioned the qualitative form of genre defining which you're invoking here. So basically I'm still right and you're still wrong...about everything.

Seriously dude, you love Limp Bizkit, your outspoken derision of them indicates that you're a closet limp bizkit fan.
 
ah but you see I already mentioned the qualitative form of genre defining which you're invoking here. So basically I'm still right and you're still wrong...about everything.

You're not as funny as you think you are. And you still have no idea what "genre-defining" means.

Seriously dude, you love Limp Bizkit, your outspoken derision of them indicates that you're a closet limp bizkit fan.

I bought the first 3 Bizkit albums, so no-one can say I didn't give them a chance. But, fortunately, I came to the rational conclusion that they are, ultimately, shite.
 
Limp Bizkit are living legends, you just have to get over your musical snobbery and accept that.

When's the last time they even had an album?

Legends?! Not even a little bit. I admit I enjoyed them for what they were...when I was a teenager and watched a lot of TRL...but there's no way in hell that they're going to be remembered as anything remotely important to the musical world.
 
Limp Bizkit are living legends, you just have to get over your musical snobbery and accept that.

When's the last time they even had an album?

Legends?! Not even a little bit. I admit I enjoyed them for what they were...when I was a teenager and watched a lot of TRL...but there's no way in hell that they're going to be remembered as anything remotely important to the musical world.

The one thing they might be remembered for is that they where the 1st succesfull rap/rock-fusion band...
Which doesn't mean they where the best...
Linkin Park is better for instance...
 
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.

Whilst I'm quite certain that he is fucking with people over the whole Limp Bizkit thing, you are right. What you describe is being defined by a genre, not the other way around.
 
ah but you see I already mentioned the qualitative form of genre defining which you're invoking here. So basically I'm still right and you're still wrong...about everything.

You're not as funny as you think you are. And you still have no idea what "genre-defining" means.

Seriously dude, you love Limp Bizkit, your outspoken derision of them indicates that you're a closet limp bizkit fan.
I bought the first 3 Bizkit albums, so no-one can say I didn't give them a chance. But, fortunately, I came to the rational conclusion that they are, ultimately, shite.

Eh, I'm not trying to be funny, I'm serious when I say you're wrong about everything in this thread. You, you have no idea what genre defining means.

And Limp Bizkit is fucking brilliant, I'm not messing here, I love Limp Bizkit.
 
Last edited:
What about you folks? What is your opinion of the music that came after your so called 'moment in the sun'?

Last night I was watching an SNL 2000s retrospective, and I came to a startling realization. During the show they tossed in clips from the various musical performers during the decade and I recognized only two of them: Black Eyed Peas and Gwen Stefani (disclosure: I only saw the last 90 minutes, so there may have been someone I knew in the first part).

It actually made me feel quite old. I even work in the media, yet most of these names, faces, and songs were completely alien to me. And I didn't really like any of what I heard. None of it appealed to me. I couldn't hum any of their tunes or recite any lyrics, never mind the titles.

Not that I don't have "current" favorites. I like Regina Spektor and Nellie McKay and Sharleen Spiteri and She & Him (that last being actress Zooey Deschenel's group). And I don't mind the White Stripes either. But none of them are "current-current", really. Spiteri I've known since the 1980s when she fronted Texas, and the Stripes have been around for about a decade now, too.

I used to be a lot more current in my musical tastes. In the 1980s and 90s I was huge into things like Texas and Talking Heads and Tori Amos the like. Never the top-10 artists like Madonna, but certainly groups that were considered "new music". The Residents were another group I liked. Also people like Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush and Laurie Anderson, and even Enya. Lydia Lunch too. (This in addition to my lifelong interest in 1950s rock and roll, which we'll set aside for this discussion.)

Around the time I started working full time and had left the "college scene" I started moving away from being able to keep up with the newer groups. Part of that is the decreased presence of music videos. I used to watch MuchMusic (Canada's MTV) religiously back in the 80s and 90s and I was exposed to a lot of good music and new favorites emerged. But even in the mid-late 90s MuchMusic was moving away from playing the type of music video that I enjoyed. It got to the point where everytime I tuned into MM (when it occurred to me) it was usually to see some rapper complaining about the police or "shake your azz". I even called MM the "Ass Video Channel" at one point because it seemed everytime I tuned in some thong-clad girl was shaking her rear end into the camera in a rap video.

I also fell out of touch because many of my favorites of years gone by were themselves getting older and recording less frequently. Kate Bush took 12 years between her last 2 albums. Not counting a live record she released soon after 9/11, Laurie Anderson hasn't released anything in a decade and is now in her early 60s. Talking Heads broke up ages ago. Kirsty MacColl got killed in an accident a decade go. I've no idea what Peter Gabriel is up to these days except that he's been looking really old lately. Pretty much the only artist of the "old era" who seems to be still regularly active (or at least on my radar, which is more to the point) is Enya, and even she sometimes takes 5 years or more between records, and it could be argued she's caught in a bit of a time warp.

It wasn't just that SNL show. There's this kid Justin Bieber who is apparently the #1 artist in the world right now. I honestly - no exaggeration - had never heard of him before last week when I saw a skit with him on SNL. His sudden rise to stardom certainly reminds me of the teen idols who shot skyward in the 60s and 70s, so nothing really new there. But the fact I've never seen his name before yet apparently everyone else has just added to my feeling of disenfranchisement.

And don't even get me started on the production line that's American Idol.

I have nothing against the "new music" coming out now, or the artists. I do wonder if any of them will be remembered in 20-30 years after they stop releasing physical media and all the MP3s are either erased or rendered unplayable by new tech... but that's another debate!

Alex
 
Eh, I'm not trying to be funny, I'm serious when I say you're wrong about everything in this thread. You, you have no idea what genre defining means so stfu.

That's the best you can come up with? I've given you examples of what genre-defining means, wheras your best argument is "this is what I thing genre-defining means, so that must be right".

Regardless, I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just trolling.

And Limp Bizkit is fucking brilliant, I'm not messing here, I love Limp Bizkit.

Whether you're serious or not, you still lose. :lol:
 
They're going to be everywhere soon enough and you won't be able to ignore them.

I shall ignore them, as I'm quite sure they won't get played on Triple J (an alternative radiostation here). Thankfully over the next 12 months there are plenty of better (in my opinion) bands releasing albums. I'm looking forward to the new CDs from The Strokes and Radiohead.
 
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.

Don't forget bands like X and The Violent Femmes as well!
 
They're going to be everywhere soon enough and you won't be able to ignore them.

I shall ignore them, as I'm quite sure they won't get played on Triple J (an alternative radiostation here). Thankfully over the next 12 months there are plenty of better (in my opinion) bands releasing albums. I'm looking forward to the new CDs from The Strokes and Radiohead.

New CD from STP in May, if that's of any interest :)
 
Roaaaaaaaaaar, angry upper-middle class kids pretending to be lower class kids for profit!
 
I'm not messing here, I love Limp Bizkit.

No, I don't think so.

what you think is irrelevant, I love Limp Bizkit, thats all that matters.

I'd give it up, Johnny-Boy. Everyone who is replying in this thread is, to some degree, laughing themselves sick over your defense of an unimportant, flash in the pan band. The only things you've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt are:

You're young and lack World experience
You anger easily
You're tone-deaf.

Now, as for the modern age of music, as I said before-the multitude of outlets allows many artists who might otherwise have been ignored in the past become known. I suspect people like Jack Johnson would have struggled a lot more 20+ years ago to be noticed than today. Frankly, I think this is a good thing. Like I said before, there's a lot of garbage floating to the surface but there is also a wealth of gems. This could be, in some ways, an era rich in musical choices and rewards due to the sheer volume of material now available. However,we will need the advantage of hindsight to properly evaluate the first decade of the 21st Century. Give it 10 more years and look back then-it will all seem a lot clearer.
 
I'm not a big "music person" but it seems to me, without meaning anything bad as I like what I hear nowadays, that stuff from about 10 years ago or sounds like it could've came out today.
Not all of it, but I mean some stuff from the early 80s would've sounded out of place in the early 90s.
Maybe it's just me.
 
^^ Wow, and I have no idea who any of those bands are. Thats not a bad thing, so please don't take it that way. It just shows how out of it people get when they get to my age...

Rob

The reason you haven't heard any of these bands is because of radio not doing its job in making you aware of them by feeding you a steady diet of Classic Rot! I however, can help you with that. Here's some places where you can find out about new rock bands:

AUX TV

The Wedge

Exclaim!
 
Back
Top