[pastup]

grandma nowadays knows about smashing pumpkins because she was around 18 in 1992. You have a kid at 18, 20 yrs later your kid has a kid....boom yer a grandma. :whattodo:/>

[ShamanO]

pastup, on 19 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

grandma nowadays knows about smashing pumpkins because she was around 18 in 1992. You have a kid at 18, 20 yrs later your kid has a kid....boom yer a grandma. :whattodo:/>

:clovis:/> I ain't no grandma

[JSapp]

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Perhaps there is and you just have not noticed? Or perhaps it will happen again soon? Why not? History repeats itself.

oh I'm sure rock will come back in a big way at some point. I'm not of the defeatist attitude that rock is dead. As I said, rock isn't in decline because of a lack of talented musicians playing rock music or even because a lack of people who like to listen to it. It just isn't marketed to the level it once was and this is more just a result of the music industry contracting. These things are cyclical for sure

pastup, on 19 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

grandma nowadays knows about smashing pumpkins because she was around 18 in 1992. You have a kid at 18, 20 yrs later your kid has a kid....boom yer a grandma. :whattodo:/>

I read a while back about the worlds youngest grandma. She was a 25 year old Romanian woman. No joke

[astralweeks]

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

I would not say that and I am certain you will find a lot of contention about whom defined what during those eras. That list is too simplistic and only concentrates on a very particular massive mainstream success. Furthermore, even the Police were a hit at the tail end of the 70s before entering the 80s. They borrowed a lot from other English bands that were experimenting with reggae and ska music (like the Clash, Madness, and the Specials). I would not explicitly cite them as a "rock" band. They certainly contributed to changing peoples perceptions of what rock music could do, however. U2 is a band that notoriously, and admittedly, ripped off Echo and the Bunnymen like crazy. I will be the first to argue that Echo and the Bunnymen are far more influential than U2. I would also not say that U2 defined the 80s rock scene (let us also not forget how massive hair metal bands were in the 80s), yet they certainly were influenced by other bands who were bringing political issues to the forefront (like the Clash) and I think that is really what piqued people's interest in them. Nirvana was very instant, almost overnight. All of these situations were different. There are also various genres of rock music (the Police, Cure, U2 are all very different kinds of rock bands). Few were instant successes, most bubbled under the surface for years before making their mark while many more others were ignored and only recognized years or decades later. There are a lot of various historical and cultural factors at play here. I understood Corgan's point yet I also understand that he really is not paying all that close attention either.



Perhaps there is and you just have not noticed? Or perhaps it will happen again soon? Why not? History repeats itself.

You're putting very specific qualifiers to dimiss a really huge idea. The Police were influenced by ska, but they're a rock band. I don't think that point can be argued. U2 had influences, but so does every other rock band.

I understand your point that on an individual basis bands have a career, artistic arc, but that doesn't explain why there hasn't been a major, culturally significant rock band in over a decade.

[pastup]

yeah so if grandma is conceivably under 40 that changes things a bit. BC's 45 so it's not that hard for grandma to be aware of him.

but I'm kidding around. I know when he said "grandma" has to know about em (the band) he meant the 65 plus type of "grandma". My grandmother is old enough that I can see she never liked rock n roll that came around in the 50's. Back then the parents were listening to big band orchestra shit. Then Chuck Berry and Elvis came along and they thought that music was obscene and out of control. But that was an awesome time so should grandma not only know about the big bands of today but also hate them??

[RottingApples]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Are those really the great rock bands of this era though? some of them were more popular in the 90's.

Sure, why not. There have been plenty of bands in the past that were big spanning over several decades. Green Day were big in the 90s, they were also just as big (if not bigger) in the 2000s.
I'm not sure what other bands you would point to as being the representation of rock from the 2000s. We're not talking "good", we're talking mainstream representation and commercially successful.

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

I don't think others will stand the test of time very well.

Well, it's much too soon to say on that.

[Arachnea]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

You're putting very specific qualifiers to dimiss a really huge idea. The Police were influenced by ska, but they're a rock band. I don't think that point can be argued. U2 had influences, but so does every other rock band.

I understand your point that on an individual basis bands have a career, artistic arc, but that doesn't explain why there hasn't been a major, culturally significant rock band in over a decade.

I did not dismiss it all. I even stated that the Police helped changed people's perception of what rock music could do (by blending very different genres together). I brought up the various influences to illustrate that many of those bands were influenced by already culturally significant bands and the climate of their environments. You want to talk about a subculture of music that completely changed the world? That was the punk movement and it certainly did not reach any massive mainstream success when it started. What I am dismissing is the idea that these things just came out of nowhere, that history, culture, and economics do not play a factor. That is the idea I am dismissing. I am also dismissing the notion that there will never ever be a culturally significant rock band. Considering how globalized the world has become (and how that massively impacts people's environments) and how easily accessible things appear, I argue that we must also change our perceptions of what it means to be culturally significant or successful. If you define that by records sales alone the no, there will likely not be another rock record that sells 10 million + in a short period of time. However, there are several culturally significant bands already out there and there will likely be more to follow.

[RottingApples]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

but that doesn't explain why there hasn't been a major, culturally significant rock band in over a decade.

Green Day?
Coldplay?
The Killers?

Was I the only one paying attention to rock in 2005? Just because we didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

[astralweeks]

RottingApples, on 19 March 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

Sure, why not. There have been plenty of bands in the past that were big spanning over several decades. Green Day were big in the 90s, they were also just as big (if not bigger) in the 2000s.
I'm not sure what other bands you would point to as being the representation of rock from the 2000s. We're not talking "good", we're talking mainstream representation and commercially successful.


Well, it's much too soon to say on that.

No, when I listed Prince and U2 as opposed to Whitesnake when discussing the 80's, I had quality in mind. there were tons of popular bands in the 80's who were terrible as well.. I could list those all day.. Nickleback doesn't count..

now if the 2000's great contribution to rock music was Green Day and RHCP (bands who were huge a deacae earlier), it's helping to prove Corgan's point, more than hurting ir

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

I did not dismiss it all. I even stated that the Police helped changed people's perception of what rock music could do (by blending very different genres together). I brought up the various influences to illustrate that many of those bands were influenced by already culturally significant bands and the climate of their environments. You want to talk about a subculture of music that completely changed the world? That was the punk movement and it certainly did not reach any massive mainstream success when it started. What I am dismissing is the idea that these things just came out of nowhere, that history, culture, and economics do not play a factor. That is the idea I am dismissing. I am also dismissing the notion that there will never ever be a culturally significant rock band. Considering how globalized the world has become (and how that massively impacts people's environments) and how easily accessible things appear, I argue that we must also change our perceptions of what it means to be culturally significant or successful. If you define that by records sales alone the no, there will likely not be another rock record that sells 10 million + in a short period of time. However, there are several culturally significant bands already out there and there will likely be more to follow.

who are they? I have an ipod full of music I love from the last 10 yrs. I'm not going to say that any of it's had the same cultural impact that The Beatles or Pink Floyd or REM etc had during their eras.

[pastup]

80's pop rock artists

1. Michael Jackson
2. Prince
3. Madonna
4. U2
5. Bruce Springsteen
6. Run-D.M.C.
7. Van Halen
8. Public Enemy
9. Billy Joel
10. The Police
11. Phil Collins
12. Guns N' Roses
13. Def Leppard
14. Janet Jackson
15. George Michael/Wham
16. Whitney Houston
17. Metallica
18. N.W.A
19. Dire Straits
20. AC/DC
21. Rush
22. Iron Maiden
23. Judas Priest
24. Lionel Richie
25. Bon Jovi
26. Talking Heads
27. Genesis
28. R.E.M.
29. Duran Duran
30. Motley Crue
31. The Cure
32. Journey
33. John Mellencamp
34. Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five
35. REO Speedwagon
36. Kool and the Gang
37. L.L. Cool J
38. Tina Turner
39. Queen
40. Beastie Boys
41. Ozzy Osbourne
42. The Smiths
43. Huey Lewis and the News
44. Bryan Adams
45. Hall & Oates
46. Pat Benatar
47. Eric B. & Rakim
48. Billy Idol
49. Peter Gabriel
50. INXS
51. Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers
52. Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble
53. Eurythmics
54. The Cars
55. Aerosmith
56. ZZ Top
57. The Rolling Stones
58. Heart
59. David Bowie
60. Elton John
61. Rod Stewart
62. Foreigner
63. Stevie Wonder
64. Toto
65. Bob Seger
66. The Pointer Sisters
67. DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince
68. Salt-N-Pepa
69. Fleetwood Mac
70. The Go-Go's
71. Paul McCartney
72. Pet Shop Boys
73. Don Henley
74. Paul Simon
75. Tracy Chapman
76. Cyndi Lauper
77. Depeche Mode
78. Sonic Youth
79. Pete Townshend
80. Culture Club
81. Gloria Estefan & Miami Sound Machine
82. De La Soul
83. Luther Vandross
84. Chicago
85. The Bangles
86. Thompson Twins
87. Yes
88. Men at Work
89. Pixies
90. Pink Floyd
91. Robert Palmer
92. Kenny Loggins
93. Whitesnake
94. Sade
95. Steve Winwood
96. Billy Ocean
97. Tears for Fears
98. Bobby Brown
99. Scorpions
100. Simply Red






101. B-52's
102. Boston
103. Rick James
104. Joan Jett
105. Stevie Nicks
106. Berlin
107. Sting
108. New Order
109. Poison
110. The Pretenders
111. Quiet Riot
112. RATT
113. The Clash
114. The Stone Roses
115. Squeeze
116. Styx
117. Frankie Goes to Hollywood
118. New Edition
119. Stray Cats
120. Paula Abdul
121. The Human League
122. Violent Femmes
123. Elvis Costello
124. A-Ha
125. Blondie
126. Anita Baker
127. Milli Vanilli
128. Sheena Easton
129. Loverboy
130. Asia
131. Skid Row
132. Tiffany
133. Debbie Gibson
134. Crosby Stills Nash (& Young)
135. Madness
136. Aretha Franklin
137. Afrika Bambaataa
138. UB 40
139. Patti LaBelle
140. Tone-Loc
141. Falco
142. Simple Minds
143. Earth Wind & Fire
144. KISS
145. The Jam
146. Marvin Gaye
147. Bananarama
148. New Kids on the Block
149. Billy Squier
150. Slayer
151. Adam Ant
152. Spandau Ballet
153. Dokken
154. The Jesus and Mary Chain
155. ABC
156. Cinderella
157. Bonnie Raitt
158. 10,000 Maniacs
159. Accept
160. Eric Clapton
161. Kool Moe Dee
162. The Cult
163. The Fixx
164. Air Supply
165. Richard Marx
166. Bruce Hornsby & the Range
167. Starship
168. The Replacements
169. Fine Young Cannibals
170. Mr. Mister
171. Boogie Down Productions
172. Irene Cara
173. David Lee Roth
174. Twisted Sister
175. Corey Hart
176. Doug E. Fresh
177. Laura Branigan
178. Dio
179. Europe
180. A Flock of Seagulls
181. Eddy Grant
182. Husker Du
183. Black Flag
184. Dead Kennedys
185. George Thorogood
186. John Lennon
187. Terence Trent D'arby
188. Red Hot Chili Peppers
189. Rick Springfield
190. Paul Young
191. Black Sabbath
192. Howard Jones
193. Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark
194. Level 42
195. John Farnham
196. Tom Waits
197. Mike Oldfield
198. Chris De Burgh
199. Alan Parsons Project
200. Ministry

90's rock pop artists


1. Nirvana
2. Pearl Jam
3. Radiohead
4. 2Pac
5. Red Hot Chili Peppers
6. Beck
7. The Smashing Pumpkins
8. Beastie Boys
9. R.E.M.
10. Dr. Dre
11. Mariah Carey
12. Alice In Chains
13. Green Day
14. Soundgarden
15. Nine Inch Nails
16. Rage Against The Machine
17. U2
18. Metallica
19. A Tribe Called Quest
20. Jeff Buckley
21. Tool
22. The Notorious B.I.G.
23. Pavement
24. Public Enemy
25. Faith No More
26. Bjork
27. Korn
28. PJ Harvey
29. Tori Amos
30. Phish
31. Sonic Youth
32. Weezer
33. Guns N' Roses
34. Queensryche
35. Oasis
36. Dave Matthews Band
37. Primus
38. Blur
39. Jane's Addiction
40. Neil Young
41. Snoop Dogg
42. Stone Temple Pilots
43. My Bloody Valentine
44. Pantera
45. Sublime
46. Dream Theater
47. Marilyn Manson
48. The Offspring
49. Seal
50. TLC
51. Liz Phair
52. The Fugees
53. Madonna
54. Manic Street Preachers
55. Bush
56. Mary J. Blige
57. Jay Z
58. OutKast
59. Nas
60. Eric Clapton
61. Coolio
62. The Verve
63. Foo Fighters
64. Sepultura
65. Prince
66. Silverchair
67. The Flaming Lips
68. The Black Crowes
69. Jamiroquai
70. 311
71. Pixies
72. Alanis Morissette
73. Sinead O'Conner
74. Missy Elliot
75. Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
76. Lauryn Hill
77. Hole
78. Lenny Kravitz
79. Megadeth
80. The Roots
81. Temple Of The Dog
82. Garbage
83. The Mighty Mighty Bosstones
84. Mr. Bungle
85. Slayer
86. The Dandy Warhols
87. Sheryl Crow
88. Busta Rhymes
89. Blind Melon
90. Kenny Wayne Shepherd Band
91. Creed
92. Arrested Development
93. Screaming Trees
94. Wilco
95. Fugazi
96. Hootie & The Blowfish
97. Matchbox Twenty
98. Blues Traveler
99. Ministry
100. Barenaked Ladies









Goo Goo Dolls
Bon Jovi
John Mellencamp
10,000 Maniacs
No Doubt
L.L. Cool J
Usher
Savage Garden
Sarah McLachlan
Genesis
Sting
Dinosaur Jr.
The Stone Roses
Mr. Big
Eric Johnson
Ben Harper
Jewel
Collective Soul
R. Kelly
Buckethead
Spin Doctors
Gin Blossoms
Deftones
Melissa Etheridge
Liquid Tension Experiment
Skid Row
Aaliyah
Morrissey
Keith Sweat
Sophie B. Hawkins
Steve Vai
Damn Yankees
White Zombie
Cake
Mudhoney
Chris Cornell
Primal Scream
Jerry Garcia & David Grisman
Incubus
Counting Crows
Machine Head
Matthew Good Band
Fuel
Live
Black Label Society
The Wallflowers
Mother Love Bone
Firehouse
The Melvins
Prodigy
Ace of Base
Fishbone
Frank Black
Crash Test Dummies
Seven Mary Three
Extreme
Ugly Kid Joe
Candlebox
Tracy Chapman
Rammstein
Lush
Cranberries
Kyuss
C+C Music Factory
Sevendust
Filter
The Presidents of the United States of America
Bozzio-Levin-Stevens
Bad Religion
Our Lady Peace
The String Cheese Incident
Widespread Panic
Gov't Mule
Joe Satriani
Type O Negative
Better Than Ezra
Travis
Soul Asylum
Fastball
Butthole Surfers
Rollins Band
Dillenger Escape Plan
Opeth
Catherine's Wheel
Modest Mouse
Super Furry Animals
Rancid
Everclear
Cracker
Vertical Horizon
Dishwalla
Jason Becker
Symphony X
Stratovarius

[RottingApples]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

No, when I listed Prince and U2 as opposed to Whitesnake when discussing the 80's, I had quality in mind. there were tons of popular bands in the 80's who were terrible as well.. I could list those all day.. Nickleback doesn't count..

now if the 2000's great contribution to rock music was Green Day and RHCP (bands who were huge a deacae earlier), it's helping to prove Corgan's point, more than hurting ir

I would also say that's generational, that everyone goes through as they age. Each generation thinks the next one's music is terrible. I only said 'no' to quality because that's how I (and, arguably, most people on this board) probably feel about Coldplay, Paramore, and Godsmack. But there were undoubtedly kids then, and now, that like that music, and to them the 2000s were full of great, successful rock bands.

What my point is, is that most of what we (and Corgan) are blinded by is our personal taste, as opposed to what was actually happening. The same is true in the opposite sense when talking so fondly of the 90s. There were bands we liked then (and we remember that most), while forgetting the equal number of shit groups that were around (again, that we personally think are shit). I think the argument is too based in personal taste for there to be any kind of "objective" answer, unless we talk strictly about the numbers. You and I may not like most of the 2000s rock, but that's just us. That doesn't negate the fact that there were hugely successful rock bands at the time. The fact that some of them were crossovers from the 90s doesn't negate anything, it just means those bands had particular longevity. But there were plenty of others that were strictly 2000s and were huge.

I also don't care much for Prince or U2, but again, that's my personal preference. Quality can't be argued for or against here, because it's all far too subjective. The argument of "were there commercially successful rock bands in the 2000s", regardless of personal taste, is that "Yes", there were many successful rock bands in the 2000s. There might not be as many as past generations, but they were still there.

This post has been edited by RottingApples: 19 March 2012 - 05:25 PM

[astralweeks]

RottingApples, on 19 March 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I would also say that's generational, that everyone goes through as they age. Each generation thinks the next one's music is terrible. I only said 'no' to quality because that's how I (and, arguably, most people on this board) probably feel about Coldplay, Paramore, and Godsmack. But there were undoubtedly kids then, and now, that like that music, and to them the 2000s were full of great, successful rock bands.

What my point is, is that most of what we (and Corgan) are blinded by is our personal taste, as opposed to what was actually happening. The same is true in the opposite sense when talking so fondly of the 90s. There were bands we liked then (and we remember that most), while forgetting the equal number of shit groups that were around (again, that we personally think are shit). I think the argument is too based in personal taste for there to be any kind of "objective" answer, unless we talk strictly about the numbers. You and I may not like most of the 2000s rock, but that's just us. That doesn't negate the fact that there were hugely successful rock bands at the time. The fact that some of them were crossovers from the 90s doesn't negate anything, it just means those bands had particular longevity. But there were plenty of others that were strictly 2000s and were huge.

I also don't care much for Prince or U2, but again, that's my personal preference. Quality can't be argued for or against here, because it's all far too subjective. The argument of "were there commercially successful rock bands in the 2000s", regardless of personal taste, is that "Yes", there were many successful rock bands in the 2000s. There might not be as many as past generations, but they were still there.

This is a reasonable post. but just answer, who is the great rock band of this era? not what bands with guitars who had successful albums

I mentioned The Police earlier in the thread. I'm not particulary a fan of theirs, but I'm willing to give them their due respect as a great band. the difference between The Police and Nickleback isn't subjective in my opinion.. Maybe I'm a "snob" for it, but I completely got the point Corgan was making in his SXSW rants... there isn't much in the way of good, mainstream rock music in this era. there's no crossover. Arcade Fire is about as big as you can get, and they're like 1/10th as sucessful as the biggest pop musicians

[Ruby Ring]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

This is a reasonable post. but just answer, who is the great rock band of this era? not what bands with guitars who had successful albums

My Morning Jacket.

[astralweeks]

Ruby Ring, on 19 March 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

My Morning Jacket.

I agree, they're a really good band

[Arachnea]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

This is a reasonable post. but just answer, who is the great rock band of this era? not what bands with guitars who had successful albums

I mentioned The Police earlier in the thread. I'm not particulary a fan of theirs, but I'm willing to give them their due respect as a great band. the difference between The Police and Nickleback isn't subjective in my opinion.. Maybe I'm a "snob" for it, but I completely got the point Corgan was making in his SXSW rants... there isn't much in the way of good, mainstream rock music in this era. there's no crossover. Arcade Fire is about as big as you can get, and they're like 1/10th as sucessful as the biggest pop musicians

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

who are they? I have an ipod full of music I love from the last 10 yrs. I'm not going to say that any of it's had the same cultural impact that The Beatles or Pink Floyd or REM etc had during their eras.

Hence my argument that the perception needs to change. The measurements of success must also change along with. It was a very different time and those standards cannot be applied to the current climate. The Internet and rapid globalization plays a big part on these paradigm shifts and on the relevance and impact of music. The Arcade Fire is but one of those culturally relevant bands but they will never outsell Adele. By definition pop music has always, and always will, outsell rock music. As big as Nirvana was Mariah Carey was still outselling them like mad. I am personally not strictly a rock music fan and there is a lot of music being made in different genres that is culturally significant. I think there are rock bands out there that are being culturally relevant or significant as well, yet perhaps rock music, just like in previous cycles, needs to take a back seat for now instead of being in the limelight (like Springsteen in the disco era; still around but bubbling under the surface, just waiting for the right moment).

[RottingApples]

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Hence my argument that the perception needs to change. The measurements of success must also change along with. It was a very different time and those standards cannot be applied to the current climate. The Internet and rapid globalization plays a big part on these paradigm shifts and on the relevance and impact of music.

This. We have to understand, as much as we (Corgan included) have been talking about how much "things have changed", I don't think most of us quite have a grasp on the gravity of just how much things really changed. We are in a time where there is no "great rock band of our time". I believe it started in the 2000s, and is continuing forward into territory he don't fully grasp yet. Astral, I can't say what they "greatest band of the 2000s" might have been. I don't personally think there was one myself, but several that did an ok job. You went from the 90s where there was "the one" (Nirvana, although even then, one could argue choosing 1 band would be far too narrow, but I digress...), into the 2000s where you had several "big" bands (Panic and the Disco, Fall Out Boy, My Chemical Romance), but none of them were particularly astronomical in terms of the wave they left behind, to the 2010s where there will be a ton of small success acts (Arcade Fire). Rock success gets divided with each passing decade.

The thing is, there is no "big defining band" because it doesn't work that way anymore. I understand in terms of talk, the whole "change" thing has been driven into the ground, but its easy enough to just talk about it (like Corgan) and just complain about how things aren't the same, than to go out and discover all these bands that aren't getting the recognition they deserve and understand and accept that they will never reach the heights once achieved by bands like The Pumpkins and Nirvana in the 90s. They won't even reach the heights of the rock bands of the 2000s, unless they have a serious gimmick (OK Go), or over-the-top pop sensibilities (Maroon 5).

There are rock bands out there doing a decent job at what they do, but there will no longer be a time where there is one "defining rock band", at least not as we would want or expect. Sadly, as much as I disagree with that guy's article, Skrillex really is the best example of "defining" our time. As much as that makes me sick (sicker than when Panic at the Disco reigned), that's your "defining 'rock' 'band'".

This post has been edited by RottingApples: 19 March 2012 - 07:24 PM

[snail33]

i'm not sure it's even all about ROCK, per se--billy touched on hip-hop as well, and if you really take a look, EVERY major "pop" music genre has regressed in the past 10-15 years (mainstream rock, alternative/indie, hip-hop, r&b, metal, top 40 pop)...the only thing, ironically, that has IMPROVED is adult contemporary, because it has morphed into "adult alternative", i.e. a lot of things that you'd hear on public radio, austin city limits, etc.: death cab, damien rice, björk, priscilla ahn, tom waits, norah jones, keane, leonard cohen, peter gabriel, jimmy eat world, beck, antony & the johnsons, moby, etc...not all of these artists are "mellow" or "safe", but none of them are particularly "dangerous" and none of them have loud guitars or screaming. and loud guitars and screaming is pretty much what "alternative" has become now, screamo or "scene" or else nickelback or whatever the fuck.

the kinds of artists that cemented the "alternative" paradigm in the 80s and early 90s--the ones most of us agree are some of the greatest since the original legends (beatles, stones, who, floyd, etc.) laid the cornerstones of what we think of as rock and roll--were mostly also, at their core, just really great, creative, smart ROCK bands (yes/rush/clash/ramones/cars/cheap trick/joy division/police/cure/depeche mode/rem/smiths/u2/pixies/dinosaur jr/husker du/fishbone/replacements/pixies/sundays/my bloody valentine/jane's/nirvana/pj/pumpkins/soundgarden/radiohead/verve/oasis/foo fighters/etc etc etc). and we older rock/alternative, as we have gotten older and most of those bands have split, reformed and made music of varying quality, have settled more into that adult alternative, singer-songwriter "mature" sound because most rock being made now just doesn't speak to us and sounds sophomoric and not accomplished at all--in other words, if it doesn't measure up to what we loved and were spoiled with before, there's no point.

however, i don't agree with the idea that everyone hates the generation of popular music that comes after "theirs", unless you mean that most people only define "their" era as being ONLY the confines of the years they came of age in...i had a fascinating back-and-forth about this on tinychat with some guy who is a musician and 28 years old but didn't start actively investigating music until he was into his teens, who hadn't heard a pearl jam song until he was like 12 in 1993 or whatever. i was born in 1972 and was passionately into certain artists and albums by the time i was 6 years old...so "my" era, "my" music, was classic rock from around the time i was born (beatles, simon and garfunkel, who, zombies, genesis, yes, floyd, steely dan) late 70s into early 80s (billy joel, cars, knack, blondie, elvis costello, squeeze, journey) AND the mid 80s (tears for fears, howard jones, peter gabriel, hall and oates, eurythmics, prince, steve winwood) AND the late 80s (u2, rem, midnight oil, sinead o'connor, 10,000 maniacs, tracy chapman, terence trent d'arby, the cure, depeche mode) AND the early 90s (jane's addiction, nirvana, pearl jam, tool, smashing pumpkins, radiohead, jeff buckley, posies, sundays, tori amos) AND the late 90s-early 00s (jimmy eat world, foo fighters, green day, dashboard, dcfc, deftones, incubus, white stripes, coldplay, perfect circle) AND the mid-to-late 00s (antony, meg and dia, priscilla ahn, glasvegas, my chemical romance, killers, amy winehouse, dengue fever).

so if i liked tons of music from everyone of these sub-eras (and so did most people i am close to, from my age bracket), then it can't be us--it's gotta be the music, the zeitgeist, something in society that has changed. and i don't know what it is, and i don't think billy does, either. so people like us, who used to have the spark and used to really love the musical world we lived in, are grasping at straws, preaching of what we DO know to be true and trying to figure out the rest.

and it's interesting to note that throughout most of rock history, at any given moment in time, most people could agree what band was the "biggest in the world" at that particular juncture. but now it's been a good 7 or 8 years since you could really answer that question with any certainty--i mean, who the hell has it been of late? the black keys? kings of leon? i mean, come on. these are not bands worthy of such a mantle.

so the big questions still hang there--what went wrong, and where did all the good music go, and why do kids now not care about good music, about artists and albums, about greatness?

[snail33]

RottingApples, on 19 March 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

This. We have to understand, as much as we (Corgan included) have been talking about how much "things have changed", I don't think most of us quite have a grasp on the gravity of just how much things really changed. We are in a time where there is no "great rock band of our time". I believe it started in the 2000s, and is continuing forward into territory he don't fully grasp yet. Astral, I can't say what they "greatest band of the 2000s" might have been. I don't personally think there was one myself, but several that did an ok job. You went from the 90s where there was "the one" (Nirvana, although even then, one could argue choosing 1 band would be far too narrow, but I digress...), into the 2000s where you had several "big" bands (Panic and the Disco, Fall Out Boy, My Chemical Romance), but none of them were particularly astronomical in terms of the wave they left behind, to the 2010s where there will be a ton of small success acts (Arcade Fire). Rock success gets divided with each passing decade.

>>>>>it was never one band. if you were old enough to really be aware of what was happening during those years, it changed constantly. as the 80s became the 90s and the bon jovis and def leppards began to run out of steam in favor of alternative nation, it was something like this: parts of 1990, the biggest band around was the cure, then depeche mode and then jane's addiction, then in '91 it was u2 for a while, then nirvana, the chili peppers and pearl jam (and r.e.m. had another big moment at this time, too)...pearl jam then got bigger and ruled in '92-93 (toggling back and forth with nirvana), then green day, offspring (ugh), live, soundgarden and the pumpkins at various points in '94, followed by oasis and then back to SP in '96-97, then it was radiohead along with the foo fighters (who would have a couple more big moments) in '97-98, then gave way to a lot of crap as true alt-rock started to be displaced by pretenders and rape-rockers like limp bizkit, korn, puddle of mudd and others...this is when it became hard for the first time to pinpoint the BIGGEST band. linkin park had a big moment, as did rage against the machine and incubus, until u2 reclaimed the "title" in 2000. thereafter you had coldplay, the strokes, the white stripes, one big year for jimmy eat world, the killers and then fall out boy, tempered by green day's enormous conquering 2004 for american idiot. my chemical romance had a pretty good little stretch, and coldplay had two more stints as the biggest band on earth (on x&y and viva la vida), and finally you had that little sequence where the likes of all american rejects and taking back sunday were about the biggest things you could find in "rock." since then, i would suppose you would have to call kings of leon the rock band with the greatest success in the past few years, or maybe florence & the machine? arcade fire? the foo fighters had a nice bounce-back year in 2011 for wasting light and perhaps reigned for a few months...see, this is the thing--it's not obvious at ALL anymore, and it always was before. and i don't know why.

The thing is, there is no "big defining band" because it doesn't work that way anymore.

>>>>>but that's the whole point...we all KNOW "it doesn't work that way anymore." the question is why? it worked like that for 40+ years.


I understand in terms of talk, the whole "change" thing has been driven into the ground, but its easy enough to just talk about it (like Corgan) and just complain about how things aren't the same, than to go out and discover all these bands that aren't getting the recognition they deserve and understand and accept that they will never reach the heights once achieved by bands like The Pumpkins and Nirvana in the 90s. They won't even reach the heights of the rock bands of the 2000s, unless they have a serious gimmick (OK Go), or over-the-top pop sensibilities (Maroon 5).

There are rock bands out there doing a decent job at what they do, but there will no longer be a time where there is one "defining rock band", at least not as we would want or expect.

>>>>>again...why?

Sadly, as much as I disagree with that guy's article, Skrillex really is the best example of "defining" our time. As much as that makes me sick (sicker than when Panic at the Disco reigned), that's your "defining 'rock' 'band'".

This post has been edited by snail33: 19 March 2012 - 10:44 PM

[snail33]

Ruby Ring, on 18 March 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

My Morning Jacket is not only one of the best rocks bands out there today, they are one of the best rock bands of all time. How a bunch of Pumpkins fans and BC himself don't see this is beyond me.

Many, many other great rock bands out today: Drive-By Truckers, The Whigs, Mastodon, The Arcade Fire, just to name a few off the top of my head.

I think the problem with this discussion is that everyone has differing opinions on what constitutes rock and roll. If rock and roll means makeup, videos, selling millions of records, and selling out stadiums; sure, none of the bands I listed above are rock and roll. If rock and roll means lighting a small to mid-sized room on fire with regularity, I dare BC or anyone to go see any of the bands I listed above and say it isn't rock and roll.



Couldn't be more spot on. There has never been a more dynamic and dangerous rock and roll band than 1968-74 Rolling Stones. Nothing else comes close.

the stones don't move me at all.

[snail33]

RottingApples, on 19 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

There is something else that seems to be a blaring contradiction:

"glaring."

Rock has always been about pushing boundaries, doing something different and offensive- by its very nature should not be of the mainstream.

Should it not be a good thing that grandma, or young kids growing up today don't know who's who in rock. That's the biggest thing I think Corgan and a lot of others are missing. Rock is not supposed to be widely accepted. Hell, that was the whole emphasis of "Alternative Rock" in the first place.

but in the late 60s, rock WAS "of the mainstream" and widely accepted, not because of selling out but rather in spite of NOT selling out. the BEST bands--beatles, stones, who, floyd, zep, hendrix, cream, traffic, zombies, animals, yes, genesis, etc.--were also basically the best-selling bands. that held true (excepting a brief few years in the early-to-mid 70s when lite pop and singer-songwriter fluff predominated) into the late 70s, when cheap trick, the cars, steely dan, billy joel, elton john etc. sold lots of records. the first time that the top 40 started to diverge from the best rock and roll was the mid-80s when lite-r&b and one-hit-wonder novelty pop, along with the hair metal that came right after, became the de facto of popular music...but there was quickly backlash against this and rock took hold again, both with stalwart bands reaching their zeniths (u2, rem, inxs, cure) but with the huge crop of alternative/indie/college-rock bands who wrote songs catchy or interesting enough to garber airplay (10,000 maniacs, xtc, squeeze, midnight oil, tracy chapman, suzanne vega, sinead o'connor, sundays, peter murphy, new order, erasure, they might be giants, replacements, crowded house, kate bush). this wave of creative, smart ROCK music being both critically lauded and commercially huge continued with jane's and nirvana and crested in the mid 90s with pearl jam, the pumpkins, soundgarden, radiohead and others. all these bands were in heavy mtv and radio rotation, sold millions of records and were part of the "zeitgiest"--and if grandma didn't know them, mom certainly did. it's only in these last 10-15 years that rock is not widely accepted and is not the dominant musical force in the cultural vanguard. and i still don't know why. rock has had to fend off challenges for years, from disco, punk, metal, hip-hop, teen-pop, etc. and has always endured. why is it suddenly that it's got no toehold in the consciousness of teens and tweens anymore? is great rock music just empirically not being made anymore, or is there something that has happened, organically or calculatedly, that is PREVENTING it from being made (or heard)?

[Parksey]

RADIOHEAD

[Raoul]

snail33, on 20 March 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

the stones don't move me at all.

But that totally means nothing to anyone but you. The Stones has sold over 250 Million albums worldwide & are arguably the best and most important rock in history - thats significant, your opinion is not. I don't mean that to be rude, but its a cork in the ocean you mooting that point in the middle of a discussion like this.

Its actually comments like that which makes Billy's comments so stupid. Sure, you don't like them - but what does that mean in the grand scheme of their impact or popularity? nothing, just makes you look silly.. Just like Billy's opinion on rock being a bunch of poseurs, would they or anyone esle actually care what he says? No. But he has successfully alienated an audience which would / should have been the core audience he was trying to win over with Oceania. Calling new Rock "poseurs" has don;t absolutely fuck all for his chances of "Oceania" being heard by current generation of rock lovers. Its done NOTHING to improve his chances of being played on the radio alonside those "poseurs" - he just made the Smashing Pumpkins even more unhip and "old" than ever. Then a comment saying "its only good if Grandma knows about it" ???? LMFAO!!!!! Way to win over the kids of today Willy!

it was such a stupid, obnoxious, ignorant comment to make - it doesn't matter if its really his opinion - but to say it in public when your TRYING to win back respect, new fans and a new audience - SAVE his career and business - for that to happen he needed to rely on winning NEW fans - its the most counter productive thing he could have done, insult them and their music. DUMB!!!!!

It makes no SENSE!! 4 months ago the vibe for the pumpkins was great! It was improving, the concert reviews were positive - Oceania was gaining enough interest for the word to be out that something good is in the can for the pumpkins! Instead of riding that small wave of excitment - he shopped the fucking thing around like a pimp with a whore, trying to get a better deal. Then as he signs the deal ( who probably has 100's of these "poseurs" on its books ) and announces a (very rough ) date for its release - he says something that could have potentially alienated a massive chunk of his potential buyers anyway. The thought process behind all this is so DUMB... It;s the biggest waste of talent in the business. He is to music what Michael Beasley is to Basketball - a waste of talent.

[snail33]

Raoul, on 20 March 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

But that totally means nothing to anyone but you. The Stones has sold over 250 Million albums worldwide & are arguably the best and most important rock in history - thats significant, your opinion is not. I don't mean that to be rude, but its a cork in the ocean you mooting that point in the middle of a discussion like this.

Its actually comments like that which makes Billy's comments so stupid. Sure, you don't like them - but what does that mean in the grand scheme of their impact or popularity? nothing, just makes you look silly.. Just like Billy's opinion on rock being a bunch of poseurs, would they or anyone esle actually care what he says? No. But he has successfully alienated an audience which would / should have been the core audience he was trying to win over with Oceania. Calling new Rock "poseurs" has don;t absolutely fuck all for his chances of "Oceania" being heard by current generation of rock lovers. Its done NOTHING to improve his chances of being played on the radio alonside those "poseurs" - he just made the Smashing Pumpkins even more unhip and "old" than ever. Then a comment saying "its only good if Grandma knows about it" ???? LMFAO!!!!! Way to win over the kids of today Willy!

it was such a stupid, obnoxious, ignorant comment to make - it doesn't matter if its really his opinion - but to say it in public when your TRYING to win back respect, new fans and a new audience - SAVE his career and business - for that to happen he needed to rely on winning NEW fans - its the most counter productive thing he could have done, insult them and their music. DUMB!!!!!

It makes no SENSE!! 4 months ago the vibe for the pumpkins was great! It was improving, the concert reviews were positive - Oceania was gaining enough interest for the word to be out that something good is in the can for the pumpkins! Instead of riding that small wave of excitment - he shopped the fucking thing around like a pimp with a whore, trying to get a better deal. Then as he signs the deal ( who probably has 100's of these "poseurs" on its books ) and announces a (very rough ) date for its release - he says something that could have potentially alienated a massive chunk of his potential buyers anyway. The thought process behind all this is so DUMB... It;s the biggest waste of talent in the business. He is to music what Michael Beasley is to Basketball - a waste of talent.

Raoul, on 20 March 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

But that totally means nothing to anyone but you. The Stones has sold over 250 Million albums worldwide & are arguably the best and most important rock in history - thats significant, your opinion is not. I don't mean that to be rude, but its a cork in the ocean you mooting that point in the middle of a discussion like this.

Its actually comments like that which makes Billy's comments so stupid. Sure, you don't like them - but what does that mean in the grand scheme of their impact or popularity? nothing, just makes you look silly.. Just like Billy's opinion on rock being a bunch of poseurs, would they or anyone esle actually care what he says? No. But he has successfully alienated an audience which would / should have been the core audience he was trying to win over with Oceania. Calling new Rock "poseurs" has don;t absolutely fuck all for his chances of "Oceania" being heard by current generation of rock lovers. Its done NOTHING to improve his chances of being played on the radio alonside those "poseurs" - he just made the Smashing Pumpkins even more unhip and "old" than ever. Then a comment saying "its only good if Grandma knows about it" ???? LMFAO!!!!! Way to win over the kids of today Willy!

it was such a stupid, obnoxious, ignorant comment to make - it doesn't matter if its really his opinion - but to say it in public when your TRYING to win back respect, new fans and a new audience - SAVE his career and business - for that to happen he needed to rely on winning NEW fans - its the most counter productive thing he could have done, insult them and their music. DUMB!!!!!

It makes no SENSE!! 4 months ago the vibe for the pumpkins was great! It was improving, the concert reviews were positive - Oceania was gaining enough interest for the word to be out that something good is in the can for the pumpkins! Instead of riding that small wave of excitment - he shopped the fucking thing around like a pimp with a whore, trying to get a better deal. Then as he signs the deal ( who probably has 100's of these "poseurs" on its books ) and announces a (very rough ) date for its release - he says something that could have potentially alienated a massive chunk of his potential buyers anyway. The thought process behind all this is so DUMB... It;s the biggest waste of talent in the business. He is to music what Michael Beasley is to Basketball - a waste of talent.

my comment on he stones not moving me wasn't really supposed to be related to this topic, it was in response to the post about the stones being the "most dynamic, dangerous band ever" etc. that comment was pure opinion, so i replied with MY opinion. i think there are MANY bands that are nmore dynamic than the stones were, and "dangerous" doesn't mean shit to me. gg allin was "dangerous", as were the boredoms, as was wendy o. williams. all show. i want songs and heart, that's all. so my comment about the stones is important, because it's important to me, because i said it. i couldn't give a fuck how many records they've sold.

as far as the "grandma" theory, he didn't say if grandma doesn't know a band that they aren't GOOD, he said they aren't IMPORTANT, relevant, lasting, etc.--and he's right. every rock band that has ever MEANT anything for any significant period of time is a band that, if you mention them to people who don't actually care, they'll still recognize the name. bands so good and enduring that they became more than bands. there hasn't been one of those in AGES.

and anyone who billy alienates by speaking the truth and stating plainly that rock music sucks now is not anyone he probably wants as a fan anyway. i LOVE when he runs his mouth, when he says shit like this--simple, true shit that no one reasonable can really dispute. when he said "you can't argue that alternative music has progressed in the last 15 years", i could not have agreed more.

[Deleted User Account]

People never would have purchased full albums in the quantities they did if there was an Itunes in the 70's. It's not a problem with the youth of today-- it's just the technology catching up with the attitude. Put me on a technology platform so I can say this.

I don't quite understand how Billy apparently progressed music. He wasn't wildly original. He provided a melting pot of cool things.

[BlueSkiesBringTears]

ArticulateEric, on 21 March 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

He wasn't wildly original. He provided a melting pot of cool things.

This. A couple weeks ago, I was saying about the same thing to a friend -- I said something like, "He was a sum of his influences, and he happened to be particularly good at being that." But my friend thinks Adore is the pièce de résistance of Billy's innovativeness and brilliance, far ahead of its time. (Apparently because of drum machines, synths, and pointless little chirpy and plonky sounds during the first verse of "Tear"). I just think it has some really nice songs.

[Raoul]

snail33, on 21 March 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

my comment on he stones not moving me wasn't really supposed to be related to this topic, it was in response to the post about the stones being the "most dynamic, dangerous band ever" etc. that comment was pure opinion, so i replied with MY opinion. i think there are MANY bands that are nmore dynamic than the stones were, and "dangerous" doesn't mean shit to me. gg allin was "dangerous", as were the boredoms, as was wendy o. williams. all show. i want songs and heart, that's all. so my comment about the stones is important, because it's important to me, because i said it. i couldn't give a fuck how many records they've sold.

as far as the "grandma" theory, he didn't say if grandma doesn't know a band that they aren't GOOD, he said they aren't IMPORTANT, relevant, lasting, etc.--and he's right. every rock band that has ever MEANT anything for any significant period of time is a band that, if you mention them to people who don't actually care, they'll still recognize the name. bands so good and enduring that they became more than bands. there hasn't been one of those in AGES.

and anyone who billy alienates by speaking the truth and stating plainly that rock music sucks now is not anyone he probably wants as a fan anyway. i LOVE when he runs his mouth, when he says shit like this--simple, true shit that no one reasonable can really dispute. when he said "you can't argue that alternative music has progressed in the last 15 years", i could not have agreed more.

I made a point that its your opinion an thats fine - so why so angry? My personal opinion is that anyone who has listened to "Let it Bleed' and has not been moved by is must not understand the work and is incredibly short sighted. Its also my opinion that anyone who hasn't heard that album yet thinks anyone would care what their opinion is on the stones or "the relevance of Rock" must be an utter nincompoop who is best enjoyed in an inaudible situation in the dead darkness of the night. Just an opinion - just like yours.

My grandmother drinks too much and pisses on the floor and has never know who the Smashing Pumpkins are - she loves Perry Como though and likes to sing it while shaving her dogs back - so i guess that must make "tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree" the most important song in the history of music, according to "Grandpa Billy". Maybe it was a freudian slip by Billy to suggest that he realizes the only people who could possibly think anything he has written or said since 1996 is "important" must be senile

I think my point is as solid as any argument could ever be - for someone who has been obsessed with trying to get his music to be heard and reach a new generation of fans ( and he has, no denying that )- saying that the modern players in rock are all "poseurs"and an album is only important if Grandma knows about it - how is that meant to "sell it" to the kids? And if he actually thinks that, he quite clearly has no fucking idea what he is talking about. Opinions are given to be heard, judged and sentenced by the reader or listener. If you and Billy can't handle it - then don't give it.

ArticulateEric, on 21 March 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

People never would have purchased full albums in the quantities they did if there was an Itunes in the 70's. It's not a problem with the youth of today-- it's just the technology catching up with the attitude. Put me on a technology platform so I can say this.

I don't quite understand how Billy apparently progressed music. He wasn't wildly original. He provided a melting pot of cool things.

great comment - you are 100% right.

[Raoul]

BlueSkiesBringTears, on 21 March 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

This. A couple weeks ago, I was saying about the same thing to a friend -- I said something like, "He was a sum of his influences, and he happened to be particularly good at being that." But my friend thinks Adore is the pièce de résistance of Billy's innovativeness and brilliance, far ahead of its time. (Apparently because of drum machines, synths, and pointless little chirpy and plonky sounds during the first verse of "Tear"). I just think it has some really nice songs.

yeah i have never quite gotten the fans that actually think that "adore" as an album is his best work. As an album it lacks any really flow through the middle of the album - goes about 15 minutes too long and has a lot of tracks which don't really have any punch at all. Just an enjoyable "meh" with a couple of pearls in it. It has certainly got some works on it that are among his best - "To Sheila" " Perfect" & especially "To Martha" all are him at his absolute best. I have no beef with Adore, even though it was the wrong album at the worst time, mainstream suicide & one of the works that lead to the end of the Grunge / Alternative scene that had worked hand in hand t rule the earth.

After 94-95 the whole scene imploded because all the bands thought as highly of their popularity as Billy did - they believed they had earned some god given right to release an album that went against the grain of the scene previously, and still be loved and "adored" after it with the same wide eyed excitement as before. It doesn't work like that i'm afraid. 94 -95 peaked with Mellon Collie, Downward Spiral, Superunknown, Vitalogy, Purple, Nirvana Unplugged - among others. During & after all that - Kurt blew his brains out, Sonic Youth & NIN didn't release anything for over 3-4 years, STP's went AWOL - Billy wrote Adore,Pearl Jam released No Code & the rest is history. Mellon Collie, Downward Spiral, Unplugged & Vitalogy was the last hurrah for the scene before it imploded with either the pressure of it all - or the pretentious it had all created.

It's a shame that none of these great acts felt they needed to write a rock anthem between 95 - 99, the world was still wanting them - and when none came - the real poseurs & dj's were waiting to pick up the pieces. Radioheads ok compter was the perect album for that time - this utterly brilliant album by one of those rock acts that many had underrated as another in a big scene - an album that was not alternative, grunge or rock - but not electronica, dance or pop - this eerie "inbetween" which was exactly where music was stuck. That album is probably the true masterpiece of the entire 90's for me, as it has something totally intangible about it. iT came out while rock was being taken over by the idiots that played that horrible heavy metal / rap crap that took over the mainstream. I have always blamed it on Rage against the machine, and because of it - despite quite enjoying a lot of their music - i have never liked them.

By the time Machina and the Fragile came out - the world had moved on and they had left their run way too late. Shame as i think the Fragile is a brilliant album - it just took 18 months too long to finish.

Timing is everything to how good an album is seen sometimes - and i deeply fear Billy has perhaps left his run too late for this next one to matter.

[chemicalbehavior]

Raoul, on 22 March 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

i have never quite gotten the fans that actually think that "adore" as an album is his best work. As an album it lacks any really flow through the middle of the album - goes about 15 minutes too long and has a lot of tracks which don't really have any punch at all. Just an enjoyable "meh" with a couple of pearls in it. It has certainly got some works on it that are among his best - "To Sheila" " Perfect" & especially "To Martha" all are him at his absolute best. I have no beef with Adore, even though it was the wrong album at the worst time, mainstream suicide & one of the works that lead to the end of the Grunge / Alternative scene that had worked hand in hand t rule the earth.

Adore was the album that got me into the Pumpkins, and after you cut out the fat ("Annie-Dog", "Shame", "Blank Page") I still believe that it's far superior to the group's previous albums.

As far as album length goes, if there was one unifying theme of acts from the 90s it's that they would make albums as long as possible. One major factor in this practice was the CD becoming the main medium for music. CDs can hold 80 minutes of music whereas LPs could only hold around half that much before quality loss.

Because of this, most albums from the 90s contain a lot of filler. It's like the concept of "less is more" didn't apply during that decade. For example Soundgarden's Superunknown and Down on the Upside contained 15 and 16 songs respectively, and each album was over an hour in length (70:13 and 65:56), effectively making each impossible to listen to in one sitting.

Hell, Metallica's Load had a sticker that stated "79:59" on the CD plastic. I suppose the group was proud that they managed to put as much music on the disc as possible without causing it to skip. :roll:

Anyways, aside from Gish which was a reasonable 45 minutes or so in length, Siamese Dream (62:17), Mellon Collie (121:39) and Adore (73:25) each follow the trend mentioned above and each would've been better had some of the fat been trimmed off to get the around the 45 minute mark.

[JSapp]

chemicalbehavior, on 22 March 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

Anyways, aside from Gish which was a reasonable 45 minutes or so in length, Siamese Dream (62:17), Mellon Collie (121:39) and Adore (73:25) each follow the trend mentioned above and each would've been better had some of the fat been trimmed off to get the around the 45 minute mark.

Trim over half of MCIS? You are a madman

[chemicalbehavior]

JSapp, on 22 March 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

Trim over half of MCIS? You are a madman

Ooooh. Heaven fuckin' forbid. :rolleyes:/>

[werideatdusk]

ArticulateEric, on 21 March 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I don't quite understand how Billy apparently progressed music. He wasn't wildly original. He provided a melting pot of cool things.

I think this is exactly how he progressed things in music, the way things have progressed in nearly every avenue of our culture - real, earth-shattering innovation is hardly possible in any field. What's left is taking the things that have come before, reconfiguring them, and essentially finding out how to express your most sensitive and personal feelings and worlds through the tools left behind by others.

Perhaps also breaking ground for a larger shift that we must take as a culture away from individual 'achievement' and towards a more communal approach to success?

[Deleted User Account]

werideatdusk, on 22 March 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

I think this is exactly how he progressed things in music, the way things have progressed in nearly every avenue of our culture - real, earth-shattering innovation is hardly possible in any field. What's left is taking the things that have come before, reconfiguring them, and essentially finding out how to express your most sensitive and personal feelings and worlds through the tools left behind by others.

Absolutely...which isn't to say Billy invented merging ones influences into something "new". He's just another player in a long line. One who has obviously struck a chord with many of us, but no trailblazer in music.

[JSapp]

chemicalbehavior, on 22 March 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Ooooh. Heaven fuckin' forbid. :rolleyes:/>

What would you keep of the album? It seems almost impossible to trim that masterpiece to 45 minutes.

[Deleted User Account]

JSapp, on 22 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

What would you keep of the album? It seems almost impossible to trim that masterpiece to 45 minutes.

I think even it's most ardent fans would advocate cutting a song or two, and throwing another in its place... but I bet no one could agree as to what songs need to be cut! Other than Scorched Earth, holy bejesus what a stinker. :happy:/>

[chemicalbehavior]

JSapp, on 22 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

What would you keep of the album? It seems almost impossible to trim that masterpiece to 45 minutes.

To be perfectly honest aside from "Muzzle" there's nothing I'd keep from Mellon Collie. I never cared for that album, and god knows I tried to get into it as my older sister was into the Pumpkins and one of my best friends from that time was a big Pumpkin-head as well and let me borrow the album. I hate the sound of Billy's voice during that era, it being especially nasally on lines like "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage" and "She's the one for me". *shudder*

I think his quality of lyrics as well as his lyrical content are weak and very 90s on that album (which isn't a good thing imo). There's a sense of misery and bitching and moaning I've never cared for. I feel Billy didn't really start to grow as a lyricist until Adore.

In all, I just don't think that the songs were all that strong and that the album was only as successful as it was due to the heavy promotion it received as well as the timing of release (in the middle of the 90s when CD sales were skyrocketing). "Muzzle" is probably the best song on the album, but songs like "1979" and "Thirty-Three" are total crap. "Tonight Tonight" is alright for what it is, but it has a low burn and I've always felt that it got more attention than it deserved due to its retro-themed video based on Jules Verne's Le Voyage dans la lune than on the actual quality of the song. The music to "Bullet with Butterfly Wings" and "Zero" are actually pretty good, but the songs are ruined by Billy's voice (see above).

[Parksey]

leave now and never come back

[JSapp]

ArticulateEric, on 22 March 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

I think even it's most ardent fans would advocate cutting a song or two, and throwing another in its place... but I bet no one could agree as to what songs need to be cut! Other than Scorched Earth, holy bejesus what a stinker. :happy:/>

Yeah I can see cutting a song or two (including TOASE it is a stinker) and adding others from TAFH but to cut the album to 45 minutes in length would require a hack job. That would eliminate the entire feel if the album. I

[chemicalbehavior]

Parksey, on 22 March 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

leave now and never come back

Oh chill out man. I'm not trying to push anyone's buttons or be controversial here. JSapp asked me a question so I answered it.

[Deleted User Account]

chemicalbehavior, on 22 March 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

To be perfectly honest aside from "Muzzle" there's nothing I'd keep from Mellon Collie. I never cared for that album, and god knows I tried to get into it as my older sister was into the Pumpkins and one of my best friends from that time was a big Pumpkin-head as well and let me borrow the album. I hate the sound of Billy's voice during that era, it being especially nasally on lines like "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage" and "She's the one for me". *shudder*

I think his quality of lyrics as well as his lyrical content are weak and very 90s on that album (which isn't a good thing imo). There's a sense of misery and bitching and moaning I've never cared for. I feel Billy didn't really start to grow as a lyricist until Adore.

In all, I just don't think that the songs were all that strong and that the album was only as successful as it was due to the heavy promotion it received as well as the timing of release (in the middle of the 90s when CD sales were skyrocketing). "Muzzle" is probably the best song on the album, but songs like "1979" and "Thirty-Three" are total crap. "Tonight Tonight" is alright for what it is, but it has a low burn and I've always felt that it got more attention than it deserved due to its retro-themed video based on Jules Verne's Le Voyage dans la lune than on the actual quality of the song. The music to "Bullet with Butterfly Wings" and "Zero" are actually pretty good, but the songs are ruined by Billy's voice (see above).

You... are one cold mother fucker.

[JSapp]

Yeah I take responsibility. This isn't a thread about what songs should or shouldn't be on MCIS and I kind of derailed it. My bad

[dudehitscar]

Mcis is the greatest album of all time and billy destroys on that album vocally.

[aztec_litany_service]

chemicalbehavior, on 16 March 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Nope.

Down on the Upside was a self-produced pile of shit, and besides I fail to see how anything that was released almost two decades ago qualifies as being relevant today.

hell no, that was a great record

i don't care what's 'relevant', plz show me a band now that could make an album as good as superunknown

chemicalbehavior, on 22 March 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

To be perfectly honest aside from "Muzzle" there's nothing I'd keep from Mellon Collie. I never cared for that album,

oh, i see
lol

[aztec_litany_service]

ArticulateEric, on 22 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Absolutely...which isn't to say Billy invented merging ones influences into something "new". He's just another player in a long line. One who has obviously struck a chord with many of us, but no trailblazer in music.

usually a 'trailblazer' is just someone whose influences were less visible/famous, or they produced the music in a way that obscured direct links to its inspiration. everyone and everything, every single thing that ever happens is a reaction.

i think the sheer amount of different recognizable influences that went into sp itself is 'trailblazing' as much as anything else ever was. to make all these disparate things feel like they fit into this one thing, they did it better than anyone i've heard. unfortunately, billy has moved away from that.

[pastup]

being "relevant" depends on the context of the conversation. Relevant in terms of rock music as a whole or relevant in terms of what's trending today?

and yes Soundgarden's Superunknown was a fuckin kick ass album. Down on the upside was a little watered down and boring for me though.