[chrisothoulos]

http://www.artistdir...k-alive/9910574

"Billy Corgan remains one of the most prolific and potent songwriters in rock 'n' roll. Blare the Gish and Siamese Dream reissues for a refresher course on his psychedelic heavy alternative mastery. However, Smashing Pumpkins' forthcoming Oceania, is shaping up to be one of the biggest rock events of the year and quite possibly the decade. With the amps turned up and Corgan's brilliant storytelling on deck, we can't wait..."

[BitterRootOfSelf]

Who said such things of Oceania. Of the decade... Well that would be pretty exciting!

[MonteLDS]

i was surprised that Foo Fighters were not in this list

[ShamanO]

I sure hope they know something about Oceania since we dont' seem to know wtf this "experience" is about

But this news makes it sound exciting :cheers:/>

[chrisothoulos]

Yea good to see anything positive about the band.. That what we need people.. Positivity..

[Arachnea]

It sounded exciting until I read the rest of them.

[JSapp]

It is good to see some positive press for SP

[ShamanO]

chrisothoulos, on 16 March 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Yea good to see anything positive about the band.. That what we need people.. Positivity..

tell that to the haters round here

[chrisothoulos]

Yea I dunno why There are bands there like Korn and Skrillex? what about Foo Fighters? Pearl Jam? Peppers?

[AlienCloak]

chrisothoulos, on 16 March 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

what about Foo Fighters? Pearl Jam? Peppers?

Oh wait, was the list supposed to be about famous bands from the 90s?

[RottingApples]

Ha. Skrillex is a sign that rock is dead.

[chrisothoulos]

Well no but those are bands still making an impact in the rock scene..PJ to a lesser extent but at least they are rock.. Korn just is garb

But its an interesting list nonetheless.

[snail33]

my 13:

the smashing pumpkins
the cure
jimmy eat world
foo fighters
pearl jam
radiohead
jane's addiction
tool
deftones
incubus
green day
my chemical romance
death cab for cutie

[Gr3g3]

snail33, on 16 March 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

my 13:

the smashing pumpkins
the cure
jimmy eat world
foo fighters
pearl jam
radiohead
jane's addiction
tool
deftones
incubus
green day
my chemical romance
death cab for cutie

Better than their list IMO.

[MoonPI]

:)/>

[serotoninsage]

talk about a 90s thread...
Weezer > Jimmy Eat World, sorry dorry
this list needs The Darkness

This post has been edited by serotoninsage: 16 March 2012 - 02:54 PM

[chemicalbehavior]

AlienCloak, on 16 March 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Oh wait, was the list supposed to be about famous bands from the 90s?

Funny I was thinking the same thing when looking through the list.

Jane's Addiction? Really? That fuckin' shitty ass overrated band that's been on countless reunion tours since 1995? What a fuckin' joke.

Flyleaf? A Christian rock band that's had one crossover hit?

Soundgarden? LMFAO. They haven't been relevant since "Black Hole Sun" in 1994, even then it was over-played and not really anything special when you really think about it.

KoRn and Tool? Hahahahaha. Niche audiences (mostly from the 90s, see above) apparently count.

Aside from seeing the name, I know nothing about The Black Keys, and haven't even heard of the remaining groups on the list.

Until Oceania gets released (whenever that'll be) I'd say that the Pumpkins don't even qualify for this list. I mean one album and a handful of download songs in more than a decade means you're keeping rock alive? Riiiiiight.

Why was this posted anyway? I could easily think of 13 more relevant groups in the past five years that are "keeping rock alive" than this list.

[Dusty]

Actually, I think that this is a pretty good list to find SP included in. M83 has been acclaimed by all of the indie press (Spin ran an article on them in the last issue I believe), Black Keys were Grammy winners in 2011, and Jane's Addiction's reunion album has been met with strong reviews. Korn always gets listed in these types of things (I believe Modern Drummer ranked thier skinsman closely to Jimmy, who was already third), and of course Radiohead is still the darling child. Death Punch seems like a diversity pick, or maybe they have some sort of credibility I am unaware of. And including a buzz band like Skrillix is very common--it's current, and has been making waves. So to have the Pumpkins in that sort of conciousness...not a bad thing. Not amazing (artist direct isn't a real name dropper), but not bad.

[RottingApples]

chemicalbehavior, on 16 March 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Soundgarden? LMFAO. They haven't been relevant since "Black Hole Sun" in 1994, even then it was over-played and not really anything special when you really think about it.

You're kidding, right? They were pretty successful up until their breakup in 1997, and have continued to have a strong presence on radio since. Yeah MTV played the fuck out of BHS, but Spoonman, Fell on Black Days, Burden in My Hand, Blow Up the Outside World were all huge singles in their own right. They just didn't have creepy videos like BHS. Besides, you could argue the Pumpkins have been "irrelevant" since roughly the same time. The only difference is the Pumpkins have been back around for years and Soundgarden just recently reformed (and as an actual reunion of the original members).

[chemicalbehavior]

RottingApples, on 16 March 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

You're kidding [about Soundgarden being irrelevant], right?

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.

By that logic, Led Zeppelin and the Beatles are more relevant today than any of the 13 bands on that list.

I know what you're gonna say: "Hey! But Soundgarden announced their reunion on January 1 2010! So that makes them relevant now!".

The answer is still no.

Are the Yardbirds relevant today simply because they're considered to be an active act? How about Queen, Poison, Kiss or Quiet Riot? (Yes, all of these aforementioned acts are considered active as of March 2012.)

The bottom line is that these are all old bands from by-gone eras. None of which have been relevant for quite some time but the brand name is so valuable that their members, or the powers that be, continue to market their work under the established brand name.

To be clear here, I'm not saying that a group such as Soundgarden isn't capable of creating good music that is new, it's just that their moment has passed and their perceived relevance today is based on work that they did 20 years ago.

[pastup]

I think the list seems random and is bs for the most part but the point is that soundgarden are supposedly working on a new album. Jane's Addiction just put out a new album. Sp's getting ready to release an album. Hence the idea that they are "Keeping Rock Alive."

but it really seems like this person just put a bunch of names in a hat and picked a few. Several names don't belong on the list and many names are absent so it doesn't mean much to me.

[chrisothoulos]

For the most part.. the article is stating about the year ahead and the anticipated releases by bands like SP and Soundgarden..

[AlienCloak]

chrisothoulos, on 16 March 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

For the most part.. the article is stating about the year ahead and the anticipated releases by bands like SP and Soundgarden..

But do old bands releasing new material equate to keeping rock alive?

[V_____]

WTF is Skrillex on a rock list. Pure fucking dubestep crap.

[chemicalbehavior]

AlienCloak, on 16 March 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

But do old bands releasing new material equate to keeping rock alive?

No. That actually takes away from the newer acts that can keep rock alive.

Each person that buys a ticket (or heaven forbid, an album) to a Who concert is one less person likely to buy a ticket or album from a newer band trying establish itself.

[DrownPumpkin]

So you're saying that an artist has its moment in the limelight and then quickly becomes "irrelevant"? This is exactly the bs school of thought Billy was complaining about yesterday. If they're releasing cash-cow albums, that is a fair call, but just because they're a few decades old does not mean they're irrelevant.

I'll never understand why everyone is so damn eager to listen to a band for a year and then toss them aside. The Cure have been together over 30 years, and they're still releasing quality albums. Can you imagine if they were deemed "irrelevant" after 10 years and "Disintegration" wasn't released?

[chemicalbehavior]

DrownPumpkin, on 16 March 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

So you're saying that an artist has its moment in the limelight and then quickly becomes "irrelevant"? This is exactly the bs school of thought Billy was complaining about yesterday. If they're releasing cash-cow albums, that is a fair call, but just because they're a few decades old does not mean they're irrelevant.

Um, Billy wasn't complaining about that, he himself has been questioning that.

It's hard to say that a group like Jane's Addiction is truly relevant as they've been on so many reunion tours over the past two decades. They've released what, two albums in the last 10 years (Strays and The Great Escape Artist) while going through a number of different line-up changes and break ups.

Since the mid-to-late 90s American (as well as European) pop culture has put an enormous amount of energy in nostalgic acts from the 60s and 70s. It's interesting to hear Billy complain about this for two reasons:

1) He's obviously informed about a lot of things with this.

and more importantly,

2) He's obviously incredibly ignorant as to why kids from today cite groups like Led Zeppelin as a favorite of theirs.

There were a great number of things that contributed to the nostalgic waves of the 90s and 2000s which has contributed to the dearth of new "important" bands and music:

1) Re-issues, and later remasters of old LP albums onto the CD format (and more recently iTunes) which came with a great deal of promotion.

2) VH-1's Behind the Music (and other similar programs such as Legends), which focused almost exclusively on nostalgic acts. This formatting of one of the two music stations in existence at the time exposed a whole generation of kids to acts/ensembles that they otherwise wouldn't of gotten exposed to.

3) MTV's lack of playing music, focusing instead on airing non-music programs such as Real World, Road Rules, Real World vs. Road Rules which forced audiences who were hungry to find music to go to VH-1 (see point 2 above).

4) The large amount of time between albums by newer acts. If a group released an album in the 90s more than likely it'd be at least two years (usually more) before it would release another album, if at all. A lot of groups would only ultimately release one or two albums before disappearing altogether, making it difficult to get into the group or to support it as they probably wouldn't be around for long.

5) Countless groups going on reunion tours (Kiss, Bad Company, Jane's Addiction, Motley Crue, Poison, The Who, Black Sabbath, etc.) A lot of parents who went to these reunion shows took their kids to them as well, again exposing a younger generation to music that they otherwise would not have been exposed to.

The time, energy and money that kids from the 90s and 2000s spent being exposed by older groups prevented them from being exposed to then-new groups. As a consequence there is no "Led Zeppelin" of the 90s or 2000s.

It's hard for twigs and seeds to get the necessary sunlight when the old Sequoias refuse to fall.

[ItsSoPringles]

MonteLDS, on 16 March 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

i was surprised that Foo Fighters were not in this list

yah this, even if you dont like foo fighters you cant deny they were basically the only band keeping rock alive during the mid 00's. i dont even like them that much but i am still grateful to them

granted this same list called skrillex a band that kept rock alive despite it being one that nearly killed rock

[paulandgemm]

Queens of the Stone Age

[pastup]

chemicalbehavior, on 16 March 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Jane's Addiction? Really? That fuckin' shitty ass overrated band

Jane's Addiction is one of the best bands around. They've been around since the 80's and paved the way for countless alternative bands that were inspired by them. Their latest album is also very good so it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

paulandgemm, on 17 March 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Queens of the Stone Age

Definitely... and Them Crooked Vultures

[paulandgemm]

pastup, on 17 March 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

Definitely... and Them Crooked Vultures

:cheers:/>

[TwoHeadedBoy]

The write up for Korn was stunning.

[chemicalbehavior]

pastup, on 17 March 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

Jane's Addiction is one of the best bands around.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! :rofl:/> :rofl:/> :rofl:/>

[serotoninsage]

Holy shaizah. Some people are really up their asses about their personal tastes trumping bands that are more holistically relevant and talented...

Just some FYI: Tool and Radiohead are both > SP in terms of musicians with talent. I'm not saying one band is ~better~ than another. That's not the point and that's your choice, and frankly, who cares. Tool and RH (for example) both have done some quite intricate stuff with their songwriting and arrangements that is actually pretty complex music. SP is simply a band that pushes sound styles but aside from Jimmy's skill, there's really nothing "groundbreaking" about the music of SP. This goes for Soundgarden, Korn, JA, QOTSA, etc.

People who lack the ability to see outside of their personal tastes don't realize how they sound like obnoxious oafs when expressing their POV. Sheez.:crazy:/>

This whole list is confused with the notion of popularity/cultural relevance vs. musicians that actually influence the cultural norms (and therein the popular bands that rip off these musicians who are actually talented).

[awsmsc]

I haven't read this thread, so I'm probably just repeating what someone else said, but here's my thoughts:

Here's a list with a bunch of crappy bands, many of whom can't be classified as rock. And, apparently, SP is keeping rock exciting, and our evidence is a near-20-year-old song?

Huh?

[pastup]

chemicalbehavior, on 17 March 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! :rofl:/> :rofl:/> :rofl:/>

If Jane's Addiction is/was not groundbreaking, give me an example of a band that you think is/was.

[Everlastingfool]

awsmsc, on 17 March 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

I haven't read this thread, so I'm probably just repeating what someone else said, but here's my thoughts:

Here's a list with a bunch of crappy bands, many of whom can't be classified as rock. And, apparently, SP is keeping rock exciting, and our evidence is a near-20-year-old song?

Huh?

you're right. That list was a load of old bollocks that was cooked up in 5 minutes.

[RottingApples]

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.
By that logic, Led Zeppelin and the Beatles are more relevant today than any of the 13 bands on that list.
I know what you're gonna say: "Hey! But Soundgarden announced their reunion on January 1 2010! So that makes them relevant now!".
The answer is still no.
Are the Yardbirds relevant today simply because they're considered to be an active act? How about Queen, Poison, Kiss or Quiet Riot? (Yes, all of these aforementioned acts are considered active as of March 2012.)
The bottom line is that these are all old bands from by-gone eras. None of which have been relevant for quite some time but the brand name is so valuable that their members, or the powers that be, continue to market their work under the established brand name.
To be clear here, I'm not saying that a group such as Soundgarden isn't capable of creating good music that is new, it's just that their moment has passed and their perceived relevance today is based on work that they did 20 years ago.

I do see and agree with what you're saying regarding old acts, and that was the first thing that caught my attention with the article. I was hoping it would be modern rock acts, when it was actually older groups and dubstep. Soundgarden, true, is not a terribly relevant act at the moment. I would hope their upcoming album would change that, but at the same time I think their influence at least still remains. And I would actually argue that Zeppelin and the Beatles are in fact more relevant than most of the bands on that list. But then, that just goes to show just how sad the state of rock music is now.

[Parksey]

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.

By that logic, Led Zeppelin and the Beatles are more relevant today than any of the 13 bands on that list.

I know what you're gonna say: "Hey! But Soundgarden announced their reunion on January 1 2010! So that makes them relevant now!".

The answer is still no.

Are the Yardbirds relevant today simply because they're considered to be an active act? How about Queen, Poison, Kiss or Quiet Riot? (Yes, all of these aforementioned acts are considered active as of March 2012.)

The bottom line is that these are all old bands from by-gone eras. None of which have been relevant for quite some time but the brand name is so valuable that their members, or the powers that be, continue to market their work under the established brand name.

To be clear here, I'm not saying that a group such as Soundgarden isn't capable of creating good music that is new, it's just that their moment has passed and their perceived relevance today is based on work that they did 20 years ago.

if soundgarden are irrelevant, what does that make the pumpkins?

also, tool are supposed to be releasing a new album this year and are still one of the best bands in the business.

the lack of mastodon on this list is worrying

[chemicalbehavior]

Parksey, on 18 March 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

if soundgarden are irrelevant, what does that make the pumpkins?

I was avoiding this question.

Parksey, on 18 March 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

also, tool are supposed to be releasing a new album this year and are still one of the best bands in the business.

Good for them.

Parksey, on 18 March 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

the lack of mastodon on this list is worrying

Very.

pastup, on 17 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

If Jane's Addiction is/was not groundbreaking, give me an example of a band that you think is/was.

An example of an ensemble from the same era as Jane's Addicton that I've heard/read to be influential and groundbreaking is My Bloody Valentine.

[Raoul]

that list and article is horrendous. Seriously - Korn? And having Skrillex on it is just retarded. They have no idea

Parksey, on 18 March 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

if soundgarden are irrelevant, what does that make the pumpkins?

Also irrelevant.

Unfortunately you need to actually release new, good music to be considered relevant in the current

chemicalbehavior, on 16 March 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Funny I was thinking the same thing when looking through the list.

Jane's Addiction? Really? That fuckin' shitty ass overrated band that's been on countless reunion tours since 1995? What a fuckin' joke.

Flyleaf? A Christian rock band that's had one crossover hit?

Soundgarden? LMFAO. They haven't been relevant since "Black Hole Sun" in 1994, even then it was over-played and not really anything special when you really think about it.

KoRn and Tool? Hahahahaha. Niche audiences (mostly from the 90s, see above) apparently count.

Aside from seeing the name, I know nothing about The Black Keys, and haven't even heard of the remaining groups on the list.

Until Oceania gets released (whenever that'll be) I'd say that the Pumpkins don't even qualify for this list. I mean one album and a handful of download songs in more than a decade means you're keeping rock alive? Riiiiiight.

Why was this posted anyway? I could easily think of 13 more relevant groups in the past five years that are "keeping rock alive" than this list.

Agree with most of that - but if you haven't heard the black keys you obviously have no place to be acting as if you know anything about the current rock scene. Been playing sold out shows for the better part of 10 years and been something good to come out of the current bad crop of rock music we have had to live with.

[pastup]

chemicalbehavior, on 18 March 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

An example of an ensemble from the same era as Jane's Addicton that I've heard/read to be influential and groundbreaking is My Bloody Valentine.

My Bloody Valentine released 2 albums the last one in 1991. 21 years ago. Jane's Addiction is together and released a full album several months ago and are touring now. The list was about bands keeping rock alive. Jane's is touring with a current album out. I wouldn't have chosen them for this list though because I would like all of the bands to be new fairly unheard of bands. Like a new crop of good bands but there just aren't any. All of the talk about Arcade Fire. I have nothing against them and they are very artistic and innovative but when I wanna "rock" I don't put on Arcade Fire. It's more like something to fall asleep to. Although I haven't seen their live show which I'm sure is a completely different experience. There are a lot of bands that I would enjoy seeing live but I don't put their album on when I wanna hear something really rockin.

[RottingApples]

Perhaps rock isn't about "rawkin'" anymore. Maybe that's the problem.

I mean, let's face it: Do we really need anymore loud guitar bands? Can they really be that different? And why pigeonhole the music like that? I certainly don't think dubstep is the way to go, but "rockin' guitars" might not be either.

[AndyToe]

I dont know how you can call Tool a band keeping rock alive. they havent released an album in 6 years, let alone a semi decent one.
Also, to include Skrillex but exclude Pendulum? Pfft

This is actually a pretty good list to show that Rock is indeed, Dead.

This post has been edited by AndyToe: 18 March 2012 - 08:51 AM