[MaxR]

Kasabian not on there? While America has no clue who they are, they are keeping rock very alive in the UK.

[AndyToe]

MaxR, on 18 March 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Kasabian not on there? While America has no clue who they are, they are keeping rock very alive in the UK.

weird, I know of no one over here in the UK that gives a crap about kasabian, but all the canadians and americans I know fucking love them

[pastup]

RottingApples, on 18 March 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

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.

Or maybe it's not a question of whether rock is "dead" but more of a question of is it progressing. I don't think it will ever die because you'll always have an audience for it. But yet it's sort of like reinventing the wheel. It's been done to perfection as far as I'm concerned but there's always room for artists to come along and put their own personal stamp on rock n roll. For example I don't think Van Halen is better than Led Zeppelin but Van Halen came along and changed what was considered possible to do in a rock band. I also consider Rage against the machine one of those bands that came along and changed the rules but was still "rock". and yes Jane's Addiction and Smashing Pumpkins etc...
Basically bands that had influences but also had their own authenticity and contribution and brought something a little different and a little new to the table.

[JSapp]

RottingApples, on 18 March 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Do we really need anymore loud guitar bands?

Yes. I do

[Raoul]

AndyToe, on 18 March 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

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.

What a load of crap. This list proves nothing except that the author of it has no idea and should not be commenting on things they don't understand

Lots of good rock bands out there -

The Strokes
The Kills
The Saboteurs
Kasabain
Radiohead
Dead Weather
Future of the Left
The Gaslight Anthem
The Hold Steady
The Black Keys
The Arctic Monkeys
The Drones
Foo Fighters
Them Crooked Vultures
Grinderman ( recently broke up though :(/> )
The Hives
The Jim Jones Revue
The Bronx
Phoenix
Silversun Pickups

To name a few. If you think rock is dead and haven;t heard all these bands, then you shouldn't be making a judgement on it. Billy sits there and says rock is dead - but do any of us even think he actually has listened to anything new? Whats he basing his opinion on?

Rock has changed. Back in the 90's every rock band sounded vaguely the same or at least were obviously affected by the same influences as their peers. These days that doesn't happen as much, rock is more varied and not just all doing the same thing as their peers. The 90;s coughed up some great bands, but my god there was a lot of totally shit "rip off" sounding wanna-be bands out there as well. Who doesn't remember those terrible opening acts that all had lead singers trying to sound the Eddie Vedder? It was the 90;s form of rock that totally paved the way for bands like Nickelback to become massive radio & stadium rock stars.

Kids making bands today are more likely to have been motivated to make a band from listening to Velvet Underground, the Stones or the Beatles than anything that the 90's generation coughed up. The 90's didn't really inspire anyone to make a great band, sad but true. Its funny to hear aone of the biggest stars of that era moaning about the state of rock, when it is totally clear that the 90's did more to hurt rock than save it.

Bands today don;t really thrive to be stadium rockers as much - they have seen what that does to their music and don't really want to go there. Billy rates success with this shit and thats why he thinks rock is dead.

[RottingApples]

JSapp, on 18 March 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Yes. I do

There's 50 years of guitar rock bands out there. Go dig through history, and there will undoubtedly be stuff you haven't heard yet.

pastup, on 18 March 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Or maybe it's not a question of whether rock is "dead" but more of a question of is it progressing. I don't think it will ever die because you'll always have an audience for it. But yet it's sort of like reinventing the wheel. It's been done to perfection as far as I'm concerned but there's always room for artists to come along and put their own personal stamp on rock n roll. For example I don't think Van Halen is better than Led Zeppelin but Van Halen came along and changed what was considered possible to do in a rock band. I also consider Rage against the machine one of those bands that came along and changed the rules but was still "rock". and yes Jane's Addiction and Smashing Pumpkins etc...
Basically bands that had influences but also had their own authenticity and contribution and brought something a little different and a little new to the table.

I see what you're saying, but at the same time the premise still remains that "rock" has always been about doing something new, different, and challenging. Big guitars are about as stale and repetitive as it gets now. Anytime I hear these hardcore/ metal/ whatever bands, I can't help but laugh, because they're trying so hard to be "serious" and "heavy", and it just feels like a joke. And it's pretty much impossible to play any louder or heavy than that shit. While I don't think there's nothing anyone can ever do every again in regards to the guitar, I just think the idea of "rock" and being about big loud guitars isn't terribly new, exciting, or different anymore. And shit like Korn meets dubstep is not a good indicator of rock progression.

[Raoul]

RottingApples, on 18 March 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

There's 50 years of guitar rock bands out there. Go dig through history, and there will undoubtedly be stuff you haven't heard yet.

spot on.

it still exist out there for those who don't want to be fed it like a baby through MTV and the radio. Go buy a vinyl player and hit your local record store. 70 years of rock awaits you there and your reliance on needing to find a "new" rock band to fill your void will disappear.

If you want to hear what Rock is really meant to sound like, go get "Let it Bleed" by the Rolling stones on vinyl. This bullshit in Billy's head that rock needs to sound like the Pumpkins or 90's shit or Led Zep is utter bullshit. they have their palce in rock - but don;t fucking own the genre.

[Ruby Ring]

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.

Raoul, on 18 March 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

If you want to hear what Rock is really meant to sound like, go get "Let it Bleed" by the Rolling stones on vinyl. This bullshit in Billy's head that rock needs to sound like the Pumpkins or 90's shit or Led Zep is utter bullshit. they have their palce in rock - but don;t fucking own the genre.

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.

[Raoul]

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.

Never listened to My Morning Jacket much, but i will make sure i go give it a try, What do you recommend?

[Dusty]

I can't believe that someone said, completely seriously, that Radiohead is "more talented musically" than the Smashing Pumpkins--and then pushed it as objective fact. Asides from the fact that it is basically an unprovable statement, Billy is a damn good guitarist. I think you can back that up as well as you can any sort of statement about Radiohead. (I'm not very familiar with Tool, they always seemed rather scary and scream-y, so I won't go into that)

[Ruby Ring]

Raoul, on 18 March 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Never listened to My Morning Jacket much, but i will make sure i go give it a try, What do you recommend?

I have been a fan since 2001's "At Dawn". Beautiful, reverb heavy country album. Don't start with that one. Start with 2005's Z, and go ahead and listen to the last track, Dondante, first. Incredible. Then go back to 2003's "It Still Moves". This is their best album. Their album that came out last year is called "Circuital", and it is really good. Check out "Victory Dance", and "Holding on to Black Metal".

I haven't seen a band take so many chances with their sound, album to album, since the Smashing Pumpkins.

[Raoul]

Dusty, on 18 March 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I can't believe that someone said, completely seriously, that Radiohead is "more talented musically" than the Smashing Pumpkins--and then pushed it as objective fact. Asides from the fact that it is basically an unprovable statement, Billy is a damn good guitarist. I think you can back that up as well as you can any sort of statement about Radiohead. (I'm not very familiar with Tool, they always seemed rather scary and scream-y, so I won't go into that)

Radiohead is more talented than Billy Corgan. There, i said it too.

Being able to play an instrument better than someone doesn't make you more talented, and if it did Johnny Greenwood would still possibly be more talented.

Rolling Stone magazine felt compelled to put him in the top 50 of all time, while Corgan failed to make the top 100. I don't think that proves a hell of a lot, but it would suggest that you may have less people agreeing with your opinion than disagreeing

[chemicalbehavior]

pastup, on 18 March 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

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.

Careful now buddy, you're trying to twist this around.

I gave you an example as per your request:

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.

So I gave you an example of an act/ensemble from the same era as Jane's Addiction that was considered groundbreaking for their time and actually has been influential on other acts.

Don't get me wrong. I don't care for MBV. I gave them a listen a few years ago and was bored to death with what I heard. :p/>

pastup, on 18 March 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

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.

I agree with this. I tried to give Arcade Fire a chance about a year or so ago and was left wanting. Not that I thought their music was bad so to speak, it just didn't do anything for me. They have an audience, and good for them, I'm just not gonna be someone at their shows.

[pastup]

chemicalbehavior, on 18 March 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Careful now buddy, you're trying to twist this around.

I gave you an example as per your request:

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.

So I gave you an example of an act/ensemble from the same era as Jane's Addiction that was considered groundbreaking for their time and actually has been influential on other acts.

Don't get me wrong. I don't care for MBV. I gave them a listen a few years ago and was bored to death with what I heard. :p/>

My issue was just you reducing Jane's Addiction to a "shitty ass overrated band" as you put it. You're just kidding yourself if you don't think they were groundbreaking and very influential in the whole alternative music movement that happened in the 90's.

and they continue to rock to this day and we may be getting into personal preference territory but I actually enjoy their new album 'The Great Escape Artist'. I can put it on and listen from start to finish and I like it. I think it's the best thing they've done since ritual de lo habitual which was amazing (and still is) and huge at the time and I would argue incredibly influential.

as for Aracade Fire. I have "The Suburbs" in itunes and I've given it a shot but it doesn't do much for me either. I'm also not crazy about Radioheads last album although I have it but never listen to it. "Hail to the thief" is about where I left off in my love for radiohead. I liked most of in rainbows but tired of it quickly. OK computer, Kid A and Amnesiac were their 3 greatest albums in my opinion. Muse is alright but I never got into them much either.

I like The Dead Weather but their albums don't seem to hold up over time for me. I like it a lot for a while but then I get tired of it and want something different. Maybe because they put albums out so fast they aren't putting in enough time and effort to make something really memorable. There's definitely a downside to putting out too much music in a short time span because it's too much to digest for the listener.

[chemicalbehavior]

pastup, on 18 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

My issue was just you reducing Jane's Addiction to a "shitty ass overrated band" as you put it. You're just kidding yourself if you don't think they were groundbreaking and very influential in the whole alternative music movement that happened in the 90's.

and they continue to rock to this day and we may be getting into personal preference territory but I actually enjoy their new album 'The Great Escape Artist'. I can put it on and listen from start to finish and I like it. I think it's the best thing they've done since ritual de lo habitual which was amazing (and still is) and huge at the time and I would argue incredibly influential.

You like Jane's Addiction, more power to you. I think they're a shitty ass over-rated band. Even Bob Ezrin, who produced Strays said he couldn't make it through Ritual de lo Habitual cuz it sounded so bad, so take that for what it's worth.

pastup, on 18 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

as for Aracade Fire. I have "The Suburbs" in itunes and I've given it a shot but it doesn't do much for me either. I'm also not crazy about Radioheads last album although I have it but never listen to it. "Hail to the thief" is about where I left off in my love for radiohead. I liked most of in rainbows but tired of it quickly. OK computer, Kid A and Amnesiac were their 3 greatest albums in my opinion. Muse is alright but I never got into them much either.

I really liked Radiohead's recent album The King of Limbs, that along with The Bends I think are their two best albums. I don't care for the rest of their catalog.

I think Muse's Absolution is one of the best albums in the past 10 years, though aside from "Undisclosed Desires" I'm hard pressed to think of anything good they've released since 2003.

pastup, on 18 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

I like The Dead Weather but their albums don't seem to hold up over time for me. I like it a lot for a while but then I get tired of it and want something different. Maybe because they put albums out so fast they aren't putting in enough time and effort to make something really memorable. There's definitely a downside to putting out too much music in a short time span because it's too much to digest for the listener.

I like a lot of Keane's music, but what I've heard from their upcoming album sounds like they're seriously flirting with easy listening and elevator music. I've been a big fan of AFI's recent albums (Decemberunderground and Crash Love), but I don't think they have any immediate plans on releasing a new album.

[astralweeks]

Raoul, on 18 March 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

If you want to hear what Rock is really meant to sound like, go get "Let it Bleed" by the Rolling stones on vinyl. This bullshit in Billy's head that rock needs to sound like the Pumpkins or 90's shit or Led Zep is utter bullshit. they have their palce in rock - but don;t fucking own the genre.

When did he say this?

[snail33]

[quote name='chemicalbehavior' timestamp='1332108508' post='665471']
You like Jane's Addiction, more power to you. I think they're a shitty ass over-rated band. Even Bob Ezrin, who produced Strays said he couldn't make it through Ritual de lo Habitual cuz it sounded so bad, so take that for what it's worth.

--ritual de lo habitual is one of the best albums of the 1990s, and strays is mostly garbage. maybe ezrin was talking about the SOUND of the record, the production?


I really liked Radiohead's recent album The King of Limbs, that along with The Bends I think are their two best albums. I don't care for the rest of their catalog.

--this makes no sense--the bends progresses quite naturally to ok computer, so it makes sense to like both, and the king of limbs is zero progression from kid a--amnesiac--hail to the thief--in rainbows; it distills some of the weakest elements of all of those albums.

I think Muse's Absolution is one of the best albums in the past 10 years, though aside from "Undisclosed Desires" I'm hard pressed to think of anything good they've released since 2003.

--muse is mostly about fireworks, not much behind it all emotionally, and matt bellamy COULD NOT rip off thom yorke's vocal tone and affectations more.

[serotoninsage]

Raoul, on 18 March 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Radiohead is more talented than Billy Corgan. There, i said it too.

Being able to play an instrument better than someone doesn't make you more talented, and if it did Johnny Greenwood would still possibly be more talented.

Rolling Stone magazine felt compelled to put him in the top 50 of all time, while Corgan failed to make the top 100. I don't think that proves a hell of a lot, but it would suggest that you may have less people agreeing with your opinion than disagreeing

Thank you.

[Lunatic]

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

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

I thought JA's new album was very, very solid.

[Raoul]

astralweeks, on 18 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

When did he say this?

That is not a direct quote and i never implied it to be - but hence is the power of "implying" something, you thought i meant it as a direct quote.

Its very safe to say that Billy may not have said something as specific as this - but he most certainly has implied it for a long long time. When he talks of "rocking" in that typical sense of the sterotype of the word - he has always mentioned bands like Led Zep, Black Sabbath - then into the rather pompous, "arty" attempts at rock such a Floyd and Rush.

My point more so is that Billy is sitting there dissing the state of rock as if it is a lost cause, where i really don't see it like that. There are some great bands writing good classic sounding rockand / or blues rock. The Black Keys, The Dead Weather a strong modern take on blues , soul rock with an added pair of balls that still don't mind to dance. Bands like the Jim Jones Revue are providing an amazing live show that takes the audience back to what it would have been like to see someone like the Sonics play - but again, there is a definite modern sould feel to it. Then you have someone like the Hold Steady who are slightly punk in attitude - but style wise play good, ol fashioned rock n roll. I personally love this stuff. When i think "Rock" I think of Elvis, Eddie Cochran, Little Richard, The Sonics, Rolling Stones so i therefore see bands like the Hives, Jim Jones Revue, The Gaslight Anthem & the Hold Steady as completely deserving of being the best of rock today. They are writing rock in its traditional sense, but with enough "now" in it to be completely in time with the current world. Punk, Country, Soul & Rockabilly have combined to make a really great and rewarding rock music scene that i have thoroughly enjoyed for the better part of 10 years now. I see this "rock" as no less credible than anything the Pumpkins did with "rock" in mind. Rock N Roll was Little Richard, Buddy Holly & Elvis well before it was Zepplin & Sabbath, Sabbath & Zepplin were the seeds that sprouted an entire generation of Metal Rock - a genre that in reality caused more harm that good to rock n roll. With metal, rock became less accessible & incredibly dumb. It was just a thing of becoming Louder than the next band, and heavier than the next band.

Metal Rock ironically probably hit its peak with the classice Ronnie James Dio "Holy Diver". The song is so ridiculous - yet actually quite good that it is the perfect star child for the peak of Metal. It exposes the genre for what made it so loved, but also so childish and try hard "Evil".

The Heart of what my point is to all this rambling and vindictive slander of the holy bald bunyan is there for anyone who cares to look at this subjectively. Billy's opinion is indeed his own opinion - but it is incredibly arrogant, uneducated and offensive for him to dis the whole thing as "poseurs" on a public forum like he did - purely because it doesn't fit into his idea of what rock is - which just happens to be everything his music is not. Just because he don't like that stuff so much, does not mean it deserves to be branded poseurs, and considering his career and catalogue for the past decade - he is the last person who deserves the right to call them that. He left his rock to die and become dormant for 10 years - where was this passion then?

His actions are similar to that of the American news and media. He is trying to cause panic about the state of things, when there really is nothing to panic about. I look at it almost that - in his mind - he is creating all this panic, so that when Oceania comes out - he can be hearlded as the saviour of rock. It sounds ridiculous, but after watching this egotistical self obsessed, self confessed rock martyr for the better part of 20 years - i wouldn't put it by him. Sure record sales have gone down - but the interest in roclk music is as strong as ever. In Australia 15 years ago we had about 3-4 major rock festivels a year - The Big Day Out, Livid, Meredith & Homebake ( a purely Australian Rock affair ). These days we have too many to count. these festivels are stronger than ever ( not livid) - but we also have the world class 3 day Splendour in the Grass, Soundwave, V Fest, Blues Fest has turned from a small niche festivel to be a seriously big 5 day draw card that draws the likes of Bob Dylan, The Pogues & Roger Daltry - and there are about 15-20 other smaller festivels that have still had the ability to pull massive acts to the show. Nearly every one of these shows sells out - I have friends that go to over 10 festivels a year. Anyone trying to tell me "Rock is Dead" is obviously not leaving the house and living life a little to see that rock is living.

[marquisinspades]

Get me a doctor!!! My favourite bands are not on someone elses shitty list of useless opinions :cry:/>

Define 'Rock Music'? You probably wouldn't be able to represent all types of 'Rock' with 13 choices.

Define 'Keeping Alive' - what does that even mean -

'Not quite dead after all these years',
'Sort of rock music and popular with the kids'
'Trying to innovate so give them a cookie'
'Nominated for 6 dildo awards so must be good'
'Sound like 'Pixies' so must mention'
'Got girls in bikinis in video so got our vote'

I've sickened myself writing this as is implies I actually care.

Search out and listen to new artists as much as possible. Support those you like by buying their records.

If you tolerate Simon Cowell your children will be next!

[werideatdusk]

MUSE
Sufjan Stevens

+1s on Jane's Addiction, Arcade Fire and Them Crooked Vultures / QOTSA.

[chrisothoulos]

Raoul, on 18 March 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

What a load of crap. This list proves nothing except that the author of it has no idea and should not be commenting on things they don't understand

Lots of good rock bands out there -

The Strokes
The Kills
The Saboteurs
Kasabain
Radiohead
Dead Weather
Future of the Left
The Gaslight Anthem
The Hold Steady
The Black Keys
The Arctic Monkeys
The Drones
Foo Fighters
Them Crooked Vultures
Grinderman ( recently broke up though :(/> )
The Hives
The Jim Jones Revue
The Bronx
Phoenix
Silversun Pickups

To name a few. If you think rock is dead and haven;t heard all these bands, then you shouldn't be making a judgement on it. Billy sits there and says rock is dead - but do any of us even think he actually has listened to anything new? Whats he basing his opinion on?

Rock has changed. Back in the 90's every rock band sounded vaguely the same or at least were obviously affected by the same influences as their peers. These days that doesn't happen as much, rock is more varied and not just all doing the same thing as their peers. The 90;s coughed up some great bands, but my god there was a lot of totally shit "rip off" sounding wanna-be bands out there as well. Who doesn't remember those terrible opening acts that all had lead singers trying to sound the Eddie Vedder? It was the 90;s form of rock that totally paved the way for bands like Nickelback to become massive radio & stadium rock stars.

Kids making bands today are more likely to have been motivated to make a band from listening to Velvet Underground, the Stones or the Beatles than anything that the 90's generation coughed up. The 90's didn't really inspire anyone to make a great band, sad but true. Its funny to hear aone of the biggest stars of that era moaning about the state of rock, when it is totally clear that the 90's did more to hurt rock than save it.

Bands today don;t really thrive to be stadium rockers as much - they have seen what that does to their music and don't really want to go there. Billy rates success with this shit and thats why he thinks rock is dead.

I think a good point trying to be made is that rock music needs to be searched out instead of beinf pushed on us and thats the big difference.. I like most of those bands you listed but i wouldnt know of a lot if it wasny for me being an avid music lover. Hence the "frandma doesnt know about them talk. Billy is spot on there

[AndyToe]

Wow, someones hormonal.

Raoul, on 18 March 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

What a load of crap. This list proves nothing except that the author of it has no idea and should not be commenting on things they don't understand

Lots of good rock bands out there -

The Strokes
The Kills
The Saboteurs
Kasabain
Radiohead
Dead Weather
Future of the Left
The Gaslight Anthem
The Hold Steady
The Black Keys
The Arctic Monkeys
The Drones
Foo Fighters
Them Crooked Vultures
Grinderman ( recently broke up though :(/> )
The Hives
The Jim Jones Revue
The Bronx
Phoenix
Silversun Pickups

To name a few. If you think rock is dead and haven;t heard all these bands, then you shouldn't be making a judgement on it. Billy sits there and says rock is dead - but do any of us even think he actually has listened to anything new? Whats he basing his opinion on?

Rock has changed. Back in the 90's every rock band sounded vaguely the same or at least were obviously affected by the same influences as their peers. These days that doesn't happen as much, rock is more varied and not just all doing the same thing as their peers. The 90;s coughed up some great bands, but my god there was a lot of totally shit "rip off" sounding wanna-be bands out there as well. Who doesn't remember those terrible opening acts that all had lead singers trying to sound the Eddie Vedder? It was the 90;s form of rock that totally paved the way for bands like Nickelback to become massive radio & stadium rock stars.

Kids making bands today are more likely to have been motivated to make a band from listening to Velvet Underground, the Stones or the Beatles than anything that the 90's generation coughed up. The 90's didn't really inspire anyone to make a great band, sad but true. Its funny to hear aone of the biggest stars of that era moaning about the state of rock, when it is totally clear that the 90's did more to hurt rock than save it.

Bands today don;t really thrive to be stadium rockers as much - they have seen what that does to their music and don't really want to go there. Billy rates success with this shit and thats why he thinks rock is dead.

[astralweeks]

Raoul, on 19 March 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

That is not a direct quote and i never implied it to be - but hence is the power of "implying" something, you thought i meant it as a direct quote.

Its very safe to say that Billy may not have said something as specific as this - but he most certainly has implied it for a long long time. When he talks of "rocking" in that typical sense of the sterotype of the word - he has always mentioned bands like Led Zep, Black Sabbath - then into the rather pompous, "arty" attempts at rock such a Floyd and Rush.

My point more so is that Billy is sitting there dissing the state of rock as if it is a lost cause, where i really don't see it like that. There are some great bands writing good classic sounding rockand / or blues rock. The Black Keys, The Dead Weather a strong modern take on blues , soul rock with an added pair of balls that still don't mind to dance. Bands like the Jim Jones Revue are providing an amazing live show that takes the audience back to what it would have been like to see someone like the Sonics play - but again, there is a definite modern sould feel to it. Then you have someone like the Hold Steady who are slightly punk in attitude - but style wise play good, ol fashioned rock n roll. I personally love this stuff. When i think "Rock" I think of Elvis, Eddie Cochran, Little Richard, The Sonics, Rolling Stones so i therefore see bands like the Hives, Jim Jones Revue, The Gaslight Anthem & the Hold Steady as completely deserving of being the best of rock today. They are writing rock in its traditional sense, but with enough "now" in it to be completely in time with the current world. Punk, Country, Soul & Rockabilly have combined to make a really great and rewarding rock music scene that i have thoroughly enjoyed for the better part of 10 years now. I see this "rock" as no less credible than anything the Pumpkins did with "rock" in mind. Rock N Roll was Little Richard, Buddy Holly & Elvis well before it was Zepplin & Sabbath, Sabbath & Zepplin were the seeds that sprouted an entire generation of Metal Rock - a genre that in reality caused more harm that good to rock n roll. With metal, rock became less accessible & incredibly dumb. It was just a thing of becoming Louder than the next band, and heavier than the next band.

Metal Rock ironically probably hit its peak with the classice Ronnie James Dio "Holy Diver". The song is so ridiculous - yet actually quite good that it is the perfect star child for the peak of Metal. It exposes the genre for what made it so loved, but also so childish and try hard "Evil".

The Heart of what my point is to all this rambling and vindictive slander of the holy bald bunyan is there for anyone who cares to look at this subjectively. Billy's opinion is indeed his own opinion - but it is incredibly arrogant, uneducated and offensive for him to dis the whole thing as "poseurs" on a public forum like he did - purely because it doesn't fit into his idea of what rock is - which just happens to be everything his music is not. Just because he don't like that stuff so much, does not mean it deserves to be branded poseurs, and considering his career and catalogue for the past decade - he is the last person who deserves the right to call them that. He left his rock to die and become dormant for 10 years - where was this passion then?

His actions are similar to that of the American news and media. He is trying to cause panic about the state of things, when there really is nothing to panic about. I look at it almost that - in his mind - he is creating all this panic, so that when Oceania comes out - he can be hearlded as the saviour of rock. It sounds ridiculous, but after watching this egotistical self obsessed, self confessed rock martyr for the better part of 20 years - i wouldn't put it by him. Sure record sales have gone down - but the interest in roclk music is as strong as ever. In Australia 15 years ago we had about 3-4 major rock festivels a year - The Big Day Out, Livid, Meredith & Homebake ( a purely Australian Rock affair ). These days we have too many to count. these festivels are stronger than ever ( not livid) - but we also have the world class 3 day Splendour in the Grass, Soundwave, V Fest, Blues Fest has turned from a small niche festivel to be a seriously big 5 day draw card that draws the likes of Bob Dylan, The Pogues & Roger Daltry - and there are about 15-20 other smaller festivels that have still had the ability to pull massive acts to the show. Nearly every one of these shows sells out - I have friends that go to over 10 festivels a year. Anyone trying to tell me "Rock is Dead" is obviously not leaving the house and living life a little to see that rock is living.

It's not "implication".. It's a strawman argument... And I've been seeing quite a bit of this on here since Corgan's interview at SXSW

Since you're posting on a Pumpkins message board, I'm sure you're familiar with their back catalouge. It's varied and draws on tons of different styles and genres within the realm of rock music. Trying to pigenhole BC's taste as "Led Zepp or grunge or it sucks" is way off base. His OWN music proves as much

He's not criticzing anyone on this message board or their personal record collection of post 2000 music. His basic point seems to be that rock music is becoming fringe music, and it shouldn't be..

The 80's mainstream (think really big, not Wilco big) was generally considered a poor time for rock music, but even then there was Springsteen, U2, Petty, Talking Heads, REM, Prince, Guns N' Roses, The Police, The Cure etc.

Our era doesn't have those bands or acts. He rasies some good questions.

[Arachnea]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

The 80's mainstream (think really big, not Wilco big) was generally considered a poor time for rock music, but even then there was Springsteen, U2, Petty, Talking Heads, REM, Prince, Guns N' Roses, The Police, The Cure etc.

Our era doesn't have those bands or acts. He rasies some good questions.

That is much easier to say in hindsight with 20-30 years of time and distance to analyze their impact on the musical landscape. The 00's may have been a poor time in mainstream music but it would not be difficult to pick out a handful of bands or artists that mattered or have longevity amongst the garbage heap. It is the generation of today that will dictate what music is going to be important for them now and in the near future.

[astralweeks]

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

That is much easier to say in hindsight with 20-30 years of time and distance to analyze their impact on the musical landscape. The 00's may have been a poor time in mainstream music but it would not be difficult to pick out a handful of bands or artists that mattered or have longevity amongst the garbage heap. It is the generation of today that will dictate what music is going to be important for them now and in the near future.

In the case of the bands and artists I mentioned it's not hindsight. It was obvious at the time.

[Arachnea]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

In the case of the bands and artists I mentioned it's not hindsight. It was obvious at the time.

To Whom? To reiterate, it is still much easier to say in hindsight, which you are doing with this post. It is a near impossible situation to predict with several variables at play. Many of those bands you listed were not seen the way they are now. It takes time to really observe the impact of what those bands did. It was not instant like Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit and the clones that quickly followed. It is not like those bands were lighting the world on fire with their first or second album. For many it took until their third or fourth album to get any real big mainstream attention (it took the Cure until their 6th studio release until they were noticed across the pond).

[MachinesOfLight]

skrillex is on that list though.

[astralweeks]

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

To Whom? To reiterate, it is still much easier to say in hindsight, which you are doing with this post. It is a near impossible situation to predict with several variables at play. Many of those bands you listed were not seen the way they are now. It takes time to really observe the impact of what those bands did. It was not instant like Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit and the clones that quickly followed. It is not like those bands were lighting the world on fire with their first or second album. For many it took until their third or fourth album to get any real big mainstream attention (it took the Cure until their 6th studio release until they were noticed across the pond).

How would you like me to prove it? critical acclaim? sales? cultural impact? all of those?

[JSapp]

It didnt take hindsight to know Springsteen Guns N Roses and U2 were huge. Come on now.

[Arachnea]

Before this debate goes any further, how many of you were actually around in the 80s to see these bands come up?

[astralweeks]

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Before this debate goes any further, how many of you were actually around in the 80s to see these bands come up?

I was a very young in early the 80's...

and I still knew who Bruce Sprinsteen was at the time. that's kind of Corgan's point.

[JSapp]

Yeah I was born in 1980. I distinctly remember knowing who Bruce Springsteen was in the mid 80's. How many rock acts are around now that young children know who they are?

This post has been edited by JSapp: 19 March 2012 - 03:36 PM

[Arachnea]

That is because Born in the USA was HUGE. Campaigning presidents even used his songs. However, Bruce Springsteen started releasing albums in the early 70's. Born To Run, a favorite of mine, and critically acclaimed, was released in 1975. Hence, of course you knew who he was by the 80s. He was not a product that just popped up in the 80s. It took time and he honed his craft while the social and musical climate around him changed. Obviously you are going to find bands and music that changed or shook things up, but my point is that in a lot of cases it takes a certain amount of time to really evaluate these situations, and I do not think people are being all that fair to the current generation of musicians and artists.

[JSapp]

No I get your point. Sometimes the bands/musicians that end up being the most influential in the long run are initially somewhat under the radar. Sometimes they got big instantly. My sister is 5 years older than me so i also remember when GnR and Bon Jovi got big and it was overnight with those acts.However rock just isn't in the mainstream like it once was. Personally I think that's more a result of a lack of marketing from the powers that be in the music industry that a lack of talented rock acts. There are plenty of very talented rock acts out there but they don't get pushed. Rock music isn't as big a part of pop culture as it was then

This post has been edited by JSapp: 19 March 2012 - 03:48 PM

[astralweeks]

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

That is because Born in the USA was HUGE. Campaigning presidents even used his songs. However, Bruce Springsteen started releasing albums in the early 70's. Born To Run, a favorite of mine, and critically acclaimed, was released in 1975. Hence, of course you knew who he was by the 80s. He was not a product that just popped up in the 80s. It took time and he honed his craft while the social and musical climate around him changed. Obviously you are going to find bands and music that changed or shook things up, but my point is that in a lot of cases it takes a certain amount of time to really evaluate these situations, and I do not think people are being all that fair to the current generation of musicians and artists.

Let's say Bruce Springsteen was at his cultural/commerical peak in the mid 80's. In the early 80's it was The Police. In the late 80's it was U2. In the early 90's it was Nirvana, etc

who is it now? who has it been for the past 10 yrs? that's what I was getting from Corgan's SXSW rants

[Arachnea]

JSapp, on 19 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Rock music isn't as big a part of pop culture as it was then

Perhaps, yet Born To Run came out during the disco era in American music and still managed to make some decent noise. This is at the root at what I was arguing, that hindsight changes our perception of things. Furthermore, being far too removed or not being in that specific era also colors our perception of what really happened during those times. For all the arguing that now is the worst period in rock music just think what people had to endure in the 70s during the disco era.

[RottingApples]

JSapp, on 19 March 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

It didnt take hindsight to know Springsteen Guns N Roses and U2 were huge. Come on now.

It also doesn't take hindsight to know the following were huge in the 2000s:

The White Stripes
Green Day
Nine Inch Nails
Coldplay
Fall Out Boy
Nickelback
Evanescence
Godsmack
Korn
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Paramore
My Chemical Romance
Panic at the Disco

You and I may not like the above bands, but they were still rock in the successful mainstream sense. The 2000s had their rock. It may not have been very good, or very original, but it was still there.

[JSapp]

Arachnea, on 19 March 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

For all the arguing that now is the worst period in rock music just think what people had to endure in the 70s during the disco era.

For sure that was an awful time for pop music but the rebellion to this gave us punk. And you still had the arena rock bands like Queen and Foreigner who were huge at the same time. There just doesn't seem to be the other side of the coin now.

[RottingApples]

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

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.

[JSapp]

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

You and I may not like the above bands, but they were still rock in the successful mainstream sense. The 2000s had their rock. It may not have been very good, or very original, but it was still there.

yeah it was there. It just didn't seem to be as big a part of the pie as it was. And I actually really liked some of those bands (others not so much). I've never had a problem finding great rock music to listen to it just doesn't seem to leave as big of a mark as it used to

[Arachnea]

astralweeks, on 19 March 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Let's say Bruce Springsteen was at his cultural/commerical peak in the mid 80's. In the early 80's it was The Police. In the late 80's it was U2. In the early 90's it was Nirvana, etc

who is it now? who has it been for the past 10 yrs? that's what I was getting from Corgan's SXSW rants

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.

JSapp, on 19 March 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

For sure that was an awful time for pop music but the rebellion to this gave us punk. And you still had the arena rock bands like Queen and Foreigner who were huge at the same time. There just doesn't seem to be the other side of the coin now.

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

[astralweeks]

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

It also doesn't take hindsight to know the following were huge in the 2000s:

The White Stripes
Green Day
Nine Inch Nails
Coldplay
Fall Out Boy
Nickelback
Evanescence
Godsmack
Korn
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Paramore
My Chemical Romance
Panic at the Disco

You and I may not like the above bands, but they were still rock in the successful mainstream sense. The 2000s had their rock. It may not have been very good, or very original, but it was still there.

Are those really the great rock bands of this era though? some of them were more popular in the 90's. I don't think others will stand the test of time very well.