|
|
Post by AussieGirl on Mar 17, 2009 21:09:12 GMT -5
Oh, dear God, you've broken the code! A Queenslander can't agree with a Melbournian!...whatever shall we do AussieGirl?  I will pretend it never happened if you do... ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollmom on Mar 18, 2009 2:16:52 GMT -5
Pigeonwing wrote
>>I'm totally with you here. I remember Sebastian once saying (does anyone remember where/when?) that it's not WHO makes the music, but WHAT'S made that really matters.
But in this case the WHO makes it, is very important. I dont want to hear anyone else but Duff do the bass solo for ROCKET QUEEN, and I have very fond memories of Slash playing the opening notes of SWEET CHILD, and messing it up so badly that he had to re-start the song THREE times before he got it right. That to me is GNR.
|
|
freeqout
Youth Gone Wild
Fighting My demons
Posts: 167
|
Post by freeqout on Mar 18, 2009 3:06:52 GMT -5
Personally, I think Chinese Democracy is an Awesome Guns N Roses album and is probably the best GNR album ever.. again.. personally.. i dont miss the sound of Slash, Duff or Izzy as the musicians playing on Chinese Democracy are superior to those guys. Bumblefoot & Bucketheads guitar riffs and lead were mind blowing.. especially on shecklers revenge.. the guitars were crazy on that song .. in my opinion, it is a guns n roses album.. its a progression of the different era's of Guns n Roses.. 'Appetite was very different from Use your Illusion...it doesnt matter that the musicians are different..its the final product ...
Since we are talking about sound.. all 3 Bach era Skid row albums were different .. it progressively got heavier.. but they were all awesome albums.
my two cents!
|
|
|
|
Post by baranthalas on Mar 18, 2009 3:59:31 GMT -5
i love chinese democracy. "this i love" is a perfect song and it makes me wanna sit down and talk to axl about how the hell he made such an epic song. i also wanna know who is that girl that made him write that song ?
|
|
|
|
Post by PigeonWing on Mar 18, 2009 6:16:09 GMT -5
Oh, dear God, you've broken the code! A Queenslander can't agree with a Melbournian!...whatever shall we do AussieGirl? I will pretend it never happened if you do... ;D ;D If what happened?...I don't remember anything happening  I totally get where you're coming from, but then what gives Rob the right to play Rachel's parts during Youth Gone Wild or Monkey Business? Yes, Sebastian has done the right thing by going solo and not claiming the 'Skid Row' name, but they are still skid Row songs. So yes, perhaps it is morally wrong of Axl to hold onto the 'Guns N' Roses' name even though he's effectively solo, but ultimately it's that name (that iconic label) that will get the records sold, and get the music into people's ears. Besides, as I think we've well established, a grand majority of the music industry isn't too concerned about being morally correct. None the less, all that's not going to stop me enjoying the sound coming out of the speakers! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollmom on Mar 18, 2009 15:38:58 GMT -5
My daughter won't listen to Baz as a solo artist when he plays the Skid Row stuff.
And there is NO way in hell I wan't to hear Johnny Scab-astian try to do Baz's vocals.
I also feel very strongly about Kiss using Ace Frehley's former tech to do his parts . It's just wrong.
Which L.A. Guns are you going to go see, since there are two bands using the name? The one with Tracii, or the one with Phil?
And Warrant? Janie Lane or the rest of the group.
Have metal bands become Menudo where the members are replaced at a certain point?
If a band is no longer together, I believe that the name should be retired.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollmom on Mar 18, 2009 15:42:09 GMT -5
Ohh I guess I said a nasty word, I didn't type Scab-bastian. I did type the person's real name, but it automatically changed even though I was supporting Baz by saying I didn't want to here JS sing the old Skid Row songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellyeah on Mar 18, 2009 17:48:52 GMT -5
I don't know what all this talk about ChiDem has to do with the topic. Is rock and roll dying? It's not dying, but mutating into something different from what we as "old school" rockers know and love.
The Priest, Maiden, Metallica, Testament, Crue etc are still recording albums and music that we all grew up loving, and they are still touring. However, since some of these bands have been around since the late '70's, they are know as nostalgia acts. Same thing was said about the recent Poison tour. They are playing to a niche market.
Now look at the current crop of rockers? Apart from Kings of Leon, I can't name one, since I don't care much for them. One look at my Ipod playlist and you'll think you stepped back in time!
So in my opinion, rock and roll is not dead, it's just changed. Just thank God for record back catalogues and the internet, because the rock I love will never truly be appreciated by the younger generations and will never be as popular in the marketplace as it was "back in the day". The younger generations now have their own heroes that they think is "true rock and roll", and will complain in 15 years time when they are in their late 30's by asking "Is rock and roll dead"?
|
|
codyt
Newly Wild
Posts: 24
|
Post by codyt on Mar 18, 2009 18:07:32 GMT -5
Off topic, but does anyone remember Marty Casey from Rockstar Inxs? I think it was rockstar INXS. Anyway, I think he is fronting LA GUNS now! Anyway, I guess we all agree that rock n roll is not dying, just taking a "break." However, I highly doubt that the hair band's will ever make a come back. Then again if Britney Spears can.. anything is possible.  |
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollmom on Mar 18, 2009 18:35:14 GMT -5
I don't know what all this talk about ChiDem has to do with the topic. Is rock and roll dying? It's not dying, but mutating into something different from what we as "old school" rockers know and love. The Priest, Maiden, Metallica, Testament, Crue etc are still recording albums and music that we all grew up loving, and they are still touring. However, since some of these bands have been around since the late '70's, they are know as nostalgia acts. Same thing was said about the recent Poison tour. They are playing to a niche market. Now look at the current crop of rockers? Apart from Kings of Leon, I can't name one, since I don't care much for them. One look at my Ipod playlist and you'll think you stepped back in time! So in my opinion, rock and roll is not dead, it's just changed. Just thank God for record back catalogues and the internet, because the rock I love will never truly be appreciated by the younger generations and will never be as popular in the marketplace as it was "back in the day". The younger generations now have their own heroes that they think is "true rock and roll", and will complain in 15 years time when they are in their late 30's by asking "Is rock and roll dead"? Hellyeah, I will take the blame for the off topic Chi Dem discussion since I bought up the album as a reason that rock is not as popular as it once was. But it seems your original reply and some of my posts have been deleted. I won't reiterate what I said. but I do not think that Rock N Roll is dying. Just going through changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Katkick on Mar 18, 2009 22:08:18 GMT -5
Gawd I hope not.... 'cause whenever everything else goes to cr*p sometimes all you got left is Rock and Roll
~just saying
|
|
|
|
Post by Acekicken on Mar 18, 2009 22:44:14 GMT -5
Bands that have changed members & made it work.
Pantera replaced there lead Singer Terry Lee after 3 albums with Phil Anselmo.
Iron Maiden replaced Paul Di'Anno after 2 albums with Bruce Dickinson .
Vincent Damon Furnier,replaced the entire Alice Cooper Band, Alice Cooper was originally a band consisting of Furnier on vocals and harmonica, lead guitarist Glen Buxton, Michael Bruce on rhythm guitar, Dennis Dunaway on bass guitar, and drummer Neal Smith.
There was Guns n Roses before Slash,Duff & Steven joined the band & there is Guns n Roses after they are gone. Sebastian is the heart & soul of Skid Row all that is left with out him.
is a ghost.
><><>>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><>><>
There is a line in the road between what fans call Rock & Metal. But bands that are leading the music into the future,Sebastian Bach Band,Black Label Society,Trivium,Dragonforce,Kelsey & the Chaos,Shinedown,Hatebreed,Guns n Roses And more.....
Rock n Roll will never die
|
|
|
|
Post by Papillon78 on Mar 19, 2009 7:38:01 GMT -5
Yeah I remember the days when Bands would put out 1 new album every year....KISS used to do it as well. Now we have to wait YEARS in some cases to hear new stuff. I know its all about touring now and making sure that the artists dont "burn out" and all that kind of stuff, but I still think the 1 album a year policy was great....only it means no break for the band...its Studio, Tour, Studio, Tour, etc etc.... And Aussiegirl I reckon with the whole Rap and $$$ thing...ive noticed that ALOT of these Rap stars not only have their record deal, but they are SPONSORED by big name Corporations....Pepsi, Coke, McDonalds, Nokia etc etc and you see the sponsors logos etc in the music videos...I saw a video on the weekend where the guy was taking a picture of a girl on his Mobile phone and you clearly saw the Nokia logo on the phone, they made sure that it was seen through the clip...so obviously Nokia are sponsoring the artist or the label or something in some way...extra dollars there. And Nokia told last week that they're fireing 1700 people world wide. This is the way how the world spins around...  Rap stars are having more own clothe labels etc. Could that be one reason why they get sponsored.. I think that rock and roll isn't dying. Finland is so into Rock and Metal. That's a state of mind. But when you watch MTV it's scary.. Rap bling bling and crappy shows. Nothing to see. MTV used to have rock/metal videos and shows. I have my faith in Sebastian Bach and sure in Finnish rock and roll. Finnish bands are very seldom big names world wide but even those small ones make great albums. So small circles here. With this I mean bands like Apulanta (played since like 1990, album comes out about every second year, they do plenty of touring in Finland). |
|
codyt
Newly Wild
Posts: 24
|
Post by codyt on Mar 19, 2009 15:59:35 GMT -5
If you guys want to here a great Swedish Hair band check out Hardcore Superstar. The great thing is, there a modern band but wow they sound like they are from the eighties!
Check it out.. you wont be dissapointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollmom on Mar 19, 2009 16:42:01 GMT -5
Bands that have changed members & made it work. Pantera replaced there lead Singer Terry Lee after 3 albums with Phil Anselmo. Iron Maiden replaced Paul Di'Anno after 2 albums with Bruce Dickinson . Vincent Damon Furnier,replaced the entire Alice Cooper Band, Alice Cooper was originally a band consisting of Furnier on vocals and harmonica, lead guitarist Glen Buxton, Michael Bruce on rhythm guitar, Dennis Dunaway on bass guitar, and drummer Neal Smith. There was Guns n Roses before Slash,Duff & Steven joined the band & there is Guns n Roses after they are gone. Sebastian is the heart & soul of Skid Row all that is left with out him. is a ghost. ><><>>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><>><> There is a line in the road between what fans call Rock & Metal. But bands that are leading the music into the future,Sebastian Bach Band,Black Label Society,Trivium,Dragonforce,Kelsey & the Chaos,Shinedown,Hatebreed,Guns n Roses And more..... Rock n Roll will never die Ace, Some of your post supports what I am trying to say about WHO MAKES THE MUSIC being important. And some of what you say contradicts your own points. I am not a big Pantera fan. They may have replaced Phil Anselmo, and then made 3 more albums, But the only Pantera I want to listen to features Phil Anselmo. Alice Cooper doesn't bill himself as a band. He is a solo artist and plays with many different backing musicians. He has done this from his early carreer, therefore using him as a support for your argument about a band doesn't work. For the most part we agree about Skid Row. Without Sebastian, it isn't Skid Row. But Sebastian didn't go out and bill himself as the New Skids or something else similar to Skid Row. He did the right thing and went out and went solo. He has also been backed by many different incarnations of bands. His guitarists have included Richie Scarlett, Paul Crook, Ralph Santolla, Adam Albright and Al Pitrelli. Multiple bassists and drummers have also been used. Yet you say that GNR is still GNR when the only member of that band left from previous lineups is Axl. I'm sorry, I was a HUGE GNR fan, but not only because of Axl. I saw GNR 15 times in concert, and a large part of the experience was watching Slash and Duff, and later on Matt and Gilby. Duff playing bass, guitar and drums and taking vocals on a few songs was a highlight in some of the shows. And Slash as a pure guitarist was awesome to watch. He made it look so easy. There was a real chemistry between the band members, almost as if they knew what the other was thinking. I have said it before and I will repeat it, GNR with Axl as the only member of GNR is NOT EVER going to be GNR to me. You obviously consider Rock to be hard music. I will admit Hard Rock and Metal are my favorite Genres of music, but they do not encompass all of rock music. My Rock experience dates back to Rock's infancy. Since I can remember I have listened to rock probably starting with Elvis when I was 3. And going up through all the phases and sub-genres that have lead to today. Rock N Roll will never die. It is just going through another period of change. The next big thing will revive it. We just have to hope that it is a type of music that we can consider to be worth listening to. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogface on Mar 19, 2009 17:38:35 GMT -5
Ok let me pose a question here....is Miley Cyrus / Hannah Montana, Hillary Duff, Avril Lavigne, The Jonas Brothers, Lindsay Lohan etc etc the "New Rock N Roll"?
Before you start laughing....let me elaborate...
In the late 80's, we had the "Hair Metal" bands, ok....and lets face it, the majority of topics these bands wrote about were drinking, partying, girls and cars and fun.... It was very MALE dominated. It was all about fancy clothes, light shows, fireworks, massive stages, huge singalong chorus's, smiles and pretty faces (and big hair)....and target age group was 13 - 25.
Fast forward to today....what do all the bands of the "new" generation sing about? Boys, clothes, parties, cars, fun, big singalong chorus's .....innocence....how do they dress? Flashy, sparkly... How is their stage show? Big stages, big lightshow, pyro, acrobatics, and a general FUN time...target age group? 6 - 18 would you say? And it seems dominated by Women (or young girls if we are talking about Miley).
They have live bands, playing Guitars, Drums, Bass and Keyboards and Backing Vocallists, just like the Hair Bands of the 80's.
The more I look at this "new" breed (and having young kids now is the reason why I HAVE to look at it) the more I think to myself that someone like Miley Cirus is really the Jani Lane of the modern era.....Women in music also seem to be dominating at this time, the circle has turned in that respect as well....
Ive been thinking about this topic all week....
So I reckon, no, Rock N Roll is not dead. It could well be SICK and on life support if you look at todays Rock n Roll "stars" and the type of music they play (if you are not a fan of their style) and I think it needs a good kick up the backside to get it REAL again....but these are interesting times...will it ever happen? Who knows...
The only real difference I see between the old and the new is that the Men of the 80's seemed to be marketed as "dangerous" (some of them...some of them were also bubble gum pop stars not naming any names...) whereas today they are marketed as bubble gum sweetness....with the papperazzi and general media looking for ways to show they are not as sweet and innocent as they are portrayed....
Discuss? Am I waaaaaaaay off the mark?
|
|
|
|
Post by Acekicken on Mar 19, 2009 17:47:13 GMT -5
Bands that have changed members & made it work. Pantera replaced there lead Singer Terry Lee after 3 albums with Phil Anselmo. Iron Maiden replaced Paul Di'Anno after 2 albums with Bruce Dickinson . Vincent Damon Furnier,replaced the entire Alice Cooper Band, Alice Cooper was originally a band consisting of Furnier on vocals and harmonica, lead guitarist Glen Buxton, Michael Bruce on rhythm guitar, Dennis Dunaway on bass guitar, and drummer Neal Smith. There was Guns n Roses before Slash,Duff & Steven joined the band & there is Guns n Roses after they are gone. Sebastian is the heart & soul of Skid Row all that is left with out him. is a ghost. ><><>>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><>><> There is a line in the road between what fans call Rock & Metal. But bands that are leading the music into the future,Sebastian Bach Band,Black Label Society,Trivium,Dragonforce,Kelsey & the Chaos,Shinedown,Hatebreed,Guns n Roses And more..... Rock n Roll will never die Ace, Some of your post supports what I am trying to say about WHO MAKES THE MUSIC being important. And some of what you say contradicts your own points. I am not a big Pantera fan. They may have replaced Phil Anselmo, and then made 3 more albums, But the only Pantera I want to listen to features Phil Anselmo. Alice Cooper doesn't bill himself as a band. He is a solo artist and plays with many different backing musicians. He has done this from his early carreer, therefore using him as a support for your argument about a band doesn't work. For the most part we agree about Skid Row. Without Sebastian, it isn't Skid Row. But Sebastian didn't go out and bill himself as the New Skids or something else similar to Skid Row. He did the right thing and went out and went solo. He has also been backed by many different incarnations of bands. His guitarists have included Richie Scarlett, Paul Crook, Ralph Santolla, Adam Albright and Al Pitrelli. Multiple bassists and drummers have also been used. Yet you say that GNR is still GNR when the only member of that band left from previous lineups is Axl. I'm sorry, I was a HUGE GNR fan, but not only because of Axl. I saw GNR 15 times in concert, and a large part of the experience was watching Slash and Duff, and later on Matt and Gilby. Duff playing bass, guitar and drums and taking vocals on a few songs was a highlight in some of the shows. And Slash as a pure guitarist was awesome to watch. He made it look so easy. There was a real chemistry between the band members, almost as if they knew what the other was thinking. I have said it before and I will repeat it, GNR with Axl as the only member of GNR is NOT EVER going to be GNR to me. You obviously consider Rock to be hard music. I will admit Hard Rock and Metal are my favorite Genres of music, but they do not encompass all of rock music. My Rock experience dates back to Rock's infancy. Since I can remember I have listened to rock probably starting with Elvis when I was 3. And going up through all the phases and sub-genres that have lead to today. Rock N Roll will never die. It is just going through another period of change. The next big thing will revive it. We just have to hope that it is a type of music that we can consider to be worth listening to. I did not create the Alice Cooper section it's a direct quote from his own page,he was not always' a solo artist. As for Guns I understand your side of it but what Im saying is Axl had the name Guns n Roses before any of those guy's where part of the band,not that they where not a huge part of the show I know they where. Duff & Slash are still great I have Duff's solo CD & Slash's Snake pit it's 5 o' clock some where. I had just read an interview the other day where Tracii Guns brought that he is the other co owner of the Guns n Roses name as well as the LA Guns name. Pantera did not make CD's after Phil the 3 where before him,Phil was not the original singer,he was the replacement. |
|
|
|
Post by hellyeah on Mar 19, 2009 18:13:32 GMT -5
rocknrollmomYou obviously consider Rock to be hard music. I will admit Hard Rock and Metal are my favorite Genres of music, but they do not encompass all of rock music. My Rock experience dates back to Rock's infancy. Since I can remember I have listened to rock probably starting with Elvis when I was 3. And going up through all the phases and sub-genres that have lead to today. Rock N Roll will never die. It is just going through another period of change. The next big thing will revive it. We just have to hope that it is a type of music that we can consider to be worth listening to.
DogfaceSo I reckon, no, Rock N Roll is not dead. It could well be SICK and on life support if you look at todays Rock n Roll "stars" and the type of music they play (if you are not a fan of their style) and I think it needs a good kick up the backside to get it REAL again....but these are interesting times...will it ever happen? Who knows...
It seems we agree, that the current crop of artists and "rock" bands are producing music, but it's simply not to our tastes. We will forever have a bond with the bands that were releasing albums when we were younger, because in their heyday, their music was relevant to us, just as the current bands are relevant to the younger generation, even though we may think it is crap!
Dogface, I agree with every word of your last post. Gold stars and elephant stamps for you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Acekicken on Mar 19, 2009 18:58:27 GMT -5
Quote:
rocknrollmom
wrote to me
You obviously consider Rock to be hard music. I will admit Hard Rock and Metal are my favorite Genres of music, but they do not encompass all of rock music. My Rock experience dates back to Rock's infancy. Since I can remember I have listened to rock probably starting with Elvis when I was 3. And going up through all the phases and sub-genres that have lead to today. Rock N Roll will never die. It is just going through another period of change. The next big thing will revive it. We just have to hope that it is a type of music that we can consider to be worth listening to.
Quote:
While I certainly prefer the majority of it Heavy & Hard my range is not shallow.
I have everything in my collection from Ritchie Valens,to Queen,to Slayer,Megadeth,Creed,The Ramones
Dragonforce,Tod Howarth(Frehley's Comet/Cheep Trick) Judas Priest,Hatebreed
And I was raised on Elvis in movies as well as Spanish music ,Rap,Snoop Dogg,Cypress Hill,Onyx,Ice T
so on I have some Cd's in my collection that my shock some people.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollmom on Mar 19, 2009 20:05:07 GMT -5
Ok let me pose a question here....is Miley Cyrus / Hannah Montana, Hillary Duff, Avril Lavigne, The Jonas Brothers, Lindsay Lohan etc etc the "New Rock N Roll"? Before you start laughing....let me elaborate... In the late 80's, we had the "Hair Metal" bands, ok....and lets face it, the majority of topics these bands wrote about were drinking, partying, girls and cars and fun.... It was very MALE dominated. It was all about fancy clothes, light shows, fireworks, massive stages, huge singalong chorus's, smiles and pretty faces (and big hair)....and target age group was 13 - 25. Fast forward to today....what do all the bands of the "new" generation sing about? Boys, clothes, parties, cars, fun, big singalong chorus's .....innocence....how do they dress? Flashy, sparkly... How is their stage show? Big stages, big lightshow, pyro, acrobatics, and a general FUN time...target age group? 6 - 18 would you say? And it seems dominated by Women (or young girls if we are talking about Miley). They have live bands, playing Guitars, Drums, Bass and Keyboards and Backing Vocallists, just like the Hair Bands of the 80's. The more I look at this "new" breed (and having young kids now is the reason why I HAVE to look at it) the more I think to myself that someone like Miley Cirus is really the Jani Lane of the modern era.....Women in music also seem to be dominating at this time, the circle has turned in that respect as well.... Ive been thinking about this topic all week.... So I reckon, no, Rock N Roll is not dead. It could well be SICK and on life support if you look at todays Rock n Roll "stars" and the type of music they play (if you are not a fan of their style) and I think it needs a good kick up the backside to get it REAL again....but these are interesting times...will it ever happen? Who knows... The only real difference I see between the old and the new is that the Men of the 80's seemed to be marketed as "dangerous" (some of them...some of them were also bubble gum pop stars not naming any names...) whereas today they are marketed as bubble gum sweetness....with the papperazzi and general media looking for ways to show they are not as sweet and innocent as they are portrayed.... Discuss? Am I waaaaaaaay off the mark? I think you hit the nail right on the head. Rock music has always been marketed to teens. The new music is now directed more to TWEENS. Even younger than teens 8-10 year olds with parents with disposable income. Plus a bunch of the acts you mentioned, Miley, Hillary, and the Jo bros all have the backing of a major corporation. Is there a bigger entertainment for that specific age group than Disney? I don't think so. And since I know you have kids, you have to give them the chance to develop their own tastes in music Having said that, some of Miley's and the Jonas Bros music isn't that bad. Like you say, it catches the innocence of the age and I would much rather have young girls listening to bubble gum pop than to some of the other music that's out there. I found it extremely hard to hear Gangsta Rap with lyrics like I'm gonna f...., s.... and beat you, being played at a 4 year olds birthday party. Rock ON!!! |
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollmom on Mar 19, 2009 20:11:27 GMT -5
Ace, I didn't mean to sound condecending. I think all of us have very varied music tastes. Some of our posters are very young music fans compared to some of us, especially me, the old lady of the board.  A lot of my original comments were addressed to them. I apoligized to you by e-mail I hope you will accept it here in public. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogface on Mar 19, 2009 20:52:40 GMT -5
Ok let me pose a question here....is Miley Cyrus / Hannah Montana, Hillary Duff, Avril Lavigne, The Jonas Brothers, Lindsay Lohan etc etc the "New Rock N Roll"? Before you start laughing....let me elaborate... In the late 80's, we had the "Hair Metal" bands, ok....and lets face it, the majority of topics these bands wrote about were drinking, partying, girls and cars and fun.... It was very MALE dominated. It was all about fancy clothes, light shows, fireworks, massive stages, huge singalong chorus's, smiles and pretty faces (and big hair)....and target age group was 13 - 25. Fast forward to today....what do all the bands of the "new" generation sing about? Boys, clothes, parties, cars, fun, big singalong chorus's .....innocence....how do they dress? Flashy, sparkly... How is their stage show? Big stages, big lightshow, pyro, acrobatics, and a general FUN time...target age group? 6 - 18 would you say? And it seems dominated by Women (or young girls if we are talking about Miley). They have live bands, playing Guitars, Drums, Bass and Keyboards and Backing Vocallists, just like the Hair Bands of the 80's. The more I look at this "new" breed (and having young kids now is the reason why I HAVE to look at it) the more I think to myself that someone like Miley Cirus is really the Jani Lane of the modern era.....Women in music also seem to be dominating at this time, the circle has turned in that respect as well.... Ive been thinking about this topic all week.... So I reckon, no, Rock N Roll is not dead. It could well be SICK and on life support if you look at todays Rock n Roll "stars" and the type of music they play (if you are not a fan of their style) and I think it needs a good kick up the backside to get it REAL again....but these are interesting times...will it ever happen? Who knows... The only real difference I see between the old and the new is that the Men of the 80's seemed to be marketed as "dangerous" (some of them...some of them were also bubble gum pop stars not naming any names...) whereas today they are marketed as bubble gum sweetness....with the papperazzi and general media looking for ways to show they are not as sweet and innocent as they are portrayed.... Discuss? Am I waaaaaaaay off the mark? I think you hit the nail right on the head. Rock music has always been marketed to teens. The new music is now directed more to TWEENS. Even younger than teens 8-10 year olds with parents with disposable income. Plus a bunch of the acts you mentioned, Miley, Hillary, and the Jo bros all have the backing of a major corporation. Is there a bigger entertainment for that specific age group than Disney? I don't think so. And since I know you have kids, you have to give them the chance to develop their own tastes in music Having said that, some of Miley's and the Jonas Bros music isn't that bad. Like you say, it catches the innocence of the age and I would much rather have young girls listening to bubble gum pop than to some of the other music that's out there. I found it extremely hard to hear Gangsta Rap with lyrics like I'm gonna f...., s.... and beat you, being played at a 4 year olds birthday party. Rock ON!!! Yep I agree...my son LOVES Hannah Montana (yes yes I know I know....hes just turned 7) and he got the Hannah Montana Live concert DVD. Ive watched it probably 500 bloody times and im sick to death of it, HOWEVER I have to admit, the show that she puts on is fantastic and highly entertaining, reminds me of the Poison "Nuthin But a Good Time" video....and your right, im just letting them explore their own music tastes....I must admit I do put on bands like KISS and Van Halen, AC/DC (who my 4 year old LOVES, he does Angus Young inpersonations) The Who etc etc....just to perhaps subliminally put GOOD Rock music into their heads, but I wont push them...im being subtle about it. Being a musician helps as well, cause they see and hear my music and they enjoy that, so I think they are on the right track...im really looking forward to the next 10 years to see how it all pans out for my kids and for Rock music in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Acekicken on Mar 19, 2009 20:52:57 GMT -5
Ace, I didn't mean to sound condecending. I think all of us have very varied music tastes. Some of our posters are very young music fans compared to some of us, especially me, the old lady of the board. A lot of my original comments were addressed to them. I apoligized to you by e-mail I hope you will accept it here in public. It's all good,Absolutely I accept it . You have always' been true & I respect that & your opinion. Yes many are young & I love that to. It's more proof Rock n Roll is forever. I'm really thinking about Dogface post,man you raised my eyebrow brother If it was not so true there might be a debate lol. haaaaa((*_*)). |
|
Leanne
Youth Gone Wild
Posts: 222
|
Post by Leanne on Mar 19, 2009 22:58:43 GMT -5
how can a band BE a band with 90% of it missing......
|
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollmom on Mar 20, 2009 0:24:24 GMT -5
Dog and Ace, My daughters growing up though that the only music there was was the Beatles, the Stones and the Doors, because that was all MOM ever played. But it goes in reverse too. I went to see The Bangles with a whole group of 12 year olds. - it was to be my daughters second concert, we had Bon Jovi tix but the Bangles concert happened first. I got back into guitar driven rock music because my younger daughter Tina, 15 at the time, wanted to go to a club that was infamous for underage drinking, drugs and violence to see some band called Skid Row. Well, I asked around and most people who knew about it responded with you can't let her go there!!! Besides what I already said about it, L'Amour was in the middle of noplace in an industrial area of Brooklyn. She did go, under the conditions that MOM went with her. I fell in love with rock music all over again, and went on to go to many more shows at L'Amour. My other daughter had extremely different taste. I also attended multiple New Kids On the Block events as well as the Backstreet Boys. Both bands put on really good shows. If my Headbanging daughter and my very poppy, preppy daughter can agree to appreciate each others music, there is hope for the rest of us |
|
metal4life
Mudkicker
"He who has made a beast of himself has relieved himself of the pain of being human."
Posts: 67
|
Post by metal4life on Mar 20, 2009 3:23:07 GMT -5
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Rock music has always been marketed to teens. The new music is now directed more to TWEENS. Even younger than teens 8-10 year olds with parents with disposable income. Plus a bunch of the acts you mentioned, Miley, Hillary, and the Jo bros all have the backing of a major corporation. Is there a bigger entertainment for that specific age group than Disney? I don't think so. And since I know you have kids, you have to give them the chance to develop their own tastes in music Having said that, some of Miley's and the Jonas Bros music isn't that bad. Like you say, it catches the innocence of the age and I would much rather have young girls listening to bubble gum pop than to some of the other music that's out there. I found it extremely hard to hear Gangsta Rap with lyrics like I'm gonna f...., s.... and beat you, being played at a 4 year olds birthday party. Rock ON!!! Yep I agree...my son LOVES Hannah Montana (yes yes I know I know....hes just turned 7) and he got the Hannah Montana Live concert DVD. Ive watched it probably 500 bloody times and im sick to death of it, HOWEVER I have to admit, the show that she puts on is fantastic and highly entertaining, reminds me of the Poison "Nuthin But a Good Time" video....and your right, im just letting them explore their own music tastes....I must admit I do put on bands like KISS and Van Halen, AC/DC (who my 4 year old LOVES, he does Angus Young inpersonations) The Who etc etc....just to perhaps subliminally put GOOD Rock music into their heads, but I wont push them...im being subtle about it. Being a musician helps as well, cause they see and hear my music and they enjoy that, so I think they are on the right track...im really looking forward to the next 10 years to see how it all pans out for my kids and for Rock music in general. Hey matt, Your observations were quite insightful. But i take strong exception to some of ur comments. I don't mean to sound condescending towards Miley Cyrus,but equating Jani lane to a musical neophyte like her is a very poor comparison indeed. Jani lane was a songwriter and composer par excellence. I can safely say that miley cyrus doesn't possess the talent to compose an epic like "I saw red". Nor will she get away with it if she writes anything akin to "cherry pie" which without doubt will be deemed downright "dirty" by her fans and the press. I also wud like to disagree on one more count -- the so-called hair-metal bands were not just abt. flashy costumes and over-the-top stage shows!! Personally,my taste is more inclined towards prog and thrash but i've great respect for the oft-maligned hair-bands. For-starters hair-metal produced a shitload of awesome guitarists(George lynch, Vito Brattta, Dan wexler etc etc). The genre also produced some of the greatest vocalists ever (including our very own sebastian bach) There is a a widepread yet misplaced perception amongst fans of "heavy" metal that hair-metal is devoid of talent. I strongly refute that claim and i reiterate that the so-called "hair-metal" was loaded with talented musicians!! I've digressed from the topic but i think i needed to defend this much-maligned genre!! |
|
|
|
Post by mattiecocky on Mar 20, 2009 8:27:24 GMT -5
Well this video shows how I spent last summer, going from show to show. I say No rock is NOT dying, now that I'm old enough to drive and have a little money to go to the concerts; it is more alive now than ever to me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogface on Mar 20, 2009 9:29:36 GMT -5
Yep I agree...my son LOVES Hannah Montana (yes yes I know I know....hes just turned 7) and he got the Hannah Montana Live concert DVD. Ive watched it probably 500 bloody times and im sick to death of it, HOWEVER I have to admit, the show that she puts on is fantastic and highly entertaining, reminds me of the Poison "Nuthin But a Good Time" video....and your right, im just letting them explore their own music tastes....I must admit I do put on bands like KISS and Van Halen, AC/DC (who my 4 year old LOVES, he does Angus Young inpersonations) The Who etc etc....just to perhaps subliminally put GOOD Rock music into their heads, but I wont push them...im being subtle about it. Being a musician helps as well, cause they see and hear my music and they enjoy that, so I think they are on the right track...im really looking forward to the next 10 years to see how it all pans out for my kids and for Rock music in general. Hey matt, Your observations were quite insightful. But i take strong exception to some of ur comments. I don't mean to sound condescending towards Miley Cyrus,but equating Jani lane to a musical neophyte like her is a very poor comparison indeed. Jani lane was a songwriter and composer par excellence. I can safely say that miley cyrus doesn't possess the talent to compose an epic like "I saw red". Nor will she get away with it if she writes anything akin to "cherry pie" which without doubt will be deemed downright "dirty" by her fans and the press. I also wud like to disagree on one more count -- the so-called hair-metal bands were not just abt. flashy costumes and over-the-top stage shows!! Personally,my taste is more inclined towards prog and thrash but i've great respect for the oft-maligned hair-bands. For-starters hair-metal produced a shitload of awesome guitarists(George lynch, Vito Brattta, Dan wexler etc etc). The genre also produced some of the greatest vocalists ever (including our very own sebastian bach) There is a a widepread yet misplaced perception amongst fans of "heavy" metal that hair-metal is devoid of talent. I strongly refute that claim and i reiterate that the so-called "hair-metal" was loaded with talented musicians!! I've digressed from the topic but i think i needed to defend this much-maligned genre!! Naaa I was never having a crack at Hair Metal man, I LOVE the genre, its pretty much what I grew up on! With regard to the Miley / Jani thing...im talking from an IMAGE standpoint ONLY...there is absolutely no doubting that the genre produced some amazing musicans, but im moreso relating the image of todays rock n roll being not much different to what was portreyed in the mid - late 80s...im telling ya, go and watch the Miley Cirus 3d Concert film and you will see that the stage show is not dissimilar to the Poison Nothin But A Good Time film clip.....by the way im not generally into defending Miley, but she does write her own songs and for a 16 year old pop rock songwriter shes pretty bloody good....how much influence her dad has in the writing we will never know, but at 16, if the industry dosent burn her out, she has a big future. Hillary Duff's stage show and image is similar, as is Avril....I like Avril, ive got a couple of her albums. Anyway I just look at the young crop today and I see similarities to the 80's, just marketed to a younger audience. 80's Hair Metal was fantastic man, it's right up there for me as my favorite genre of music, because it ALWAYS puts a smile on my face. I agree with you, but I reckon a kid of say 8 to 14 dosent really care much for how well a song is written, its the IMAGE that gets them in....I can remember being 14 and watching Jon Bon Jovi fly across the stage with a boom box held to his head and all the hair and spandex and sequins and lights and people going crazy and I thought "this is the most amazing thing ive ever seen"!!!! I didnt look at Sambora and think "wow hes an awesome guitarist" (even though he is) I just thought he looked COOL! I remember listening to KISS when I was about 8 and being transfixed by the makeup and the stage show, it was out of this world. The words were easy to remember and easy to sing, I loved it....ive watched my Nieces and Nephews grow up doing the exact same thing and now I see it in my own kids. Anyway im rambling...No Miley might not be as good a songwriter as Jani, but the image is more what im trying to get at here...and maybe I could have chosen a better comparison than Jani Lane, but hopefully you know what im getting at... |
|
metal4life
Mudkicker
"He who has made a beast of himself has relieved himself of the pain of being human."
Posts: 67
|
Post by metal4life on Mar 20, 2009 10:25:11 GMT -5
Hey matt, Your observations were quite insightful. But i take strong exception to some of ur comments. I don't mean to sound condescending towards Miley Cyrus,but equating Jani lane to a musical neophyte like her is a very poor comparison indeed. Jani lane was a songwriter and composer par excellence. I can safely say that miley cyrus doesn't possess the talent to compose an epic like "I saw red". Nor will she get away with it if she writes anything akin to "cherry pie" which without doubt will be deemed downright "dirty" by her fans and the press. I also wud like to disagree on one more count -- the so-called hair-metal bands were not just abt. flashy costumes and over-the-top stage shows!! Personally,my taste is more inclined towards prog and thrash but i've great respect for the oft-maligned hair-bands. For-starters hair-metal produced a shitload of awesome guitarists(George lynch, Vito Brattta, Dan wexler etc etc). The genre also produced some of the greatest vocalists ever (including our very own sebastian bach) There is a a widepread yet misplaced perception amongst fans of "heavy" metal that hair-metal is devoid of talent. I strongly refute that claim and i reiterate that the so-called "hair-metal" was loaded with talented musicians!! I've digressed from the topic but i think i needed to defend this much-maligned genre!! Naaa I was never having a crack at Hair Metal man, I LOVE the genre, its pretty much what I grew up on! With regard to the Miley / Jani thing...im talking from an IMAGE standpoint ONLY...there is absolutely no doubting that the genre produced some amazing musicans, but im moreso relating the image of todays rock n roll being not much different to what was portreyed in the mid - late 80s...im telling ya, go and watch the Miley Cirus 3d Concert film and you will see that the stage show is not dissimilar to the Poison Nothin But A Good Time film clip.....by the way im not generally into defending Miley, but she does write her own songs and for a 16 year old pop rock songwriter shes pretty bloody good....how much influence her dad has in the writing we will never know, but at 16, if the industry dosent burn her out, she has a big future. Hillary Duff's stage show and image is similar, as is Avril....I like Avril, ive got a couple of her albums. Anyway I just look at the young crop today and I see similarities to the 80's, just marketed to a younger audience. 80's Hair Metal was fantastic man, it's right up there for me as my favorite genre of music, because it ALWAYS puts a smile on my face. I agree with you, but I reckon a kid of say 8 to 14 dosent really care much for how well a song is written, its the IMAGE that gets them in....I can remember being 14 and watching Jon Bon Jovi fly across the stage with a boom box held to his head and all the hair and spandex and sequins and lights and people going crazy and I thought "this is the most amazing thing ive ever seen"!!!! I didnt look at Sambora and think "wow hes an awesome guitarist" (even though he is) I just thought he looked COOL! I remember listening to KISS when I was about 8 and being transfixed by the makeup and the stage show, it was out of this world. The words were easy to remember and easy to sing, I loved it....ive watched my Nieces and Nephews grow up doing the exact same thing and now I see it in my own kids. Anyway im rambling...No Miley might not be as good a songwriter as Jani, but the image is more what im trying to get at here...and maybe I could have chosen a better comparison than Jani Lane, but hopefully you know what im getting at... Ok thanks for the clarification Anyway i don't think virtuosic guitar-based rock/metal is going to die anytime soon!! Some of the nderground bands(Firewind, Edguy) have revived the tradition of the guitar solo. They are putting out awesome albums!! Chk them out!! But i do agree that the days of the "Massive" rock band are well and truly over!! Anyways rock on!! |
|
|
|
Post by baranthalas on Mar 20, 2009 13:06:37 GMT -5
i m going to quote something from the movie "wrestler",
cassidy: i love this song !
randy: goddamn they don't make em' like they used to.
cassidy: fuckin' 80's man, best shit ever !
randy: bet'chr ass man, guns n' roses! rules.
cassidy: crue!
randy: yeah!
cassidy: def lep!
randy: then that cobain pussy had to come around & ruin it all.
cassidy: like theres something wrong, why not just have a good time?
randy: i'll tell you somethin', i hate the fuckin' 90's.
for me, the reason being alive is having a good time. if i am not having a good time why should i bother surviving in this world right ? and how the hell you gonna have fun when the world you are livin in is soooooo messed up ? i mean, unemployment is off the charts, every country is trying to invade some other country etc etc. the world is not a happy place atm. in 60's, 70's 80's and even in 90's there were wars going on but rock n roll could say "fuck you, we want peace !!" new bands dont have the guts to say that. why ? because they have to earn money. how do they earn money ? by obeying the rules. and those rules are set by big fat ugly son of a bitch corporations. back in the days rock n roll could stand against corp. because the world wasnt a big machine.
when you are young, lets say 15-16 years old, you are rebel against every rule. when you are around 18 you wanna have fun, drink and get laid. teenagers could find they wanted in 80's rock. now they cant. i mean, how the fuck would someone get pumped up by listening to avril lavigne or franz ferdinand ?
all you read above is not what i wanted to say when i started writing ;D i jumped from topic to topic so it may not make sense but you get what i mean dont ya ? i really should stop "smoking"...
|
|
A lot of my original comments were addressed to them.