There are a handful of bands from the 90's onwards who *can* play, but, unfortunately, the vast majority are talentless nobodies who have no place in the music world.
But teenagers these days have no experience of *real* music ~ they are constantly fed the rubbish that's on the radio and tv.
I absolutely *love* the Classic Rock of the 60's and 70's, and some of the 80's Rock, but as you say, they knew how to make music back then.
2007-12-21 07:29:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lady Silver Rose * Wolf 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm very much on Rckets side on this argument. There is great new rock out there and will be for a long time, and I do think it has just evolved, not de-volved. All generations have been flooded with crap imitators of the originals, and you can't expect this one to be different. But todays good rockers aren't going to sound like the old guys, that would be boring. Even the good "revivalists" don't sound much like what they're reviving, in fact I think calling a band like the Strokes a garage rock revival band is a shame, it seems like we're all determined to compare things to the past, thinking regressively. The problem is a lack of new ideas, because after 50 something years it's kind of really hard to come up with something that hasn't been beaten to death already, but so many people constantly saying that nothing will ever be as good as the old stuff doesn't help. The standard rock formula has been perfected and played out, the new things shouldn't sound like standard rock, or it better be a great twist on it at least. But ever since the day that rock came to be there has been less and less to experiment with, rock isn't dying, it's just running out of new places to go, it couldn't evolve forever. And I agree with you that the suits are ruining music, but all that means is that we've got to dig a little harder to find the goodies, that kind of thing has been going on for a long long time, it's nothing very new. But the good artists will still manage to get their stuff out there, and when there's a good new band out in modern times they deserve just as much credit as the old guys. We have to remember, it's not a fact that old music is better than new music, that's an opinion, personally I'd rather listen to The Strokes, Babyshambles, Common Rider, the Hives, and Gogol Bordello than Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Beatles. Oh and I hear the band The 1990's debut album this year, Cookies, was really good too.
2016-05-25 05:54:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The music industry want hits now!!! It's not like it once was, where they sign a band give them a 3 or 4 record deal and let them work their craft! They don't let them grow!!! They want money now and if you don't sell, they drop you!!! And on top of that, they reproduce the same sound with 5 different bands!!! Kids today have no integrity!!! They do whatever the records companies tell them and they think their music is good!!!
But if you ask me, it's the doubt kids that buy these crap records!!! If you don't buy them, they will go away and stop making music!!! Keep listening to the old bands, they knew what was up and they still do!!! ROCK ON!!!
2007-12-20 13:02:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well if you listen to mainstream rock bands that always get air play then most of what you'll hear is crap. THough the White Stripes are really talented.. have you even listened to their stuff? Don't just say that all bands today suck just because all you hear are bands like Nickleback or Flyleaf. You need to actually look for them, but they're out there. THey may not be as popular or as mainstream, but there are very talented groups out there with incredible musicians.
2007-12-20 13:15:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by iamme210 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Disagree. People use to say the same thing about Chuck Berry and Elvis.
There are plenty of post-70's bands that play good music (Jamiroquai, Rage Against the Machine, Veruca Salt, Suicidal Tendencies, Bauhaus, The Smiths, The Cure, Siouxsie and the Banshees, U2, Bad Religion, Descendents, X, Redd Kross, Sugarcubes, Wonder Stuff, Mary's Danish, Red Hot Chili Peppers, the Donnas, Devotchkas, Underdog, Fugazi, etc. etc. etc.
2007-12-20 13:11:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by mister-damus 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I disagree... I listen to some classic rock but I also love some of the new bands. It's about the music, not about the era or image a group uses to put their music out there... a bunch of skinny f***s dancing around in eyeliner can still have the capacity to totally rock out
I think you're missing some amazing music if you restrict yourself to bands from the 60s and 70s...
There's crap out now and there was crap out then... but some music will be universally amazing, and that's what it's all about, isn't it...
2007-12-20 12:52:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by ferretspyz 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
That is because somewhere along the way, bands became able to sell records based on visual appeal. After that point, real musical talent became a secondary trait, and was not truly required.
2007-12-20 12:50:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by A Symptom Of The Universe 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Agree 90%
There are a few that have musical talent but not too many.
2007-12-21 07:32:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Beatle fanatic 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jack White does know how to play. That's why Bob Dylan brings him on stage with him. Look further and you'll find the music you want.
2007-12-20 13:06:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by eraine2001 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
yeah basically it's nothing more than thousands of rehashes of nirvana's music. We need to go back to our roots of Simon and Garfunkel, and Bob Dylan.
2007-12-20 13:08:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by mcelhinp 4
·
2⤊
1⤋