Members Poker99 Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 THERE IS TOO MANY {censored}ING BANDS! Just quit you bastards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarsjb Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 You first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihateyouguys Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 no, the problem is that there ARE too many bands. And 99% of them just plain suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cherri Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 The main problem with the industry is greed. Same as any industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheLuxLife Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 Yeah...I know it's a little mean to smile when someone says their band broke up, but...I do. They probably sucked anyway. -J.P. LUX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gtrbass Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 And the winner is.... GUITAR CENTER:thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members emdub123 Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 yep, too many bands. most suck big time, including those on the radio. CDBaby, Itunes, Soundclick, MySpace all feature bands that mostly suck. The magazines give great reviews to records that suck and feature interviews with bands that I don't care about because they suck. If my band ever gets to a point where we don't suck, we'll take over the world. In the meantime, we're lost in the sea of suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted December 20, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 The term "ocean" would be more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sethster Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 if u know how to work the industry right... you should be fine. regardless or not if there are too many bands. Also if you're GOOD you should be fine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nick Steen Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 Originally posted by Poker99 The term "ocean" would be more appropriate. You mean cosmos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 Originally posted by emdub123 yep, too many bands. most suck big time, including those on the radio. CDBaby, Itunes, Soundclick, MySpace all feature bands that mostly suck. The magazines give great reviews to records that suck and feature interviews with bands that I don't care about because they suck.If my band ever gets to a point where we don't suck, we'll take over the world. In the meantime, we're lost in the sea of suck. That's what I think too. When a band like Radiohead gets insanely popular, I'm chuffed. It's really ncie when awesome groups get their kudos. Current music trends are at a really low ebb. People don't write songs anymore, they write {censored}. Bring back the 60s and 70s man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheLuxLife Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 Originally posted by Staticnz That's what I think too. When a band like Radiohead gets insanely popular, I'm chuffed. It's really ncie when awesome groups get their kudos. Current music trends are at a really low ebb. People don't write songs anymore, they write {censored}. Bring back the 60s and 70s man. Why? You'll just download it, and not buy it. LOL -J.P. LUX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 Well, my credibility around here has been destroyed...how long's it been, 2 days? A new record! *breaks out the champagne* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members emdub123 Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 Originally posted by Staticnz Current music trends are at a really low ebb. People don't write songs anymore, they write {censored}. Bring back the 60s and 70s man. I know what you mean, but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the music produced in the 60s and 70s was crap too. It's just that over time, the cream rises to the top and you can sort the crap from the good stuff much easier because the crap fades away into obscurity, while the good stuff sticks around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted December 21, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 Originally posted by sethster if u know how to work the industry right... you should be fine. regardless or not if there are too many bands. Also if you're GOOD you should be fine... That MUST mean Pimple Plan and Panic In My Anus are good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Delle_Rose Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 Originally posted by Poker99 That MUST mean Pimple Plan and Panic In My Anus are good In all fairness, Panic! At the Disco got signed before ever playing a single show... So, while they may not be good (in fact, they're horrible), they obviously did something right (even if it was a naive accident). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 Originally posted by emdub123 I know what you mean, but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the music produced in the 60s and 70s was crap too.It's just that over time, the cream rises to the top and you can sort the crap from the good stuff much easier because the crap fades away into obscurity, while the good stuff sticks around. I would agree, but popular music in the 60s and 70s was a shedload better than popular music today. Are you telling me groups like Simple Plan, My Chemical Romance, Gwen Stefani and whatever have an iota of anything on say The Beatles, Cream, The Beach Boys, Deep Purple, Queen, yada yada etc. add infinity? I don't mean music in general, specifically popular music. Even some of the worst of the 80s had more going for it than most popular music today. There is a 'cream of a crop' around still for sure but it's definitely more inundated in noticeably worse music. and as people get more lost for new ideas it just gets {censored}tier and {censored}tier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scafeets Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 too much dopetoo much boozetoo much egonot enough talentnot enough integritynot enough musical knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Delle_Rose Posted December 22, 2006 Members Share Posted December 22, 2006 Originally posted by Staticnz I would agree, but popular music in the 60s and 70s was a shedload better than popular music today. Are you telling me groups like Simple Plan, My Chemical Romance, Gwen Stefani and whatever have an iota of anything on say The Beatles, Cream, The Beach Boys, Deep Purple, Queen, yada yada etc. add infinity? Did Deep Purple and Cream ever really have much chart success? They were famous, yeah, but The Carpenters owned the charts. And frankly, I personally MUCH prefer My Chemical Romance and Simple Plan to, well, basically ever 60s/70s band you mentioned except The Beatles and Queen, and I don't like MCR or SP. And even in the 60s/70s, great acts such as T. Rex, Jobriath, Lou Reed, etc... were largely pushed aside (at least in the US... T. Rex was HUGE in the UK) to make way for cock-rock wankers who shall remain nameless *cough*ledzeppelin*cough* So yeah... charts are pretty much the same. Frankly, I'd still pretty much agree that the late 60s/early 70s were a bit better if only because of attitude (no one around now has as revolutionary a vision as The Beatles or T. Rex) and the style suits my taste a bit better... though in all fairness, I probably wouldn't if I were alive then... and I still hate stoner prog/cock/whatever rock which is what the era is now remembered for... but mod/glam/ye-ye/etc... w00t. ramble ramble ramble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted December 22, 2006 Members Share Posted December 22, 2006 Well I didn't mention many bands, but I'm an obsessive 60s/70s/occasionally 80s/90s listener. Mostly 60s and 70s. I think the past 5 years or so have been really poor for music in the popular world. I mean there really isn't much worse than Simple Plan. You turn on the tv today every goddamned band sounds the same. Cock-rockers like Led Zeppelin may not have been the best but their music crushes anything on the radio today. I think the likes of Deep Purple and Cream had something more than chart success, they had a huge amount of obsessive fans and really lead a kind of counter-culture mystique. That sort of thing is missing completely in music today, that 'spark'. I can only sense it in a few groups around like Radiohead and they've been around a while already. Bands these days are obsessed with looking and sounding like everyone else instead of having their own identity. Mainly how you turn on the TV and every band has the same hair-cut, postures and dance moves. Once they have their own image they tend to pummel it into the ground by posing too much. Perhaps I'm just overly cynical but I think music in general has seen it's best days. I think what I'm really saying is too many bands want to project an image of something rather than genuinely be it. You can tell when something is the real deal. And generally those kinds of artists are the ones that last the test of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarmonster Posted December 26, 2006 Members Share Posted December 26, 2006 Are y'all on drugs?! I'm not sure when berating Zep suddenly became fashionable, but you're all full of crap. Led Zep was a visonary group of exceptionally talented players who would wipe their asses with all of you. Oh, but I agree with the rest of the industry sucking though, it's a big stinking pile of suck. That being said , I really think it's more of an industry problem than an artistic one. You can't really believe there isn't any talent out there at all. The problem is the business is run by business men, not artists. Conversely, most musicians are terrible business people, so there you go... Learn to manage ourselves and maybe we can undermine the industry, at least to a reasonable degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ZigZagWanderer Posted December 26, 2006 Members Share Posted December 26, 2006 First, I don't think there is a "problem" with the industry--other than that there are too many bands and not enough fans, which I think somebody already mentioned. Did anyone ever tell any one of us that making a career in music would be easy? Didn't we already know how hard it was--even if you are exceptionally talented, driven and with great connections--before we ever got into this game? Second, everybody's impression of what the music business should be like is based on the salad days of the late '60s through the '70s. A bunch of different factors combined to make rock music the most important thing in most young people's lives. You had a huge group of young people--baby boomers--with a lot of disposable income, a wide-reaching media (but with fewer outlets), and no competetion from computers, video games and DVD rentals. That means that everybody heard and experienced the same Beatles records, Stones records, whatever--it was a shared generational experience. That can't happen again. There are too many channels, too many other things for people to do than sit around and listen to records. Contrast a music star from, say, the '40s to one from the '60s. Guys like Glen Miller or Kay Kaiser were really successful entertainers who made a great living. But they didn't own their generation the way John Lennon or Bob Dylan did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted December 27, 2006 Members Share Posted December 27, 2006 Originally posted by guitarmonster Are y'all on drugs?!I'm not sure when berating Zep suddenly became fashionable, but you're all full of crap. Led Zep was a visonary group of exceptionally talented players who would wipe their asses with all of you. I have no doubt about that, I just find their music lacking somehow. It doesn't rock enough and yet is shallow and bleurgh. I think they were very poor song-writers in general. Even Black Sabbath beats them there WITHOUT the simplistic yet insanely memorable riffs and stoner goodness. Robert Plant is a bone-head, Jimmy Page is overrated. That's not to say I don't think they've written only bad songs, at their best I love Led Zep...Rock N' Roll, Immigrant Song, No Quarter, but OVERALL...I find them kinda {censored}ty. I dislike most of the first two albums and at least half of each album thereafter. Gimmee Deep Purple or Black Sabbath...anytime! Deep Purple has Led Zep beat on EVERY front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarmonster Posted December 27, 2006 Members Share Posted December 27, 2006 Check out the live DVD box-set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lawrenceofar Posted January 14, 2007 Members Share Posted January 14, 2007 Check out the live DVD box-set. +1,000,000,000:love: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.