24 Sep 09
Originally posted by Seitsethis is a load of s**t.
Hence, any rock band taking itself too seriously sucks.
This is pure FACT.
So much of a fact that, despite not being properly a "rock" band, here's the last real rock band of the 20th century.
[b]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4PN7Xbexq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXZ3yUZTlrA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzaFGMQRBfs
Indie rockers, ...[text shortened]... fans, and Cobain zombies please abstain to post here. Or, better yet, try to stop breathing.[/b]
24 Sep 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesVery good point made, mate.
the Beastie Boys were indeed a great group. And I would definitely consider them to be a rock band.
I like the way they blended traditional rock with 80's hip-hop to come up with something wasn't really "either". But isn't that kind of what "rock" is supposed to be about?
Not sure if "irreverence" has anything to do with it, though -- isn't everyone ...[text shortened]... REALLY wants to be rebellious, they should put out something that sounds like Abba.
What would be irreverent to your taste?
24 Sep 09
Originally posted by SeitseI guess the most irreverent thing to me is when I get the feeling that someone is just lazily stringing together a bunch of lyrical and musical cliches. Pop cliches, Rock cliches, Punk cliches, R&B cliches, Hip-Hop cliches.
Very good point made, mate.
What would be irreverent to your taste?
It used to be that there would be many songs that mentioned specific names, places, events, etc. A running joke I have with my brother is if some song comes on from the past that mentions a person's name in it, we go "there's no way that would ever get played today!!"
I do agree with you on the importance of groups not taking themselves too seriously. It's good to fool around with different styles. Experiment with new genres. Learn to play an unusual instrument.
I've always wondered what would happen if you took artists of extremely different genres and put them in a studio and just let them jam for awhile. Maybe something like Kanye West, Toby Keith, and Bjork. Who knows what would come out of it? But this sort of thing is rarely done.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesBeing a person with no musical education, I tend to judge music by (i) the
I guess the most irreverent thing to me is when I get the feeling that someone is just lazily stringing together a bunch of lyrical and musical cliches. Pop cliches, Rock cliches, Punk cliches, R&B cliches, Hip-Hop cliches.
It used to be that there would be many songs that mentioned specific names, places, events, etc. A running joke I have with my br ...[text shortened]... th, and Bjork. Who knows what would come out of it? But this sort of thing is rarely done.
cultural significance in it, and (ii) how it sounds to my ear.
Björk, for example, is groundbreaking, indeed, and it represents a certain
attitude towards life... but: is it rock what she does? Culturally, I would say
maybe.
