[Bonesaw85]

Don't know how I fail to show videos on this forum, but Dusk Dismantled and Inception of the End by Trivium show a sweet depiction of Moons Spawn!

[QuickTidal]

I made a post at the blog about music today. It's in rather broad strokes, but it's a rant, so you know...LOL

Read it HERE

[Binder of Demons]

King Kazma, on 28 July 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

I made a post at the blog about music today. It's in rather broad strokes, but it's a rant, so you know...LOL

Read it HERE

Nice blog post. Not sure if i agree exactly with you though, as I'm pretty sure every generation goes through this, bemoaning the standard of current music compared to those influential artists of their formative years.

A difficulty with looking back at music sales from the 90's and comparing them to the itunes charts of today, is that people are consuming music in different ways (making direct comparisons problematic).

I think the quality of acts is probably just as good as before, however genres have become even more fractured, and it can be difficult to find the great stuff hidden in the steaming piles of manufactured pop acts. I personally listen to podcasts from the likes of NPR, KEXP and CBC radio to give me a feel for some of the alternative music coming out these days, and there is plenty of great stuff, in my opinion.

Plus I remember living through the "Stock, Aitken and Waterman" days of pop music in the UK music scene in the 80's/90's (which spilled over to Ireland as well). That music may have been pretty inoffensive compared to many of today's pop acts, but it was just as annoying in it's own way.

[Tapper]

Meh.


First off: your comparisons are off. Basically, you're picking songs that are * somewhat * mainstream for the 1990s and comparing it against complete commerical current crap. Secondly, you firmly restrict yourself to the rock/alternative scene and comparing that against noughties' deliberate and commercially hyped mainstream just does not fly. Now, I was sixteen in 1997 so I missed a good part of the nineties, but to put non-message against non-message, well:

Cypress Hill did Hand on the Pump, and if you listen to Shamrock and Shenanigans and Jump Around by good old House of Pain, I just see a lot of nonsense there as well. Sabotage by the Beastie Boys? Awesome song, but they were still not serious for much of the nineties. California Love by the apparently great lyricist Tupac is soleley about partying and for much of the nineties was the only Tupac song I knew. Compare Everlasts'

Quote

I'll leave with your hotty
And I'll take her home
Lay her down on her back
And I'll make her moan

(House of Pain, keep it Coming)

to Pitbull and you won't see much difference, but ask any guy who loved HoP and they'll say House was awesome and Pitbull is commercial crap. You had DJ Shadow, but also the 2 Live Crew. I guess that's LMFAO nowadays, but hey, we saw Outkast deliver great innovative stuff, and the Talib Kwelis compensate for the 50 Cents of this world in the last decade.

In dance, for every Underworld (still going strong) there was a 2 Unlimited or a Venga Boys in the 90s. You had Roni Size then doing refined big beats, but you also had the Prodigy make Smack my Bitch Up, Firestarter, Fuck 'm And Their Law, none of which contains a hidden meaning or oozes subtlety (but are damned great nonetheless). Their high quality equivalents are easy to find in the noughties; James Blake, Felix da Housecat, Deadmau5, Gonjasufi, Pendulum.

In pop/rock, let's not forget that Bon Jovi, Bryan Adams and to a lesser extent U2 provided pretty bad average aimed-at-the-masses rock of the kind that currently seems somewhat extinct, the same for the boy bands that used to pollute the charts. My own heroes(the Fun Lovin' Criminals made damned catchy pop/rock with a hint of chill-out jazz at times but ehm, Big Night Out is contentwise hardly better than Katy Perry and Bump may be about homophobia but it is mostly about hitting on a girl. And if forced to choose between Beyonce and hmm, lemme see, Toni Braxton or Mariah Carey, I'll be happily listening to Beyonce any day. Fuck, Kanye West just last year made perhaps one of the fifteen best rap albums ever.

The main thing is this: mainstream has gotten a lot more exposure and marketing is getting better and better and manages through tv, internet and commercials to reach their target groups of pre-teens a lot easier, influencing them and pushing them into a mainstream market.

But then, what's new? My parents loved Fairport Convention, Van De Graaf Generator, Led Zeppelin, Motown and the Stones, and only for the last few years can I appreciate their taste - and the blues and jazz that precedes that. Y'know, I may get into country next, and from there into classic folk and into medieval lute shit. Maybe that will teach me to finally appreciate Arcade Fire, which imho is nothing special, but the critics rave and rant about them, so maybe I get it wrong?

To recap: imho, there simply is no grand age of awesome music.

[QuickTidal]

@Tapper:

Oh indeed, and that's why I stated that I was painting with broad strokes in my post, thus my comparisons are not flawed so much as...just what I chose. I actually think if you sat down and crunched the numbers of what out there today is GOOD....and what isn't...it just wouldn't stand up. I mentioned there was crap in every era, but that the ratio was more in the favour of good stuff that was ON THE RADIO. So yeah, in that case what were the two biggest music genre's of the 1990's (fuck HoP, they were around for one album...one hit wonders) Alternative rock (which I concentrated on) and Electronic...had I gone into Electronic the numbers would have jumped even further into my favour as most Electronic stuff these days is fairly bad (with Exceptions like Above & Beyond, Tiesto, and Armin Van Buuren), whereas during the burgeoning Better Living Through Circuitry-Era of Electronic music during the 90's there were MULTIPLE DJ's and acts that would blow shit away today. This is why the BEST Ministry Of Sound compilations come from that decade.

No, every decade has its crap, but right now there is more crap than good....and in the 90's there was (especially when you add electronic music to that) much more GOOD IMNSHO.

As to rap I don't really count it as it's always about bitches and money and sex...NOW Hip Hop (The Roots, Raekwon, ect.) is a totally different story. Hip Hop artists can really make interesting compelling music about the state of things in their era and set it to good rhythms and beats. Shit like HoP and Wu Tang don't count, as they were bound to be mindless crap.

[Solidsnape]

[quote name='Tapper' timestamp='1311933888' post='883735']


Y'know, I may get into country next, and from there into classic folk and into medieval lute shit. Maybe that will teach me to finally appreciate Arcade Fire, which imho is nothing special, but the critics rave and rant about them, so maybe I get it wrong?


Just be very careful, this is exactly what happened to Ritchie Blackmore!


I couldn't agree more with what you said.

I would add this:
The main difference between today's 'big' acts and yesteryears 'big' acts, is todays big acts haven't paid there dues or learned their trade playing every shitty social club in the country. This used to be HOW you got famous before.
The upshot being that when you did make it to the big time, you knew what you were doing because you'd been playing these songs live for months if not years.
Too many of today's live acts are relying on auto-tune, backing music and even extra musicians to produce that 'studio' sound on stage. Ironic really, considering the 'studio' sound is generally not 'real'.
This is why I love and applaud the new made-in-my-fucking-garage-raw-as-fuck Foo Fighters album, Wasting Light.

It's is so the shizzle.


Anyway, for me it's just talent I want to see.
You can be anyone for me, if you're talented I'll listen.
That's why I don't prefer any particular genre, if someone's going to play an instrument like a god (see Tommy Emmanule) or sing like an angel (forgive my christian pantheonic references), then I'll be ready to listen.

Btw, arcade fire ARE really good.
Just listen.

[Rhand]

Ray Orbison - Pretty Woman (Electroshoot Remix)



Pretty damn good.

[Tapper]

King Kazma, on 29 July 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

@Tapper:

Oh indeed, and that's why I stated that I was painting with broad strokes in my post, thus my comparisons are not flawed so much as...just what I chose.

If you wish to discuss the state of being of things, you can't pigeonhole yourself to what you choose and use it as an argument without devaluating your own rhetorical position, perhaps beyond the point of recovery.

Quote

I actually think if you sat down and crunched the numbers of what out there today is GOOD....and what isn't...it just wouldn't stand up. I mentioned there was crap in every era, but that the ratio was more in the favour of good stuff that was ON THE RADIO.

Or perhaps it is just nostalgia because you grew up then and didn't know better. I'm sure that if you gather twenty girls who are born around 94-96 and put them in a room and forced them to listen to 90s radio for an afternoon and ask them to jot something down they like, then do the same with today's radio, today's radio would come out ahead.
Ehm, also.... the 90s: Whitney Houston, Gloria Estefan, Prince's worst decade, Bobby Brown, Doctor Alban, 4 Non blondes, Garbage (heck I own and love their cds, so I feel entitled to say it's for 56% melodramatic menstruation music), Eagle Eye Cherry, East 17 (my ears bleed), Charles and Eddy, Haddaway, teaspoon (sex on the beach, lalalalalalalalalala), Metallica's fake mainstream decade, and the real rise of the gangster rap you so abhor were all exponents of the 90s.

Quote

So yeah, in that case what were the two biggest music genre's of the 1990's

Soft rock and of course, pop. Pop always is the biggest, ever. Soft rock did it really well in mainstream radio. we'd be kidding ourselves if fringe dance, quality hip hop, metal (the old metal was greying around the temples in the 90s, going mainstream for record sales, or split up or visiting the Betty Ford) and alternative (because, you know, it is alternative because it is NOT main stream) dominated the 90s.

Quote

(fuck HoP, they were around for one album...one hit wonders)

2 albums, both with some success, and if you check where they moved to (Lethal to Limp Bizkit, which is trash in it's own right, Dannyboy to the House of Pizza (the trash version of Planet Hollywood) and Everlast to his folk hiphop, then well, they exemplify both the good and bad of the 90s further on)

Quote

Alternative rock (which I concentrated on) and Electronic...had I gone into Electronic the numbers would have jumped even further into my favour as most Electronic stuff these days is fairly bad (with Exceptions like Above & Beyond, Tiesto, and Armin Van Buuren), whereas during the burgeoning Better Living Through Circuitry-Era of Electronic music during the 90's there were MULTIPLE DJ's and acts that would blow shit away today. This is why the BEST Ministry Of Sound compilations come from that decade.

Now this is where we're going to disagree. Dance developed in shocks and bursts and for much of the 90s, either * this (say, minimal) * was hip and good, or * that (hardstyle) * and trends were locally born, like Chacago being the home of acid, and Detroit of minimal (with later expansion originating from Berlin) and the Netherlands always being trance-country. In the noughties, the various streams of dance started to co-exist and cross-over and exciting stuff like dark-step or dug-up trends from long ago, like Kraftwerk's noises and bleeps. And the old masters still (or again) tour.

Quote

No, every decade has its crap, but right now there is more crap than good....and in the 90's there was (especially when you add electronic music to that) much more GOOD IMNSHO.

Perhaps on mainstream radio, but if you dig in, there's plenty of good stuff to be found, and the communication devices like web radio, spotify, last.fm et cetera also allow you a LOT MORE leeway to avoid the things you don't like, while still keeping in touch with new releases. So, you can have 100% good radio, just like that.

Quote

As to rap I don't really count it as it's always about bitches and money and sex...

Ehm, no. That's gangster rap, which is just one branch of the tree. Imho, the lines are blurred between rap and hiphop. Guru? I'd say hiphop, but when i listen to Gang Starr, I'm not so sure.
The rock/ rap cross-over started early (Run DMC with Aerosmith, anyone?) and developed in a new way, blending into the angry young man music of Limp Bizkit, Linkin' Park and a couple of other groups (and y'know, I dare share Rage against the Machine in this category as well). Maybe not the best examples, but hmm, that guy from Tool (who I'm told is to be respected as a musical and creative force) does something remarkably close to it in his side project (Puscifer). To return to HoP: you say house of pain is rap-crap, and for the part where Everlast (Dannyboy is a joke, agreed) went with Ice T in his starting years, that was rap, yeah. Yet look at the various Whitey Ford albums, and that's clearly not rap, nor hiphop, but a folk cross-over with Latin tinges (including several collaborations with Santana).

Quote

NOW Hip Hop (The Roots, Raekwon, ect.) is a totally different story. Hip Hop artists can really make interesting compelling music about the state of things in their era and set it to good rhythms and beats. Shit like HoP and Wu Tang don't count, as they were bound to be mindless crap.

Thanks for making distinctions for me... imho, if you want a discussion, it would do to leave personal bias at home, or at the least, to not present it as fact.

[Solidsnape]

Also, the Rza is one the most talented hip hop producers in the world.
A true legend.

[Tapper]

Solidsnape, on 29 July 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

I would add this:
The main difference between today's 'big' acts and yesteryears 'big' acts, is todays big acts haven't paid there dues or learned their trade playing every shitty social club in the country. This used to be HOW you got famous before.
The upshot being that when you did make it to the big time, you knew what you were doing because you'd been playing these songs live for months if not years.
Too many of today's live acts are relying on auto-tune, backing music and even extra musicians to produce that 'studio' sound on stage. Ironic really, considering the 'studio' sound is generally not 'real'.
This is why I love and applaud the new made-in-my-fucking-garage-raw-as-fuck Foo Fighters album, Wasting Light.

It's is so the shizzle.

on the upside, thanks to all the extra media, we now hear about people who have potential to be good/decent when they're still talents, and they're no longer really 101% dependant on the big labels to be discovered. on the downside, well... as you say, they don't have crowd pleasing experience, they don't have a repertoire yet, just one or two albums, often with differences in quality. And we flit from one musician to another far quicker.

Quote

Btw, arcade fire ARE really good.
Just listen.

cheers, I'll give them another try

[QuickTidal]

Tapper, on 29 July 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Thanks for making distinctions for me... imho, if you want a discussion, it would do to leave personal bias at home, or at the least, to not present it as fact.

You should be lawyer Tap. your rebuttals are a who's who of bending the argument using examples that make you win...but then you are guilty of the same thing your accuse me of in my post.

Let's get soemthing straight (no harshness here though bro ), the blog post was a rant, so OF COURSE it's my personal opinion, and will be canted towards my argument. It's not posted in a discussion thread at a forum and instead is posted as a blog entry, thus it is totally my opinion....you may disagree with it all you like brother, but I'm still going to post it.

My main issue was (as stated in my quasi-intro/thesis) was that iTunes...a popular judge of what music and singles are tops today...and they don't compare with a lot of yesteryear stuff.

Digging in to find what's good is totally beside the point. I am well aware that I can find good stuff if I dig...my commentary was about mainstream popular music...nothing further.

The music that was biggest in my highschool (and my town) was Alternative, with Electronic as a close second. That's it. Pop is pop, and rap is rap, but mostly one hit wonder shit...and HoP had ONE hit that went number one and stayed there. Only die hard fans bothered with the second album...and Everlast ought to stand next to Vanilla Ice and get punched in his face for even trying to release something different.

I agree about RZA...wholeheartedly....but he's only one member of WuTang...and most of the rest of them are shit.

I made my distinctions about Rap...Hip-Hop and Rap aren't even in the same category.

Yes, I am well aware that the 90's produced its share of crap, but compare the rock bands of today to the rock bands of the 90's and I think you'll find a glaring difference.

Quote

Whitney Houston (80's star trying to make it in the 90's doesn't count), Gloria Estefan(80's star trying to make it in the 90's doesn't count), Prince's (80's star trying to make it in the 90's doesn't count) worst decade, Bobby Brown(80's junkie trying to make it in the 90's doesn't count), Doctor Alban (Who the hell??), 4 Non blondes (are fucking AWESOME, don't hate), Garbage (Are fucking awesome, don't hate), Eagle Eye Cherry (one hit wonder, doesn't count), East 17 (WTF? Who?), Charles and Eddy(WTF? Who?), Haddaway (One hit wonders, don't count), teaspoon (sex on the beach, lalalalalalalalalala) (who?), Metallica's BEST decade, and the real rise of the gangster rap you so abhor were all exponents of the 90s (Meh, that's better than Justin Beiber).

I also think that SolidSnape hit it kind of on the head. A lot of current radio mainstream people haven't paid any dues...

@SolidSnape....I TOTALLY agree about Foo Fighters...WASTED LIGHT is absolutely AMAZING! That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, the Foo Fighters can school the entire top ten on the radio today about what it is to be an artist and make lasting music. you just don't see that as much today...

...and yeah I like ARCADE FIRE, I have no issues with them.

In fact what Tapper says about digging in to find the goods is totally true...and there is some GREAT stuff out there to be found. I'm going off what my 15-year old niece listens to and what it is just isn't good. So I was really focusing on mainstream radio play.

This post has been edited by King Kazma: 29 July 2011 - 03:16 PM

[HiddenOne]

Constant source of musical boners, this lady does it right.





http://youtu.be/HIJPxxoF7dw

[QuickTidal]

HiddenOne, on 29 July 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Constant source of musical boners, this lady does it right.





http://youtu.be/HIJPxxoF7dw

holy crap, she's amazing! Nice linkage HO!

[Use Of Weapons]

I would just like to say: ladies and gentlemen, have you ever heard anything like this? 20 years old

[Solidsnape]

@tapper:

I hear you. I realise I didn't touch on that point.
I do seem to remember a few bands/acts coming through My Space when it was at it's peak (totally died a death now though), like Lily Allen and Arctic Monkeys off the top of my head.
Now Lily Allen doesn't write her own songs (sometimes she co-writes them), yet plays on the female singer/songwriter vibe as an image.
Bit of a charlatan for me, as she (IMO) certainly isn't that talented in the voice department.
I used to like TAM, but as with most bands these days, they've become compromised by their own arrogance and egotism brought about by the success of the first album (see the kaiser chiefs too) which seem to be happening often of late.

One last thing that I MUST include.
I have a tendency to 'fall out' with bands as they get older. I know that the age process will change people musically, but I can't see how you can 'dilute' the original passions that seem to be the reasons acts hit it big in the first place.
Everybody moves on, and everybody wants to do something new and challenging, i understand that. But, when it comes to a blues band making a blues record, I want to hear the same quality and passion on their last record that I did on their first.
An example of this is The Kings of Leon. Listen to 'Youth and Young Manhood' and you know exactly here the band were coming from.
Slimy, dirty delta blues guitar riffs, and overdriven chords added to an upbeat and very dynamic rhythm section all underneath this very new and raw southern American style voice. As you progress through the albums, this original passion is withered away, until you end up with an American rock band, albeit with quite an un-American sound. Still a good band. But not a deep south blues rock band. I seen this band on their first European tour in Amsterdam. It still goes down as one of the best gigs in my life. It was genuine.
Now i know this kind of thing can be interpreted so many different ways. It's sometimes known as maturity or a band 'growing up'.
Why is it that youth produces more honest music?
Do we become tainted by life's troubles? Does this take away the passion we originally felt?

[Beezulbubba]

This band kinda has a hipster vibe. They are derivative of someone (but I can't put my finger on it)... any way:
- - - - - - - - - -

Funeral Party - NYC Moves To The Sound Of LA

[TaxManATX]

I like that song, Geek. They remind me of someone as well but I can't think of who.



I like the whole Naked and Famous album, except the last song.

[Gothos]

pieces like this are why I play guitar... even if I'm not all that good just yet.

[Tsundoku]

This never fails to lift my mood:

[Solidsnape]

@ Gothos:  Like it. Have rep. 
You'll like this. 




And this is why I play the guitar. 
Though I'm CERTAINLY not this good. 
Prepare to be amazed......