new thread
When flannel replaced spandex, rock music became dreary, pushed by a slogging bass line that trampled everything nonsensical in its sight. The frantic, showy guitar solos and more importantly, THE FUN, went out of rock.
Grunge was depressing. I can't believe that anyone actually believed grunge would cure all of music's ills! Unkempt beards and flannel do little to get the heart racing. We need some glitz. We need some glamour. We need some LONG HAIR!!! We need a return to life in the fast lane, Vegas style. I’m talkin’ limos. I’m talkin’ champagne. I’m talkin’ show girls. I’m talkin’ hot tubs. I’m talkin’ music videos where the LONG HAIRED lead singer is strung high above lunatic crowds like a marionette while fireworks erupt on stage and lights strobe across a LONG HAIRED guy playing guitar with his teeth. The hair bands were about partying all night, motorcycles and of course -- girls, girls, girls.
I've been to concerts by bands of both genres, and I can attest that the concerts were completely different. The hair bands came to entertain. The stages were big. The special effects were outlandish. World War I didn't have as many bomb blasts, explosions and smoke. When the hair bands came to town, it was an event. Women, dressed in short dresses showed plenty of cleavage and even more leg. They sashayed about the Coliseum floor, providing a show themselves. Long-haired guys in ripped jeans and cowboy boots came ready to party and worship at the front of the stage. They came to headbang, not mosh.
Despite the predictable play list -- big explosive intro, rapid run through of a couple new songs, the "Hello Dallas Fu*king Texas," a collection of hits, an extended guitar solo, a power ballad, a drum solo and then a high octane send-off featuring the biggest hits -- each show was a much-anticipated extravaganza. Tommy Lee soloed in a revolving drum kit dressed only in a g-string. David Lee Roth rode a surfboard over the crowd. Both of them had LONG HAIR!!!
MTV came to life before your eyes. Every show was an outlandish cartoon with the sole mission of entertaining. Oh yeah, and the music was really fu*king good! Grunge sucked. There has never been a band with less talent than Nirvana, and the bands that were like them all sucked horribly.
C’mon, gimme the days when four LONG HAIRED band members would scurry off stage halfway through the concert to shoot up, knock back a few, and get laid while the LONG HAIRED frontman sang his solo ballad about the purity of love.
Now THAT'S rock and roll, baby!
Ah, but I go for the original longhair music: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart! Don't laugh; back before R&R, classical music was called
'longhair' music, probably because many of the conductors (e.g. Toscanini) wore their hair longer then the society norm for their day.
I haven't bought an music album in a LONG time (except for AC/DC's latest album)!!! Boredom has set in!!! It's a good thing I kept all of my vinyl albums, and listen to a classic rock station in my area any time I want. BRING BACK THE LONG HAIR BANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm into many types of music, I love classical, southern rock, most oldies and I really dig 80's thrash metal like Anthrax and Megadeth. I'm 16, so I get some weird looks from all the shorthaired people at my school when they see me wearing a Molly Hatchet shirt or listening to Yngwie Malmsteen etc and they notice my hair is getting longer and longer.
Zeppelin rules!
Count me in as another. Although, I do listen to world music as well as some of the rock, etc... It's just that I don't listen to the commercial rock stations out there. Can't really stand them, since they're playing what most high school kids want, at least, here in the Seattle area...
-J
Yeah, I prefer the classical stuff. Also like 20's, 30's & 40's jazz. Don't really listen to much else.
--Tock
You're talking Van Halen, thats the kind of things thats needed again.
Some pretty harsh statements, I see. Personally, I like some old stuff and new stuff but more new than old. New bands don't suck; they're just different. People would get tired if every band was exaclty the same and never changed from decade to decade. I don't think the change in the rock scene is bad. New artists aren't not talented; they just do things differently. And as far as grunge being depressing and whatnot, hey, that kind and other kinds of rock appeal to people. Not everybody wants to hear the same stuff e.g. some people like depressing music. All I can say is things change. Deal with it.
Okay, then explain why Creed's guitarist can't do a solo. It's not that he won't, it's that he simply can't! Did you know he tried doing a guitar clinic once. Turned out tat many 14 and 15 year olds were making him look like the untalented nimrod he is, so he had everyone kicked out and ended the clinic. He can't do do fingertapping, he can't do solos, and basically sticks to the same guitar tabs on every song.
Personally, I think this is bad! Especially when the next generation of musicians comes up thinking this guy is good. That's a bad thing.
Different is okay. Change is good. My problem is that most of these new bands, Limp Bizkit, Creed, Slipknot, etc...are simply a bunch of guys who have little talent. None ever do guitar solos because they can't. The singers don't even sing in key for crying out loud. In my book, that means they suck.
I'm a musician. I'm a purist musician. And what I'm seeing now from many of these bands is total and complete $hit!
New artists are indeed untalented. They do things differently because they can't do many of the things the way musicians in the past have done. They have no choice but to do dumbed down rock. Gone are the complex chord changes.
If you like depressing music, that's fine. I personally don't, but to each his own. I just have a hard time picturing a killer party with music talking about how bad life sucks and how I want to kill myself. Some party!
Also, why is it that these artists sing about how terrible life is when they have a ton of money, are young, are healthy, have everything they want, and have women all over them? Oh yeah, life really sucks, doesn't it?
Here's something for you to deal with - today's popular rock artists have so little talent they can't even think about doing the things their predecessors did. Deal with that!
Well, from the way you describe yourself as a purist musician who totally hates new styles of rock, I don't expect you to understand why people can enjoy themselves with depressing music and why artists who make it big can still be depressed. I know from personal experience that being at a party where everyone is enjoying the "depressing" music together is still really fun despite what the lyrics might say. Just being able to identify with people who are of the same mentality as you and listen to the same music you do is enough. Maybe that's not enough for you, but it's fine for me and all the other people I know. Also, artists who make it big can definitely still be depressed. Things happen to people in their lives that they don't forget. These things leave an imprint on people. Sure, I'll bet they're really happy that they're making plenty of money; but you should know that money does not mean automatic happiness. 'Nuff said there. And lastly, maybe some bands don't have the talent to perform solos and other complexities, but it's unreasonable to say that ALL new bands just CAN'T. I can think of a few off the top of my head that can solo: From Zero, Godsmack, and Stone Temple Pilots. However, I think it has more to do with the fact that the focus of rock has slightly shifted from the guitar to more of a balanced out state. My observation is that classic rock concentrates more on the guitar while newer rock tends to concentrate more on vocals. Don't know if anyone else notices this, but I do. Now, I know that you may not see this the way I do, but don't say that ALL new music sucks just because they're not as "talented" as the pioneers of rock were. To me at least, talent is not the sole measure of how good a band's music is.
You said, "My observation is that classic rock concentrates more on the guitar while newer rock tends to concentrate more on vocals."
I disagree here. I think guitars, keyboards, and vocals were all emphasized equally in the days of classic rock. The overall musicianship was important.
Also, todays vocalists by and large are just not very good singers. Many of the popular "new rock" vocalists don't even sing in key. I'm hoping this is a fad and that true singers will come back in rock and roll.
You said, "Now, I know that you may not see this the way I do, but don't say that ALL new music sucks just because they're not as "talented" as the pioneers of rock were. To me at least, talent is not the sole measure of how good a band's music is."
I agree to an extent. Not all new rock bands suck. Most do. Not all older classic bands were inundated with talent either. Take U2. Not exactly the most talented bunch. But they somehow managed to write good songs and make great music. U2 reminds me of Creed in a way. Low on talent, but they somehow manage to put out material people really like. The bad news for both bands is that the instant one of their songs starts, you know right away it's them. Especially Creed. Every damned song is the same. AC/DC is another band that sounds the same on every song!
Also, some classic rock artists were extremely talented but their music was too sterile and came up flat. There's no replacing emotion and passion.
Like I say, to each his own. If you like new rock, that's fine. I have no issue with it. I don't. My only point is that this latest wave of "rock stars" are short on talent, and they're the ones selling all the albums and making all the money while those with talent are getting shafted. It's an industry thing though, and you can't blame the artists themselves.
Yep, I hear ya. To each his own.
not to go philosophical on a long hair board, but i think you're statement above says something about how happy someone can become from money, health, women, and everything else money can buy. i agree with you that it is "ironic", but i am not surprised these guys are still so depressed after trying to find happiness with what they try to find happiness with. (at least, as the media tells us; i don't want to accuse anyone of a lifestyle they don't really have)
on a different note, i do not believe music should be connected so much with a certain style of dress, or lifestyle, or a fancy concert, or a cool cd cover or tshirt. music is one of the most powerful things in the way it can dig into one's soul. in my opinion, trying to attach any simple object or style to it is totally degrading to it. music means many things to many people, and for me, i would rather not associate the variety of wonderful music i listen to, which represents so many ways of understanding life, depending on the type of music, to the coolness of some band or a trend.
anyway, keep on growing. :)
I was watching the ZZ Top video for "Legs" just the other day and was thinking, "They don't make videos like that any more." OK, maybe it was a little silly, but it was FUN! Remember the big red ZZ Topmobile, and how the three ZZ guys grooved throughout the video?
I like Rock N Roll, period. Just because a band may not have long hair to me doesn't mean they suck. Music wise at least. I don't think that Fred Durst is cool nor anybody from Linkin Park or any of these bands nowadays that have short hair. The people that were cool was Guns N Roses, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, Poison, Motley Crue, and all the bands that had long hair. I don't really understand why people keep saying Creed sucks. I think Creed is one of the better newer rock bands out there now. Mostly nowadays when you talk about Rock N Roll now people think Slipknot, Mudvayne, Korn, and all these type bands that I think are just stupid. Especially SLipknot and Mudvayne wearing masks and stuff. They can't sing nor play. Anybody can holler. As far as depressing music goes I do like some. I like a good bit of Marilyn Manson's music. He may be weird to some people but his music sounds a lot better than some of these other guys now. Rob Zombie I don't really consider depressing music but some may. He is cool. (by the way both of those guys have longhair too) Creed has more of a sound of Rock N Roll as does the new band Puddle of Mudd. But take for instance Creed. How many of them do I think is cool??? 1 and that is Scott Strapp because he has longhair. If you look at my cd's right now you will see Def Leppard, Guns N Roses, KISS, Van Halen, Led Zeppelin, Rob Zombie, Poison, Skid Row, Motle Crue, AC/DC, Ted Nugent, Quiet Riot, Billy Idol, Kid Rock, Creed, Aerosmith, Nirvana, Bon Jovi and many more. 3/4 of my cds are rock. And 3/4 of those 3/4 have long hair as well or at least did at some time. I do have the Linkin Park CD although I don't listen to it that much. I also have 2 80's collection of CDs, a Prince greatest hits, and a couple of soundtracks mostly containing hard rock bands. Just because a band may not have longhair doesn't mean they aren't that good in my eyes but they aren't REAL rockers so they aren't very cool. When I think of a ROCKER I first think of Long Hair.
Dude...I cannot agree with you more. (If a girl's opinion matters, anyway.) I am just so thrilled that the old band are hitting the road again. I see the Poison tour every single year (I worked for them a couple years ago) and one of the reasons I look so forward to it is because long-haired men are EVERYWHERE!! I love it! This year, they're touring with Faster Pussycat, Cinderella and Winger. It should be a blast.