NationStates Jolt Archive

I spouted into a raging rant to my friend yesterday on how I hate modern music, so I'm posting my thoughts while they're still fresh.

I'm a teenager, and most of my friends listen to punk or pop, which I consider crap. According to me, most of them have no talent to speak of. The lead guitarists mostly play powerchords, and use the same chords in each and every song. The bassists are no different; their instrument, in a punk band, offers nothing but a driving note that serves as only more sound to a distorted mess. The drummers have no skill other than the ability to play a standard rock beat with eighth notes pounded into the bass drum, and a sixteenth note fill played only on the snare drum. There are, I admit, a few exceptions to this, and there are a few punk/modern alternative bands that I do care for, such as Green Day, and maybe Linkin Park. But other bands, such as Good Charolette (sp?), are perfect examples of this terrible music...in my view.

The way I see it, rock 'n roll that descends from blues, i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, is, many times over, superior to rock of punk lineage. The blues-rock combo offers a smoother and more memorable melody, and the kind that will stand the test of time. Bands like Goldfinger and Good Charolette(again, sp?) will most likely be forgotten in the course of the next 10-20 years, while the classic rock groups will retain their timeless value...

....just my 2 cents, in the form of a hissing tyraid. While I'm afraid that the flames will come marching in, I'm glad to get this out in the open.

I think that it's fair to say that your problem with modern music is that you haven't sampled enough.

I spouted into a raging rant to my friend yesterday on how I hate modern music, so I'm posting my thoughts while they're still fresh.

I'm a teenager, and most of my friends listen to punk or pop, which I consider crap. According to me, most of them have no talent to speak of. The lead guitarists mostly play powerchords, and use the same chords in each and every song. The bassists are no different; their instrument, in a punk band, offers nothing but a driving note that serves as only more sound to a distorted mess. The drummers have no skill other than the ability to play a standard rock beat with eighth notes pounded into the bass drum, and a sixteenth note fill played only on the snare drum. There are, I admit, a few exceptions to this, and there are a few punk/modern alternative bands that I do care for, such as Green Day, and maybe Linkin Park. But other bands, such as Good Charolette (sp?), are perfect examples of this terrible music...in my view.

The way I see it, rock 'n roll that descends from blues, i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, is, many times over, superior to rock of punk lineage. The blues-rock combo offers a smoother and more memorable melody, and the kind that will stand the test of time. Bands like Goldfinger and Good Charolette(again, sp?) will most likely be forgotten in the course of the next 10-20 years, while the classic rock groups will retain their timeless value...

....just my 2 cents, in the form of a hissing tyraid. While I'm afraid that the flames will come marching in, I'm glad to get this out in the open.
Green Day and Good Charolette are Pop-Punk, keyword being Pop. If you listened to some real punk, you would find it requires alot of talent to play.

I don't agree with that, I think it's just that the sound that most modern music has is pretty punkish, and whiney sounding.

I don't agree with that, I think it's just that the sound that most modern music has is pretty punkish, and whiney sounding.
You probably couldn't be more wrong.

Green Day and Good Charolette are Pop-Punk, keyword being Pop. If you listened to some real punk, you would find it requires alot of talent to play.
I was going to say the same thing, Green Day is one of my favorite bands, but not because of anything they have done lately, even in their very beginings (when I started to listen to them) they were pop-punk.

The rest of the bands that pass off as punk these days (well, most of them that ever get to be on the radio/TV ) aren't in the least way punk.


sorry for my rant.

Green Day and Good Charolette are Pop-Punk, keyword being Pop. If you listened to some real punk, you would find it requires alot of talent to play.

Well, one of my points is that I don't understand why the most popular ones do not have much talent. I admit that I must not have heard alot of true punk, mostly because it is not popular. I would assume that talent should be a major component in popularity.

I spouted into a raging rant to my friend yesterday on how I hate modern music, so I'm posting my thoughts while they're still fresh.

I'm a teenager, and most of my friends listen to punk or pop, which I consider crap. According to me, most of them have no talent to speak of. The lead guitarists mostly play powerchords, and use the same chords in each and every song. The bassists are no different; their instrument, in a punk band, offers nothing but a driving note that serves as only more sound to a distorted mess. The drummers have no skill other than the ability to play a standard rock beat with eighth notes pounded into the bass drum, and a sixteenth note fill played only on the snare drum. There are, I admit, a few exceptions to this, and there are a few punk/modern alternative bands that I do care for, such as Green Day, and maybe Linkin Park. But other bands, such as Good Charolette (sp?), are perfect examples of this terrible music...in my view.

The way I see it, rock 'n roll that descends from blues, i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, is, many times over, superior to rock of punk lineage. The blues-rock combo offers a smoother and more memorable melody, and the kind that will stand the test of time. Bands like Goldfinger and Good Charolette(again, sp?) will most likely be forgotten in the course of the next 10-20 years, while the classic rock groups will retain their timeless value...

....just my 2 cents, in the form of a hissing tyraid. While I'm afraid that the flames will come marching in, I'm glad to get this out in the open.
You're a stereotype. You'll grow out of it. I went through this phase when I was 15.

Well, one of my points is that I don't understand why the most popular ones do not have much talent. I admit that I must not have heard alot of true punk, mostly because it is not popular. I would assume that talent should be a major component in popularity.

Can you think of any aspect of popular culture where talent or ability is a major component in determining if it is popular?

You're a stereotype. You'll grow out of it. I went through this phase when I was 15.
I did say that not every modern punk/pop band fits this category, but alot of the popular ones that my friends listen to do.

Well, one of my points is that I don't understand why the most popular ones do not have much talent. I admit that I must not have heard alot of true punk, mostly because it is not popular. I would assume that talent should be a major component in popularity.
you would think so, but it isn't true.

The record companies are looking for an "image" to sell, and they are selling to whiney teens with a sense of entitlement, so that is what gets picked up and promoted.

There is also the problem with the "punk culture" and thier very own catch-22 They think thier favorite band is the best, but if they have any success at all, then they "sold out"

I ran into it with my punk band, as long as we weren't getting gigs, we were "the best punk band around" but when we started getting popular we became "that band that used to be cool, then they sold out to pay thier rent"

the whole scene is a bunch of crap anymore.:mad:

I spouted into a raging rant to my friend yesterday on how I hate modern music, so I'm posting my thoughts while they're still fresh.

I'm a teenager, and most of my friends listen to punk or pop, which I consider crap. According to me, most of them have no talent to speak of. The lead guitarists mostly play powerchords, and use the same chords in each and every song. The bassists are no different; their instrument, in a punk band, offers nothing but a driving note that serves as only more sound to a distorted mess. The drummers have no skill other than the ability to play a standard rock beat with eighth notes pounded into the bass drum, and a sixteenth note fill played only on the snare drum. There are, I admit, a few exceptions to this, and there are a few punk/modern alternative bands that I do care for, such as Green Day, and maybe Linkin Park. But other bands, such as Good Charolette (sp?), are perfect examples of this terrible music...in my view.

The way I see it, rock 'n roll that descends from blues, i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, is, many times over, superior to rock of punk lineage. The blues-rock combo offers a smoother and more memorable melody, and the kind that will stand the test of time. Bands like Goldfinger and Good Charolette(again, sp?) will most likely be forgotten in the course of the next 10-20 years, while the classic rock groups will retain their timeless value...

....just my 2 cents, in the form of a hissing tyraid. While I'm afraid that the flames will come marching in, I'm glad to get this out in the open.


My advice to you would be to listen to what you like. Rather thanuse this thread to have people argue back and forth that punk sucks! No it doesn't! Here's what I suggest:

What kind of music do you like? What are your tastes? People can contribute to the thread by suggesting bands you might like, promote some local talent, and everyone's the better for it.

So, what bands do you like?

I know exactly what you mean. Modern music has really gone down hill. Even classical music has lost much of it's once great quality. I understand the need to experiment with new ideas, but the whole atonality thing was not all that great an idea if you ask me. Pop, punk, etc are even worse. Pop is almost required to be crap, it seems.

The way I see it, rock 'n roll that descends from blues, i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, is, many times over, superior to rock of punk lineage. The blues-rock combo offers a smoother and more memorable melody, and the kind that will stand the test of time. Bands like Goldfinger and Good Charolette(again, sp?) will most likely be forgotten in the course of the next 10-20 years, while the classic rock groups will retain their timeless value...
Well, yes. Most people realise that eventually. If you want alternatives from blues-influenced rock, I suggest you try post-rock - search Wikipedia for examples of post-rock bands. Instrumentation is used in vastly different ways to traditional rock, and it generally is just about the music (for example, Mogwai, Godspeed You! Black Emperor), though some bands to have songs (as opposed to simply tracks), for example, Sigur Ros. Makes a refreshing change from overly simple music.
The sad thing is that the music industry will push what is popular - which at the moment is 'alternative'. It is 'alternative', but only to the pop drivel that they've been pushing for the last 5 years.

You're suffering from a few problems.

First off, I'm going to guess you are a young musician yourself and suffering a bit of frustration at putting all that time into actual study of your instrument while people who barely seem capable are raking in the fans. I can understand that, certainly. This is usually fed by imbittered music instructors and is certainly not a folly of youth as plenty of older cats have the same afliction. However, it is a mistake to confuse virtuosity with musicality. Music's worth is not rated on it's difficulity. Because a music is simple does not mean its bad.

Second, you are viewing history without acknowledging history as a filter. For every Led Zepplin there are plenty of Good Charlottes that won't neccisarilly get noted. Even in Zep's time.

Related to that, you might not be listening to the best of what modern music has to offer. You've already made a mistake of saying 'modern music' and then only addressing pop-punk, leaving out modern jazz musicians, composers...hell even country artists. The best music might not be getting the most air-play. Or might not be something you're coming across, but it might be out there.

I'm not trying to defend pop-punk or say that it will last the ages, nor even am I trying to be superior-the reason I so readily recognized what was happening is I make the same sins myself. But everyonce in a while someone plays something while I'm in the car with them or in a room where I can't turn off the radio and something plays and I have to go, "You know what? That ain't bad..." I console myself by knowing that everyonce in while when someone is in the car with me and some jazz they wouldn't have heard otherwise plays the same thing happens to them.

Well, one of my points is that I don't understand why the most popular ones do not have much talent. I admit that I must not have heard alot of true punk, mostly because it is not popular. I would assume that talent should be a major component in popularity.
Popularity is based entirely on who is the most marketable/profitable.

If you like musicians with talent, try listening to acouple of bands from Argentina:

Soda Estereo
Los Fabulosos Cadillacs

Both very different. Both exceptional.

Rather than whining that all modern music sucks, you could always find music that *you* like and try to turn your friends onto it. I've gotten three friends, one who liked Evanescence, another who liked Nickelback, and another who liked Limp Bizkit to try out music that doesn't suck, and now we all benefit by tossing bands and songs back and forth. You don't have to passively listen to what your friends spoonfeed you -- spoonfeed back. I still don't like everything they like, and the feeling is mutual, but we've all gained a lot more enjoyment out of music than we would have had I just curled up in a corner and complained that I was the only person in the world with taste (i.e. your method).

I did say that not every modern punk/pop band fits this category, but alot of the popular ones that my friends listen to do.
I didn't say that you would start liking pop-punk. I just said that you would stop thinking that all modern music sucks. Forget Good Charlotte, why not check out Boards of Canada, Sigur Ros or Blind Guardian?

I didn't say that you would start liking pop-punk. I just said that you would stop thinking that all modern music sucks. Forget Good Charlotte, why not check out Boards of Canada, Sigur Ros or Blind Guardian?
Woo! Another Sigur Ros fan! Favourite album?

Well, one of my points is that I don't understand why the most popular ones do not have much talent. I admit that I must not have heard alot of true punk, mostly because it is not popular. I would assume that talent should be a major component in popularity.
Popularity also (amongst the other things mentioned) has to do with repeatablity and being identifiable. Familiarity and such. Rember that music is really an echo anyway, rhythm-heartbeats, the tone structure being based on the overtone structure of our own voice.

Sigur Ros
Rós ;)

I love them. Absolutely brilliant. If you're looking for a seriously talented band making brilliant music listen to them.

Rós ;)

I love them. Absolutely brilliant. If you're looking for a seriously talented band making brilliant music listen to them.
And another! My god, they're coming out of the woodwork tonight! Either of you able to translate Hopelandish?

And another! My god, they're coming out of the woodwork tonight! Either of you able to translate Hopelandish?
Aye, well I put them into my post in the "music you like" (or whatever it was called) thread, and nobody noticed :rolleyes:

Is anybody able to translate Hopelandic? Or is it Hopelandish? Who knows...

Takk... is my favourite album, in answer to the question you asked Eruantalon. :)

Aye, well I put them into my post in the "music you like" (or whatever it was called) thread, and nobody noticed :rolleyes:

Is anybody able to translate Hopelandic? Or is it Hopelandish? Who knows...

Takk... is my favourite album, in answer to the question you asked Eruantalon. :)
Heh, I dropped out of that thread after mentioning 65daysofstatic. No one's interested, I don't care. :p
I think it's Hopelandish; I've not seen it referred to as Hopelandic before...
I do like Takk... especially Glosoli - it's just beautiful. But then, the whole album is. Apart from that I've only got Agaetis Byrjun (not as good as Takk...) and Ba Ba/Ti Ki/Di Do (which I found slightly disappointing). I've heard good things about () as well.
[/hijack] I do apologise to the OP.

Woo! Another Sigur Ros fan! Favourite album?
Aegytus Bjyrun. (spelled incorrectly, but I hope you know)

And another! My god, they're coming out of the woodwork tonight! Either of you able to translate Hopelandish?
Sigur Ros fans are not that rare. They're a popular band.

Sigur Ros fans are not that rare. They're a popular band.
Maybe where you live...I know approximately 3. And you and Nadkor are 2 of those 3. But yes, they are a popular band, and justifiably so. They make outstanding music. Do you like GY!BE? It's similar, maybe less chilled out, and with no lyrics.

I'm a teenager, and most of my friends listen to punk or pop, which I consider crap. According to me, most of them have no talent to speak of. The lead guitarists mostly play powerchords, and use the same chords in each and every song. The bassists are no different; their instrument, in a punk band, offers nothing but a driving note that serves as only more sound to a distorted mess. The drummers have no skill other than the ability to play a standard rock beat with eighth notes pounded into the bass drum, and a sixteenth note fill played only on the snare drum. There are, I admit, a few exceptions to this, and there are a few punk/modern alternative bands that I do care for, such as Green Day, and maybe Linkin Park. But other bands, such as Good Charolette (sp?), are perfect examples of this terrible music...in my view.

Meh. Punk was never about skill. It wasn't supposed to be. The very idea behind the music is to go faster and build up a sense of energy. If you're only listening for skill, you had better stop listening to rock and roll altogether, and go grab yourself some Beethoven or (if you really want complicated music) any of the second-viennese school serialists.

A note on power-chords: A power chord is as much flexible if not more flexible than a regular chord, can be changed much faster and much more easily, and (when played properly) normally is the same notes as a regular chord. Why play something the harder way when it's better the easier way?

The way I see it, rock 'n roll that descends from blues, i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, is, many times over, superior to rock of punk lineage. The blues-rock combo offers a smoother and more memorable melody, and the kind that will stand the test of time. Bands like Goldfinger and Good Charolette(again, sp?) will most likely be forgotten in the course of the next 10-20 years, while the classic rock groups will retain their timeless value...


Like I said earlier, if you want music that really requires talent, you're almost a century too late. Besides which, who wants to listen to music that's "More smooth" if it lacks the energy of a charged "rough" riff. Skill doesn't matter if it's dead boring.

While I hope to hell that wanna-be punks like Good Charolette and Green Day will be forgotten soon, I think you ought to keep in mind that 20 years after their rise and fall, there are punk bands still very much remembered (The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Buzzcocks, The Ramones... Need I continue?).

Well, one of my points is that I don't understand why the most popular ones do not have much talent. I admit that I must not have heard alot of true punk, mostly because it is not popular. I would assume that talent should be a major component in popularity.
Not at all. Good or popular music appeals to the emotions, doesn't it? Not to a cerebral analysis of the talent involved.

I spouted into a raging rant to my friend yesterday on how I hate modern music, so I'm posting my thoughts while they're still fresh.

I'm a teenager, and most of my friends listen to punk or pop, which I consider crap. According to me, most of them have no talent to speak of. The lead guitarists mostly play powerchords, and use the same chords in each and every song. The bassists are no different; their instrument, in a punk band, offers nothing but a driving note that serves as only more sound to a distorted mess. The drummers have no skill other than the ability to play a standard rock beat with eighth notes pounded into the bass drum, and a sixteenth note fill played only on the snare drum. There are, I admit, a few exceptions to this, and there are a few punk/modern alternative bands that I do care for, such as Green Day, and maybe Linkin Park. But other bands, such as Good Charolette (sp?), are perfect examples of this terrible music...in my view.

The way I see it, rock 'n roll that descends from blues, i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, is, many times over, superior to rock of punk lineage. The blues-rock combo offers a smoother and more memorable melody, and the kind that will stand the test of time. Bands like Goldfinger and Good Charolette(again, sp?) will most likely be forgotten in the course of the next 10-20 years, while the classic rock groups will retain their timeless value...

....just my 2 cents, in the form of a hissing tyraid. While I'm afraid that the flames will come marching in, I'm glad to get this out in the open.

1: Modern-day "Punk" bands have no talent, which is true. However, they're anything but Punk Rock. If you want to hear what Punk Rock is supposed to be, listen to the Sex Pistols, the Dead Kennedys, The Damned, and The Jam (just got into these guys, and they rock). For Pop-Punk, it's the Buzzcocks.

2: Again, this is because your opinions are based on the shitty Pop-Rock bands labelling themselves (and being labelled without their consent) Punk Rock. Punk Rock is heavily influenced by the Blues.

3: Listen to the bands I've mentioned (the Ramones are worth a shot, too). You really need to open your eyes to the good stuff.

2: Again, this is because your opinions are based on the shitty Pop-Rock bands labelling themselves (and being labelled without their consent) Punk Rock. Punk Rock is heavily influenced by the Blues.

3: Listen to the bands I've mentioned (the Ramones are worth a shot, too). You really need to open your eyes to the good stuff.

I take it that the irony of condemning pop-rock bands in one sentence and then lauding the Ramones in the very next isn't lost on you?

While I hope to hell that wanna-be punks like Good Charolette and Green Day will be forgotten soon, I think you ought to keep in mind that 20 years after their rise and fall, there are punk bands still very much remembered (The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Buzzcocks, The Ramones... Need I continue?).
I doubt seriously that Green Day is going anywhere soon, I have been listening to them for over 14 years, and I don't see them sinking into oblivion. (but, I am sorta obsessed)

as far as Good Charolette, I hope they fall into a hole sometime soon, they suck, and they have since day one.

btw mentioning The Buzzcocks in the same company as The Clash and The Ramones doesn't sit well with me at all......

I take it that the irony of condemning pop-rock bands in one sentence and then lauding the Ramones in the very next isn't lost on you?

I said shitty Pop-Rock bands, ass.

Aegytus Bjyrun. (spelled incorrectly, but I hope you know)


Sigur Ros fans are not that rare. They're a popular band.

I can vouch myself as another Sigur Ros fan. They're the air I breathe sometimes.

ANYWAY: to the original poster - you really must do some investigation into some of the groups that are out there. I am fortunate enough to live in two cities with excellent local music scenes (see info at left) but you very well might be from some place in the middle of the U.S. where all you hear is really horrible stuff on the radio.

There is some truly wonderful stuff circulating out there right now. The White Stripes (if you're looking for a more current blues-influenced act), Death Cab for Cutie, The Flaming Lips, Beck... I could go on.

Anyway, good luck. :)

btw mentioning The Buzzcocks in the same company as The Clash and The Ramones doesn't sit well with me at all......

...Muh? Why would the Buzzcocks not be in the same tier as the Ramones, then? They made equally good music, and they're still going.

I said shitty Pop-Rock bands, ass.

True, but it can hardly be denied that in their time The Ramones passed through the entire spectrum from greatness to shittiness.

...Muh? Why would the Buzzcocks not be in the same tier as the Ramones, then? They made equally good music, and they're still going.
I suppose I don't like them, I think they are greatly lacking in lyrical ability.


but that's just my opinion, it really doesn't matter.

If I post that I like lots of music, both modern and older, will I get flamed into a BBQ chicken burger?

(The) Beatles ftw.

Pink Floyd ftw.

Metallica ftw.

Pearl Jam ftw.

Incubus ftw.

Well, that covers 5 decades then.

True, but it can hardly be denied that in their time The Ramones passed through the entire spectrum from greatness to shittiness.

Yeah, they had some shitty stuff, but not even close to how shitty The Clash eventually got.

...Muh? Why would the Buzzcocks not be in the same tier as the Ramones, then? They made equally good music, and they're still going.

I'd rate The Slits as much more worthy of a mention on the same tier. Much as I like The Buzzcocks... their immediate pop sensibilities always got in the way of their rougher potential which was hinted at on the Spiral Scratch EP.

I suppose I don't like them, I think they are greatly lacking in lyrical ability.


but that's just my opinion, it really doesn't matter.

Their lyrics are actually quite subtle. For example, Ever Fallen In Love (With Someone You Shouldn't've?) is actually about men falling in love with each other, which was very taboo in late-1970's England.

Yeah, they had some shitty stuff, but not even close to how shitty The Clash eventually got.

Yeah, well. I actually rate Sandinista! as their finest LP, for all its myriad flaws. It was downhill from there, but even the pseudo-The Clash when they became a five piece again were a pretty reasonable band when you look to all the bootlegs instead of the hideous abortion that was Cut The Crap.

Yeah, they had some shitty stuff, but not even close to how shitty The Clash eventually got.
I have tried to block out most of that.............thank you for bringing it up :(

Yeah, well. I actually rate Sandinista! as their finest LP, for all its myriad flaws. It was downhill from there, but even the pseudo-The Clash when they became a five piece again were a pretty reasonable band when you look to all the bootlegs instead of the hideous abortion that was Cut The Crap.

The point is, The Clash went downhill and hardly recovered. The Ramones went downhill, recovered shortly, went downhill again and lost Dee Dee, recovered with C. Jay and went up from there until they disbanded. Sure, they never got back to the glory days of the 70's, but they went out with a bang, rather than a wimper.

I have tried to block out most of that.............thank you for bringing it up :(

Maybe we should all just sit down and define what we mean by 'shitty Clash' here, and vent our pain communually...

btw mentioning The Buzzcocks in the same company as The Clash and The Ramones doesn't sit well with me at all......

Of the three bands I listen only to The Clash, but I was attempting to provide a braoder sampling of bands that had survived the "test of time" (20 years as a lot of time seems so short to me, but I guess that's cause I mostly play stuff from a century ago or more). The Buzzcocks, no matter what you think of them as the first case of "Pop-Punk", are an important factor in early Punk, and are still broadly popular.

And Pot, calling any Punk technically complex seems a bit off to me. Especially in the case of the Sex Pistols, none of whom was particularly skilled in their instrument (even in their last days, during their brief U.S. tour, they had shows where the entire band couldn't keep time together at all).

And Pot, calling any Punk technically complex seems a bit off to me.


coughNOMEANSNOcough

Especially in the case of the Sex Pistols, none of whom was particularly skilled in their instrument (even in their last days, during their brief U.S. tour, they had shows where the entire band couldn't keep time together at all).

Potaria, shall I mention G*** M******, or should I leave that up to you?

Of the three bands I listen only to The Clash, but I was attempting to provide a braoder sampling of bands that had survived the "test of time" (20 years as a lot of time seems so short to me, but I guess that's cause I mostly play stuff from a century ago or more). The Buzzcocks, no matter what you think of them as the first case of "Pop-Punk", are an important factor in early Punk, and are still broadly popular.
fair enough.

And Pot, calling any Punk technically complex seems a bit off to me. Especially in the case of the Sex Pistols, none of whom was particularly skilled in their instrument (even in their last days, during their brief U.S. tour, they had shows where the entire band couldn't keep time together at all).
I have blocked out the Sex Pistols entirely, they hurt my innermost musician. ;)

I have weird tastes, I love all kinds of Rock, Alternative, Goth, Heavy Metal, Classic Rock, etc.

But I'm also a HUGE fan of Techno music.

One of my favorite bands is Linkin Park because they have both Rock and Techno making them the best of both worlds.

Yes I know it's weird but I like what I like so... (flips everyone off)!

coughNOMEANSNOcough



Potaria, shall I mention G*** M******, or should I leave that up to you?

No need to mention G L E N M A T L O C K, S T E V E J O N E S, or P A U L C O O K. They were all quite skilled with their instruments (listen to the Rich Kids, Dead Men Walking, and The Philistines for Glen's post-Pistols work; The Professionals for Steve and Paul's).

Oh, and funny thing about the Pistols live --- They always fucked up. Why? They almost never rehearsed, and Steve was usually wasted anyway. That's one of the beautiful things about the band.

Watch the Winterland video. Steve's amp's totally ruined, but he can play like mad even so.

I have blocked out the Sex Pistols entirely, they hurt my innermost musician. ;)
Why, have the Sex Pistols been reclassified as music?

Like I said earlier, if you want music that really requires talent, you're almost a century too late. Besides which, who wants to listen to music that's "More smooth" if it lacks the energy of a charged "rough" riff. Skill doesn't matter if it's dead boring.

I know. That's why I can't stand modern music. It really has gone down hill to the point where it isn't any good anymore.

Why, have the Sex Pistols been reclassified as music?
LOL :p




on that note I have to get ready for bed, 3am comes early in the morning (or late in the night depending on how old you are):D

Why, have the Sex Pistols been reclassified as music?

Funny, funny. :rolleyes:

I know. That's why I can't stand modern music. It really has gone down hill to the point where it isn't any good anymore.

I suggest you expand the sample you are using ;)

There is good music around. You just need to look at it.

Funny, funny. :rolleyes:
You know you love me really ;) :fluffle:

I know. That's why I can't stand modern music. It really has gone down hill to the point where it isn't any good anymore.

If you insist on equating complexity and talent to goodness, then I suppose so. Personally I try to subscribe to the statement that "If it sounds good it is." But yes.. Aint none of this Prokofiev.

I guess the other thing to keep in mind (especially in the minimal complexity bands, like Punk) is that sometimes the sound a band was attempting to get didn't NEED to be complex, because they were attempting to boil music down to it's most basic, rawest energy.

You know you love me really ;) :fluffle:

*gunshot*

If you insist on equating complexity and talent to goodness, then I suppose so. Personally I try to subscribe to the statement that "If it sounds good it is." But yes.. Aint none of this Prokofiev.

I guess the other thing to keep in mind (especially in the minimal complexity bands, like Punk) is that sometimes the sound a band was attempting to get didn't NEED to be complex, because they were attempting to boil music down to it's most basic, rawest energy.

Exactly.

*gunshot*
*starts 100m sprint*

I know. That's why I can't stand modern music. It really has gone down hill to the point where it isn't any good anymore.

Are we to take it that you similarly abhor non-modern music which is lacking in complexity?

If you insist on equating complexity and talent to goodness, then I suppose so. Personally I try to subscribe to the statement that "If it sounds good it is." But yes.. Aint none of this Prokofiev.

I guess the other thing to keep in mind (especially in the minimal complexity bands, like Punk) is that sometimes the sound a band was attempting to get didn't NEED to be complex, because they were attempting to boil music down to it's most basic, rawest energy.

Perhaps, but I prefer art that requires actual ability to do. I mean, I could play music that doesn't require any talent or skill easily. Why would I pay to hear music without it when I could make it myself for free?

Are we to take it that you similarly abhor non-modern music which is lacking in complexity?

Yes. I wouldn't say I abhor them, so much as I prefer higher-quality music. I listen to simple music when I'm in silly mood, for example.

Just because something's simple doesn't mean it sucks, people.

Seinfeld, one of the simplest (if not THE simplest) shows ever is considered one of the best.

Complexity doesn't always equal goodness.

Just because something's simple doesn't mean it sucks, people.

Seinfeld, one of the simplest (if not THE simplest) shows ever is considered one of the best.

Complexity doesn't always equal goodness.
Good example: Dragonforce.

Perhaps, but I prefer art that requires actual ability to do. I mean, I could play music that doesn't require any talent or skill easily. Why would I pay to hear music without it when I could make it myself for free?

I'd like to see you play Blitzkrieg Bop right off the bat. That'd be some funny shit.

Are we to take it that you similarly abhor non-modern music which is lacking in complexity?

I was going to point that out too. If complexity is necessary to goodness, I should hope that you like Shoenberg more than you like Beethoven, because I can assure you that in terms of talent needed they're in completely different worlds.

I'd like to see you play Blitzkrieg Bop right off the bat. That'd be some funny shit.

It surely couldn't be worse then The Beautiful South's attempt.


The Horror! :eek:

Perhaps, but I prefer art that requires actual ability to do. I mean, I could play music that doesn't require any talent or skill easily. Why would I pay to hear music without it when I could make it myself for free?

There is a difference between the technical side of playing a musical instrument and the ability to 'emote' (for want of a better word through it). Many extremely skilled technical players have no 'soul'. Compare and contrast Brian May and Johnny Cash or Woody Guthrie as an example.

It surely couldn't be worse then The Beautiful South's attempt.


The Horror! :eek:

Or The Damned's attempt at playing Anarchy In The U.K.... My god, that was TERRIBLE.

Halfway through, they got so embarrassed that they just stopped. Dave Vanian spoke: "Well, we were supposed to pull the plug ages ago..."

I was going to point that out too. If complexity is necessary to goodness, I should hope that you like Shoenberg more than you like Beethoven, because I can assure you that in terms of talent needed they're in completely different worlds.

I don't mean complexity as in having multiple time signatures at once and intricate tonal combinations, I mean complex as in requiring a lot of thought and skill to work out. Beethoven had to sit down and really pour effort into his work and it shows, compared to modern pop.

Has anyone ever heard Megadeth's cover of Anarchy in the UK? It's OK, I suppose...

Yes. I wouldn't say I abhor them, so much as I prefer higher-quality music. I listen to simple music when I'm in silly mood, for example.

So 'higher-quality music' equals what exactly? Your contrasting of it to 'simple music' seems to suggest that complexity is important here. What is complex music? Music with more than twelve different parts? Music with more than one time signature? Music played in more than one key? Music with more than eight different sections?

It surely couldn't be worse then The Beautiful South's attempt.

Are you familiar with the The Nutley Brass Play The Ramones Songbook LP? Not a bad attempt at doing The Ramones with a brass band.

Has anyone ever heard Megadeth's cover of Anarchy in the UK? It's OK, I suppose...

Is that the one with the line:

Another cuntlike tendency?


Always helps to know the words before you play a song.

Though I can't imagine it would be any worse then Mel C's (?) attempt.

<snip>

The way I see it, rock 'n roll that descends from blues, i.e. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, is, many times over, superior to rock of punk lineage. The blues-rock combo offers a smoother and more memorable melody, and the kind that will stand the test of time. Bands like Goldfinger and Good Charolette(again, sp?) will most likely be forgotten in the course of the next 10-20 years, while the classic rock groups will retain their timeless value...

....just my 2 cents, in the form of a hissing tyraid. While I'm afraid that the flames will come marching in, I'm glad to get this out in the open.

Good man, at last someone who sees that modern music is shite and that old music is ten times better!

How can you beat bands like Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones, Genesis (early), King Crimson and then Metallica, Guns N Roses, Pantera...long hair, people who could play more than 5 chords, amazing solo, drugs sex and rock and roll!

Modern Music just don't cut it in my view, but then someone will disagree and thats fine everyone has a different taste in music...the person who disagrees has a bad taste in music but we can't help everyone! LOL! (that was a joke before anyone decides to argue!) :D

Graham

Has anyone ever heard Megadeth's cover of Anarchy in the UK? It's OK, I suppose...

Its only saving grace was Steve Jones on guitar. The missed lyrics are funny, though.

Are you familiar with the The Nutley Brass Play The Ramones Songbook LP? Not a bad attempt at doing The Ramones with a brass band.

I don't believe I have had that pleasure.


Anything like Fiend Club Lounge (the same doing the same to the Misfits)?

So 'higher-quality music' equals what exactly? Your contrasting of it to 'simple music' seems to suggest that complexity is important here. What is complex music? Music with more than twelve different parts? Music with more than one time signature? Music played in more than one key? Music with more than eight different sections?

Sorry, I didn't know that this was such a contraversal topic. What I mean is that I prefer music that requires skill and talent to make. "Complex" is probably the wrong word. "Skilled" is a much more accurate way to put it.

Good man, at last someone who sees that modern music is shite and that old music is ten times better!

How can you beat bands like Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones, Genesis (early), King Crimson and then Metallica, Guns N Roses, Pantera...long hair, people who could play more than 5 chords, amazing solo, drugs sex and rock and roll!

Modern Music just don't cut it in my view, but then someone will disagree and thats fine everyone has a different taste in music...the person who disagrees has a bad taste in music but we can't help everyone! LOL! (that was a joke before anyone decides to argue!) :D

Graham

Yeah? Well, Bob Mould is bald, knows too many chords to even mention, and has played his share of kick-ass solos. He's still going strong, too.

Good man, at last someone who sees that modern music is shite and that old music is ten times better!

How can you beat bands like Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones, Genesis (early), King Crimson and then Metallica, Guns N Roses, Pantera...long hair, people who could play more than 5 chords, amazing solo, drugs sex and rock and roll!

Hang on, exactly what definition of modern are we using here? King Crimson and Metallica, Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones are all still producing music, and yet they don't fit into your category of 'modern music'....

How can you beat bands like Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones, Genesis (early), King Crimson and then Metallica, Guns N Roses, Pantera...long hair, people who could play more than 5 chords, amazing solo, drugs sex and rock and roll!


In many different ways I believe. But I find the best is with a cricket bat. I hear when dealing with the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock a good solid piece of wood is always useful.

I don't mean complexity as in having multiple time signatures at once and intricate tonal combinations, I mean complex as in requiring a lot of thought and skill to work out. Beethoven had to sit down and really pour effort into his work and it shows, compared to modern pop.

I can accept that (although I'd still say that Shoenberg would still have put in more effort than Beethoven to write any given peice). From the perspective of someone who has played both modern popular and art music as well as older music, I can tell you that there as an infinitely larger amount of energy when you're onstage with modern music than there is sitting in an orchestra, no matter what you're playing. The bare-bones musical experience that you get in a modern small ensemble (assuming that means 2 guitars, bass, vocalist, and drums) just has more emotion and force in it than even the best string quartet. Partially that's the simplicity of the music channeling everything into the music, and partially it's that the medium for making music changes greatly, but it's still there.

I can accept that (although I'd still say that Shoenberg would still have put in more effort than Beethoven to write any given peice). From the perspective of someone who has played both modern popular and art music as well as older music, I can tell you that there as an infinitely larger amount of energy when you're onstage with modern music than there is sitting in an orchestra, no matter what you're playing. The bare-bones musical experience that you get in a modern small ensemble (assuming that means 2 guitars, bass, vocalist, and drums) just has more emotion and force in it than even the best string quartet. Partially that's the simplicity of the music channeling everything into the music, and partially it's that the medium for making music changes greatly, but it's still there.

Don't forget about power trios. Husker Du, man.

Sorry, I didn't know that this was such a contraversal topic. What I mean is that I prefer music that requires skill and talent to make. "Complex" is probably the wrong word. "Skilled" is a much more accurate way to put it.

So when you are in a silly mood you listen to music which is unskilled?

How do you tell whether a music is skilled or not? What they produce may be pleasent to your ears, but may not be what they intended to produce, having been foiled by their lack of skill...

So when you are in a silly mood you listen to music which is unskilled?

How do you tell whether a music is skilled or not? What they produce may be pleasent to your ears, but may not be what they intended to produce, having been foiled by their lack of skill...

LOL!

*hands you a special brownie*

Don't forget about power trios. Husker Du, man.

Well, yeah, but I was speaking from the perspective of a musician, and I've only ever played in bands with 4 members or more (since I do vocals and rhythm guitar) :P

Can't forget Husker Du though.

Well, yeah, but I was speaking from the perspective of a musician, and I've only ever played in bands with 4 members or more (since I do vocals and rhythm guitar) :P

Can't forget Husker Du though.

You're damn right you can't forget them. Fuck, I'm listening to them right now! It's their Rust show from 9/10/85. Pure energy --- very good stuff.

So when you are in a silly mood you listen to music which is unskilled?

How do you tell whether a music is skilled or not? What they produce may be pleasent to your ears, but may not be what they intended to produce, having been foiled by their lack of skill...

I can tell by the sound in general how competent they are. From the Nietzsche thread, I got the impression that you prized talent very highly and regarded a tolerance of lack of skill to be a source of weakness.

I can tell by the sound in general how competent they are. From the Nietzsche thread, I got the impression that you prized talent very highly and regarded a tolerance of lack of skill to be a source of weakness.

Is it just me, or does this sound eerily fascist?

Is it just me, or does this sound eerily fascist?

It isn't as if an anarchist turning fascist is without precedent :p

End musical fascism!!!

A couple of the bands i listne to are Alexisonfire, The Fall of Troy, Fordirelifesake, Primus, and Link Wray. Most of those bands have some really great guitar and some great songs, too. Especially Alexisonfire's first album. That album is amazing and I recommend it to anyone who can see the beauty in some good screaming.

Is it just me, or does this sound eerily fascist?

That's Grampus's opinion, not mine. I was against Nietzsche all the way.

End musical fascism!!!

Yes!

No more will people laugh at me for liking Gogol Bordello!

A couple of the bands i listne to are Alexisonfire, The Fall of Troy, Fordirelifesake, Primus, and Link Wray. Most of those bands have some really great guitar and some great songs, too. Especially Alexisonfire's first album. That album is amazing and I recommend it to anyone who can see the beauty in some good screaming.


The beauty of screaming is that it destroys the throat of the one doing it much like it destroys my ears to have to listen to it (no reason other than the fact that most "screaming" makes me want to yelp in pity for the poor person who's doing it. It HURTS!)

I make fun of people like you on a fairly regular basis. Just for accurate comparison, other people I make fun of include: anyone over the age of 12 who's not ashamed to like Harry Potter, Star Wars nerds, and Lord of the Rings freaks. If you identify with any of these categories, you probably want to stop reading now.

I can't stand it when people say "Man," ::toke:: "They sure don't make music like they used to." ::bong hit:: "Now, the Beatles; Led Zeppelin; The Grateful Dead; now THAT was music. In fact, anything made after 1975 can't possibly be good." I happened to note that these type of people are wearing their parents' old clothes and are very, very high.

I don't think "skill" or "complexity" determine how good music really is, or should dictate what you listen to. How music conveys emotion, how much fun I can have while I listen to it is much more important to me. I listen to a lot of different music, technical or not, but still stray far from most of the main-stream music because I tend to find it's lyrics shallow or unappealing, and it's sound not even fun to listen to.

And for reference purposes, I am a Sigur Ros fan, and my favorite bands would include Bane, Millencolin, Killradio, Good Clean Fun, Gatsby's American Dream, Immortal Technique, Mental, and The Unseen, among many others. [see? diversity!]

The beauty of screaming is that it destroys the throat of the one doing it much like it destroys my ears to have to listen to it (no reason other than the fact that most "screaming" makes me want to yelp in pity for the poor person who's doing it. It HURTS!)

That's why I recommended it to people who don't mind screaming or actually like it. I think unique screaming is great, and if done properly, it does minimal damage to one's vocal chords. If done improperly, however, it will indeed rip apart your vocal chords, such as the case with George from Alexisonfire, who had a great scream, but not so much anymore.

Also, it only hurts if you aren't doing it properly or using your throat too much. It is possible to scream without hurting your throat.

I like the Beatles, the Who, Pink Floyd, Jeff Wayne (Musical War of the Worlds album=best prog rock and storytelling ever) a bit of Elvis even! But I also like industrial music like Rammstein, Laibach, Ministry, and KDMFM (HAU RUCK!). I also love electronica (NRG's 'Hardcore' remix is great). I also love classical music (go figure. helps me focus on schoolwork). I like all kinds of heavy metal; Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Pantera, and Mastodon to name a few. Speaking of Mastodon, you have to listen to their 'Leviathan' album. Sure they scream, but they're sound is great and the album is based on the story of Moby Dick; proving that metalheads is literate(<----pathetic attempt at humor). These are my opinions, and I know you may not like them all, but give some of them a shot.

I can tell by the sound in general how competent they are.

Shall we take Woody Guthrie as an example: was he a moderately competent musician?


...or... alternatively, we could go a different track and note that prior to the invention of piano rolls in 1863 it was impossible to record a musical performance, and so when you are saying that you dislike modern music you are stating that you like music which has been primarily composed by one person, yet performed by an entirely different set of people. Is it the skill of the composers or the performers that primarily attracts you?

And to you weirdos who think Punk Rock takes no skill...

...I point you toward the Toy Dolls.

Shall we take Woody Guthrie as an example: was he a moderately competent musician?

I've never actually heard his work, so I don't know.

End musical fascism!!!


http://www.dasversteckspiel.de/bilder/RAC.jpg

I've never actually heard his work, so I don't know.

Okay, how about rating him as a composer?

EDIT: http://www.lib.virginia.edu/speccol/exhibits/music/audio/mp3/this_land.mp3


....The fact that a teenage American has never heard the work of Guthrie makes me want to weep for the state of their country's educational system.

And to you weirdos who think Punk Rock takes no skill...

...I point you toward the Toy Dolls.

Oooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhh, Nelly the elephant packed her trunk,
And said good by to the circus
[etc]

Great stuff :)

Hang on, exactly what definition of modern are we using here? King Crimson and Metallica, Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones are all still producing music, and yet they don't fit into your category of 'modern music'....

Yeh, but all those bands started pre 1990, when music started to decline, there were some shining examples in the 1990s like Pearl Jam, RATM, SOAD, James Blunt, lol! But on the whole music started to decline, so modern music is after 1990.

Graham

Sounds like someone is happy with his collection of Doris Day records...

Yeh, but all those bands started pre 1990, when music started to decline, there were some shining examples in the 1990s like Pearl Jam, RATM, SOAD, James Blunt, lol! But on the whole music started to decline, so modern music is after 1990.

Graham

1990 is a somewhat arbitrary point to draw a line between 'old' music and 'modern' music. Are you indirectly suggesting that music was better as a direct result of the existence of the Berlin Wall? Lets look at the dates...

Berlin Wall built: 1961
Beatles learn how to rock in the sweaty clubs of Hamburg: 1961

Berlin Wall comes down: 1989
Graham sez music starts to suxor: 1990

Interesting.

Sounds like someone is happy with his collection of Doris Day records...

If you're slagging Move Over, Darling you will be on the receiving end of a punch up the bracket.

i kind of agree in that i find most "modern" music (stuff since about 1995 i guess) pretty average and often very similar. certainly pop, but thats been crap for decades

modern exceptions who actually try to do something different: Korn, Linkin Park, SOAD
other exceptions but from old bands releasing new good records: Testament, Exodus, Iced Earth and probably lots of others but i'm not really giving this that much thought tbh


if you don't like modern music but your friends do, so what? listen to something else and educate them in the ways of zeppelin and Cream :)
or just find more music here http://www.pandora.com/

I don't think your issue is with modern music, rather commercial crap.

-snip-
You need to listen to more music.

It's kind of obvious that you don't know much about modern music. For example, Messiaen, Penderecki, Dallapiccola (sp?), and Rochberg are among my favorite modern composers, and they certainly had a fair bit of talent (although I'm not sure if anyone else here has even heard of them, let alone likes them)... and from the early 20th century there are even more.

(You could try looking them up...)

1990 is a somewhat arbitrary point to draw a line between 'old' music and 'modern' music. Are you indirectly suggesting that music was better as a direct result of the existence of the Berlin Wall? Lets look at the dates...

Berlin Wall built: 1961
Beatles learn how to rock in the sweaty clubs of Hamburg: 1961

Berlin Wall comes down: 1989
Graham sez music starts to suxor: 1990

Interesting.

How interesting! It would be an interesting study to see if the cold war did play a role in the greatness of music :D lol!

My type of music, heavy metal, was at its greatest during this period, 1961-1990, well 1970 really as heavy metal was not 'invented' till then by Black Sabbath.

But, certainly in Heavy Metal, the quality of music has decreased on the whole and the new stuff is not to my liking...St. Anger by Metallica, classic example! Complete and utter shite!

If you're slagging Move Over, Darling you will be on the receiving end of a punch up the bracket.
I take it you have a fantasy about Swedish nurses...

You need to listen to more music.

It's kind of obvious that you don't know much about modern music. For example, Messiaen, Penderecki, Dallapiccola (sp?), and Rochberg are among my favorite modern composers, and they certainly had a fair bit of talent (although I'm not sure if anyone else here has even heard of them, let alone likes them)... and from the early 20th century there are even more.

(You could try looking them up...)
+ phillip glass :)

+ phillip glass :)
Did we ever find out who Banduria is? [/hijack]

Did we ever find out who Banduria is? [/hijack]
nooo... :confused:

you gonna tell us or what, banduria? you're too elusive damnit - we'll never get it :P

I take it you have a fantasy about Swedish nurses...

I am refering to the song, not the film. Whether I do actually have a fantasy about Swedish nurses or not is not currently germane to the matter at hand.

You're a stereotype. You'll grow out of it. I went through this phase when I was 15. It is true though.

You just need to look a little deeper to find the talent.

You're not looking hard enough.

There's plenty of great music about. Just very very rarely in the mainstream.

How interesting! It would be an interesting study to see if the cold war did play a role in the greatness of music :D lol!

My type of music, heavy metal, was at its greatest during this period, 1961-1990, well 1970 really as heavy metal was not 'invented' till then by Black Sabbath.

But, certainly in Heavy Metal, the quality of music has decreased on the whole and the new stuff is not to my liking...St. Anger by Metallica, classic example! Complete and utter shite!

Ugh. You really shouldn't consider St. Anger as Metal. As far as I'm concerned, Metallica now play in a genre known as Rockstar Shit. Iced Earth is, unfortunately, also heading down this road. Jon Schaffer needs to be kicked many, many times.

There is some good Metal being produced today if you know where to look. Most of it is coming out of Scandinavia and Europe in general, though. There are only a handful of decent bands that hail from the US at the moment.

To address the original topic of this thread... There is plenty of modern music that is great, but most of the stuff that is popular is, I agree, shite. It really the "MTV Generation", where bands and labels are selling an image rather than good music. However, for those of you with doubts about the merits of modern music (for anyone, really), I would suggest you check out Ayreon. That is some truly fantastic music.

As far as I'm concerned, Metallica now play in a genre known as Rockstar Shit.

Quite unlike their early days. Although I would be tempted to call the current genre, "Spinal Tap"

Quite unlike their early days. Although I would be tempted to call the current genre, "Spinal Tap"

Heh heh, quite apt. Metallica had some good moments back in their early days, though I, personally was never saw what the big deal was. They've always been pretty overrated, IMHO.

How interesting! It would be an interesting study to see if the cold war did play a role in the greatness of music :D lol!

My type of music, heavy metal, was at its greatest during this period, 1961-1990, well 1970 really as heavy metal was not 'invented' till then by Black Sabbath.

But, certainly in Heavy Metal, the quality of music has decreased on the whole and the new stuff is not to my liking...St. Anger by Metallica, classic example! Complete and utter shite!

Sorry to burst your bubble there but metal was invented along time before Black Sabbath. It could first be seen around the time the White Album by the Beatles came out. The true inventors of metal would have to be Jethro Tull.

Heh heh, quite apt. Metallica had some good moments back in their early days, though I, personally was never saw what the big deal was. They've always been pretty overrated, IMHO.

I've always thought of Metallica as a "meh" band. I never saw what all the fuss was about.

They're "Wanktallica/Metalliwank" to me.

I'm surprised no one has picked up on this yet, but pop-punk is an oxymoron. Punk is supposed to be the exact and utter opposite of pop. In other words, punk music is raw energy and a loud fuck-you to the establishment. Pop is catchy (or its supposed to be, I personally hate the stuff), bouncy, happy.

To sum up my rant, the phrase pop-punk makes as much sense as the phrase atheist-Christian.

I'm surprised no one has picked up on this yet, but pop-punk is an oxymoron. Punk is supposed to be the exact and utter opposite of pop. In other words, punk music is raw energy and a loud fuck-you to the establishment. Pop is catchy (or its supposed to be, I personally hate the stuff), bouncy, happy.

To sum up my rant, the phrase pop-punk makes as much sense as the phrase atheist-Christian.

Er, Punk Rock doesn't have to be anti-establishment. It just so happens that the prominent Punk Rock bands were so.

Pop-Punk is not an oxymoron.

I'm surprised no one has picked up on this yet, but pop-punk is an oxymoron. Punk is supposed to be the exact and utter opposite of pop. In other words, punk music is raw energy and a loud fuck-you to the establishment. Pop is catchy (or its supposed to be, I personally hate the stuff), bouncy, happy.

To sum up my rant, the phrase pop-punk makes as much sense as the phrase atheist-Christian.

Pop litterally just means "popular". One can be popular and still be punk, although it seems increasingly harder. Don't put too much concentration on the "Anti-establishment" aspect to punk, because it's always had the innate contradicitons in fighting "the establishment", and trying to become it. present in it.

Edit: punctuation for the win...

I must disagree with the post claiming that Jethro Tull was the beginning of heavy metal. (Yeah, I know I'm off topic, but this is important!) Born To Be Wild, by Steppenwolf, has to be taken into consideration. Yes, one of many songs that has been played into the ground by radio, and might even have come after Tull formed, (they're old) but still an older metal song.
That said, saw Tull live. One of the best shows of any kind I've ever seen.

I must disagree with the post claiming that Jethro Tull was the beginning of heavy metal. (Yeah, I know I'm off topic, but this is important!) Born To Be Wild, by Steppenwolf, has to be taken into consideration. Yes, one of many songs that has been played into the ground by radio, and might even have come after Tull formed, (they're old) but still an older metal song.
That said, saw Tull live. One of the best shows of any kind I've ever seen.

I have both Steppenwolf and Jethro Tull albums on vinyls so I think I should state the facts.

Born To Be Wild by Steppenwolf was released in 1968 on Steppenwolf's self titled album.

Jethro Tull first album, which I have, was released in 1968 but they didn't become mainstream until 1969, when Mick Abrahms left the band to start Bloodwyn Pig (not sure I spelled that right) and they through several guitarists before they decided on Martin Barre. Famous guitarists that worked with the band at times were Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath, who only last a few weeks, and David O'List of The Nice. The first mainstream album by Jethro Tull, which was their second album, was Stand Up.


By the way, I would love to see Jethro Tull live. They are amazing but with my age being only 18, I wouldn't be able to see Tull live since they don't tour as much as they used to. I have yet to see a concert date in Ontario, Canada.

I have both Steppenwolf and Jethro Tull albums on vinyls so I think I should state the facts.

Born To Be Wild by Steppenwolf was released in 1968 on Steppenwolf's self titled album.

Jethro Tull first album, which I have, was released in 1968 but they didn't become mainstream until 1969, when Mick Abrahms left the band to start Bloodwyn Pig (not sure I spelled that right) and they through several guitarists before they decided on Martin Barre. Famous guitarists that worked with the band at times were Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath, who only last a few weeks, and David O'List of The Nice. The first mainstream album by Jethro Tull, which was their second album, was Stand Up.


By the way, I would love to see Jethro Tull live. They are amazing but with my age being only 18, I wouldn't be able to see Tull live since they don't tour as much as they used to. I have yet to see a concert date in Ontario, Canada.
Correct me if I'm wrong, (I could be) but that first Tull album,(Was Not Was?) was pretty much straight blues.

Er, Punk Rock doesn't have to be anti-establishment. It just so happens that the prominent Punk Rock bands were so.

Pop-Punk is not an oxymoron.

I was referring to the true punk bands (Minor Threat, Sex Pistols, Ramones), not the posers like Greenday, Offspring, and GoodCharlotte.

Pretty much blues but had hints of metal. They are more "progressive rock" than anything else but it's a unique brand of progressive rock. It's a mixture of celtic, jazz, blues, classical, and alternative. They must be doing something right because they are said to be influences by some of the greatest artists that ever graced music. Those artists include Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and The Who.

Oh, by the way, the name of first album is This Was.

I was referring to the true punk bands (Minor Threat, Sex Pistols, Ramones), not the posers like Greenday, Offspring, and GoodCharlotte.


Ur.... hate to break it to you, but the Ramones were a pop-punk band. How could you have missed this? They even had Phil motherfreaking Spector in producing one of their LPs.

I was referring to the true punk bands (Minor Threat, Sex Pistols, Ramones), not the posers like Greenday, Offspring, and GoodCharlotte.

Green Day have begun to suck ass as of late, but they're hardly posers.

Green Day have begun to suck ass as of late, but they're hardly posers.
They're a bit shit lately, but everything from Nimrod back was brilliant.

My problem with modern music?

It sucks. All of the good stuff is underground, which is irritating.

At least in the 60s is was about the music, and money was created for more of it.

In the 90s, it was about the money, and music was destroyed for more of it.

They're a bit shit lately, but everything from Nimrod back was brilliant.

Yeah. I'm partial to Basket Case (kicks ass live).

Yeah. I'm partial to Basket Case (kicks ass live).

Last time I saw Green Day they hadn't written Basket Case yet.

Last time I saw Green Day they hadn't written Basket Case yet.

Heh, I've never even been to so much as a gig. :p

I guess I have few problems with most of what Green Day has done, but i will point out that the "American Idiot" tour was sponsored by Verizon, who also contributed heavily to the Bush campaign, which smells ever so slightly of selling out on their opinions (or not meaning them) to me.

Green Day have begun to suck ass as of late, but they're hardly posers.
thank you. I almost cried when I saw them with Offspring, and GoodCharlotte.:(

It's like I said earlier I am a little obsessed though, Green Day was my first major rebellion. My sister went to see them while she was visiting outside of Berkley in like 1991, she brought me back an LP and a shirt that said "eat your parents" on the back, I went to see them on the American Idiot tour (sorta closure before I had to be a real-live grown up)

I wore my shirt, it didn't fit me as well as it did in 91 but, it was cool anyway.

Last time I saw Green Day they hadn't written Basket Case yet.
what is your fav. old school Green Day song?

I am partial to "The Judge's Daughter" and "Only of You";)

what is your fav. old school Green Day song?

I am partial to "The Judge's Daughter" and "Only of You";)

I honestly couldn't name a single song of their own that they played that night, Operation Ivy's Knowledge is the only one I catually recall. They were entertaining enough, and I picked up a cassette of Dookie in a charity shop a few years later, but I've never felt compelled to track down their stuff friom when they were on Lookout!.

I guess I have few problems with most of what Green Day has done, but i will point out that the "American Idiot" tour was sponsored by Verizon, who also contributed heavily to the Bush campaign, which smells ever so slightly of selling out on their opinions (or not meaning them) to me.


.... You are aware that a good bit of that album was attacks on Bush? Right? I don't think every musician has time to check every single thing their sponsors have ever done. If anything, Verizon was "selling out."