Discussion in 'General Rock Discussion' started by Mr.Mr., May 9, 2013.
Guns and Roses
what do you guys think? who should be on the list?
I think those bands would be the faces of "modern" rock if we were talking 20-30 years ago. I don't think modern rock really has a "face" these days. Bands come and go, fall in and out of favour so fast, it's hard to keep track of who's even relevant. Bands barely stick around for a decade before calling it quits. (And then re-forming some years later.) As opposed to Metallica, who've been together for 30 years. Aerosmith, 43 years. Pearl Jam, 22 years. (I'm not counting GnR here, as they're not even really a band anymore, it's more the "Axl Rose Show," plus, they've had one album in the last 20 years?)
Plus no one puts out good solid albums anymore. I hear a good song on the radio, and go to check out the rest of the album, and it's lame. I don't remember the last time a band put out an entire album that was good. (But that may just be me; I still prefer to listen to music that came out 20 years ago. My usual playlist is "grunge." But I digress.)
Modern rock sucks, and its face is that of suck. Haha.
I think the bands which come closest are Blink 182, Fall Out Boy (?) and Foo Fighters (are they still doing stuff? I don't even know). But yeah, Ash, you're right. I mean, the bands you mention I knew about even when I wasn't like, in the 'rock scene' and I'm now kind of out of it again but don't know any modern bands; there are none that are big enough to break out of 'rock' and become just in the public sphere, y'know?
Blink and FOB were bands I was thinking of that were together for a while before breaking up and re-forming later, though I was a bit off on the "barely a decade" part with Blink, who were together for 13 years before breaking up in 05, and reforming in 09. Fall Out Boy, on the other hand, were only together for 8 years before splitting in 09, and reforming this year.
Foo Fighters are kind of still around, I guess. I think they're on an indefinite hiatus atm. But they've been together since 94 (formed the same year Kurt Cobain died; Dave Grohl was the drummer for Nirvana, in case there's anyone who doesn't know that,) so almost 20 years.
man, as much as i dont care for FooFighters, I think you are right. Blink182 as well.
Scared to say it, Nickelback ? LP?
I think Nickleback has more haters than fans, so I'd say no, haha!
Linkin Park is iffy, for me. They're one of those bands that came out of the early 00's, (and ohhh, I have a whole notepad doc written out about this, haha!) with Limp Bizkit, Staind, Godsmack, Slipknot, Disturbed, Papa Roach. They were "nu-metal" I guess the term was? MTV was all "It's the Return of the Rock!" (And even had a block of music videos every day titled as such. You know, back when the M in MTV actually meant "Music.") And all these bands, their first albums, some of their second albums, were fantastic. They were loud, heavy, angry. The lyrics were awesome, the guitars were awesome, everything was awesome. And then someone, somewhere, decided these bands needed to be more "radio friendly." They got mellower. More low-key. Gods, I've heard songs off of one of Staind's later albums on the radio at the grocery store! I describe most of these bands, now, as boring, bland, and lame. If the singers didn't sound different, I'd think they're all the same band.
My buddy was in a PapaRoach video.. for like a split second. lol
Not sure they were around that much or influential?
Limp Bizkit, yea, I can see that.
I'm not saying that Papa Roach, Slipknot, or any of those band I listed were that influential, because in the long run, they really weren't. I was just lumping them into the same category as Linkin Park; they started out strong good bands, and became boring bland and lame. Ultimately, forgettable.
Nirvana I would put high on the list as influential though. They weren't around that long, and they certainly weren't the best band to come out of the Seattle scene, (I'd give that honour to Alice in Chains, personally,) but they did an amazing thing for that scene, breaking into the mainstream and getting exposure for themselves that bled over to bands that probably wouldn't've been notable (outside the PNW -Pacific North West for you non-locals,) otherwise.
(I have a lot of things to say about music in the last 20 years, haha.)
Bands like Five Finger Death Punch and Halestorm seem to be all radio stations around here play.
Does rock n' roll still exist? I mean, the original form of 4/4 beats with the drum, bass, guitar and vocal is pretty passe. "Rock" is such an all encompassing term these days too, with so many little offshoots and factions. Prog rock, punk, neo punk, grunge, nu metal, thrash, death metal, pop rock, rockabilly, etc ad infinitum.
Who's the current standard-bearer? They'll be the hottest new act on the block, one album in at most, f**ked up and angry. They'll be trying to change the world while sticking cocaine up their nose and washing it down with a jar of vodka and a few benzos. They'll be way to cool for me to have heard of them, because anyone over the age of 27 is no longer relevant to rock.
As far as I'm aware, Rock as we know it is pretty dead? As previously stated, there's no new big names out there leading the way any more, it seems to just be the old names putting out contract fillers. I'd love to hear something genuinely amazing again, but until that time, I'm stuck with other genres. Hell, I've even gone off Muse since they've taken a direction I just don't like.
After hearing "Madness" I haven't been able to bring myself to listen to the rest of the album. There are no words for how much I can't stand that song. (Though I did hear "Panic Station" on the radio the other day, and I kind of liked it.)
And I agree with what you said about it just being old bands putting out contract fillers. all the "rock" bands putting out notable album lately are bands that've been around for ages, and are pretty mediocre now. Linkin Park, Green Day, same poop, different decade. Though Soundgarden and the Deftones put out albums recently, and they're quite good. (And I just found out the f**king Melvins put out an album this year? Holy sh-it, I should go listen to that.)
But I've hardly even been following current music in the last few years. Nothing catches my ear any more, and the bands that do, only have a song or two that I enjoy, and the rest of the album just isn't interesting at all. (And this is why, and I've mentioned this before, maybe not in this thread, but certainly elsewhere here on the forum, that I pretty much only listen to "grunge" music anymore. Entire albums full of songs that were actually worth listening to, that actually meant something.)
I find myself liking a bit of the new Indie that isn't actually it's namesake, using BBC Radio 1 while I'm at work to listen out for anything worth a try, The Vaccines seem to be doing well with their newest material but I wouldn't put them anywhere near any position of actual importance in terms of Rock. It seems that music production is moving the same way music sales are, from album sales to single sales, all anyone wants is singles to download from iTunes, there's no reason to put the effort in to write an album when there's no market for it. Calvin Harris has done spectacularly well in regards to this, releasing the album '18 Months', simply a collection of his singles which have all been huge hits, summing up the music market perfectly.
I really miss Radio 1! I stream it at home on my computer, but in the car I'm stuck with crappy Australian radio that's in love with the 90s. Everything is sodding Silverchair. Yes, they were good. No, they weren't THAT good. Just local. Don't even get me started on Powderfinger or Thirsty Merc...
^Awh, I love Silverchair. (They never play them on the radio out here anymore, so I don't hear them very often.) But I see that happen a lot with "they weren't that good, just local," especially when I lived in the Seattle area. "Grunge" gets a fair amount of play in Southern California, but it's only ever the same handful of songs, ("Man in the Box" by Alice in Chains, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana, "Black Hole Sun" by Soundgarden, and "Jeremy" by Pearl Jam are pretty much the only "grunge" songs they play on the radio, here.) But on the Seattle rock stations, they play so much more than those songs, even some that weren't that good. But I think it's understandable, (especially in a case like the Australian radio playing a lot of Silverchair, because seriously, how many other mainstream Australian bands are there?) for an area to have a certain amount of pride in the bands its produced, and play them a lot.
Pearl Jam and Nirvana get a lot of airplay over here too. No other American grunge bands really. A fair bit of Britpop of the Take That/Oasis/Blur era, but not a lot of new stuff. It's a little frustrating because you want to know what's new and different and exciting, not hear the same old song that's been played for the last 20 or 30 years.
Your main problem is you still listen to the radio for good music. There are plenty of good modern rock bands, you just have to have an open mind when listening to new music. If you're intersted in good modern rock bands check out: Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Band of Skulls, Baroness, The Black Keys, Cage the Elephant, Fidlar, My Morning Jacket, Grizzly Bear, Kurt Vile, Mastodon, Muse, MGMT, Tame Impala, Queens of the Stone Age, Vampire Weekend, Wavves, and The Strokes
Personally, I think we live in golden music era, but one in which you have to dig a little harder to find the good stuff.
I'd say the "faces" of modern rock are:
I actually only rarely listen to the radio. Maybe an hour a week, when out running errands. Though in the several months since I last posted in this thread, I've started listening to The Black Keys, and I quite like them. As for the other band you've listed; I don't know how modern I'd call Radiohead. They've been around for 20+ years, and when was the last time they had an album out? (I just looked, they had an album out in 2011. I've not actively listened to them since 2000 though, so.) Muse, as I'd mentioned in a previous post, I loved until their most recent album came out, and I just don't dig it at all. Queens of the Stone Age has been around for a while, but they've had an album out recently, so yeah, I'll give you that one. I didn't realize The Strokes were still around, but they had an album out last year, so I'll have to check that out. Cage the Elephant I only like 2 songs of, the rest is kind of meh. Arcade Fire, My Morning Jacket, Mastadon, MGMT, Vampire Weekend I've heard and I don't care for. Band of Skulls, Baroness, Fidlar, Grizzly Bear, Kurt Vile, Tame Impala and Wavves I've not heard, but I shall check out.
(That's not so say that any of these bands don't count as "good" modern rock. Taste is subjective of course. I know loads of people who like Fall Out Boy, and I don't really like them. I don't know anyone who likes Silverchair quite as much as I do. So, /shrug.)
But I certainly agree with you on Dave Grohl being one of the faces of modern rock. That guy is everywhere these days, and he's pretty awesome.
I'd definitely check out Tame Impala, probably my favorite new rock band
Isn't rock music, as well as jazz music, something wonderful but belonging to the past? I think to find great music we have to seek refuge in the past...
Separate names with a comma.