ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2005 - 2006

With Liv Tyler @ The VH1 Fasion Awards after party
© 2000 Kevin Mazur from Rolling Stone Magazine
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2005 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Music today and/vs. The Stones Return to archive Page: 1 2 3
December 29th, 2005 09:48 PM
IanBillen [quote]Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>In the past few days I have been listening to several new bands.

Two which grabbed my attention were The EEls, and The Dead Milk Men.<

How the hell are these "new" bands? The Eels("They" are really just one guy...) have been putting out albums since the 90's and the Dead Milkmen(Philly band!)? Fuck man, I SAW them back in the mid 80's! The DMs are so fucking new that they don't even exist anymore.

They are about as new as Phyllis Diller's dust fartin' ass.

Say Ian...why don't you try that new Bon Jovi album? That seems to be right up your alley.

____________________________________________________________________________

Wekk laugh as you may but I got news SSA....Bonjovi may be rock-pop, sissyfied, and may be a left-over sappy hair band from the 1980's but guess what....They kick the shit out of most of the newer bands today. You can write that down and log it!

For instance today I listened to Radio Head. OK been around for 10 years but are still thought of as hip enough and plenty talented. Well U heard their last album today. It is called "Hail to The Theif".
The three kids I was with said it was a "great fucking album"...a;; of them felt this way about it.

Well the fuckin album sucks. Plainly. Same dreary tone of voice. No groove whatso-ever. No pocket, No swing,,,,just uninspired shit basically. Just like all the other bands. I realize it is different. I realize it is a change, but dude....it just has no friggin excitement, no drive, no soul brother. Nothing. Basically all background music. I cannot believe the kids today think this is a great album.

The album is bullshit. Just another example.

Ian
December 29th, 2005 10:35 PM
Zanck*Zanck*Zanck Those wacky kids today and their 'Music'..if you can even call it that,its just a lot of noise to me.Back in my day we had real music,with melody and you could understand what the words were!!!and the way these kids look its simply outrageous I tell ya' simply out-rage-ous!
December 29th, 2005 10:41 PM
Zanck*Zanck*Zanck ...and bye the bye..the majority of Gangter Hip-Hop /Rap is bought by White Male Adolescent; and Teens in Suburbia U.S.A.
December 29th, 2005 10:45 PM
Egbert Wiggers!
December 30th, 2005 03:14 AM
pdog Ian went into his refrigerator, poured a glass of milk took a sip and realized it was curdled. He looked at the date stamp, it read 3-12-97. He put down the glass, went to his wondow and shouted, "don't drink the new milk it sucks!!!"

Ian, did you hear this new one? It's BAD!!!


December 30th, 2005 03:26 AM
pdog
quote:
IanBillen wrote:

I cannot believe the kids today think this is a great album.




You're hangin' with the wrong kids... My 4 year old has better taste in rock...
All your whiney ass posting about new music, can you name one album from 2005 you've listened to, from a band that doesn't show up the cover of Rolling Stone or get radio airplay? If you get my point, there's hope...
If not, suffer with all the shitty music... God knows a few dozen people here have offered you help.
There's a new group called Nirvana... There from Seattle. Great new scene up there, Soundgarden, Mudhoney... I'm skeptical... I do like the flanel shirt around the waist look, it might take off...
IDIOT!!!
December 30th, 2005 03:53 AM
IanBillen [quote]pdog wrote:


You're hangin' with the wrong kids... My 4 year old has better taste in rock...
All your whiney ass posting about new music, can you name one album from 2005 you've listened to, from a band that doesn't show up the cover of Rolling Stone or get radio airplay? If you get my point, there's hope...
If not, suffer with all the shitty music... God knows a few dozen people here have offered you help.
There's a new group called Nirvana... There from Seattle. Great new scene up there, Soundgarden, Mudhoney... I'm skeptical... I do like the flanel shirt around the waist look, it might take off...
IDIOT!!!

__________________________________________________________________________

Pdog. Yes I have listened to many bands that do not make the cover of Rolling Stone. I am enrolled in an Audio Engineering school so I get PLENTY of exposure. I will look into the Rainey Saints and a few others. But alot of people agree here on my opinion of music's latest.

Now,
Speaking of being outdated:
When you go back to the hair stylist ask her/him to get the 2005-2006 haircut design manuals....not the 1977-1978 catalogue.

-Ian-
December 30th, 2005 08:30 AM
maumau
quote:
For instance today I listened to Radio Head. OK been around for 10 years but are still thought of as hip enough and plenty talented. Well U heard their last album today. It is called "Hail to The Theif".
The three kids I was with said it was a "great fucking album"...a;; of them felt this way about it.

Well the fuckin album sucks. Plainly. Same dreary tone of voice. No groove whatso-ever. No pocket, No swing,,,,just uninspired shit basically. Just like all the other bands. I realize it is different. I realize it is a change, but dude....it just has no friggin excitement, no drive, no soul brother. Nothing. Basically all background music. I cannot believe the kids today think this is a great album.

The album is bullshit. Just another example.

Ian



i do think that hail to the thief is a fucking great album with lot of soul in it (not soul as a genre..duh) very passionate. i think Radiohead is a peculiar example of a band that started as an ordinary newwaverock band but evolved in something more provocative and sperimental. i like them > sound, guitar, voice, songwriting. not my favorite but i like them and sure don't think it is "uninspird shit"
December 30th, 2005 11:34 AM
pdog
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
[quote]pdog wrote:


You're hangin' with the wrong kids... My 4 year old has better taste in rock...
All your whiney ass posting about new music, can you name one album from 2005 you've listened to, from a band that doesn't show up the cover of Rolling Stone or get radio airplay? If you get my point, there's hope...
If not, suffer with all the shitty music... God knows a few dozen people here have offered you help.
There's a new group called Nirvana... There from Seattle. Great new scene up there, Soundgarden, Mudhoney... I'm skeptical... I do like the flanel shirt around the waist look, it might take off...
IDIOT!!!

__________________________________________________________________________

Pdog. Yes I have listened to many bands that do not make the cover of Rolling Stone. I am enrolled in an Audio Engineering school so I get PLENTY of exposure. I will look into the Rainey Saints and a few others. But alot of people agree here on my opinion of music's latest.

Now,
Speaking of being outdated:
When you go back to the hair stylist ask her/him to get the 2005-2006 haircut design manuals....not the 1977-1978 catalogue.

-Ian-



you making fun of my hair in a picture that is almost twenty years old...
IDIOT!!!
I bet you never had a cool haircut... The good money is on that...
December 30th, 2005 12:17 PM
Zanck*Zanck*Zanck BROTHAS AND SIS-TUHS
BROTHAS AND SIS-TUHS
WHO WANTS TO FIGHT?....
IF THAT CAT DOESN'T COOL IT MA---N!



December 30th, 2005 06:23 PM
Ronnie Richards IanBillen... is your real name Toby Radloff?
December 30th, 2005 06:54 PM
glencar LOL He's a piker...
December 30th, 2005 08:44 PM
IanBillen [quote]pdog wrote:


you making fun of my hair in a picture that is almost twenty years old...
IDIOT!!!
I bet you never had a cool haircut... The good money is on that...

__________________________________________________________________________

Pdog, the remark I made about your hair wasn't a personal attaclk. I have to give you some shit back though right.

My hair is fine from what I have been told. No Buzz cut, No parting on the side, No need for a comb-over, and All though my hair is full and long, it is not down to my shoulders, No white guy thinking he is African American either (I am certainly not prejaduice at all, it just urks me when someone tries to be something they are not. It often urks African Americans in this situation as well because what they are seeing is mostly a poser).

Now that my hair situation is cleared up let's get back to the original conversation. If you notice I am going to take your advice and I am going to get ahold of The Rainy Saints stuff to give it a listen. I honestly thought I had heard of The Dead Milkmen before but wasn't sure. I asked the girl who was playing it today why she made reference that they were new. She hadn't, she just was playing them in school is all.

Now Pdog I am going to be slightly judgemental again so don't take offense too much. It seems you may be a person always screaming how great the newest music is and that you were the first to listen to it. Also my impression is that probably you have been this way your entire listening career. Maybe in 10 years you'll never even remotely think about the bands of today and you'll be screaming how hot the bands of that day are and how you were listening to them before the majority was...
But I dont know you personally so I could be wrong. It is just my strong impression.

I am the type of person that calls it as I see it (or in this case, as I hear it).
Yes I have heard good music within the past five years besides The Stones.

-Just far and few between

No I don't act like I am a 70 year old man saying everything the younger generation does is silly or entirely wrong.

-Until the past five or six years I was OK with what I heard and in 93-95 I was completely satisfied.

I just call it as I see (or hear in this case) it. And I can say with an open mind that 90-95% of what I hear today is very sub-par)I wish it WAS good. I wouldn't be frustrated.

I will certainly check out a few of these groups that you mention. I am actually pretty open minded on alot of subjects (not all but artisically I consider myself open minded). I am more open minded to new music than anyone I know my age (I'm 34)and certainly more than any of my friends. Not only because I like fresh, quality stuff in the field I am going into being close or narrow minded just doesn't work that well.

Ian
December 30th, 2005 08:46 PM
glencar "urk" should be "irk" which BTW you do very easily to most of us.
December 30th, 2005 10:46 PM
IanBillen [quote]glencar wrote:
"urk" should be "irk" which BTW you do very easily to most of us.

___________________________________________________________________________

I realize I may "irk" (<<
I don't get irritated at people who have a difference of opinion. I just think it is frustrating to me when they refuse to acknowledge, or choose to slag argueably good talant....such as when these kids tell me The Stones are old and don't put out anything good, and are a laugh. Now that frustrates me.

I guess I was rea;;y "irking" people two or three months ago when I was stating how Keith was heavily involved in the writing process for A Bigger Bang. Every one here (except very, very, few as in one or two people) said I was an ass and that Mick wrote basically this whole friggin album. I stated that from what they said and the people around The Stones comments have been exactly opposite.

Now, I think 3/4 of this board see it my way. Especially after this DVD realease with Charlie, Ronnie, and Don Was saying how much of a dual effort together this writing process was between Mick and Keith.

*The interviews and footage on the DVD PURPOSELY made it VERY CLEAR that the two wrote, and worked these songs out very strongly as a team on this album. The DVD very much made that a point to present to people when they talked about the creation of A Bigger Bang. The is no disputing that.
Even shows footage of the two working together just as they always had.

Keith wasn't the vegetable working this thing up as most all said. It is now basically factual that the two worked these tunes out and wrote the album together, each giving strong input to the writing process working more as a team in writing and working the songs up than in over twenty years!

The statements made here a while back about Keith being for the most part useless in terms of writing could not of been anything further from the truth of the matter.

And guess what, Keith was as crucial in the writing of ABB, as ANY Stones album as thankfully now most everyone sees it because it has been revealed so many times over.. And if they don't they are just being obstinant.

So don't be so "irk'd". Like I said I call it as I see it.

Ian

[Edited by IanBillen]
December 31st, 2005 12:04 AM
glencar
quote:
IanBillen wrote:

Every one here (except very, very, few as in one or two people) said I was an ass {blah blah blah}

[Edited by IanBillen]



Majority rules: you an ass!
December 31st, 2005 12:12 AM
jb Peop[le have a righ to masterbate if they want to..it's normal!!!
December 31st, 2005 12:16 AM
glencar The Supremes have yet to rule on this...
December 31st, 2005 01:35 AM
keefjunkie
quote:
maumau wrote:
sufjan stevens, bearsuit, the go! team, animal collective, broadcast, architecture in helsinki, clap your hands say yeah, the boy least likely, stina nordenstam, giant sand, nine horses, nada (italian singer), shannon wright, rapture, rachel's, iron & wine, bonnie prince billy, devendra banhart, jaime lidell, clouddead (just "ten", i'm not particularly in hip hop either), antony and the johnsons, daniel johnston, nouvelle vague, greg ashley, but also "big" names as stephen malkmus, sleater kinney, fiona apple, graham coxon and yes wilco or really big ones as alicia keys or beck or yes bjork or paul weller

that is a disorderly bunch of music i listened to thru 2005 and liked, some veeery much

many of these i think are more relevant to contemporary pop/rock/etc than late stones (and i like abb)

my top 3 of 2005:
sleater kinney "the woods"
antony & the johnsons "i am a bird now"
bonnie prince billy & matt sweeney "superwolf"

stephen malkmus, sufjan stevens and the go! team got close to the top



animal collective! archetecture in helsinkie! clap your hands say yeah! the rapture! clouddead! beck! bjork!

you have fantastic taste in music maumau
December 31st, 2005 01:39 AM
keefjunkie
quote:
Col wrote:
Hey Billen, I actually agree with you on some points. Modern music is 99.9% uninspiring insipid crap.( I'm a 24 year songwriter) In Britain for example, I saw The Rakes on Jools Holland singing "22 Grand Job, It's Alright" My thoughts were, then get the fuck out out of music and get a 40 grand job you tossers! Where's the passion, where's the guts, where's the emotion? Fucking lame! Then we also have Hard-Fi singing "I'm working for the cash machine". Lame!

Come on though, Bjork? She's hardly new anymore, she must've been around for at least 10 years.

Bigger Bang and White Stripes? Both mediocre in the bigger scheme of things. White Stripes have one of the worst sounds in Rock history. Shite drumming, shite singing, bedroom guitar playing, shite vocals etc. I actually prefer the Oasis sound and that's saying something!

Jumping Jack, remember the Stones got a kick start out of their rebellious anti-establishment image so maybe it's the same. Although I find it hard to believe that Mick 'n' keef had that songwriting chemistry waiting in their souls when they were already famous. Fate you might say.

The kids nowadays just listen to whatever is put on a plate for them by the evil marketing men. The thing to remember is that there are still songwriters who don't give a flying fuck about what is hip, and only hear good music whether it is Beatles, Stones, Mozart, Chuck Berry or James Brown, and will fight to preserve great music in this mediocre commercialised money orientated modern age. As Keef said, he just "passed it on". I for one, will take the baton and run with it and the Stones legacy will live forever!



Im 16 and i done listen to ANY bands that are on mtv or modern rock radio, or whats "put on the plate by the evil marketing men". Actually i know more kids who would rather listen to the beatles,stones,chuck berry or james brown than that crap. Please don't completly lose faith in my generation.
[Edited by keefjunkie]
December 31st, 2005 01:51 AM
maumau
quote:
keefjunkie wrote:


animal collective! archetecture in helsinkie! clap your hands say yeah! the rapture! clouddead! beck! bjork!

you have fantastic taste in music maumau



lol thank you
and don't forget the stones!
i think that this thing about good ole music vs crappy new shite is...
well, bullshit
i guess it is not much different from what some people said when the stones came out first

and also, though i have a fanatic love for the stones, i like different genres of music and i try to find soul and groove in what i hear. if i sense these i don't care if there's guitar or not, if it is funky or not, if it is a clever musician (that doesn't really mean anything to me) or not etc... i guess for me it is just "good vibes" or not

cheers
all have a happy 2006
December 31st, 2005 02:24 AM
pdog
quote:
IanBillen wrote:

Now Pdog I am going to be slightly judgemental again so don't take offense too much. It seems you may be a person always screaming how great the newest music is and that you were the first to listen to it. Also my impression is that probably you have been this way your entire listening career. Maybe in 10 years you'll never even remotely think about the bands of today and you'll be screaming how hot the bands of that day are and how you were listening to them before the majority was...
But I dont know you personally so I could be wrong. It is just my strong impression.




I can't remember shit too well. I also take musical advice from people who have tastes like mine, but we differ, so it's a gamble, I mostly win... I listen to music from the 50's to current, and sometimes the really old stuff is brand new to me... And sometimes the stuff I once liked alot, I don't like anymore, and in some cases, stuff I didn't like when it was new, I find I like now... What I really try to do is be open minded and I spend alot of money on my earhole habit... So, I do consider myself a rock and roll junkie! I'm to music what a junkie is to the dealer... I know good stuff, I get burned every now and again and when the shit is bad, well, I get a new bag of dope... Music is played alot in my house... So much so, that my son can name bands, the members and he can tell you who shot John Lennon and how Brian Jones died. He likes alot of music and he wants to know about the artists. He asks, I tell... It's not just about the sounds we hear, it way more, it's very spiritual too. It's in my blood, I was born this way. I've been listening to rock and roll since I was three.
I can tell you one thing I've always found when it comes to alot of folks who buy music. Most people aren't risk takers, or they don't buy alot, so they're hesistant. I also have found when it comes to music, alot of folks are just apprehensive, they like what they're comfortable with... Like food, most people will eat the same kinds of food, for most of their lifes. It's normal, and I don't knock them for it, well not too much.
Pop music and culture is like McDonalds. You know how it's gonna taste and it's easy and and fast. No work in thinking about what're you're gonna get. Ever ask someone how the burgers are today, or read a review of the Quarter Pounder? I invest time and money, but I put my soul into to it. For me it's it's a passion. It's like good food, good sex, the love of my friends and family. It's not something i do casualy. It's a part of who I am, it's not something I just do...
And about rap and hip/hop... Fuck all the haters. Man i just don't listen to it, haven't since the good ol'days... But Jeez, people need to just shut the fuck up about it. Pass it by, let it be. Dr. Suuess was a great rapper. Ever read that shit. Rap, rock it's all mostly rhyming in the words... Some is good some isn't... Most the good stuff, isn't on the charts or in reatail chain music shops too!
[Edited by pdog]
December 31st, 2005 12:34 PM
glencar I have yet to hear a Fifty Cents song!
December 31st, 2005 12:47 PM
Sir Stonesalot >The Rainy Saints stuff to give it a listen<

Ian...it'll help if you get the band name right...The Rainy DAY Saints. It's on Get Hip Records(google it), and while at Get Hip, you should try out The Cynics and The Paybacks, as well as RDS.

The Cynics and Paybacks are not new bands. The Cynics have been playing Stones and Stooges influence bad-ass rock and roll for 20+ years. The Paybacks have been around in various line ups since last century.

I'm more partial to adrenalinized rock n roll...so Shoegaze(Yeah, Shoegaze, also called "Mope Rock", is an actual genre in rock n roll. I don't know why, it neither rocks nor rolls.) music like Radiohead never struck a chord with me. Doesn't mean it's not good. I guess it's good for what it is...it's just not my cup of tea.

I can't believe you stuck up for Bon Jovi again Ian. Bon Jovi is right at the very top of the dung heap. Right up there with The Eagles, IMO. It's hack music. Period. It's overproduced, overpolished, overplayed, oversapped, hackneyed, boring, crap rock made for people who don't give a shit about music. And YOU keep sticking up for it.

I can't believe Gazza hasn't banned you yet. LOL! (This is a joke Ian. Gazza really REALLY hates Bon Jovi. So before you wig out on me, I was only kidding and did not mean that you should actually be banned.)

December 31st, 2005 01:26 PM
Sir Stonesalot >Especially after this DVD realease with Charlie, Ronnie, and Don Was saying how much of a dual effort together this writing process was between Mick and Keith.

*The interviews and footage on the DVD PURPOSELY made it VERY CLEAR that the two wrote, and worked these songs out very strongly as a team on this album. The DVD very much made that a point to present to people when they talked about the creation of A Bigger Bang. The is no disputing that.
Even shows footage of the two working together just as they always had.<

Oh dear lord.

Are you telling me that you actually BELIEVE that crap? Seriously?

That DVD struck me as perhaps the most insincere, manufactured bit of propaganda since W's "Iraq has WMDs, and is connected to Al-Queda" State of the Union Address. Every bit of that thing was staged

But hey, believe what you wanna believe. It's your life, smart people can't live it for you...you gotta do it yerself.
December 31st, 2005 07:11 PM
IanBillen [quote]Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>Especially after this DVD realease with Charlie, Ronnie, and Don Was saying how much of a dual effort together this writing process was between Mick and Keith.

*The interviews and footage on the DVD PURPOSELY made it VERY CLEAR that the two wrote, and worked these songs out very strongly as a team on this album. The DVD very much made that a point to present to people when they talked about the creation of A Bigger Bang. The is no disputing that.
Even shows footage of the two working together just as they always had.<

Oh dear lord.

Are you telling me that you actually BELIEVE that crap? Seriously?

That DVD struck me as perhaps the most insincere, manufactured bit of propaganda since W's "Iraq has WMDs, and is connected to Al-Queda" State of the Union Address. Every bit of that thing was staged

But hey, believe what you wanna believe. It's your life, smart people can't live it for you...you gotta do it yerself.

___________________________________________________________________________

lol. GWB and WMD's in Iraq into The Stones deciding to tell everyone a load about Mick and Keiths work on A Bigger Bang. Don't you think that is a stretch?
Ahhh well Happy New Year. But remember all The Stones video releases are somewhat manufactured. Regardless why wouldn't the DVD producers and Stones camp just focus solely on how the album was made at Micks and the vibe they got from all that instead of fabricating, or flat out lying about the writing process that occured.....? SSA: Are you suggesting they are all just lying to us. I am not so wet behind the ears I do not know that bands and the people surrounding them always try to say and present what would sell the most records. But really SSA, Do you think it is ALL BULL. I mean, do you think they would really push this envelope of BS this long in our faces if there were no truth to it? I think they would maybe make mention that Mick and Keith did a great job in writing the album in close quarters or something but I don't think they would continuously throw the bullshit in our faces every single time they are asked about the creation of ABB.

Anyway, I will check out The Rainy Day Saints. I like the bands name. It has a ring to it. Got a good feeling about them for some reason. And I will also look into atleast one other of those bands you mention. I totaly look forward for a hot new act. I am desperate for one. Maybe I will enjoy the suggestions you made. I listened to The EELS to day again. Not bad. Different. Also listened to Melted Bannana and of coarse.....Iggy and the Stooges. So you see I do listen to alot of music. Yesterday I listened to Bonnie Raitt, Christina A, The Stones, and Cake.

Ian
[Edited by IanBillen]
January 1st, 2006 02:11 AM
Brainbell Jangler The Dead Milkmen are a "new group"? When did they put out their first album, 23 years ago?

And Jumping Jack's slagging of new groups reminds me of nothing so much as Dean Martin's idiotic insults aimed at the Stones 40 years ago. Learning nothing from history, he is condemned to repeat it.
January 1st, 2006 03:10 AM
IanBillen [quote]Brainbell Jangler wrote:
The Dead Milkmen are a "new group"? When did they put out their first album, 23 years ago?

And Jumping Jack's slagging of new groups reminds me of nothing so much as Dean Martin's idiotic insults aimed at the Stones 40 years ago. Learning nothing from history, he is condemned to repeat it.

__________________________________________________________________________

I fully understand The Dead Milk Men are not a new group now.

In my opinion the greatest output of music came between the years of 1968-1972. The list of classic albums, classic singles as well as a HUGE transition to real quality music in those years is incredible.
Nothing has come close to that since. I think 1991-95 was a pretty good era.
Today, as in the last six years I am basically unimpressed. I agree in that there IS good music out there. You just have to really fish for it. The groups SSA, Nasty Habits, and a few others mentioned I will definately check out. I NEVER give up hope. And once in a blue moon I get surprised. You should keep an open mind to music and this I realize. Otherwise you never give yourself the chance to get into something new. I look forward to hearing the bands that have been suggested to me here in recent posts.

Ian
January 1st, 2006 05:36 AM
Lord Homosex Makes me mad sometimes whn people complain about there not being anyhting new out there. That is totla bullshit beisdes part of the fun of lisatening to ne wacts is FINDING them. It takes work and an open ear/mind. There's plenty great "old" music out ther and zillions of great newer bands. Like someone else mentioned EEls and Dead Milkmen hardly qulaifies as new music.
Strokes, Kings of leon, Kaiser Chiefs, Sufjan Stevens, the Music are all newer bands who are putting out superb rockmusic. Lucinda Wiulliams, Alison Krauss, Ryan Adams, Nick Cave, Flaming Lips are all "older" artists who are only getting better abnd better,
Then there are the Whigs, Black Mountain,Calla, Clap your hands..., Lucero,and Antony & Johnsons who are really pretty recent.
This attitude of nothing being put out is just criminal. Just because Corporate radio sucks does not mena that art had gone asleep or died.
January 1st, 2006 08:29 AM
Jumping Jack BJ,

The basics of the music industry are no different now than they were in Dean Martin's day. It is driven by talent and money and everyone will jump on the bandwagon in a big way as soon as a group or individual comes along that has great talent, charisma and songs with broad and long lasting appeal. You won't have to go discover it, if it is truly good it explodes like a match on gasoline with everyone trying to make a buck on it. It clearly stands above the day to day crap being pushed.

Superstardom cannot be manufactured although the industry continues to try for short term gain. There will always be Monkees and Britney Spears, prepackaged junk food, all style and no substance. Style is easy to create, substance is not. Most rock bands today are more interested in acting like rock stars (and fools/posers in many cases) than being serious musicians. 99% style, 1% substance.

The Stones sold because they wrote great music first and foremost, 99% substance. The style came along as a bonus. The reason they sell $450 tickets today at 60 years old is that the songs are still great and they remain the most charismatic performers around.

All the big name old school performers will soon be gone and there will be a huge money making void to be filled. Since the big money comes from touring, not CD sales, there will be great motivation for the industry move away from music porn videos (style) toward live performances built great songs and charismatic entertainers (talent).

There are more country groups capable of filling arenas than new rock or rap bands because they are at least 50% focused on songwriting, albiet with manufactured style in most cases.

Say what you want, but getting more tattoos, piercings, and bizarre hair than the next group will not fill arenas and stadiums. Writing songs with mass appeal will. Rock is a derivation of blues. There will be a natural evolution of stadium rock, making more money than the Stones ever dreamed of. It will happen for those truly in it for the artistic reasons, not those seeking fame and fortune. Fame and fortune follow talent and creativity now as it did in Dean Martin's day. When new bands focus less on being different and more on being good things will change. Style is short term, substance is much longer lasting.

My point is that it isn't a matter of discovery, it is a matter of focus. When the new groups with true talent focus more on their art than on commercialism big things will happen for them. The days of bling will soon be over and people will look back and ask what were those jackasses thinking, LOL!!! The Stones were hit on Dean Martin because of their songs (still being played 40 years later) not their hair and clothes.

[Edited by Jumping Jack]
Page: 1 2 3
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)