Do You Want To Hear New Music From Your Favorite Rock Band From The 70's/80's?

[Hey Man]

Originally Posted by milosz

A bunch of writers who grew up on '60s and '70s rock often list '60s and '70s rock among the greatest of all time? You don't say...

Yes, because modern music magazines today are so reputable when it comes to music journalism - give me a ******* break. My dog could write better reviews and articles about the music industry.

 

[MetroStyles]

Only if they don't suck cock.

For example, AC/DCs album a few years ago was pretty sick and rocked just as hard as some of their old stuff (at least a few tracks did). If they can do that, then yes.

If they are gonna suck it up like most old bands with new material, then no thanks.

 

[milosz]

Originally Posted by Hey Man

Yes, because modern music magazines today are so reputable when it comes to music journalism - give me a ******* break. My dog could write better reviews and articles about the music industry.

I don't even know what the **** this is supposed to mean or how it relates to what I said.

You're making a strong case for eugenics.

 

[Harold falcon]

Originally Posted by Hey Man

But nobody cares about all the ****** bands that existed in the 60's and 70's, because as a whole - the 60's and 70's are widely considered the greatest decades ever for music.

Widely considered by who? I'm pretty sure Beethoven would disagree with that statement.

Most greatest album lists contain the albums from that time period of any other decade. There many hundreds if not thousands of artists from those two decades of various music gene's that have shaped and revolutionized music.

Could you be any less specific? "various music gene's that have shaped and revolutionized music" is meaningless drivel.

Don't forget that the stance you were originally taking is that yes, most music does suck today, but if you search for it - you can find great music.

I still take that stance.

That is the direct opposite of the 60's and 70's. If you wanted to find good music say if you were a hard rock fan, it was all around you and not hard to find at all.

No, it's not the opposite. Radio play back in those days sucked just as hard. You just can't remember that far back because you are so goddamn old.

I was 5 years old when I got into KISS and Alice Cooper in the early 70's.

Lol, you accuse Soundgarden of being a Sabbath rip off (which there may be some truth to) but then you elevate KISS and Alice Cooper? Holy gimmicky crap. NOBODY thinks of KISS or Alice Cooper as revolutionary. They are entertaining, and Cooper puts on a good live show, but they are not the voice of a generation and not likely to make any legitimate music critics best of list.

I mentioned Appetite for Destruction jackass, because Guns N' Roses were considered the Zeppelin of the late 80's and early 90's. They didn't even really break until 1988, so I don't even know why you posted a chart list 1987 of various artists since I wasn't defending the 80's in the first place.

Because the album came out in 1987. And you were suggesting music was better back then compared to today.

Look, there are bands that have come along in the 60's and 70's that changed music forever and started new generations of rock bands that were influenced by these artists, but obviously added their own thing to it.

And where do you think those '60s and '70s bands came from, stupid?

To give you an example - Soundgarden is really just a grungy mixture of Sabbath and Zeppelin.

Look, I love Zeppelin. I really do. But you have to stop holding them up as some kind of revolutionary game-changer. If you knew jack **** about music you would know there has never been a bigger rip off band than Led Zeppelin.

The point is that we now have like 63 rock bands that sound just like Nickelback

There weren't 63 bands that sound just like the Beatles? Seriously?

and the band that you do like and listed - nobody cares about for most part, so they won't define this music generation.

Music has never "defined a generation". Stop with your tired cliches. I listen to music I like, not that others like. If there ever was a period where music "defined a generation" it was only because there were only two radio stations so you had to listen to what was played on the pop channel unless you wanted to listen to the Bible Station.

When they look back to discuss music in the 2000's, they won't even know the music you like existed to even bother talking about it.

Pretty sure people are going to remember the Flaming Lips and Beck and Radiohead and The White Stripes and Jay Z for a little while longer. Certainly longer than anybody is going to give a **** about Whitesnake.

But in previous decades, the greatest bands in the world were at the forefront of music and will be remembered long after we all die.

Probably not. People have a very short attention span. Most kids in high school nowadays have no idea who the Beatles or Rolling Stones were. They certainly aren't going to remember Bon Jovi or Whitesnake in another ten years. And that's fine. People are not required to focus on the past. Onward and upward. ****, one of the best things of the last ten years was Danger Mouse's Grey Album, and half the people who listened to that had never heard the White Album. BUT THAT'S OK. Things change. Some things are forgotten, but life keeps on moving. Accept it.

Would you like my list of the modern bands I like, so maybe you can see that I am not an old fogey?

Absolutely not. I've got plenty of good albums I want to listen to. I have no desire to listen to the junk that you play in your Toyota Sienna while you drive your disabled wife to the cardiologist.

 

[Harold falcon]

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags. Yeah, Led Zeppelin was REVOLUTIONARY MAN! Nothing like it had ever existed before!

 

[Hombre Secreto]

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags. Yeah, Led Zeppelin was REVOLUTIONARY MAN! Nothing like it had ever existed before!
Even if you would take the songs in question... Led would still have an unbelievable catalog: Kashmir Going to California Friends Battle of Evermore Immigrant Song Achilles Last Stand All My Love In The Evening Black Dog Rock and Roll Good Times Bad Times No Quarter I honestly don't even like most of their heavily sampled songs. It did hurt when I find out Babe I'm Gonna Leave You wasn't theirs.

 

[FLMountainMan]

Originally Posted by milosz

I don't even know what the **** this is supposed to mean or how it relates to what I said.

You're making a strong case for eugenics.

This must be your first time in a Hey Man thread. This is a humbled Hey Man. Used to be much, much worse.

 

[Mark from Plano]

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

For example, the best-selling album of 1966 was Whipped Cream & Other Delights, by Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass. A real "rock god" right there.

My Dad had this album and as a young boy this album cover gave me a funny feeling in my 'no-no' places.

 

[word]

tldr at the end. What I think is really cool is when bands play a mix of old hits + their new material. NIN did this 2 years ago. So does Iron Maiden sometimes. It makes for a nice show, you got the nostalgia bomb songs mixed with the newer, more relevant ones. If all I ever want to hear were classic hits from the 70s I'd drop 5 bucks at a local bar and see a cover band because cover bands for those super groups are everywhere. At least a cover band of young dudes would be more entertaining than some washed out 60+ year olds relying on pyro and lights to distract fans from their bad playing. On recording being too expensive. Back in the 60s and 70s lotsa these bands were too damn broke to spend a long time in the studio. Many hammered their **** out in a couple weeks or month or whatever and that was that. About CDs and MP3s conflicting. Why would they? I know two big-name record labels that offer digital and physical formats. Warp and Planet Mu. No reason more contemporary music labels can't do the same, if they haven't already. They probably do through the iTunes store somehow, I'm not keen on how that works out. Again about hearing new music vs limiting yourself to old ****: There's infinitely more new music coming out these days than there ever has been, ever. The issue is there being infinitely more stuff to filter through to find what you like. Fortunately you have the internet (lastfm and now ping) and music blogs to help out with that if your time is limited. What you really, really like won't always be easily accessible or obvious. RIAA has people thinking they can only like big super groups or whatever. Nu uh, bad, because what they're rigging the charts with isn't always good. Also, I really feel bad for people who are stuck in the past as far as music preferences go. Yea old stuff is good and classic, tried and true, mindless to play, can't go wrong, blabity blah. New stuff is just as good, if not better and more plentiful. Personally I don't like listening to the same stuff for years on end. I loathe classic rock radio because it's so mindless. I mean, how can the "dj" possibly stand it? "allright guys, I know you've heard this song every week of your life since the 70s but here we go again! [****** robot impression]I AM IRON MAAANN![/****** robot impression] here we go, enjoy for the eleventy billionth time!" **** off and die. PS: My radio experience is probably very biased since I live in the south where most people over 30 listen to classic or southern rock and there's at any given time 4 stations all playing the same ****. tldr: there's more than enough new music to get immersed in, no reason to limit yourself to boring classics you've already heard over 'n over.

Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto

I honestly don't even like most of their heavily sampled songs. It did hurt when I find out Babe I'm Gonna Leave You wasn't theirs.

Why does it matter if you still enjoy the song. Guess what? Now you can check out the original and bam, you're exposed to even more music than before. I love cover songs or ones with awesome samples for this reason. Almost all of that old rock has roots in old school delta blues.

whew

 

[FLMountainMan]

Originally Posted by word

tldr at the end.

What I think is really cool is when bands play a mix of old hits + their new material. NIN did this 2 years ago. So does Iron Maiden sometimes. It makes for a nice show, you got the nostalgia bomb songs mixed with the newer, more relevant ones. If all I ever want to hear were classic hits from the 70s I'd drop 5 bucks at a local bar and see a cover band because cover bands for those super groups are everywhere. At least a cover band of young dudes would be more entertaining than some washed out 60+ year olds relying on pyro and lights to distract fans from their bad playing.

On recording being too expensive. Back in the 60s and 70s lotsa these bands were too damn broke to spend a long time in the studio. Many hammered their **** out in a couple weeks or month or whatever and that was that.

About CDs and MP3s conflicting. Why would they? I know two big-name record labels that offer digital and physical formats. Warp and Planet Mu. No reason more contemporary music labels can't do the same, if they haven't already. They probably do through the iTunes store somehow, I'm not keen on how that works out.



Again about hearing new music vs limiting yourself to old ****:

There's infinitely more new music coming out these days than there ever has been, ever. The issue is there being infinitely more stuff to filter through to find what you like. Fortunately you have the internet (lastfm and now ping) and music blogs to help out with that if your time is limited. What you really, really like won't always be easily accessible or obvious. RIAA has people thinking they can only like big super groups or whatever. Nu uh, bad, because what they're rigging the charts with isn't always good.

Also, I really feel bad for people who are stuck in the past as far as music preferences go. Yea old stuff is good and classic, tried and true, mindless to play, can't go wrong, blabity blah. New stuff is just as good, if not better and more plentiful. Personally I don't like listening to the same stuff for years on end. I loathe classic rock radio because it's so mindless. I mean, how can the "dj" possibly stand it? "allright guys, I know you've heard this song every week of your life since the 70s but here we go again! [****** robot impression]I AM IRON MAAANN![/****** robot impression] here we go, enjoy for the eleventy billionth time!" **** off and die.

PS: My radio experience is probably very biased since I live in the south where most people over 30 listen to classic or southern rock and there's at any given time 4 stations all playing the same ****.

tldr: there's more than enough new music to get immersed in, no reason to limit yourself to boring classics you've already heard over 'n over.


Why does it matter if you still enjoy the song. Guess what? Now you can check out the original and bam, you're exposed to even more music than before. I love cover songs or ones with awesome samples for this reason. Almost all of that old rock has roots in old school delta blues.

whew

tl, dr

 

[Sartorial1]

No.

 

[Hey Man]

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

Widely considered by who? I'm pretty sure Beethoven would disagree with that statement.



Could you be any less specific? "various music gene's that have shaped and revolutionized music" is meaningless drivel.



I still take that stance.



No, it's not the opposite. Radio play back in those days sucked just as hard. You just can't remember that far back because you are so goddamn old.



Lol, you accuse Soundgarden of being a Sabbath rip off (which there may be some truth to) but then you elevate KISS and Alice Cooper? Holy gimmicky crap. NOBODY thinks of KISS or Alice Cooper as revolutionary. They are entertaining, and Cooper puts on a good live show, but they are not the voice of a generation and not likely to make any legitimate music critics best of list.



Because the album came out in 1987. And you were suggesting music was better back then compared to today.



And where do you think those '60s and '70s bands came from, stupid?



Look, I love Zeppelin. I really do. But you have to stop holding them up as some kind of revolutionary game-changer. If you knew jack **** about music you would know there has never been a bigger rip off band than Led Zeppelin.



There weren't 63 bands that sound just like the Beatles? Seriously?



Music has never "defined a generation". Stop with your tired cliches. I listen to music I like, not that others like. If there ever was a period where music "defined a generation" it was only because there were only two radio stations so you had to listen to what was played on the pop channel unless you wanted to listen to the Bible Station.



Pretty sure people are going to remember the Flaming Lips and Beck and Radiohead and The White Stripes and Jay Z for a little while longer. Certainly longer than anybody is going to give a **** about Whitesnake.



Probably not. People have a very short attention span. Most kids in high school nowadays have no idea who the Beatles or Rolling Stones were. They certainly aren't going to remember Bon Jovi or Whitesnake in another ten years. And that's fine. People are not required to focus on the past. Onward and upward. ****, one of the best things of the last ten years was Danger Mouse's Grey Album, and half the people who listened to that had never heard the White Album. BUT THAT'S OK. Things change. Some things are forgotten, but life keeps on moving. Accept it.



Absolutely not. I've got plenty of good albums I want to listen to. I have no desire to listen to the junk that you play in your Toyota Sienna while you drive your disabled wife to the cardiologist.

1. We are talking about rock music for most part here from the 60's and 70's vs. now, so your Beethoven comment is moronic. Thus the 60's and 70's ARE considered by the masses to be greatest decades ever for music based simply on all the legendary artists that came out of those decades. Sorry, but nothing even remotely comparable in music happened in 2000 to 2010.

2. Why is shaping and revolutionizing music so hard for you to understand? It's a band or artist that has come along chaged the future landscape for music by creating a sound or doing something innovative that has never been done before, but is copied by millions of people in future generations. Hendrix is one of those and so is Zeppelin. Eddie Van Halen revolutionized rock guitar playing in the 80's with tapping and then every guitarist after him completely copied him. I hope that explains shaping and revolutionizing music for you.

3. Yes, radio play did suck in the 60's and 70's - so how do you explain over a 100 hard rock bands in two decades that became incredibly successful and sold millions of albums and yet the bands you like in a decade with bad music on the radio as well, have sold dick and are not incredibly successful by any stretch of the imagination.

4. KISS and Alice Cooper are both very revolutionary for the bands that they are ala theatrical. This is where I can tell that you are not very educated when it comes to music history, because they are many famous bands were certain members of the band and solo artists have admitted to the fact that it was KISS, who made them pick up a guitar in the first place or who influenced them to want to be rock stars/musicians.

I will name you a few right now - Lenny Kravitz, Metallica, Warrant, Faster *****cat; Garth Brooks, Motley Crue, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Poison, Soundgarden, Hootie And The Blowfish, Anthrax, Skid Row, Extreme, Stone Temple Pilots, Megadeth, Alice In Chains, Venom, Nuclear Assault, WASP, Weezer, Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson. See this list? When everyone was a child or teenager, it was KISS that opened the door for them to want to be musicians. You clearly don't know what the **** you are talking about. No one is saying that their music is anything great, but it still spoke to millions of people - some who became future rock stars.

5. Learn to read jackass - I said Guns N' Roses are considered the Zeppelin of the 80's and 90's, but I wasn't defending the 80's in terms of pop or any other music genre. Take a list of all the rock bands from 1980 to 1990 and it certainly kicks the ass of 2000 to 2010.

6. Yes, you listen to music that you like and that's fine - but for you to remotely suggest that the 90's and 00's is better or just as good as the 60's and 70's - just makes you look stupid when you consider the music that has been produced from those era's. Everyone knows that The Godfather is one of the greatest films of all time even if you didn't agree with the general consenus that the film is epic. If you had any brains, you would still concede that the film is recognized as such by the masses even if you disagree. I wouldn't need to provide you with a ******* link to back up my argument. Just like I don't when it comes to the 60's and 70's vs. now. The list of bands speak born in those decades speak volumes about what those decades mean to music.
7. You know what's hilarious about you - Whitesnake has been around since 1978 and their last album of all new material in 2008 sold 350,000 copies. They are doing better than most modern artists, so you can shut the **** up now and admit to not knowing what you are talking about.

8. Most kids in high school today are ******* morons and this generation is full of non-contributing zeroes - so that ain't saying much. But at the same time, how do you explain the millions of kids rocking out on Guitar Hero and classic rock bands? You don't think many of these kids are checking out a lot of the classic rock bands featured on these games and really liking them to the point that they realize modern rock sucks? I certainly think it happens quite often.

The modern bands that I like:

1. The White Stripes.
2. The Black Keys
3. Wolfmother
4. Jet
5. Joe Bonamassa
6. Alter Bridge
7. Black Stone Cherry
8. The Answer
9. Big Elf
10. Pride Tiger
11. Year Long Disaster
12. The Parlour Mob
13. Black Label Society
14. Black Mountain
15. Them Crooked Vultures

 

[Rambo]

What if people from the band have died and the surviving members have brought in a replacement? I'm thinking of Lynyrd Skynyrd at the moment but I'm sure there are others.

 

[Hey Man]

Originally Posted by Rambo

What if people from the band have died and the surviving members have brought in a replacement? I'm thinking of Lynyrd Skynyrd at the moment but I'm sure there are others.

Depends on the band. Some have been able to remain more or less consistant with new members, while most lose whatever magic they had.

 

[Brogued]

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

My Dad had this album and as a young boy this album cover gave me a funny feeling in my 'no-no' places.

Same here. i spent a lot of time looking at that cover.