Musical highs and lows

[TheBigChicken]

P.S.

Would I be able to take "a couple of weeks" of just Rush? I don't know if I could take a couple of weeks of any one band, even The Beatles.

I agree,but damn it seems like I went more than a couple  of months with MMJ...does that constitute a problem? I hope not cause I have plenty....you know with the chickens and all ::) :D

[Penny Lane]

i thought the point of chode's original post was to question the cohesiveness of the scene(s) and whether or not you could ever have a single album or scene impact the country (or world) like the grunge impact--? i watched VH1-Classic Albums (the making of Nevermind) and once again was astounded by the overnight explosion, w/in days, w/in weeks; everyone related to that album.

[size=14]how did (yet another) thread get hijacked into a thread debating the merits of RUSH :-) ha ha[/size]

ps-arcade fire is not bad, i just don't think the songs are there; they  might be...buried deep...somewhere. i gave them a few years then they will vanish like a ton of those other indie bands.

[ycartrob]

P.S.

Would I be able to take "a couple of weeks" of just Rush?

it's different for everyone. I held my girlfriend down on the ground (literally) and made her listen to Xanadu in it's entirety and she ended up marrying me.  :-?

[Jaimoe]

I think grunge hit everyone, especially younger people, because the 80s sucked ass and grunge was something totally different, something primal and honest, unlike what was around during pre-grunge: depressing whimp-pop from Britain, aging supergroups and bloated metal.

I can't see Arcade Fire going away. They have real substance. I think they are astonishingly good, especially live. One of the best concerts I've ever seen in my 41 years, beating The Who in 1988 and Pete Townshend @ Massey Hall, 1992.

[ycartrob]

i watched VH1-Classic Albums (the making of Nevermind) and once again was astounded by the overnight explosion, w/in days, w/in weeks; everyone related to that album.

Hype is a great "documentary" regarding the explosion (or implosion) of the grunge movement; check it out if you haven't seen it, the whole thing is on YouTube. Here's part 1

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue2l7Mzd5iw[/media]

[ycartrob]

This pretty much sums it up for me

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnyCJDYONSU[/media]

[Jaimoe]

You sure like them Toronto artists, eh Tracy? First Rush, then the Kids. What's next, Triumph, Max Webster and Neil Young?

[Vadie Stark]

I think Arcade Fire puts on a better live show than MMJ and Neon Bible is kicks Evil Urges' ass. But hey, it's all a matter of opinion, eh?

Rush went downhill fast after 1982. Bring it on Tracy! All you Rush fans are militant in your love of all things Rush.

The Who's "Long Live Rock" is one of my least favourtie Who songs, and they are my favourite band (along with the Allman Brothers).

[ycartrob]

You sure like them Toronto artists, eh Tracy? First Rush, then the Kids. What's next, Triumph, Max Webster and Neil Young?

[Vadie Stark]

[highlight]i thought the point of chode's original post[/highlight] was to question the cohesiveness of the scene(s) and whether or not you could ever have a single album or scene impact the country (or world) like the grunge impact--? i watched VH1-Classic Albums (the making of Nevermind) and once again was astounded by the overnight explosion, w/in days, w/in weeks; everyone related to that album.

[size=14]how did (yet another) thread get hijacked into a thread debating the merits of RUSH :-) ha ha[/size]

ps-arcade fire is not bad, i just don't think the songs are there; they  might be...buried deep...somewhere. i gave them a few years then they will vanish like a ton of those other indie bands.

[highlight]I got in a beer-induced discussion on the last good year for music[/highlight] chode said that.
Who gives a shit whether everybody likes a record or not, >:( or what year it came from, or if the artist has more than one record. If you like it play it!  [smiley=thumbsup.gif] The masses don't have to get it. Bono said people get the pop charts they deserve. Popular music is what I play at my house, beer induced discussions are forgotten. [smiley=beer.gif]
Funny I have 22 Rush albums too..I'm workin' on my list :)

[el_chode]

I never understood how people get so uppity and touchy-feely when people criticize a band they like. The only fault of a discussion on good and bad music is when people can't discuss it for what it is and not wind up viewing a valid opinion of a band as an personal attack like they're the lyricist and composer of every song written by the band and each song was written about their dying grandmother.

I fucking love .38 Special, but if you want to rag on them for being the shittier version of a shitty Lynyrd Skynyrd, then go for it. It won't stop me from rockin' out to Caught Up In You while I speed down the highway.

However, there still remains one band that is universally understood as hated and unlikeable, and that is Starship. It's undeniable.

Still, as the original point was, it's not that I seek mainstream recognition of a band like MMJ. I prefer them to not have it because it'll keep ticket prices down and it will keep them at small(er) venues. On the flip side, when there is momentum behind something, the synergy may produce something truly monumental.  Yes, if you like it, play it. Yes, there's always good music. But haven't you ever wondered if we are missing out on something BIG? That the only voice of a generation might turn out to be Bono or Bon Jovi? They're like Hillary Clinton - not even from around here, and they're acting like they run the place because somehow someone keeps validating them.

Still, reducing it to an element of "it's all relative" doesn't do anything fun, meaningful, nor does it insult anyone personally, ergo it's not fun.

[Ruckus]

I think grunge hit everyone, especially younger people, because the 80s sucked ass and grunge was something totally different, something primal and honest, unlike what was around during pre-grunge: depressing whimp-pop from Britain, aging supergroups and bloated metal.

I think this is the type of generalization that I have been trying to avoid though I'm sure I'm often guilty of it myself.  I graduated high school in '96 and grew up during the so called "Seattle Movement."  What is grunge?  Is it a type of rock 'n roll?  I don't think many of the bands from that era sound alike.  Ahh but I digress.  What I was going to say was that I never personally enjoyed Nevermind or Ten.  I think they are OK but in my opinion and that's it.  I was busy listening to Jimi, Floyd, Rush, Tribe Called Quest, Bad Religion etc.

I was forced to cover too many Nirvana and Pearl Jam songs in the bands I played in and I hated it.  I guess my point is that there is someone who actually doesn't like PJ and NIrvana that much :)

[Ruckus]

I never understood how people get so uppity and touchy-feely when people criticize a band they like. The only fault of a discussion on good and bad music is when people can't discuss it for what it is and not wind up viewing a valid opinion of a band as an personal attack like they're the lyricist and composer of every song written by the band and each song was written about their dying grandmother.

I fucking love .38 Special, but if you want to rag on them for being the shittier version of a shitty Lynyrd Skynyrd, then go for it. It won't stop me from rockin' out to Caught Up In You while I speed down the highway.

However, there still remains one band that is universally understood as hated and unlikeable, and that is Starship. It's undeniable.

Still, as the original point was, it's not that I seek mainstream recognition of a band like MMJ. I prefer them to not have it because it'll keep ticket prices down and it will keep them at small(er) venues. On the flip side, when there is momentum behind something, the synergy may produce something truly monumental.  Yes, if you like it, play it. Yes, there's always good music. But haven't you ever wondered if we are missing out on something BIG? That the only voice of a generation might turn out to be Bono or Bon Jovi? They're like Hillary Clinton - not even from around here, and they're acting like they run the place because somehow someone keeps validating them.

Still, reducing it to an element of "it's all relative" doesn't do anything fun, meaningful, nor does it insult anyone personally, ergo it's not fun.

What does it mean to be a voice of a generation?  I really don't want someone to be the voice of a generation.  You keep flip flopping.  Are you saying that you want MMJ to sell 30 million albums and Jim James become the voice for everyone or to be preserved for those "in the know" like yourself.

I'm not trying to be a dick here (really) but this is really a discussion of what should become popular in white, american rock music.  Correct?

I mean any conversation of what constitutes great music surely must exclude any foreign, non guitar and hihat, bass, snare, tom based music?

Agree to disagree I guess.  I'm lost.  I don't understand this thread at all.  Forgive me :-?

[Vadie Stark]

I think grunge hit everyone, especially younger people, because the 80s sucked ass and grunge was something totally different, something primal and honest, unlike what was around during pre-grunge: depressing whimp-pop from Britain, aging supergroups and bloated metal.

I think this is the type of generalization that I have been trying to avoid though I'm sure I'm often guilty of it myself.  I graduated high school in '96 and grew up during the so called "Seattle Movement."  What is grunge?  Is it a type of rock 'n roll?  I don't think many of the bands from that era sound alike.  Ahh but I digress.  What I was going to say was that I never personally enjoyed Nevermind or Ten.  I think they are OK but in my opinion and that's it.  I was busy listening to Jimi, Floyd, Rush, Tribe Called Quest, Bad Religion etc.

[highlight]I was forced to cover too many Nirvana and Pearl Jam songs in the bands I played in and I hated it.[/highlight]  I guess my point is that there is someone who actually doesn't like PJ and NIrvana that much :)

You should have BrungdaRuckus then [smiley=evil.gif]
sounds like a musical low ;)

[ycartrob]

I never understood how people get so uppity and touchy-feely when people criticize a band they like. The only fault of a discussion on good and bad music is when people can't discuss it for what it is and not wind up viewing a valid opinion of a band as an personal attack like they're the lyricist and composer of every song written by the band and each song was written about their dying grandmother.

I fucking love .38 Special, but if you want to rag on them for being the shittier version of a shitty Lynyrd Skynyrd, then go for it. It won't stop me from rockin' out to Caught Up In You while I speed down the highway.

However, there still remains one band that is universally understood as hated and unlikeable, and that is Starship. It's undeniable.

Still, as the original point was, it's not that I seek mainstream recognition of a band like MMJ. I prefer them to not have it because it'll keep ticket prices down and it will keep them at small(er) venues. On the flip side, when there is momentum behind something, the synergy may produce something truly monumental.  Yes, if you like it, play it. Yes, there's always good music. But haven't you ever wondered if we are missing out on something BIG? That the only voice of a generation might turn out to be Bono or Bon Jovi? They're like Hillary Clinton - not even from around here, and they're acting like they run the place because somehow someone keeps validating them.

Still, reducing it to an element of "it's all relative" doesn't do anything fun, meaningful, nor does it insult anyone personally, ergo it's not fun.

What does it mean to be a voice of a generation?  I really don't want someone to be the voice of a generation.  You keep flip flopping.  Are you saying that you want MMJ to sell 30 million albums and Jim James become the voice for everyone or to be preserved for those "in the know" like yourself.

I'm not trying to be a dick here (really) but this is really a discussion of what should become popular in white, american rock music.  Correct?

I mean any conversation of what constitutes great music surely must exclude any foreign, non guitar and hihat, bass, snare, tom based music?

Agree to disagree I guess.  I'm lost.  I don't understand this thread at all.  Forgive me :-?

Most of the "voices" of a musical generation are meaningless. But if you want to throw Bono out there with Bon Jovi then you're missing the point of a true voice. If everyone was as socially active as Bono then the world would be a better place. Bono has a voice and he uses his celebrity and power to try to do good for the world. I am totally down for Bono being the voice of a generation rather than someone like Kurt Cobain who could never rise above his demons; some romanticized "martyr" (against what? boredom? How using drugs at an early age stunts your emotional growth?) who made great music but is totally not someone I would try to emmulate.

It's like what Chris Rock says about Tupac and Bigge (other "spokesmen for a generation") when people say they were "assasinated". He says, those guys were shot. MLK was assasinated; JFK was assasinated; Malcolm X was assasinated.

And that's the problem. Generations are looking for pop culture stars for a voice. Bad idea.

[ycartrob]

I never understood how people get so uppity and touchy-feely when people criticize a band they like. The only fault of a discussion on good and bad music is when people can't discuss it for what it is and not wind up viewing a valid opinion of a band as an personal attack like they're the lyricist and composer of every song written by the band and each song was written about their dying grandmother.

It's the pretentiousness of it all that gets me; not as much as it used to, but some days it comes across as pious (and other days I could give a shit). I got in a beer-induced discussion on the last good year for music, which was agreed (somewhat) to be 1996ish. is one of those statements; just the idea of a conversation where people are pontificating about what year was the last good year for music.

[el_chode]

Forgive me for not quoting specifically, because I'm lazy and it's easier this way. And I don't think you're trying to be a dick, Ruckus, it's exactly the way I hoped the conversation would progress. I've tried keeping this post short in the name of clairty, but it doesn't seem to be going that way.

I'm flip-flopping because I don't really have a stance either way, which is probably why it comes across as confusing too. On one hand, I wouldn't want Jim James to be designated as the emissary to the world on behalf of hipsters from Brooklyn or hippies from Kentucky. On the other hand, being that I agree with a lot of what he says, I would love for his voice to be heard more clearly by more people, whether it be singing or philosophizing. But I didn't start this thread with an answer in mind, and I don't expect to find one.

It's like what Chris Rock says about Tupac and Bigge (other "spokesmen for a generation") when people say they were "assasinated". He says, those guys were shot. MLK was assasinated; JFK was assasinated; Malcolm X was assasinated.

And that's the problem. Generations are looking for pop culture stars for a voice. Bad idea.

I guess the other sad thing is that there is a lack of inspiring figures. Not none, but not many either. If people are going to look for a voice, is it better to have a Dylan instead of a Bon Jovi? Or is that irrelevant? My other point is that the big voices are not from this time - Bruce, Bono, Bon Jovi, so who is going to be this generations' Bruce, Bono, etc?

Re: good music excluding that without the guitar, hi-hat, bass-snare-tom etc:

Someone like Bela Fleck is never really going to hit it "big" in the sense of U2 big. It is undoubtedly talented, excellent stuff, but it's not of the sort to go to top. It's just that plain rock'n'roll is the big thing for the past 60 or 70 years, so that's where the most chips will lie when discussing the overlap between "big" and "popular". Also, it's not purely about "good" and "bad" music, but my general theory goes like this:

The overlap between best and popular music always has the message to go with it. Whether it be political or social in nature; Nixon or Free love is irrelevant. That is what we seem to be missing out on.

It seems that people are going to look to pop culture for their leaders, is it fair to expect them to have to lead? If so, don't we want to have people with something to say having the voice? Is it all on Eddie Vedder?

I hear you on the pretentiousness too, Tracy. In fact, I was not the one who brought it up, but my main idea was are we better or worse off without having that unified "movement" or "scene", or are we better or worse off having a bunch of smaller "cliques" of fans, and who cares if the rest of the world cares?

I hope this clarified it a bit and didn't kill the thread because I enjoy the discussion.

[Vadie Stark]

housekeeping

[Ruckus]

Sheriff, you crack me up.

No it is not on Vedder cuz' I don't give a rat's ass about what Eddie Vedder thinks in "leading us".

And no, people do not look to pop culture figures as leaders.  Some may but many don't.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I will reiterate that this so called cohesion between good music and the mainstream is a transparent fiction (i repeat - good music is everywhere).  I like Coheed and Cambria.  Sorry, can't help it.

Again, with the access that we have to such a variety of music through such a variety of mediums, the likelihood of some consensus, music centered socio political movement may seem a little bit more difficult.

I'm happy as is.  It's nice that I can step out of my house in B'more and check out a new and different act every night if I want to.  That is sweet.

[Jaimoe]

You sure like them Toronto artists, eh Tracy? First Rush, then the Kids. What's next, Triumph, Max Webster and Neil Young?

Sundin's a Swede and plays for the Canucks, but I like your post! He's still a god in Toronto.