Top 5 Bands That Are Still Around

[Tracy 2112]

just to clarify before the hip hop police take me away, I am talking about how bad POPULAR RAP is; the crap they play on the radio. I am perfectly hip to the fact that there is some amazing hip hop and rap happening.

So there

[EverythingChanges]

Popular music in general these days is terrible.  Look at the top 40 crap...it is...well...crap.  In an age where My Morning Jacket should hold the same status that Led Zeppelin had in the 70's (and still has), Nickleback reigns supreme in popularity instead.

I am not a fan of rap music (yes I know there is some decent rap out there).  I will listen to anything from classical to classic rock to alt. rock to metal to folk to jazz and so on, but rap and that top 40 pop and mainstream country are the three genres I avoid at all costs.  The mainstream music lacks any kind of intelligent and thought-provoking lyrics as well as any unique sound.  So many artists these days rely on their voice to carry the song and not the actual music.  The lack of human and instrument contact is a sad thing.  Most mainstream artists shouldn't be considered musicians, but rather, they should be considered purely entertainers and nothing more.

[Ruckus]

Hey Darkstarflashes! I wondered what happened to you. Don't let two comments on this board run you off. We all have different tastes and we all have bad days. I can say for sure that I've said things I wish I hadn't in the past and been crankier with people than I would wish to be.

That's cool, Fully. I appreciated the things you said in that other thread, but I truly love so many kinds of music and have been trying to turn others on to obscure stuff for so many years (since the late 1970's!) that I felt really hurt when it was said I no longer had any credibility to discuss music here when I expressed my thoughts on rap...so, I left. I do check in all the time these days (as a guest) and have adopted the name I got called (and I know you are probably as sensitive to the term "redneck" as I am; Kentucky & Tennessee are our homes after all!) I am not a redneck. I am just...lame.

I will be back to post more in the not too distant future, but not much on what I think or feel about music I don't like (other than this re-hashing of my dislike of rap).

Dude, it's good to see you as well.     I apologize if my comments rubbed you the wrong way.  I have no problem with people saying that they don't get or enjoy rap music.  It's when they say it's crap and only discuss what they heard on the radio or saw on TV.

Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.

RUSH
The Roots
Bruce Springsteen
Dylan
Herbie Hancock
The Church! (thanks Ralph, though I still haven't explored even a quarter of their work!)
Tom Petty


Now back to the thread

[Fully]

just to clarify before the hip hop police take me away, I am talking about how bad POPULAR RAP is; the crap they play on the radio. I am perfectly hip to the fact that there is some amazing hip hop and rap happening.

So there

On that I agree with you for the most part!

Whoever it was way back in this thread who thought The Black Crowes had gone downhill, I'd like to suggest that you listen to Croweology. It's a beautiful album.

My favorite are

MMJ- obvs
Drive By Truckers
Pearl Jam
Jay Z- not sure if he's allowed, but I love his music so there
And I'll give Radiohead honorable mention because I can't deny that they are genius, I just don't love them as much as like them.

Also Shug, ruckus and Penny introduced me to The Futurebirds and I really love them.

[Jaimoe]

Do I think Nirvana was overrated? Yes. 3-4 albums and a couple of hits should not catapult anyone into rock God status. Sort of like Guns n' Roses. 1 really good album and a couple of misfired follow ups and they get the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame?

It's only rock n' roll (but I like it)

Hey Tracy, with your criteria regarding Nirvana being overrated because they only 3-4 albums: where do other minimal output artists stand in the equation such as The Sex Pistols, The MC5, Television, Stooges, My Bloody Valentine (not a fan, but give them props), The Yardbirds, Jeff Buckley, Robert Johnson etc...? Most important bands only have 1-3 good albums in them before they've blown their proverbial creative wad. Heck, I'd rather spin The Knack's debut LP over-and-over than listen to almost anything released from Pearl Jam from the past 10 years or more. Prolific and pioneering/influential are often not intertwined, although Neil Young has it all.

And I respectfully disagree that releasing videos is "selling out". Every band cut videos back in the day (still do) and as you probably know, by the late '70s and ealy '80s, videos were produced merely as promo companions to a new single and/or album release. The music video phenomenon evolved naturally and for a long time became more important than the tried-and-true 45 single. It was another outlet for expression, although with more immediate mass appeal because of the power of television. What I'm saying is that you can bet your ass that if Hank Williams Sr. were alive in the '80s and '90s, he would've released tons of videos. Same with Jimi Hendrix (who only released three studio albums with his Experience).

[Shug]

Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.

What's wrong with Foreigner and Van Hagar?   

[Jaimoe]

Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.

What's wrong with Foreigner and Van Hagar?   

Early Foreigner were kinda like Bad Company, which is ok in my books. "Jane" is still a good song, although Jefferson Starship generally suck, even in their early days.

[Fully]

Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.

What's wrong with Foreigner and Van Hagar?   

Early Foreigner were kinda like Bad Company, which is ok in my books. "Jane" is still a good song, although Jefferson Starship generally suck, even in their early days.

Man, you are as cold as ice.

[Tracy 2112]

Do I think Nirvana was overrated? Yes. 3-4 albums and a couple of hits should not catapult anyone into rock God status. Sort of like Guns n' Roses. 1 really good album and a couple of misfired follow ups and they get the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame?

It's only rock n' roll (but I like it)

Hey Tracy, with your criteria regarding Nirvana being overrated because they only 3-4 albums: where do other minimal output artists stand in the equation such as The Sex Pistols, The MC5, Television, Stooges, My Bloody Valentine (not a fan, but give them props), The Yardbirds, Jeff Buckley, Robert Johnson etc...? Most important bands only have 1-3 good albums in them before they've blown their proverbial creative wad. Heck, I'd rather spin The Knack's debut LP over-and-over than listen to almost anything released from Pearl Jam from the past 10 years or more. Prolific and pioneering/influential are often not intertwined, although Neil Young has it all.

And I respectfully disagree that releasing videos is "selling out". Every band cut videos back in the day (still do) and as you probably know, by the late '70s and ealy '80s, videos were produced merely as promo companions to a new single and/or album release. The music video phenomenon evolved naturally and for a long time became more important than the tried-and-true 45 single. It was another outlet for expression, although with more immediate mass appeal because of the power of television. What I'm saying is that you can bet your ass that if Hank Williams Sr. were alive in the '80s and '90s, he would've released tons of videos. Same with Jimi Hendrix (who only released three studio albums with his Experience).

I was speaking mainly about being considered Rock royalty. I could ask my sister (a pure baseline for someone who listens to basic music) about all those bands you mentioned and she probably hadn't heard of any of them, maybe the Yardbirds. But she knows Nirvana; she knows who Kurt Cobain is. As well as The Stones, the Beatles, etc...Hell, some of my friends who are "in to" music haven't even heard of TV or MBV.

As far as videos, I was mimicking my pretentious friends who hated Pearl Jam and videos. I like videos (or, liked videos).

[Penny Lane]

I get what you are saying, jaimoe, about the studio recordings (even though I don't completely agree, I love By Your Side and half of Lions is quite good,  to my ears, and I think Warpaint is pretty good, too.  Definitely not as strong as Southern Harmony, Amorica, Three Snakes, though, but not what I call a quick decline).  But for a live rock 'n' roll band, and really that is what I'm talking about (bands that can bring it live), the Crowes arguably were just as good,  if not better, live in 2005-2006 when Marc Ford came back than they were in 1992-1996.  In 2005 they were playing two set, three hour shows, tons of great covers (Faces, Traffic, Manassas, Clapton, Grateful Dead, Muddy Waters, etc etc), back catalog played amazingly well and even great versions of the songs from the records Marc was not on.  It was a tragedy to me when Marc and Eddie were out of the band again in 2006, but even the last few years with Luther Dickinson had some great great shows.  No one was upholding the banner of the golden age of rock as good as the Crowes did in those years, IMO.  Also don't forget about the tour they did with Jimmy Page where they slayed all those Zeppelin songs!

All of this is just because I love the Crowes so much.  I'm sure a Pearl Jam fan could go off in detail about why the love them, too.

YES YES YES YES..


and Tracy--agree about YLT and Pavement...definitely not dated...infinitely good

[e_wind]

The Crowes went downhill pretty fast. I think real rock was around in the '90s in the form of grunge. Fucking rock was saved by grunge, and I'm not even a big fan of the genre.

Bleh, I am going to have to disagree with this almost completely.  Funny thing is, that was really my time period as well, the 90s were my twenties, which is usually when your musical tastes are formed and when you are most interested in music (although this is what separates 'real' music fans, from casual listeners, it never wanes for those who really love music), and I look back on the decade as pretty over-rated, derivative, and kinda hollow.  I don't think much of the music holds up all that well.

Especially 'grunge', which I was a huge fan of at the time, now sounds dated and dare I say 'lame'.  The over-emoting and pseudo sincerity eventually just got to be too much for me.  It all sounded the same, a lot of angst about bullshit.  At some point, and it was pretty early on, probably around the time of Cameron Crowe's Singles, in hindsight, the whole thing jumped the shark (and I love Cameron Crowe movies and enjoyed Singles at the time).  Sure, there was good music, some of which holds up, but I never play that music now.

Now the 60s, 70s, and even 80s are completely different.  I still go back to that music on a regular basis.  Maybe there's a burnout (not 'burnout', but that too) factor, having lived through it at such a formidable time and been inundated with those bands, but I really don't think I ever need to hear Jeremy or Fell On Black Days or Sex Type Thing or Cumbersome again, ever.  The put upon over-seriousness of the whole scene was tiring.  On the other hand, the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd, that never gets old, because it's truly great music, truly innovative and original.  Same for Rush, Talking Heads, The Smiths, The Police, and Joy Division in the 80s.  That's the music I still listen to and will intersperse with what is currently relevant.

Not that nothing from the 90s has held up for me, The Pixies, Blur, Pavement, The Beastie Boys, Rage Against The Machine, and even Beck had their heyday in the 90s, but I think the grunge movement itself, rather than elevating the 90s, almost casts a pall over the decade.  Rather than thinking back to the great bands (Nirvana, Pearly Jam, Soundgarden), the bands who got their start (Radiohead, Wilco, The Flaming Lips), I can't help but think of The Offspring, Live, Bush, or 'god' forbid Creed.  Even the great bands, I rarely go back to, because the 'sound' is so identifiable and dated - at least to me.

As for today, I think there is incredible music being made, and the best part is exactly what makes the 90s sound so pale in comparison. Diversity.  Even within the 'genre' of rock/alt/pop (excluding electronic and soul/hip-hop - where there is amazing music being made), there are a wide variety of styles being pursued. From The Avett Brothers and Tallest Man On Earth, to My Morning Jacket and Phosphorescent, to Grizzly Bear and Beach House, to Real Estate and Tennis, to Menomena and Dirty Projectors, all bands falling under the similar 'rock/alt/pop' heading, there is such a huge diversity of well made and interesting music.

So anyway, everyone has an opinion...

I agree with every word of this, well put sir.

I have a big problem with reading something bash Pearl Jam and Soundgarden and support Beach House. I've never been a big Soundgarden person, but I truly believe that Chris Cornell has one of the most powerful voices in Rock and Roll history. I don't care for any of Cornells bands, but I'll listen to SG or AS and get chills because of his voice.

And Pearl Jam is, in my very, very baised position, one of, if not the most important bands of the past 35 or so years. Sure, Ten is one of the most overplayed albums of all time, but its still BRILLIANT. Considering the context under which the album was made, it's hard to say that its overly-serious or irrelevent or whatever. And furthermore, they have a ton of albums and have evolved just like any other great band. I mean try to tell me that Yield isn't a 5-star record.


I also have a problem with this: "The put upon over-seriousness of the whole scene was tiring." But then you go on to mention Rage as a still relevant 90's band? I don't really know how "seriousness" is a bad thing. I mean, its hard rock.

[e_wind]

Temple was an honest band paying tribute to Mother Love Bone's Andrew Wood. Great and honest one-off.

thank you. this bashing was starting to upset me, especially since it was all pretty much based on misinformation, other than the fact that he didn't like it (which is totally fine, btw)

TotD is a fantastic album. To me, the fact that it predates the popularity of Grunge, makes it more amazing. I mean it goes to show (imo) that theres a reason that Ament, Cornell, Gossard are where they are today. They've always had it, and what may seem "over-sincere" is really just actual sincerity.

Again, not liking it is totally fine , I can't bash anyone for not liking something, but you can't say "grunge sucks." Too broad of a statement for a music-lover.




I will agree, Nirvana is overrated. I have a vendetta against that band.

[Jaimoe]

All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.

[Ruckus]

Surely if my experience of rock n' roll was Jefferson Starship, Foreigner, Van Hagar, and Nickelback and I said that rock n' roll as an entire genre sucked to a group of passionate rock n' roll fans, you'd rightfully question my credibility as well.

What's wrong with Foreigner and Van Hagar?   

I have a shameless soft spot for Van Hagar...well at least for 5150 and F.U.C.K.

[exist10z]

In response to e-wind...

Well, since this thread has been fully hijacked, might as well proceed.

I wasn't 'bashing' Pearl Jam or Soundgarden, although I can see how it might've appeared that way.  In later posts regarding this topic, I explained my feelings about Pearl Jam more completely.  And I never claimed Beach House was 'better' than Pearl Jam or Soundgarden (although they eventually could be I suppose, but that's yet to be known), but only that they were an example of how varied current rock/alt/pop is and how there is interesting music being made on a very broad scale within that very broad spectrum.

Maybe some of this is really about what types of music a person favors along that spectrum.  My Morning Jacket is very different from Beach House (although maybe Jim's new album not so much), but I still lump them both under rock/alt/pop.  Now pure 'pop' is I suppose Bieber and New Direction (I think those are both currently popular musical acts, but don't quote me), but thinking of traditional pop, in the vein of The Beatles and Stones, I think we can lump MMJ and Beach House or Phosphorescent and Grizzly Bear together.  But clearly some people are ROCK fans, and if it doesn't have guitars or doesn't properly emote, it doesn't qualify.  I am not claiming that's you e-wind, or any of the others I am debating here, but I think there are certainly people who would more narrowly define rock than I do.

With that definition being explicated, I think my complaint about 90s music, and more specifically my comparison to today's music (which is being dismissed by some), becomes more clear.  'Grunge' took over rock music in the 90s, and I suppose that ubiquity bred contempt, at least for me.  I can't say I listened to much after the first couple Pearly Jam and Soundgarden albums, because the whole 'sound' became stale for me.  And yes, for awhile, I kinda thought EV was a self-important tool, that has changed, but I never went back to their music.  I have already explained my issue with the 'seriousness' 90s rock, as well as my impression it was co-opted by shittier and shittier bands (and frankly, my impression that even the 'good' bands just continued to rehash the same sound and get shittier - Radiohead excepted).  Was that 'grunge' sound harder rock?  Yes, it was.  Is HARDER (and more emotive) my only criteria for good rock?  Not at all.

[e_wind]

"Hard" is not my qualification for good, AT ALL. In fact, I don't tend to gravitate towards hard rock.

I agree with your qualification for the current alt/pop/rock genre, and would throw a band like Beach House in there, but I am predominately a rock and roll fan, so BH and the likes don't really do it for me, but I digress.

I've had this grunge argument so many times it's ridiculous. Obviously the "different strokes for different folks" is a big part of all this, but I just don't think fair to lump a broad genre together. I'm a youngin and can't really agree or disagree with the variety in 90's music to the variety in todays music, becuase I simply wasn't old enough to take it all in then, and I am now.

However, I do think that the "greats" of today are as few and far between as the "greats" of the 90s. Variety is a good thing, but its hard to argue because obviously a lot of the music today won't stand the test of time, just like the music of any era.

There was some sort of variety in the 90's though, outside SG, PJ, AiC, etc. It may not be the best, but there was the beginning of "pop-punk". 1039 Smoothed Out Slappy Hours and Dookie are still great records, regardless of the irrelevance of those idiots today. And hip-hop was arguably at an all-time high in the 90s. Then you have REM in their most popular stage, and shit like Hootie and Blowfish. Hell, even Blink-182 and No Doubt were popular (and poppier). And as earlier mentioned, there was YLT, The Pixies, The Flaming Lips, and Sonic Youth. (who I guess one could argue pre-date PJ, though they weren't yet relevant).  Shit, theres Nine Inch Nails and 311. As you can tell, these bands are popping into my head as I write.

Then there was obivously the Beibers and Miley Cyrus's of the day too, like Mariah Carrey and Lisa Loeb. "Stay" is my go-to kareokee song, btw  .


So, the point is: the variety of music was there. I know we're talking simply about "Grunge", but thats not fair, imo. If you don't like grunge, thats a-okay. You can even say 90s is the worst era of music, but don't pigeon hole it.





Jaimoe - I know my vandetta against Nirvana isn't justified, and Kurt was just makin the music he wanted to, but I hate that they're the ones who were known as the inventors of "Alternative", not that theyre the ones who claimed that, but it just drives me nuts.

[Tracy 2112]

All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.

well that's easy: Oasis and Blur both suck

:happy:

[Tracy 2112]

And I never claimed Beach House was 'better' than Pearl Jam or Soundgarden (although they eventually could be I suppose, but that's yet to be known), but only that they were an example of how varied current rock/alt/pop is and how there is interesting music being made on a very broad scale within that very broad spectrum.

If I want to listen to Beach House (and I like their stuff) I will first listen to who they are copying: Galaxie 500 and Yo La Tengo.

(sorry, but I really haven't "argued" about music in about 2 years)

[Penny Lane]

All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.

well that's easy: Oasis and Blur both suck

:happy:

it's crazy how the bands I liked more in the 90s sound more dated than the lesser stuff (to me) at the time...

for example, ewind, agree about TEN being an amazing album--i just think it sounds dated today..you can pinpoint exactly when it was recorded...which isn't the case with Nevermind. Same with Oasis-whom I loved, completely dated and Blur's Parklife doesn't sound as dated today.

songwriting, PJ and Oasis killed it on their first few albums--but that stuff is DEFINITELY dated.

wait, what was the original question?

Ruckus-I like Van Hagar

and i love that we're talking about music again...and not just butt plugs or butt chugs or what not

[Fully]

All this Nirvana vs Pearl Jam stuff has got to stop before it descends into the same pathetic level we went through in the 90s with Oasis vs Blur.

well that's easy: Oasis and Blur both suck

:happy:

it's crazy how the bands I liked more in the 90s sound more dated than the lesser stuff (to me) at the time...

for example, ewind, agree about TEN being an amazing album--i just think it sounds dated today..you can pinpoint exactly when it was recorded...which isn't the case with Nevermind. Same with Oasis-whom I loved, completely dated and Blur's Parklife doesn't sound as dated today.

songwriting, PJ and Oasis killed it on their first few albums--but that stuff is DEFINITELY dated.

wait, what was the original question?

Ruckus-I like Van Hagar

and i love that we're talking about music again...and not just butt plugs or butt chugs or what not

I now question everything I've ever loved about the two of you. Maybe it's because you're both so young and you don't remember how awesome VH rocked with Roth nor did you feel the sting of betrayal when Eddie and Dave parted ways. However, I must say that original VH sounds incredibly dated to me now. I only listen to it and remember the original trans ams with t-tops and firebirds painted on the hood, girls with long blond hair and winged bangs with large combs in the back pocket of their flare legged jeans, back when my big sister and her friends looked like the cast of the movie about The Runaways - you know, back in the glory days of badass.