DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads

Forums > Music

New Gods vs Old

Intergalacti...	Date: August 12, 2005 @ 5:23 PM I am still quite young and unfortunately didn't live in what I like to call as the golden age (Early 60's-late 70's) and haven't really witnessed as many bands come and go but on to the point. Do you feel that there were more 'sell-out' bands back in the golden age compared to nowadays. The three biggest rock bands on the planet today are probably U2, R.E.M. and Coldplay as I see them. First of all there are only three of them but do they really compare to the 'Gods' of the golden age like Zeppelin, The Who, The Beatless, The Stones, The Beach Boys, The Hendrix Experience... etc Notice the difference in numbers over time and think of the talent and not only joy but shock the golden age bands brought. Is it really better than today is what I'm tryin to say? Or am I simply too young to know
MindSculpture	Date: August 12, 2005 @ 5:48 PM There is no doubt that the 60's and 70's was a golden age for music. It was a time of musical exploration, inspiration and some amazing bands. I would say the business has definitley changed over the years, and yes, I would say there are more "Sell-out" bands these days. It is after all a whole lot easier to be famous these days.
Intergalacti...	Date: August 12, 2005 @ 7:06 PM You really think its easier? What makes you say that?
HenriRoger	Date: August 12, 2005 @ 8:56 PM It's better today ,you can listen to all these "golden age" bands and to new bands sounding good too , and talk about it on the internet I went to the Isle of whight and the Bath festivals in 1969 ,not sure I completely came back haha
Snoogans775	Date: August 12, 2005 @ 9:18 PM I've got an idea for this, though it is a little bit different. The music we save, like that of the golden age, was what we wanted to save, I've gone through a few record collections, and there's a lot of shitty, crappy music in there. I'd definetely say the 80's and 90's had a pretty bad surge of Britneyish pop, but there was a lot of crap back then too, I think that the crap was more in the clubs, and the good poeple got on the labels though. I have no personal experience
mattbanx	Date: August 12, 2005 @ 9:48 PM I grew up through my teens back in the eighties when bands like R.E.M and INXS started getting hot. That's a hard queation. I guess bands are going to have a more monolithic appeal when you grow up with them. A lot of what is out now has already been pretty much hashed out. It is basically fusion and roots music, combining the elements of genres. With the technology and the ability to get the music out there, there is a lot of room to explore. That can make it easier to get lost in the shuffle though. All there was 20 to 30 years back was what got played out of L.A. or New York to make an act a hit. While there were the bands that worked their ass off playing the club curcuit. The only real chance most artists on the net will have 99.8% of the time making money is playing the clubs. Just as it's always been. I see a day when most musicians are going to have there own labels and stations. Some already do. Some think the net it is like the payola days like when radio DJ'scammed artists. But it is always about the ones on top getting the money, so who the hell are they kidding? I like what it could do for the music industry having it more in the artists hands. But it's still going to be these few up at the top no matter what.
Snoogans775	Date: August 12, 2005 @ 11:22 PM don't forget london and hamburg!
zedsalt	Date: August 13, 2005 @ 12:26 PM I'm not sure the music...the entire body of music that's played and recorded...has changed that essentially, but the business sure has. More innovation and experimentation seems to have hit the mainstream back then, but the mainstream is SO much less important now.
freddemillio	Date: August 13, 2005 @ 7:13 PM Yeah Zed, the business has changed a lot! In the past a good jazz sextet would get together, and record tunes over a 4 day period, all of it essentially live (no multitracking, no overdubs) and then that was it. The sound was in the musicians' hands and brains and in the craftsmanship of the audio engineer. Now groups take a year or more to record an album. I just don't get it.
Snoogans775	Date: August 14, 2005 @ 12:20 AM well, some bands take advantage of that norm, like TOOL, they properly use the time they put into their albums, but I can't think of many others that are worth their studio time though.
zedsalt	Date: August 14, 2005 @ 12:18 PM I was mainly referring to the business practices of promotion and distribution, but the changes in the quality/availablity/affordability of recording equipment are the single largest impetus for those P&D changes, no question! I think those changes regarding equipment are largely to blame...or credit...for the trend in recording times, too. Have you ever caught yourself listening to a piece of music that made you proud, but thinking, "Man, I'm only using a few of ALL THESE TRACKS available to me..."? I have. Oh, I fought the feelin' and won, but I felt it! I can split a second into 85 pieces with my MD8, record 99 tracks before committing one to hard media, bounce the same bit or record to the same physical spot on the media dozens...if not hundreds...of times. And even though I'm being perfectly honest when I talk (endlessly) about how important immediacy and intimacy and energy are to me...the temptation to do more processing, editting, etc. is always there.
zedsalt	Date: August 14, 2005 @ 12:20 PM My name's Zed, and I'm a recordoholic.
just2ska	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 10:18 AM I think those bands were all considered "Gods" was because they were exploring a genre and they were the firsts... Coldplay is just being the Beatles in the 21st century... listen to them and think about it. I think it's harder to be a "God" today than back them merely because it's getting harder to find new genres to explore that will sound good AND be popular. That's the key
imemine	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 10:25 AM I disagree. I think it’s because the RIAA decides what’s popular before the public gets a chance to.
DeadraveN	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 10:31 AM That's why you should all worship me.
Intergalacti...	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 10:38 AM Well ska I can see what your sayin with Coldplay.... to a certain extent but explain how U2 are still so big is this because they have their own genre? maybe its because they weren't many years out of the 'golden age' when they started? If the reason there arent any major bands out there today is because its not amazingly original how are coldplay one of those amazing headlining bands when you just said they're a lot like the beatles?
psypig	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 11:24 AM There's plenty of bands out at the moment who will probably be talked about in 10 years time as 'gods.' here comes the bit people will disagree with I feel privileged to have grown up listening to bands like RATM and slipknot (and to a lesser extent Korn and Limp bizkit). Now they're by no means my favorite bands (in fact i think limp bizkit suck) but they've all left their mark on music and modern culture (whether you like it or not it's true.) Marilyn manson - i know all he does is take old ideas and re-heat them but you can't deny his cultural significance. Nirvana - i don't think i need to say any more about them. The prodigy (in England at least) have been a massive influence on music and culture. Ministry. Nine Inch Nails. I realise that my views won't be accepted by everyone and i accept the fact that i'm biased towards the kind of music i listen to but I think there's plenty of bands around at the moment that will be looked back on as 'gods'. It's all just a matter of your perspective.
zedsalt	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 12:01 PM From what I'm given to understand, U2's sound was created, at least in part, to use tones the Edge was getting out of a screwed-up used Explorer. He found one he could afford, but it turned out to be cheap because there was something "wrong" with it. Instead of trashing the guitar or doing his best to minimize its shortcomings, he built his style around it. Cool, eh?
Intergalacti...	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 12:12 PM That is actually quite cool psypig I actually agree with nearly every word you say there despite the fa t I came up with the argument I suppose looking at it from a 60's point of view that not all the bands we like to call gods now were considered gods back then they were probably in the same sort of heirachy as limp Bizkit and ratm. Well considering we have the major gods like coldplay and U2, who do you think the major gods were back in the golden age?
psypig	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 12:25 PM I feel i should be excused from this conversation as my natural cynicism will probably get me into trouble. The phrase 'golden age' is making me twitch...
just2ska	Date: August 15, 2005 @ 12:35 PM yeah, i agree psy... the "golden age" bands mostly suck in my opinion..
zedsalt	Date: August 16, 2005 @ 12:16 PM Somewhere around here, I have an old issue of Relix magazine with two bands named Slipknot that sent their recordings in for consideration in Relix's "Too New to be Known" column. Actually, one was "Slipknot" (the jumpsuited degenerates we all know and love) and one was "Slipknot!" (named after the Grateful Dead tune, right down to the titular exclamation point). You see which one rose to infamy and fortune, right? The one that DIDN'T sound an AWFUL lot like ONE other band!
mattbanx	Date: August 16, 2005 @ 12:22 PM There are two bands called Warrant and the eldest one is from Germany. There is no comparison. I wonder how they can get away with copyright infringing like that
zedsalt	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 12:10 PM I'm old enough to remember the whole "west coast Slayer vs. east coast Slayer" stuff as well as "American Wrathchild vs. British Wrathchild". But it isn't a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue. Trademarks are much more expensive, plus a lot of folks make the same mistake in assuming copyright laws apply to names and titles.
Intergalacti...	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 6:23 AM I wonder if theres another Intergalactic War Hero out there cos ya know we havent all fought battles in space sorry kinda drifting away from the subject here
MindSculpture	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 8:05 AM ...well MTV for starters. Before the 80's it did not matter what you looked like - people would get your albums because you were making new exciting music. Video changed all that. It is alot more about cynical marketing excercises now - the upshot of which is a lot of "clone" bands appearing. Formulated for the masses. In that respect there are more sell out bands, and easier to be famous with your face plastered all over tv.
Intergalacti...	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 10:00 AM Mcfly and Busted for one
zedsalt	Date: August 18, 2005 @ 12:40 PM I have to disagree with the notion that personal appearance didn't become important until the advent of MTV. I think it'd be more accurate to say that MTV caused a small "blip", a very temporary sidestep from the slow, steady trend of personal appearance becoming less important.
aenimus	Date: August 20, 2005 @ 7:21 PM MTV can die for all i care. Although getting played on there would reach a large audience and it would be nice to reap the rewards.
HenriRoger	Date: August 21, 2005 @ 8:33 AM MindSculpture "before the 80's it did not matter what you looked like " Are you sure ? I remember each album cover of the beatles where changing the hair cut style of million of people at once ... And that's only one exemple . An other aspect is a band like the beatles and many others were "family" bands ,not making music for one age in particular ,very few radio stations , tv shows for kids . Now it's all working by genre and age , and nobody in the streets knows the name of coldplay or radiohead , musicians . I realy doubt it's easier now to be famous with music but it might be easier to work fine in music for more people .
Intergalacti...	Date: August 22, 2005 @ 8:53 AM Look at Elvis his hair was the teddybear look
zedsalt	Date: August 22, 2005 @ 12:05 PM Look at Doc Pomus, the writer of some of Elvis' hits...and SO many others! I think the advent of Bob Dylan was a big...if not THE big...turning point. Before him, it was just assumed that a songwriter would NOT be performing his/her own material. With many exceptions, of course, performers were generally young and attractive bits of fluff.
Intergalacti...	Date: August 22, 2005 @ 12:18 PM hehe Bob started young but was terribly horrible to look at
mattbanx	Date: August 22, 2005 @ 2:20 PM Maybe it's going to be hap to rock 'n' roll at a later age. The Rolling Stones are proving you can.
psypig	Date: August 22, 2005 @ 3:49 PM I think this argument has fallen apart at the seams...
Intergalacti...	Date: August 22, 2005 @ 5:35 PM it has i believe we have sucked the life out of it like a lemon
pangtera	Date: September 4, 2005 @ 9:23 AM Don't forget Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Those were 90s bands whose music is still inlfuential even today (although Pearl Jam is lame nowadays).

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: