GrammeFriday Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1410278110' post='2547757'] And no-one at all can make a full time living out of creating music unless they already had a foot in the door by the end of the 90s. [/quote] No-one at all? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowieBass Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1410278110' post='2547757'] And no-one at all can make a full time living out of creating music unless they already had a foot in the door by the end of the 90s. [/quote] I wish somebody would have told this to One Direction! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1410278405' post='2547764'] Does it actually matter if no one can make a living out of creating music as long as the music is created in the first place? [/quote] Absolutely it matters! Do you think the classic albums, or any popular albums of the last 50 years would have been created if those musicians worked on their music in their spare time? The world would be a very different place, and most likely sadder, if, at least some musicians couldn't make a living from their chosen profession. BTW I'm not too sure that I understand your meaning of "democratised music scene". Music [b]is[/b], or [b]was[/b], as far as I'm concerned "democratised". Generally speaking, if you show/ed exceptional ability on your instrument, were able to write stand-out songs, or had something interesting to say musically, then you would get on further than someone who failed in all those... if you've got it, you'll get on! If you haven't, you won't! I certainly wouldn't call that undemocratic. Edited September 9, 2014 by SteveK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammeFriday Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 [quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1410286700' post='2547881'] I'm not too sure that I understand your meaning of "democratised music scene". Music [b]is[/b], or [b]was[/b], as far as I'm concerned "democratised". Generally speaking, if you show/ed exceptional ability on your instrument, were able to write stand-out songs, or had something interesting to say musically, then you would get on further than someone who failed in all those... if you've got it, you'll get on! If you haven't, you won't! I certainly wouldn't call that undemocratic. [/quote] What, like Kiss? Did Kiss show exceptional ability on their instruments? Nope. Were they able to write stand-out songs? Can't think of a single song title. Did they have something interesting to say musically? Oh, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammeFriday Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) I was into Rock back in the day, and Kiss were the biggest disappointment ever. I saw pictures of them before I heard anything by them, and my imagination went wild thinking about how evil and extreme they would sound. My benchmark was (and largely remains) Motorhead - i.e. bands were either more or less loud/fast/aggressive than them. I thought Kiss must be off the scale. So imagine my surprise when I did finally get to hear them - boring MOR rock of the tamest kind. Things are much better now - kids now have bands that do sound like Kiss should have done. My own personal favourite in this vein is Nails. Note how they reverse the Kiss appearance/reality disjunction altogether - totally unassuming-looking, but proper scary music: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg5K42gfbh8[/media] Edited September 9, 2014 by GrammeFriday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 [quote name='GrammeFriday' timestamp='1410287510' post='2547890'] What, like Kiss? Did Kiss show exceptional ability on their instruments? Nope. Were they able to write stand-out songs? Can't think of a single song title. Did they have something interesting to say musically? Oh, please! [/quote] I know very little of Kiss, other than their make-up and lively shows and I guess that you're not a fan either ... but ok, maybe I should have added "presentation", but you do get my drift, right? IAC I did say "Generally speaking". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammeFriday Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Fair 'nuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodinblack Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1410278264' post='2547761'] All the major bands these days owe their success to the fact that they got their big break before the turn of the century. [/quote] Like Muse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Would Tubular Bells come under the heading of 'rock'? I'm just wondering because as far as I can remember, Oldfield had written it in his teens and taken demo copies around around the big companies who decided to reject it. Branson thought it had potential and formed Virgin Records on the strength of his hunch. OK, hindsight is a wonderful thing and no doubt Branson was just lucky, but my point is that there must have been loads of similar stuff around back then and only Oldfield was lucky to get the break. These days, Oldfield would not have needed Branson to start a record business because he could have self-published via the internet. He might not have made as much money but his music would have got out there. Besides, as Dad pointed out, perhaps the (50)/60/70(80)s period was actually an abnormal time in terms of the success and money being made out of music and that things are now returning to a more 'grass roots' sort of thing. The difference, of course, being that the internet enables global access to anyone's music for it to 'succeed or fail' on its own merits. Anyone who bemoans the decline of huge record company marketing machines as the reason they can't make it big with their music should just join the queue for the X-factor if they want a bit of hype. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number6 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Oh no.....i just saw this thread.....is rock dead or isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjones Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 No it ain't. Well not according to the BEEB. Honeyblood is my niece Stina's band, so I may be slightly biased. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27050381 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammeFriday Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 [quote name='Number6' timestamp='1410294297' post='2548003'] Oh no.....i just saw this thread.....is rock dead or isn't it? [/quote] Rather than rely on Gene Simmonds for an answer to this question, let's ask some young people. For my 11-year old, the answer is an emphatic no - I just asked him, and he gave me the following list of rock bands that he is currently listening to: What Comes To Life Bridge To Grace Arrows To Athens Heaven's Basement Blameshift The Atlantic Girl On Fire Skillet Ra Three Days' Grace. I have hardly heard of any of these bands, and have no idea whether they are making a living out of their music, but I agree with flyfisher that what really matters is that my son has access to new bands playing the kind of stuff he likes - and that these bands are finding an audience. How is that worse than the 'good old days'? I've also asked my 13-year old the same question. He listens almost exclusively to electronic dance music and dubstep, and has suggested to me on several occasions that it would be great if I sold all my basses and bought an Ableton Push instead. I assumed that his answer to this question would be 'yes', but he said 'no, I like some rock as well'. BTW, music means as much to them as it did to me when I was their age. The 13-year old is already an accomplished drummer (he mostly plays along to Chase and Status on his headphones but can do 'rock' as well) and the 11-y-o is learning guitar, and can already play better than some adults I have been in bands with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number6 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 It's times like this that we need John Peel to send a message from beyond the grave...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 . . . he's probably keeping his head down and hoping the afterworld police don't pull him in for questioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 [quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1410289543' post='2547928'] Like Muse? [/quote] Absolutely like Muse. They got their foot in the door back in the late 90s with their first album. It might have not been a massive success at the time, but a record label believed in them enough to fund it and it was a stepping stone to bigger things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 [quote name='GrammeFriday' timestamp='1410288025' post='2547906'] I was into Rock back in the day, and Kiss were the biggest disappointment ever. I saw pictures of them before I heard anything by them, and my imagination went wild thinking about how evil and extreme they would sound. My benchmark was (and largely remains) Motorhead - i.e. bands were either more or less loud/fast/aggressive than them. I thought Kiss must be off the scale. So imagine my surprise when I did finally get to hear them - boring MOR rock of the tamest kind. Things are much better now - kids now have bands that do sound like Kiss should have done. My own personal favourite in this vein is Nails. Note how they reverse the Kiss appearance/reality disjunction altogether - totally unassuming-looking, but proper scary music: [/quote] It just goes to show how how subjective rock music is and how it changes over time. From my perspective the clip you posted is just another generic modern rock band. Theres literally hundreds of bands just like this. I didn't like Kiss much at the time, but in a historical perspective they took a elements from previous styles of rock and turned the presentation up to 11. From that PoV Kiss are more interesting because at least there is something entertaining to watch if you don't like the music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenochrome Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I think he may be right but not for the reasons he gives. I have heard very little [i]standard[/i] rock music that has moved me in the last 10-15 years. However I think that there are great things happening in numerous cross-over genres, and that's what catches my ear these days. 'Rock' music has had its day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Do you think that might be just be a personal perspective? I don't really mean just personal to you, but personal to everyone who has grown up with 'rock music' and is now looking around for something different? (and nothing wrong with that). Meanwhile, young kids just starting to develop their musical interests beyond that being force-fed to them by TV, effectively start from scratch and those inclined towards rock latch on to new bands playing 'old formula' rock that old fogies (well, you know what I mean) are not interesting in because they've heard it all before and so just moan that xyz was much better in their day. I'm wondering all that because of the list of rock bands that GrammeFriday posted about his 11 year-old's rock habits. I've never heard of any of them. . . which I take as a very healthy indication that rock is alive and well, serving new audiences and alienating - or at the very least bypassing - old fogies like me. Otherwise, kids might just as well raid their parents MP3 collection and start going through precisely the same listening experiences as they did in your youth and there would be no need for any new music at all. After all, anyone with an internet connection today has access to more music (and video and cinema and literature) than they could ever listen to in their entire lifetime, so unless they ignore all the old stuff they will have no time for any of the new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodinblack Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1410353046' post='2548433'] Absolutely like Muse. They got their foot in the door back in the late 90s with their first album. It might have not been a massive success at the time, but a record label believed in them enough to fund it and it was a stepping stone to bigger things. [/quote] ok then, like Paramore who headlined Reading / Leeds? They were from this century with a few double platinum albums. My Chemical Romance likewise (ok, now split), got their break this century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) [quote name='BurritoBass' timestamp='1410186402' post='2546916'] I actually like Gene Simmons / Kiss but he's a 65yr man who is acknowledging that things have changed. The days of Elvis or the Beatles had gone by the time Kiss cam along and it is different again now. I do see some sense in what he is saying but there are enough people coming to gigs etc for rock music to continue for a very long time. It's just the old "things ain't what they used to be" line. [/quote] Maybe it's the venues my band plays or the genre ( Hard 70s Blues/Rock ) I'm still concerned when I see the 20 somethings come in and as soon as they see our band they leave. Fortunately we have a strong following with the 50 and 60 year old folks. Blue Edited September 12, 2014 by blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) [quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1410365054' post='2548612'] ok then, like Paramore who headlined Reading / Leeds? They were from this century with a few double platinum albums. My Chemical Romance likewise (ok, now split), got their break this century. [/quote] The young lady that fronts Paramore is talented and has a very hot stage presence. Blue Edited September 12, 2014 by blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubit Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 As long as people listen to rock and bands continue to play rock, how the hell can it be dead? Rock will go on in different formats, but it's still as recognisable to a 70's child as it is to today's yoofs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4 Strings Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 [quote name='GrammeFriday' timestamp='1410288025' post='2547906'] I was into Rock back in the day, and Kiss were the biggest disappointment ever. I saw pictures of them before I heard anything by them, and my imagination went wild thinking about how evil and extreme they would sound. My benchmark was (and largely remains) Motorhead - i.e. bands were either more or less loud/fast/aggressive than them. I thought Kiss must be off the scale. So imagine my surprise when I did finally get to hear them - boring MOR rock of the tamest kind. Things are much better now - kids now have bands that do sound like Kiss should have done. My own personal favourite in this vein is Nails. Note how they reverse the Kiss appearance/reality disjunction altogether - totally unassuming-looking, but proper scary music: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg5K42gfbh8[/media] [/quote] hmmph, can't hear the words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubit Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I used to like Kiss. They were never the best musicians but to say they never had any decent songs is very unfair and comes from folk who don't know their material. I mean these guys were huge in the 70's, 80's and to a certain extent are still a big name. They could not have done this with just looking good alone. They did have some strong songs, again, not always the best musically, but catchy songs are very often 3 or 4 chords anyway. These guys have been there and done it, so you have to applaud them for that. I just wish Gene would keep his rather large mouth shut at times! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.