old bands - you've made your money now go away

Driver 8 · 12-10-2007 3:24pm

I saw them do just that, and they neither coughed, nor spluttered, I assure you. Bob Dylan still plays Like A Rolling Stone, The Who still crank out My Generation, Bruce Springsteen still brings the house down with Born to Run.

Oh, and Dylan's last great album was last year, Springsteen's was two weeks ago. Great art is timeless. Simple as

klaus flouride · 12-10-2007 3:37pm

Driver 8 wrote: »

I saw them do just that, and they neither coughed, nor spluttered, I assure you. Bob Dylan still plays Like A Rolling Stone, The Who still crank out My Generation, Bruce Springsteen still brings the house down with Born to Run.

Oh, and Dylan's last great album was last year, Springsteen's was two weeks ago. Great art is timeless. Simple as

Yes they did - The who are a shadow of their former selves.

I never said there was anything wrong with them making albums or new music - its when they try and pretend to be young lads that i think is ridiculous.

Driver 8 · 12-10-2007 4:06pm

Were you at the gig? or are you just referring to what you saw on tv on glastonbury? If that's the case, who's opinion is more informed on the matter?

klaus flouride · 12-10-2007 4:13pm

Driver 8 wrote: »

Were you at the gig? or are you just referring to what you saw on tv on glastonbury? If that's the case, who's opinion is more informed on the matter?

If it looked sh1t on t.v. I can only imagine how bad it was live- they were crap.

Driver 8 · 12-10-2007 4:16pm

You can only imagine, because you haven't seen any of these bands live.
As such, the people who have, have a more informed opinion.

I spoke to someone after seeing The Who, a gentleman who had seen them in london during the seventies. he said to me words to the effect that, while it wasn't the same, the 2007 shows he had seen were still head and shoulders above most of what he'd seen concert wise this year.

But I mean, in general, how you could compare seeing a band on tv to seeing them live is beyond me. Helps your argument I suppose...

Nailz · 12-10-2007 5:03pm

klaus, may you please point out a young act to get excited about???

Rigsby · 12-10-2007 5:09pm

Nailz wrote: »

klaus, may you please point out a young act to get excited about???

I've already asked him twice to do this with no success :rolleyes:

He 's probably afraid people will slag off his favourite bands which no doubt are revolutionizing music !!

nij · 12-10-2007 5:41pm

Nobody is pretending it's the 70's (though I can't see what would be wrong with doing that for a few hours at a concert...)

I love Sabbath, and I'd give anything to have seen this live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTb7KU4AJSU

It's not even the best 'dinosaur rock' example on youtube, but I just love the song. It doesn't sound much different from the original.

Or how about Motorhead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImrtZRrS70w

Those people are not there for 'street cred', they are there to ROCK!

p to the e · 12-10-2007 6:24pm

Rigsby wrote: »

I've already asked him twice to do this with no success :rolleyes:

He 's probably afraid people will slag off his favourite bands which no doubt are revolutionizing music !!

I would actually like to hear some of these bands that those mean old musicians are keeping down. if they are good enough that a thread, totally dismissing any group with a combined age over 200, was started surely we can at least get a name and go forth and search for their music to bring us into the new age 21st century rock. i for one can't wait!:D

Rigsby · 12-10-2007 9:16pm

p to the e wrote: »

I would actually like to hear some of these bands that those mean old musicians are keeping down. if they are good enough that a thread, totally dismissing any group with a combined age over 200, was started surely we can at least get a name and go forth and search for their music to bring us into the new age 21st century rock. i for one can't wait!:D

I totally agree.

KLAUS: If these young bands are as good as you say, then why not tell us about them so we can all discover them for ourselves. I'm sure the bands themselves would be delighted with the publicity you think they deserve so much.

I'm not holding my breath though...

klaus flouride · 15-10-2007 9:30am

i'd rather see Jose Gonzalez rather than Bob Dylan, I'd rather see The Rapture rather than almost any of the dinosaur reformations and i'd rather see Dizzee Rascal rather than Snoop Dogg (cos its not just rock where this is happening) and I'd rather see Kila then go see Planxty.

But none of those young artists engage in 10 minute fret-w*ank solos, so you're probably not going to like them.

ShawnRaven · 15-10-2007 11:26am

Unreal! Those are your comparisons?!

Dylan had reached legendary status before Gonzalez was even born, and even then Gonzalez will probs only be known for the song that was used on the Sony ad! He sure as hell won't be remembered for his horrible Kylie, Joy Division and Bruce Springsteen cover versions!

The Rapture are barely established, so complaining about them not getting a big stage yet is laughable. And they'll be lucky if they last another five years because the whole "dance punk" trend never really took off.

Not a big fan of rap so can't comment.

As for Kila v Planxity. Kila have been going for bloody years (late 80s i think), so it's not any other traditional/folk band's fault that they missed the boat!

VR!

big b · 15-10-2007 11:35am

I can hardly believe that what was basically a childish rant has spawned 6 pages! But it probably says a lot about the mature music fan that they will try to make a reasoned response to such attacks.
Klaus, I and a lot of others are giving you the benefit of the doubt that your post was basically well-intentioned, and therefore worthy of response.
It does seem to me that a lot, maybe all, of your ranting in based on a tv viewing of The Who at Glasto. Which doesn't make a very strong case at all. How do you know it wasn't just a bad night? Are dodgy vocals on one song good enough reason to dismiss a band who've been such a success?
You seem to reach a lot of conclusions with very little basis. Led Zep will be crap at the O2 gig. - how do you know this? Because Roger Daltrey struggled to hit a few notes at Glasto?
Tell me one of the up & coming bands who never play a bum note or sing a line out of key.

validreasoning! wrote: »

Watch Genesis performance on VH1's Rock Honours earlier this year, you'll probably find it floating on youtube somewhere. Is Phil Collins voice what it was? No. Can he hit the hight notes as well as he once did, no. Can the band still put on the performance of a lifetime. Certainly, and the Rock Honours show was the proof of the pudding.

validreasoning made a great point - it's about performance, not age. And actually the Rock Honors, which they did before their tour started, was actually their weakest performance this year.
Watch this and tell me a band from the 70's can't still kick ass live.

In any event, whether you personally like it or not, people are flocking in their millions to watch bands of pedigree. To deny these bands the right to play because they're distracting from new music is a ridiculous concept - all these bands fought their way up the ladder against competition from established acts. The same will happen today for bands that are good enough. Sadly, these bands are in short supply.
Your assertion that these bands are stifling new music is ill thought out & frankly preposterous. The people going to see The Who, Police, Genesis, Stones, can, by & large, afford to buy an album by a young band if they think it's good enough. It's the music they grew up with that keeps them interested in music generally.
It's been said before on this thread by me & others - IF a new band is good enough, they'll get heard. End of.

klaus flouride · 15-10-2007 11:47am

validreasoning! wrote: »

Unreal! Those are your comparisons?!

Dylan had reached legendary status before Gonzalez was even born,

So, he's still better than Dylan is now.

and even then Gonzalez will probs only be known for the song that was used on the Sony ad! He sure as hell won't be remembered for his horrible Kylie, Joy Division and Bruce Springsteen cover versions!

These days Bob Dylan sounds like a bad cover singer trying to cover himself. I'm not saying Gonzales is an all-round better artist than Dylan, but at the moment he is better. Dylan did loads of covers, he tried to claim some of them were his own.

The Rapture are barely established, so complaining about them not getting a big stage yet is laughable. And they'll be lucky if they last another five years because the whole "dance punk" trend never really took off.

The fact remains that they are playing original music; which is part of the reason promoters are scared of booking them - god forbid music fans would have to listen to songs which were written within the last 5 years.

Not a big fan of rap so can't comment.

As for Kila v Planxity. Kila have been going for bloody years (late 80s i think), so it's not any other traditional/folk band's fault that they missed the boat!

I think Christy Moore's bawdy drinking songs have made Planxty more popular than they might have been - even though he wrote these after he left. More importantly Kila are not a straightforward trad band- they're much more progressive than that, originality is what people don't seem to like about them.

Even if you liked the bands I mentioned you wouldn't admit it, and the fact that you don't listen to hip-hop/rap tells me you've got musical tunnel vision. You decided years ago upon a set of bands you like and have decided to stick with them regardless of what anyone else releases.

ShawnRaven · 15-10-2007 11:54am

klaus flouride wrote: »

Even if you liked the bands I mentioned you wouldn't admit it, and the fact that you don't listen to hip-hop/rap tells me you've got musical tunnel vision. You decided years ago upon a set of bands you like and have decided to stick with them regardless of what anyone else releases.

Yeah, because i have nothing else better to do with my time than sit here and contradict you, right? Dream on mate.

As for the Rap/Hip-hop comment. I tried getting into it in the early 90s. I tried Naughty By Nature, Cyprus Hill, NWA and i will still listen to NWA from time to time, just not as often.

So next time you come up with a sweeping generalisation about me and my personal music taste (especially when you don't even know me, nor have any basis for your statement. Remember just because i don't like a certain genre of music, doesn't mean i haven't tried it.), please make sure you get your facts right. Otherwise you'll end up doing what you have done for the past two weeks...

... and that's looking like a complete Jackass!
VR!

big b · 15-10-2007 11:58am

[QUOTE=klaus flouride;54203161
Even if you liked the bands I mentioned you wouldn't admit it, and the fact that you don't listen to hip-hop/rap tells me you've got musical tunnel vision. You decided years ago upon a set of bands you like and have decided to stick with them regardless of what anyone else releases.[/QUOTE]

I give up. You're so presumptious that trying to reason with you is futile.
Waste of space.

klaus flouride · 15-10-2007 12:19pm

big b wrote: »

I can hardly believe that what was basically a childish rant has spawned 6 pages! But it probably says a lot about the mature music fan that they will try to make a reasoned response to such attacks.
Klaus, I and a lot of others are giving you the benefit of the doubt that your post was basically well-intentioned, and therefore worthy of response.
It does seem to me that a lot, maybe all, of your ranting in based on a tv viewing of The Who at Glasto.

I didn't want to start saying which oldie bands i've been to see- its like putting up lists and all that- you just end up with loads of people comparing performances etc- i didn't want to end up with that discussion. One act I saw was Bob Dylan, Kilkenny, 2000- Night of the living dead, nobody paid attention as he warbled his way through unrecognisable number after unrecognisable number. After that gig I distinctly remember a bunch of Dylan enthusiasts banging on about how much a great gig it was. idiots.

Which doesn't make a very strong case at all. How do you know it wasn't just a bad night? Are dodgy vocals on one song good enough reason to dismiss a band who've been such a success?

They were bad, real bad; it was embarrasing - I'm not dismissing the band, i like them (i'm listening to the McVicar Sounttr. right now as it happens), but that was a sh1te performance.

You seem to reach a lot of conclusions with very little basis. Led Zep will be crap at the O2 gig. - how do you know this? Because Roger Daltrey struggled to hit a few notes at Glasto?

Because Led Zep. will try to do what the who did- attempt to re-create the sound in its entirety (if they don't do this they won't get a good response, all though they mightn't care seeing as they've made their money already).

Tell me one of the up & coming bands who never play a bum note or sing a line out of key.

fair enough, they may do so; but thats o.k. if its a new song you haven't heard before. What if its a song you like and the band can't get it right cos they're too old.

validreasoning made a great point - it's about performance, not age. And actually the Rock Honors, which they did before their tour started, was actually their weakest performance this year.
Watch this and tell me a band from the 70's can't still kick ass live.

Great 70s rock bands were not just about performances- you speak about these bands as though their sole function was as wind-up clockwork entertainers; i don't agree, i think they were more than that, i think they were serious artists who should be continually pursuing new ideas and directions, and not engaging in this youthful playacting.

In any event, whether you personally like it or not, people are flocking in their millions to watch bands of pedigree.

They flock to see Westlife- thats o.k., they're just kids with their mothers, serious music fans should know better.

To deny these bands the right to play because they're distracting from new music is a ridiculous concept - all these bands fought their way up the ladder against competition from established acts. The same will happen today for bands that are good enough. Sadly, these bands are in short supply.
Your assertion that these bands are stifling new music is ill thought out & frankly preposterous. The people going to see The Who, Police, Genesis, Stones, can, by & large, afford to buy an album by a young band if they think it's good enough. It's the music they grew up with that keeps them interested in music generally.
It's been said before on this thread by me & others - IF a new band is good enough, they'll get heard. End of.

If a new band sounds like Led Zep. in their hey-day then they'll get heard- who wants to do that? If you're serious about your music you'll want to create something new and listen to something new, Promoters and critics aren't interested in that. Why do you think the current crop of indie bands sound alot like the New-wave punk of the early 80s (The Jam etc.)? Its cos old music writers can't get their heads around anything other than the standard rock format- so they go on the radio and write editorials saying that there are no other better bands then the ones they knew growing up.

Look at when the Dance scene broke in the early 90s- music writers/critics hated it because they just couldn't understand it, so they resorted to what they always do in these situations, tell everyone that the music from years ago was much better - Just cos a band doesn't pack out a stadium it doesn't mean their not good.

klaus flouride · 15-10-2007 12:42pm

Do you listen to the stuff you did when you were 13? Or did you get forced out by your peers and use the excuse of "I've grown out of that"?

VR![/QUOTE]

VR! - This was one of your earlier comments; i gathered from this that you abhorred any music that didn't sound like the rock bands of yore. I was mistaken, my apologies (although you could have said that you liked some rap).

P.s. reformations suck.

klaus flouride · 15-10-2007 12:44pm

big b wrote: »

I give up. You're so presumptious that trying to reason with you is futile.
Waste of space.

I would just like to know how reformations managed to become the latest 'revolution' in music.

ShawnRaven · 15-10-2007 2:24pm

klaus flouride wrote: »

VR! - This was one of your earlier comments; i gathered from this that you abhorred any music that didn't sound like the rock bands of yore. I was mistaken, my apologies (although you could have said that you liked some rap).

P.s. reformations suck.

Not at all, you asked me if i listened to the same stuff that i did when i was 13. To which i gave a few examples of Rock and Metal legends. Cypress Hill, NWA or Naughty By Nature do not fit in to either category of rock or legends. Hence why i never mentioned it.

Apology accepted, i didn't mention it because the subject wasn't exactly brought up.

VR!

PS - If you're resorting to sly comments here, then reformations don't suck anywhere near as Jose Gonzalez's sh*tty covers!

klaus flouride · 15-10-2007 3:00pm

Cypress Hill, NWA or Naughty By Nature do not fit in to either category of rock or legends.

Rock, fair enough- but why are they not legends?

PS - If you're resorting to sly comments here, then reformations don't suck anywhere near as Jose Gonzalez's sh*tty covers!

[/QUOTE]

I never said they were perfect; but at least they're original. How many more times do you need to hear 'Whole lotta love'?

Whats all this about 'sly comments'- you called me a 'jackass' (are you from California or something?) earlier, not that i care- just pointing it out.

Its easy to defend big bands that everyone likes- its like sticking up for Jesus. Everyone would like to think that the bands we like will behave in a respectful manner to the work they created and which we really like; but it doesn't always work out that way.

I hear Sonny Liston is gettin' back in the ring - perhaps himself and Mick Jagger can work something out; do a double header show or something like that, is harry houdini still on the go? Sadly, Hurricane Higgins actually is still on the go- These old guys are never going to learn, especially if people keep going to see this sh1te.

ShawnRaven · 15-10-2007 3:26pm

I never said you were a jackass, i said you were looking like one, and you are given a lot of you're posts.

As for afore mentioned bands, none of them didn't exactly do anything groundbreaking. They weren't pioneers or anything, a lot of them were in the right place at the right time, especially NWA around the time of the Rodney King beating and all.

As for the rest of you're examples, not only have you gone off the point, but you've still ignored the fact that music is a business, it makes money. And people that go to any gig, no matter who is playing. Where does the money go? Into their pockets.

It's supply and demand. Nothing you or I can do about it except live with it.
VR!

klaus flouride · 15-10-2007 4:07pm

validreasoning! wrote: »

I never said you were a jackass, i said you were looking like one, and you are given a lot of you're posts.

Thats still a term of abuse- not that i care, its the specifics of the accusation that i am addressing.

As for afore mentioned bands, none of them didn't exactly do anything groundbreaking. They weren't pioneers or anything, a lot of them were in the right place at the right time, especially NWA around the time of the Rodney King beating and all.

As for the rest of you're examples, not only have you gone off the point, but you've still ignored the fact that music is a business, it makes money. And people that go to any gig, no matter who is playing. Where does the money go? Into their pockets.

It's supply and demand. Nothing you or I can do about it except live with it.
VR!

Yeah I know its supply and demand - but just cos a band makes loads of money it doesn't mean they're any good.

When did I go off the point?

N.W.A., not pioneers? You may not like them but practically every rap act around now (and since N.W.A. came out) cites them as an influence- They must have done something right. Rodney King had nothing to do with it, black people have been discriminated against in America for years and Rap was around long before Rodney King got beaten up.

nij · 15-10-2007 5:20pm

Even Snoop Dogg is too old for him. I just wiki'd him - he's 35! Man oh man...

2005 had one of the best moments in music, when 25,000 came to see Manowar playing the Earthshaker fest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ri-QaLO6U

For the last song, they even had every previous member on stage. The link I've given shows "Kings Of Metal". If you need confirmation that Eric Adams can still sing, just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SclJmnRMLnQ

Show me a 'young' band of today's scene that would even attempt a song like that live.

Eric Adams is in his early 50's. I saw the band last March - man...unbelievable. They rocked our socks off.

klaus flouride · 16-10-2007 1:43pm

nij wrote: »

Even Snoop Dogg is too old for him. I just wiki'd him - he's 35! Man oh

Yeah, but he's well past his best - however, Snoop Dogg was clever about it; he now produces and manages younger acts. Which is what older musicians / artists ahould be doing.

Manowar? I wouldn't be their biggest expert, but I know this- Part of their gimmick is that they are a blast from the past when slightly homo-erotic imagery and extravagance was a big part of the metal scene, thank god thats over. But Manowar is not a great example- They're not megastars, so it means that they can't just throw in the towel and sit back on their millions; They have to give good performances everytime- or else people will loose interest, its not the same for some of these reformed bands; they don't need to give great performances and they'll still sell out, cos its all in the name.

nij · 17-10-2007 7:17pm

klaus flouride wrote: »

Part of their gimmick is that they are a blast from the past when slightly homo-erotic imagery and extravagance was a big part of the metal scene, thank god thats over.

1) Maybe quality, musicianship, good sound at shows, talent and awesome 'rock your face off' music is their gimmick. They are actually getting more popular than they ever were before. I doubt anyone is there to see homo-eroticism.

2) What's all this "Thank god that's over" talk? Why, what's so great about "today's" music? Oh right, today we do 'serious' music... Ever hear the word 'fun'?

But Manowar is not a great example- They're not megastars, so it means that they can't just throw in the towel and sit back on their millions; They have to give good performances everytime- or else people will loose interest, its not the same for some of these reformed bands; they don't need to give great performances and they'll still sell out, cos its all in the name.

They're not exactly strapped for cash. They've hardly changed in 27 years. They've seen all sorts of trends and fads come and go. They are more popular today than ever before.

I'm still waiting to hear all about what acting 25 years younger is. Manowar are a perfect example to use in this discussion - they haven't changed their style, and in all this time they've actually gotten better at performing.

Now that we've established (and both agree) that age has very little to do with putting on a killer show, what's wrong with Zep reforming? Or what's wrong with The Rolling Stones selling 60,000 tickets in 30 minutes? Now there's 60,000 happy people!

S.I.R · 17-10-2007 8:12pm

for meh:

metallica ( still going some how ) : they had the black album... if only guns n roses didnt help they would of crashed an burned quicker....

rolling stones : 7 hour long dvd they just released of them smoking and " singing " , enough said.

nelly fertadio : wannabe s**t

50 cent : ice cube meets the furious five meets Samuel Jackson on medication

thats all.......

for now......

wait did i mention britney spear... wait i don t need to

nij · 17-10-2007 9:33pm

I like Metaillica's early stuff, but they got real sh1t real fast. Why? Because instead of making the kind of music their fans wanted, they switched on MTV to see what was 'hip'.

Bubs101 · 17-10-2007 10:36pm

I do think there is something more respectable about bands like the Smiths and the Stone Roses who just destroyed each other. I personally have no problem with bands who continually produce records and tour, but the ones who just come together for a payday (sex pistols anyone) kind of anoys me. Especially since some of them do it once every 10 years (Sex pistols anyone)

ShawnRaven · 17-10-2007 11:39pm

Bubs101 wrote: »

I do think there is something more respectable about bands like the Smiths and the Stone Roses who just destroyed each other. I personally have no problem with bands who continually produce records and tour, but the ones who just come together for a payday (sex pistols anyone) kind of anoys me. Especially since some of them do it once every 10 years (Sex pistols anyone)

Credit to the sex pistols though, the first thing they said in 96 for the Filthy Lucre tour was that they were in it for the payday. They're in the business to make money.

The Stone Roses comeback tour really wasn't as successful as they had hoped it would be in 95. Neither was the second coming album. You know you produced a muck album when Simon Pegg is taking the piss out of it in movies! (Shaun Of The Dead)

VR

old bands - you've made your money now go away

Comments