Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby JimC » Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:03 pm

Seabass wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I'm not saying there are zero rock bands around now, but I think that the difficulty people are having in naming new bands of the current decade is instructive.


:funny:

What difficulty? Rachel named several right off the bat, which you ignored. Tero posted Modest Mouse, Lak posted a couple Rockabilly bands, I named three bands, all ignored. You've only acknowledged MrFungus' list which you wrote off as being too old.

The difficulty here isn't in naming contemporary rock bands; the difficulty is in finding bands that satisfy your ridiculously narrow criteria, i.e. younger than three years AND the ability to pack stadiums, and must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by you.

This discussion is very silly. You've set up all the parameters so the only possible conclusion is the one you have predetermined.


What if one removed the "must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by CES"?

And maybe 5 years, not 3...

And pack stadiums by themselves, not as part of a multi-band festival?

Not so many, I think...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
 
Posts: 55703
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Seabass » Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:58 pm

JimC wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I'm not saying there are zero rock bands around now, but I think that the difficulty people are having in naming new bands of the current decade is instructive.


:funny:

What difficulty? Rachel named several right off the bat, which you ignored. Tero posted Modest Mouse, Lak posted a couple Rockabilly bands, I named three bands, all ignored. You've only acknowledged MrFungus' list which you wrote off as being too old.

The difficulty here isn't in naming contemporary rock bands; the difficulty is in finding bands that satisfy your ridiculously narrow criteria, i.e. younger than three years AND the ability to pack stadiums, and must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by you.

This discussion is very silly. You've set up all the parameters so the only possible conclusion is the one you have predetermined.


What if one removed the "must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by CES"?

And maybe 5 years, not 3...

And pack stadiums by themselves, not as part of a multi-band festival?

Not so many, I think...


Your requirements aren't much better than Coito's. If your criteria are so restrictive that even a band like The Black Keys doesn't make the cut, I think you need to ease your requirements a little. By any reasonable standards, The Black Keys should be counted on a list of successful, modern rock bands.
Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”
User avatar
Seabass
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
Location: The Deep State
About me: Libtard, snowflake, low-T beta cuck.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby JimC » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:36 am

Seabass wrote:
JimC wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I'm not saying there are zero rock bands around now, but I think that the difficulty people are having in naming new bands of the current decade is instructive.


:funny:

What difficulty? Rachel named several right off the bat, which you ignored. Tero posted Modest Mouse, Lak posted a couple Rockabilly bands, I named three bands, all ignored. You've only acknowledged MrFungus' list which you wrote off as being too old.

The difficulty here isn't in naming contemporary rock bands; the difficulty is in finding bands that satisfy your ridiculously narrow criteria, i.e. younger than three years AND the ability to pack stadiums, and must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by you.

This discussion is very silly. You've set up all the parameters so the only possible conclusion is the one you have predetermined.


What if one removed the "must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by CES"?

And maybe 5 years, not 3...

And pack stadiums by themselves, not as part of a multi-band festival?

Not so many, I think...


Your requirements aren't much better than Coito's. If your criteria are so restrictive that even a band like The Black Keys doesn't make the cut, I think you need to ease your requirements a little. By any reasonable standards, The Black Keys should be counted on a list of successful, modern rock bands.


It's not a question of whether they are successful or great musically. The point people are making, which seems to have some force, is that the days of the absolute mega band, playing to packed stadiums and dominating the charts may have passed...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
 
Posts: 55703
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Seabass » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:50 am

JimC wrote:
Seabass wrote:
JimC wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I'm not saying there are zero rock bands around now, but I think that the difficulty people are having in naming new bands of the current decade is instructive.


:funny:

What difficulty? Rachel named several right off the bat, which you ignored. Tero posted Modest Mouse, Lak posted a couple Rockabilly bands, I named three bands, all ignored. You've only acknowledged MrFungus' list which you wrote off as being too old.

The difficulty here isn't in naming contemporary rock bands; the difficulty is in finding bands that satisfy your ridiculously narrow criteria, i.e. younger than three years AND the ability to pack stadiums, and must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by you.

This discussion is very silly. You've set up all the parameters so the only possible conclusion is the one you have predetermined.


What if one removed the "must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by CES"?

And maybe 5 years, not 3...

And pack stadiums by themselves, not as part of a multi-band festival?

Not so many, I think...


Your requirements aren't much better than Coito's. If your criteria are so restrictive that even a band like The Black Keys doesn't make the cut, I think you need to ease your requirements a little. By any reasonable standards, The Black Keys should be counted on a list of successful, modern rock bands.


It's not a question of whether they are successful or great musically. The point people are making, which seems to have some force, is that the days of the absolute mega band, playing to packed stadiums and dominating the charts may have passed...



But the title of the thread is: "Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?"

The answer to that question is a resounding 'no', IMO.


Sure, the hordes of screeching teeny boppers have moved on from rock to pop, but that is hardly a sign that rock is dead, on life support, or in a coma.


If the the question in the OP had been "Can rock bands formed within the last five years pack stadiums?", then we'd probably all be in agreement. But that's not what Coito originally asked.
Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”
User avatar
Seabass
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
Location: The Deep State
About me: Libtard, snowflake, low-T beta cuck.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby JimC » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:27 am

Fair point - I just had a feeling the key question of the thread had evolved beyond the OP...

Mind you, everything since the 70s is still crap...

:hehe:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
 
Posts: 55703
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Seabass » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:35 am

JimC wrote:Fair point - I just had a feeling the key question of the thread had evolved beyond the OP...

Mind you, everything since the 70s is still crap...

:hehe:



:cranky:
Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé.
Auto-da-fé, what's an auto-da-fé?
It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway...

"I am a sick man... I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."

“In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.”
User avatar
Seabass
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
Location: The Deep State
About me: Libtard, snowflake, low-T beta cuck.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Clinton Huxley » Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:57 am

JimC wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:Aye, the rock is undergoing metamorphosis.


:hehe:

I share these sediments...

Gneiss pun.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Image
User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
 
Posts: 23262
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Audley Strange » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:14 am



For CES.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man
User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
 
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Audley Strange » Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:15 am

JimC wrote:Fair point - I just had a feeling the key question of the thread had evolved beyond the OP...

Mind you, everything since the 70s is still crap...

:hehe:


Can't beat Captain Beaky and Chicory Tip eh?
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man
User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
 
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Brian Peacock » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:51 pm

Yes you can. With a stick.
.


"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT


.
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
 
Posts: 16624
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
Location: Location: Location:
About me: Ablate me:

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Robert_S » Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:34 pm

JimC wrote:Fair point - I just had a feeling the key question of the thread had evolved beyond the OP...

Mind you, everything since the 70s is still crap...

:hehe:


Rock will die in a fire. No, an inferno... a special kind of inferno!

What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
Location: Illinois
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby JimC » Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:25 am

Robert_S wrote:
JimC wrote:Fair point - I just had a feeling the key question of the thread had evolved beyond the OP...

Mind you, everything since the 70s is still crap...

:hehe:


Rock will die in a fire. No, an inferno... a special kind of inferno!



Love is a burning thing
And it makes a fiery ring
Bound by wild desire
I fell into a ring of fire

I fell into a burning ring of fire
I went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire

I fell into a burning ring of fire
I went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire

The taste of love is sweet
When hearts like ours meet
I fell for you like a child
Oh, but the fire went wild

I fell into a burning ring of fire
I went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire

I fell into a burning ring of fire
I went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire

And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire
The ring of fire
The ring of fire

Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
 
Posts: 55703
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby Robert_S » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:22 pm

Does Rock need arena sized artists?

I'd say it's more important that musicians are doing things that are interesting and relevant, keeping it fresh while keeping it real.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
Location: Illinois
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby klr » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:51 pm

Robert_S wrote:Does Rock need arena sized artists?

I'd say it's more important that musicians are doing things that are interesting and relevant, keeping it fresh while keeping it real.

Rock doesn't need such things, but the music industry* does.

*Or what's left of it, but that's another, possibly related discussion.
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:
User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
 
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
Location: Airstrip Two
About me: The money was just resting in my account.

Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

Postby JimC » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:18 am

Robert_S wrote:Does Rock need arena sized artists?

I'd say it's more important that musicians are doing things that are interesting and relevant, keeping it fresh while keeping it real.


I'm neutral about that, in the sense that it might not need it, but neither is it a bad thing. It's simply interesting that there has been a shift away from blockbuster bands in huge arenas...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
 
Posts: 55703
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.

PreviousNext

Return to Music

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests