Avril Lavigne Engaged to Nickelback's Chad Kroeger

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Do you also enjoy Jay Leno?

What? Dude, comparing liking Foo Fighters, and very solid, talented rock band, with watching Jay Leno? You're going full-hipster, lately. What happened, man?

[troutman]

I was reading this thread backwards, saw the name Foo Fighters, and the first word that popped in my head was "vanilla". Then I saw someone else say the same thing. They are a good, dependable, meat and potatoes band, but Grohl would say himself that they are standing on the shoulders of Bob Mould. Go back to the source.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by flameswin

What? Dude, comparing liking Foo Fighters, and very solid, talented rock band, with watching Jay Leno? You're going full-hipster, lately. What happened, man?

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

That's not technically correct. Hey There Delilah by Plain White T's charted on the rock charts and it got to #1, as did We Are Young by Fun. I realize its being very loose to use the term rock to describe those songs,

Plain White T's is stretching the definition of Alt Rock even, but there's no way Fun. comes even close to "rock".

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Plain White T's is stretching the definition of Alt Rock even, but there's no way Fun. comes even close to "rock".

That's a matter of interpretation and distinction. I see Fun. as new modern rock. Nothing wrong with that.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

That's a matter of interpretation and distinction. I see Fun. as new modern rock. Nothing wrong with that.

This. This is what's wrong with music today.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yup YYC in LAX summed it up. When Fun is considered "Modern Rock", then rock music is beyond saving and so royally screwed going forward it saddens those of us who got to enjoy real rock music. You have to remember back in the late 80's - early 90's, songs like "Epic" by Faith No More and "Loser" by Beck would actually be able to get into the Billboard Top 10. Now? Pft those songs wouldn't even chart in the top 100 anymore. Until people can actually accept rock music is now a dying whore, there is no way to properly fix the problem, it will only grow worse and worse until eventually in time bands like Fun are considered "Hard Rock".

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

This. This is what's wrong with music today.

What? My opinion?

Modern rock is just that, modern rock. If you want to "define" music, I would consider Chevelle as an example of "rock" music today.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yup YYC in LAX summed it up. When Fun is considered "Modern Rock", then rock music is beyond saving and so royally screwed going forward it saddens those of us who got to enjoy real rock music. You have to remember back in the late 80's - early 90's, songs like "Epic" by Faith No More and "Loser" by Beck would actually be able to get into the Billboard Top 10. Now? Pft those songs wouldn't even chart in the top 100 anymore. Until people can actually accept rock music is now a dying whore, there is no way to properly fix the problem, it will only grow worse and worse until eventually in time bands like Fun are considered "Hard Rock".

Who cares. It's not like their isn't good music out there. It's just not charting on Billboard. And I really don't care what's charted and what isn't.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Who cares. It's not like their isn't good music out there. It's just not charting on Billboard. And I really don't care what's charted and what isn't.

Well it goes to show you good music actually use to chart back when. I agree charts mean nothing to me personally, they just give you a snapshot in time. Like clearly in the late 80's/early 90's the quality of music that charted can be seen as exponentially better than what charts now.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well it goes to show you good music actually use to chart back when. I agree charts mean nothing to me personally, they just give you a snapshot in time. Like clearly in the late 80's/early 90's the quality of music that charted can be seen as exponentially better than what charts now.

Think you have a bit of golden age syndrome going on. I really don't think it was that much better. For every Loser by Beck charting, you had Now and Forever by Richard Marx.

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Think you have a bit of golden age syndrome going on. I really don't think it was that much better. For every Loser by Beck charting, you had Now and Forever by Richard Marx.

Exactly...

"Back in my day, music was so much better..."

[Senator Clay Davis]

Haha I'm sorry but the fact rock music has had 1 true #1 hit in the last 12 years should tell you all you need to know. Dancepop, mainstream rap and ballads simply dominate the charts. Another prime example, Enter Sandman, a song I don't even like, got inside the top 20. There is no chance in hell such a song could do so today because the average music fan's tastes have become so awful. Guns N Roses songs in the top 10 today? Only if they were autotuned.

And your Beck/Marx example actually proves my point. There is no Beck to balance that equation anymore. Now a days it'd be Marx, Marx, Marx, Marx, Marx. Thats it, no balance. When Taylor Swift for the 666th time writes a song about a jilted ex lover and it goes straight to number one, thats not because music is as good as it used to be, its because music has deteriorated. And fans have as much to blame as artists for this. People want to demand crap music, they can't complain later on about it.

[OilKiller]

Sounds to me like you just need to listen to what you like and ignore what others like or are listening to. What difference does it make?

We live in an age of Internet radio where you can create your own stations and enjoy what you like. Who cares what charts where or what "label" it has?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

Sounds to me like you just need to listen to what you like and ignore what others like or are listening to. What difference does it make?

And regardless of the era, bands have been subject of scorn, mocking and ridicule. So if you don't like that your favorite bands are being mocked and pot-shoted, just ignore it? Defending your music that others think sucks is a pointless excercise as well, because we have our reasons for disliking it as much as you have your reasons for liking it.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Haha I'm sorry but the fact rock music has had 1 true #1 hit in the last 12 years should tell you all you need to know. Dancepop, mainstream rap and ballads simply dominate the charts. Another prime example, Enter Sandman, a song I don't even like, got inside the top 20. There is no chance in hell such a song could do so today because the average music fan's tastes have become so awful. Guns N Roses songs in the top 10 today? Only if they were autotuned.

And your Beck/Marx example actually proves my point. There is no Beck to balance that equation anymore. Now a days it'd be Marx, Marx, Marx, Marx, Marx. Thats it, no balance. When Taylor Swift for the 666th time writes a song about a jilted ex lover and it goes straight to number one, thats not because music is as good as it used to be, its because music has deteriorated. And fans have as much to blame as artists for this. People want to demand crap music, they can't complain later on about it.

It doesn't help that terrestrial radio blows. New and innovative music has become an online niche. You want cutting edge, find that station online. If you want to listen to AC/DC on repeat listen to CJay.


Edit: And to be fair, Fun kind of sucks. It's Alt Pop or maybe even Power Pop. Not rock. But I digress...

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And regardless of the era, bands have been subject of scorn, mocking and ridicule. So if you don't like that your favorite bands are being mocked and pot-shoted, just ignore it? Defending your music that others think sucks is a pointless excercise as well, because we have our reasons for disliking it as much as you have your reasons for liking it.

I'm not defending. I'm simply saying there is nothing wrong with the term "modern rock". I don't care if you like the music I like or not.

[troutman]

Modern Rock exists today outside record companies, commercial radio and charts. It requires effort from the audience to find it.

[East Coast Flame]

I think it is a fantastic age for rock music. Who cares what is on the charts? With the internet we are no longer force fed music from labels so we don't have to rely on "charts" or terrestial radio stations any more. We have more ability to focus in on music that appeals to us. It is a great time to be a music fan

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Haha I'm sorry but the fact rock music has had 1 true #1 hit in the last 12 years should tell you all you need to know.

Here's a list of #1s from 1990s that could even remotely be considered rock songs:

Barenaked Ladies: One Week (1999)

Aerosmith: I Don't Want to Miss a Thing (1999)

Jon Bon Jovi: Blaze of Glory (1990)


Real golden age stuff there. And those are really stretching the definition of a "rock song". There's the odd ballad by rock musicians that made it to #1 in the '90s (some crappy Bryan Adams songs, Extreme, Meat Loaf), but other than that, nothing. It was all Boyz II Men, Mariah Carey, Paula Abdul, etc. just like it is now. Mainstream radio determines chart positions and it's sucked for a good 25 years, so it's nothing new.