The Music Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodo

Always remember that at some point, no matter how hard you try, your own personal taste will be stuck somewhere in your past and music will continue to grow without you.

---

Pretty sure all my music goes back to when I was first discovering the great things in life like women, booze, etc.. :gent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodo

Don't be so old Dunster, lol.

Always remember that at some point, no matter how hard you try, your own personal taste will be stuck somewhere in your past and music will continue to grow without you.

Hip hop is nowhere near its peak. Every year now a new Classic is released.

Hardcore, as you said, is still growing.

Lo Fi is relatively new to me and it's awesome.

Plus, probably other stuff that I don't know about.

---

I think you are talking more about how the product is marketed more so than the actual product itself.

In your lifetime - what would you say was the most revolutionary piece of music you have heard ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

I think you are talking more about how the product is marketed more so than the actual product itself.

---

Baaaaaaam..
Dunster dropping truth nuggets..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bon

Ahhhh I see Nu Metal as different to that. I'd say it was when you got the cross-pollination of rapping with some metal riffs.. Korn, Linkin Park, Disturbed, Limp Bizkit, etc.. Although, the more I think about that definition, does that make RATM nu-metal? I would say no, even though it would definitely fit that interpretation..

---

Everything that came through that era was labelled as Nu Metal. Sevendust, Ramstein, Staind, Deftones, System of a Down...

How many of those bands sound alike to you?

Nowadays, they've all been moved into appropriate genres. Prog, hard rock, grunge rock etc. I'd say Sevendust and Staind would stay in Nu Metal but the others would all be elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

In your lifetime - what would you say was the most evolutionary piece of music you have heard ?

---

What do you mean by evolutionary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodo

Everything that came through that era was labelled as Nu Metal. Sevendust, Ramstein, Staind, Deftones, System of a Down...

How many of those bands sound alike to you?

Nowadays, they've all been moved into appropriate genres. Prog, hard rock, grunge rock etc. I'd say Sevendust and Staind would stay in Nu Metal but the others would all be elsewhere.

---

Deftones first two albums are in the "amazing" category, with everything they did after that in the "absolute sh!t" genre... (Granted, White Pony has a few good songs.. haha)
I know this statement will get you frothing, Mr Baggins..

Like the first time people heard Eddie Van Halen play Eruption.

The First time people heard Joy Division, or Hendrix....or Link Wray.. and a host of others.

I'd put Nirvana in the same mould as The Spice Girls - right place right time - but were really just the face of something that already existed.

Not saying I don't like it - just saying it was nothing New.

King Crimson, Mud Honey, Neil Young, and a host of others developed the Nirvana sound long before they ever did.

Joy Division, Hendrix, and Eddie Van Halen - started something completely new musically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

In your lifetime - what would you say was the most revolutionary piece of music you have heard ?

---

I need time to think about this question..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Like the first time people heard Eddie Van Halen play Eruption.

---

I imagine it would have lived up to its name!!
People didn't really play guitar like that back then.. I always imagine it like Marty McFly playing in Back To The Future and seeing everyone's faces going "what the fvck was that??"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bon

I need time to think about this question..



I imagine it would have lived up to its name!!
People didn't really play guitar like that back then.. I always imagine it like Marty McFly playing in Back To The Future and seeing everyone's faces going "what the fvck was that??"

---

Exactly - we thought it pretty much ended with Hendrix - then Eddie appears ten years latter.

Dunster was around when barbershop quartets first started using curse words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Dunster was around when barbershop quartets first started using curse words.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raniSkRLa14

RATM were pretty 'groundbreaking' if you think of them as a drum and bass driven band with super unconventional guitar parts and 'rap style lyrics.

Not much was new from an individual perspective but the sum of the parts was dope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Like the first time people heard Eddie Van Halen play Eruption.

The First time people heard Joy Division, or Hendrix....or Link Wray.. and a host of others.

I'd put Nirvana in the same mould as The Spice Girls - right place right time - but were really just the face of something that already existed.

Not saying I don't like it - just saying it was nothing New.

King Crimson, Mud Honey, Neil Young, and a host of others developed the Nirvana sound long before they ever did.

Joy Division, Hendrix, and Eddie Van Halen - started something completely new musically.

---

Sorry to be a hater, but meh? Music is subjective, if someone can make better sounding music today than 30 years ago, I'll listen to that instead.
I've listened to all the classics, I was brought up in a house that had music on all the time, I studied music in high school, I was in a shitty band, Ive done the whole thing. I appreciate what they did, and I will respect the music, but there's music being released today that sounds better than what was released 30 years ago.

I'll always go back to the albums that formed my musical tastes and taught me everything, but I'd rather go find something new to listen to every month or so and expand my horizons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodo

Sorry to be a hater, but meh? Music is subjective, if someone can make better sounding music today than 30 years ago, I'll listen to that instead.
I've listened to all the classics, I was brought up in a house that had music on all the time, I studied music in high school, I was in a shitty band, Ive done the whole thing. I appreciate what they did, and I will respect the music, but there's music being released today that sounds better than what was released 30 years ago.

I'll always go back to the albums that formed my musical tastes and taught me everything, but I'd rather go find something new to listen to every month or so and expand my horizons.

---

I wasn't talking about music subjectively. I was talking about innovation - about actual music - you seem to be stuck on how the product is marketed.

Example - Beatles vs Rolling Stones. Which do you prefer is a subjective question.

But if we look at the facts - one of them changed music not only from a technical perspective but as a marketable product as well.

Merchandising, Albums consisting of all original material, Psychedelica, Heavy Metal [Helter Skelter].... and the list goes on.

I much prefer the Rolling Stones - but the Beatles were an infinitely better band when it comes to innovation and dare I say it wow factor.

The Rolling Stones rode a wave created by others - although they did it very well.

I am sure you have posted this one before Dunster, but it still rings true today.. Scarily so..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP4wsURn3rw

If you want to get all technical Dunstersaur there hasn't been original music since the late 1940's when Rock N Roll was born from Gospel music. Everything since then has all evolved in different branches from the Rock N Roll movement of the 1940's.

Music evolves its all subjective, I like some stuff from the 1940's and I like stuff from 2019. Is one better than the other? No it's all subjective.

I remember when my parents would say stuff like "music we listen to is timeless, they won't be playing that shit you listen to in 25 years on the radio". Guess what my parents were wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Premy

If you want to get all technical Dunstersaur there hasn't been original music since the late 1940's when Rock N Roll was born from Gospel music. Everything since then has all evolved in different branches from the Rock N Roll movement of the 1940's.

Music evolves its all subjective, I like some stuff from the 1940's and I like stuff from 2019. Is one better than the other? No it's all subjective.

I remember when my parents would say stuff like "music we listen to is timeless, they won't be playing that shit you listen to in 25 years on the radio". Guess what my parents were wrong.

---

Rock N Roll didn't last seven years Premy - the bubble burst before 1960.

By 1958 we got a taste of Link Wray and power chords - that's a revolution right there - traditional ROck n Roll was dead.

With respect to the radio - it's always played shit and will continue to do so thanks to the Harvard MBA's who took over the business probably before you were born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Rock N Roll didn't last seven years Premy - the bubble burst before 1960.

By 1958 we got a taste of Link Wray and power chords - that's a revolution right there - traditional ROck n Roll was dead.

---

Yes but everything that came out after that evolved from Rock N Roll, the hippies like to claim that they were the revolutionaries ones but the revolution came a generation before them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

I wasn't talking about music subjectively. I was talking about innovation - about actual music - you seem to be stuck on how the product is marketed.

Example - Beatles vs Rolling Stones. Which do you prefer is a subjective question.

But if we look at the facts - one of them changed music not only from a technical perspective but as a marketable product as well.

Merchandising, Albums consisting of all original material, Psychedelica, Heavy Metal [Helter Skelter].... and the list goes on.

I much prefer the Rolling Stones - but the Beatles were an infinitely better band when it comes to innovation and dare I say it wow factor.

The Rolling Stones rode a wave created by others - although they did it very well.

---

You aren't talking about actual music. You're talking about something different. Music is what you listen to, you're talking about the bits people study, break down, analyse, over analyse and then analyse again. That's not the best part of listening to music, trust me. I used to do the same thing.

Prime example, The only purpose a solo has is to get the guitarist laid and allow the singer to have a drink and fix his hair up. Punk doesn't have solos because the soap wax used to keep the singers hair in place takes weeks to die and they just drink whenever they want. Hence no solos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bon

I am sure you have posted this one before Dunster, but it still rings true today.. Scarily so..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP4wsURn3rw

---

Exactly.