Just a few posts ago you said: So, now they are suddenly "good" but in the same breath you dismiss that criteria with your "nearly no one knows them" comment. Of course, not many people have heard of them, that is my point. If you are seeking out new music via mainstream outlets the majority of those artists are not going to be to your liking because it's mainstream radio you are listening to. I'm suggesting you seek out new music beyond those traditional outlets. Do artists have to be well known before you like them because that seems to be the criteria by which you assess new music. Also, if you're looking for something that challenges the norm, you're not going to find it on mainstream radio, which appears to be your only source for seeking out new music. That is not the place to start.

Which is what I'm trying to explain, I'm not referring to artists you hear on mainstream radio. Of course you're going to turn them off, they are part of the problem. I'm talking about artists outside the mainstream realm that receive a significant amount of airplay on outlets such as XM/Sirius satellite radio's WXMU channel, progressive radio, college radio and the internet in general. It's no surprise that you're evidently unaware of anyone that's bringing anything new to the table (and/or the artists I've mentioned) because by your own admission, your only exposure to new music is what you're hearing on mainstream radio. Once again, those are not the type of artists I'm referring to.

I think Supertramp got overexposed with the enormous popularity of Breakfast In America. I have heard much of their work prior to that and it bares little or no resemblance to their work on Breakfast In America. So, if that's been your only exposure to Supertramp I suggest checking out some of their earlier work. I love Dire Straits, especially their early period. The majority of their latter day work just doesn't do anything for me. I also like what I've heard of Knopfler's solo work but it doesn't stack up to those first three or four Dire Straits records.

Where did I ever hold them up to "being that good"? I didn't. You said the bands you were naming were ones you'd heard on mainstream radio so I clarified to say, those are not the type of artists I'm talking about. All of the artists I named are receiving a significant amount of airplay (in the case of Mumford & Sons, this even extends to mainstream radio as they grow more and more popular) on all of the outlets I mentioned. Therein lies the danger of me naming artists, people will take that and make something else completely out of it that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation at hand. For instead, I never said anything about how good (or bad) I feel they are. I cited them as examples of what else is out there and they're not even the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks for posting but how was I supposed to even know about this version? I never even knew it existed until now. The way you spoke of it, it sounded like something everyone was supposed to be familiar with.

What happened on that date? No, you don't explain yourself very well. Out of all of the supposed "modern voices" (whatever that means) out there, you've named two. A few posts ago you were praising Muse, now you're slamming them and comparing them to Coldplay. Not a very good example. Please explain "modern voices" and name the other artists you feel fit that criteria. Naming two simply doesn't cut it. My take on Amy Winehouse is that she was a throwback to a more girl-group, soulful sound of the 60s. That's all well and good but I never heard where she brought anything new to the table. It was all steeped in a very retro sound. While some may love that, it never did anything for me. Not to mention, she hasn't even been on the radar musically in years, all of her publicity these days stems from her drug troubles.

Want a prime example of a board member attempting to "force" their opinion on others and then, if they don't agree, proceeding to "attack" them? Then, look no further than silvermedalists' posts. Some folks obviously aren't as fond of the Who as others. It doesn't make one person right and another wrong, it means your opinion differs from theirs. You're certainly not going to change opinions by going apeshit on everyone that disagrees with you but it surely does seem to be your modus operandi.

Another noteworthy event I apparently missed. As I was watching U2's performance at Live Aid no other artists (including Queen, who had yet to even perform) ever crossed my mind and why should they? They both put in outstanding, career defining performances. I never looked it at as some sort of competition. No, I don't. I've never even heard U2's rendition of C'mon Everybody, what version of this song are you referring to?

Therein lies the problem. I'm not referring to music you hear on commercial radio. Of course that music is shit, that's why it's on the radio. How about Gaslight Anthem, Mumford & Sons, Blitzen Trapper, Samantha Crain, the Reigning Sound, Tired Pony, the Thermals, Megafaun, etc. If you want to sample their music it is only one click away via YouTube, their respective websites or MySpace. These artists also get plenty of airplay on satellite radio (as well as other outlets) so it's not like they're lingering out there in total obscurity.

What was the day and time? I seemed to have missed the day "real" rock died. What "modern" voices are you referring to? Without citing examples (in addition to Muse) I have no idea what artists you're referring to. Everything has become "tasteless and stereotyped"? Everything? What music are you listening to? As far as taking risks, I guess it depends on how you define "risk" but there's plenty of artists still out there that aren't afraid to experiment. PLENTY. What is this "modern" music you speak of and who are the artists in question? And, I'm not sure I follow your logic as to why songs should resemble either Stairway or Bohemian Rhapsody in a structural sense. Speaking just for myself, I have no problem seeking out and finding new music that I enjoy. In fact, I can't keep up with all of the new stuff I'd like to add to my collection.

How can one infer "tone" from the written word on the internet? The fact that you read those things into my posts says much more about you than it does about me. It's not a matter of me making your tastes my business, it's a matter of me expressing an opinion. This is a message board and people express opinions here. Without that, there wouldn't be much need in having a message board, don't you think? Exactly and folks have a tendency to read things into my posts that simply are not there. I love music, always have and always will so imagine my dismay when I happen upon a site full of fellow fans only to find a good majority of them not having any interest in any new music or confining themselves to just one era or style of music. Should I bite my tongue and say nothing? If that were the case, why is there a message board even here? Are we supposed to keep our opinions to ourselves? It's always been my impression that message boards were created so that we could share our opinions. For all the use of the words "attack" and "forced", I am not guilty of either one of them. I'm just a music fan like everyone else but I've never put a deadline on a period of time when music was no longer worthy of my attention. Then why even reply in the first place? Better yet, why even participate in any discussions on this board?

I was referring to how I use the word "hate". In other words, it's not a word I just throw around unwittingly. Of course it doesn't make you narrow minded but that's not the type of music I'm referring to anyway. I'm talking about seeking out music that you like no matter the outlet. Yes, it is and I'm not suggesting otherwise. My point being, that for a band as groundbreaking as Led Zeppelin, many of their fans (at least as represented by this board) seem content to live in the past and have no interest whatsoever in hearing or even seeking out anything new or different. That is what I find baffling. I'm not trying to force you or anyone to listen to new music, I'm merely expressing my opinion as to why I don't understand this line of reasoning among some fans. Why would I "attack" you? As I've said, I'm just throwing it out there since it's so prevalent on this board. That's not "attacking" or "forcing" my views on anyone, it's me expressing an opinion.

The only place I've ever seen anyone complain about Queen not receiving enough recognition is on this board (and from this same poster). Others seem to readily acknowledge their undeniable contribution to music. If anything, I was always under the impression that their performance at Live Aid was one of the best (if not the best) sets at the festival. I also seem to recall their Live Aid appearance elevating them to an even higher status worldwide. Then came the Wembley concerts, so I fail to understand how they could ever be considered "underrated", "underappreciated". As an avid radio listener I recall them being all over the radio in the 70s and 80s. Most of my friends in high school were also huge fans. I think it's just a case of a fan being so in love with Queen that they feel no one else's fandom comes anywhere close to theirs, therefore they see Queen as never having received the recognition they deserved. "Not being able to see the forest for the trees" would be another way of putting it.

I think Jeff Beck chose the path he did for a reason. Some don't want the widespread notoriety that comes with being famous, he's a shining example of that.

Did I ever say one was "good" or "bad"? No, I didn't. I was merely expressing my opinion of what I've read on this board regarding fans' take on new music and the ones that only want to hear artists that resemble Zeppelin. Obviously everyone has the right to like or dislike what they want, I'm not now, nor have I ever disputed that. I just find it confounding that fans of a band such as Led Zeppelin, who constantly defied expectations and were always pushing boundaries, could be so narrow minded when it comes to new music. Zeppelin built a well earn reputation by never resting on their laurels. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for most of the fans that post here saying they don't want to be challenged by anything new or by something outside of their comfort zone. I have no doubt about that but that isn't the crux of the conversation. What do you take away from that exposure to new music? It's it all bad? If that's the case, then maybe you aren't looking hard enough. I've read where some say good new music is harder to find than ever before but I don't agree with that. If anything, it's much more accessible now than ever before and it's only going to become moreso, especially with the impending collapse of the record industry. It isn't and I don't ever recall saying that it was. No, you shouldn't and no one ever said that you should. If you feel guilty then that's another issue entirely. My viewpoint isn't one of forcing my musical tastes on others but rather questioning why some fans seem to have no interest in hearing anything new or that challenges their musical comfort zone. The reason I find it so baffling is because my discovery of new artists has never waned. That's not to say I think everyone should feel the same way, I just have a hard time understanding why. To me, it's like someone saying I really, really like steak but I refuse to try anything else because there's no way in hell it's ever going to top this. I've found, if you're willing to go out on a limb musically you may just find that artist that trips your trigger. To live with one's head buried in the sand is no way to go through life. There's obviously people here that thrive on that kind of existence. That's what I've been unable to understand. It makes me wonder how these folks came to discover and like a band like Led Zeppelin in the first place.

I believe we've had this conversation before but like them or not, R.E.M. are responsible for breaking down the walls for many bands. It wasn't something they consciously did, it just happened that way. Through relentless touring they eventually broke through with Radio Free Europe. Once they were a hit on college radio, mainstream radio soon followed suit. This opened the floodgates for more artists that weren't considered mainstream, suddenly they were all getting played on the radio. U2, the Cure, the Replacements, 10,000 Maniacs, the list goes on and on. During the 80s they took very little time off from the road and honed themselves as a live act. It was during this period where Rolling Stone named them the best live band for several years running. I'm sure this had everything to do with Stipe "probably being the worst frontman ever". When a band such as R.E.M. goes from relative obscurity to selling millions of records there's no disputing their impact. Ask any knowledgable music fan, pick up any book on the history on rock n' roll in the 80s or simply look at their own story; R.E.M. are without a doubt one of the most influential bands of the last 30 years. If you don't like them, that's fine but they are indeed a "major league band". Without them, you never would have had AOR open up as it did in the 80s to play more than just the tired old "core" bands (Bad Company, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Rolling Stones, the Who, etc.) that dominated the airwaves prior to R.E.M. taking the world by storm. U2 have been politically outspoken since day one. Why people would be put off by Bono going on to rail against social injustice around the world has always baffled me. It's not as though they've ever made any secret of their political beliefs. As far as it "going to Bono's head" I also don't get that. Yes, the man has an ego, that comes with the territory. I've never once gotten the impression that Bono's beliefs are not genuine. So, people are offended that he speaks out and engages in social causes. Meanwhile, what are these people that are complaining about Bono's actions doing to better the world, sitting at home on their asses bitching about some rock star that's actually trying to do some good in the world?

Because someone mentioned them that believes they never received enough recognition, particularly in the U.S.

Thanks, I'll have to check them out. My impression of the Love Language is one of a band who puts out a very positive vibe. To witness them live as the crowd gets all caught up in it is quite the experience.

Strangely enough, I had just heard this Freddie Mercury segment on NPR prior to reading the post about Queen's supposed "underexposure" in the U.S. Freddie Mercury: Rock 'N' Roll's Humble Showman

I've been aware of The Love Language for quite some time now so when an opportunity to see them finally arose over the weekend I took it. Actually, I ended up seeing them twice, once at an in-store appearance in the afternoon and a show later on that evening. The in-store was particularly unique because they learned a song by one of their opening bands (Gross Ghost) which they did in their set. You just don't see that sort of thing. It spoke heavily of The Love Language and it made me arrive at the show in plenty of time to catch Gross Ghost (who were also great, btw).

Yeah, they did.

Led Zeppelin played the 02 in 2007. Lots of people saw them that are 28 and younger. So, if you like U2 that automatically makes you "old"? That's a new one on me.

I believe U2 formed in the late 70s and they are indeed a "rock" band. I'm also a huge fan of R.E.M. and Pearl Jam. Folks love to hate on U2 usually because Bono is so outspoken politically, it seldom has anything to do with their music.

Queen gets mentioned here very often. And I don't understand the slam against Americans (or more accurately North Americans?). BTW, we've had this discussion many times before but Queen got lots of airplay here and media exposure via the late night music shows in the 70s. If you want to continue to believe they are underappreciated here (or the baseless claim that "nobody mentions them") then cling to that but it's not true.