Jump to content

Major league bands you just don't 'get'


Recommended Posts

Exactly Jahfin. Independent artists are the only ones who are allowed to sound different, because they have more control over their own destiny - typically speaking. John Butler Trio was able to have the #1 disc a few months ago, in Australia, as an independent artist over such musical giants as Lady Gaga and others. That rarely happens anymore - which is sad.

Over the past decade or so we have all been privy to the collapse of the music industry as we once knew it. More and more artists are taking matters into their own hands, thus wrestling away the control the labels once had over them. I am looking forward to the day when these industry weasels are out of a job and artists are in complete control of their careers. That is how it should be. I'm not sure if you've seen the Rush documentary Beyond the Lighted Stage but there's a segment in there where their label asks them to make a record that will fit next to bands like Bad Company and REO Speedwagon on the radio. They flat out refuse and make 2112 which turned out to be their biggest success at that stage of their career. Far too many artists give into record company pressure and end up compromising their artistic integrity for the sake of the almighty dollar. 2112 is but one of many shining examples of what can happen when you tell your record label to go fuck themselves.

Another band I really don't get is Phish. I mean I love the Grateful Dead and so many fans are cross-over fans of both bands, but I never could stand them.

I love the Grateful Dead but feel mostly the same way about Phish. It's not that I can't stand them, I'm just not into them. I saw them once around '91 when they were still playing clubs and was impressed but not enough to become a fan. Even though I'm a fan of the Grateful Dead and the Allman Brothers I've never been a huge "jam band" fan. A few exceptions would be Donna the Buffalo, Widespread Panic and the Yonder Mountain String Band. Other than that, I've just never been able to get into the near endless noodling. Yes, the Grateful Dead were also very guilty of that but what they also brought to the table was the songwriting of Robert Hunter. His narratives are the stuff of movies or novels and can stand on their own without the benefit of the music. I'm not so sure that could be said of many of the other artists that fall under the "jam band" category today. Like Zeppelin, the Grateful Dead were that brief blip on the radar but while they were here they both had a very profound influence on music and culture. One that's inescapable to this very day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I have several Floyd bootlegs actually, Electrophile, and I have to say they're even more boring than the studio versions. My favourite ones are from 1967. If you have c.250 boots, why none from 67? Don't you like the early stuff? I hope you're not one of those Syd Haters. He was on such an exponential writing-curve when he was ousted. Cut off in his prime. Apples and Oranges (that video of him refusing to mime - priceless!), Vegetable Man.....pure psychedelia. If only the others had given him a little more time and respect, they could have been such a great SONGS band in the late 60s, instead of just sounding like a bunch of jam-band amateurs banging around in a tool-shed. Look at 'The Madcap Laughs', and compare it to the space junk Floyd were putting out around the same time. Christ, even Hawkwind were more coherent.

Good call up there on The Dead, luvlz2. What was that all about? Yawn.

Oh, and can I add Jethro Tull to the list? Sweet jesus, what a joke they were.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything, but maybe you don't get certain bands because you're stupid. Maybe the music is too complicated/intricate or the lyrics too obtuse.

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

"Velvet Green"

Walking on velvet green. Scots pine growing.

Isn't it rare to be taking the air, singing.

Walking on velvet green.

Walking on velvet green. Distant cows lowing.

Never a care: with your legs in the air, loving.

Walking on velvet green.

Won't you have my company, yes, take it in your hands.

Go down on velvet green, with a country man.

Who's a young girls fancy and an old maid's dream.

Tell your mother that you walked all night on velvet green.

One dusky half-hour's ride up to the north.

There lies your reputation and all that you're worth.

Where the scent of wild roses turns the milk to cream.

Tell your mother that you walked all night on velvet green.

And the long grass blows in the evening cool.

And August's rare delight may be April's fool.

But think not of that, my love,

I'm tight against the seam.

And I'm growing up to meet you down on velvet green.

Now I may tell you that it's love and not just lust.

And if we live the lie, let's lie in trust.

On golden daffodils, to catch the silver stream

that washes out the wild oat seed on velvet green.

We'll dream as lovers under the stars ---

of civilizations raging afar.

And the ragged dawn breaks on your battle scars.

As you walk home cold and alone upon velvet green.

Walking on velvet green. Scots pine growing.

Isn't it rare to be taking the air, singing.

Walking on velvet green.

Walking on velvet green. Distant cows lowing.

Never a care: with your legs in the air, loving.

Walking on velvet green.

Edited by JethroTull
Link to post
Share on other sites

To kick things off, how about Pink Floyd? Zzzzzzzzzzz..........

After a dazzlingly unique debut, what do they do? Kick out the songwriter just because he takes too much acid and weirds-out for a few weeks, then spend the next 5 years and christ knows how many albums trying to figure out how to write a decent song. Their gigs are so tedious that they have to use blinding light shows and cruddy special effects to keep the crowd awake. They hit pay-dirt with Dark Side, an album with about three nice tunes, two guitar solos and a whole load of padding. Two good but bloated albums follow, and then what? Nothing. 90% of The Wall is utter shite, and after that, well, forget it.

And has there ever, in the history of rock, been a more egocentric, self-pitying, sociopathic lyricist than Mr Waters? Hey there, Big Dave, if you two ever do get back together, give ol' Rog a big hug. He needs it. But afterwards, just remember to stay out of spitting distance, ok?

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand. I, personally, would not classify them as a Major league band, however (I realize that some might), I would say that R.E.M. is one these kind of bands. Hate me for saying this if You must, but, I absolutely do not see any appeal about this band, both musically and relevantly. Sorry to those who like R.E.M., just the way I think and feel. I will go as far as saying that Michael Stipe is probably the worst frontman ever.

I would say that U2 is considered to be a Major league band, but, I, again, do not see the appeal. I think Bono considers himself a Humanatarian and world Ambassador more and more lately. I think that this has gone to his head. Do not get me wrong, some of the things he preaches and rallies around are very good things. In my personal opinion, the best and only U2 song that I can listen to and appreciate is "Bullet the Blue Sky".

By the way, I am ready for any and all onslaught that may come my way for saying that R.E.M. and U2 are bands that YOU (I) JUST DON'T GET.

Edited by lzzoso
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Indie" is not a type of music. It's an indication that an artist is on an independent record label. I love new music and crave it constantly. The joy of discovering that new artist I just can't stop listening to is what attracts me. Unfortunately I seem to be in the minority on this board when it comes to that. For a band that was as original and groundbreaking as Led Zeppelin, they have some of the most narrow minded fans I've ever encountered when it comes to embracing other music styles and current music.

Thanks for the lecture.

But here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_rock ) it states clearly that "indie rock" is a genre of rock music.

And thanks for the uncalled generalization about the Zep fans. Did you run some palpable statistics about it? Please, do share.

//You should control that superior attitude of yourself. It's annoying.

///Now, when I re-read it, you don't have to run any statistics, since you are only reporting your personal experience. But I still don't get it why is "bad" to be musically narrow-minded and "good" to be open minded. Do you think that I (and the other die-hard Zep fans) don't get exposed to a lot of music, every day, from radio, music televisions, internet?

But why is necessary to like it, in order to get some blessing from the cool people?

Maybe I don't need the blessings and I'm happy in my musical niche. I live the music, work to the music, sleep to the music,- music is always around me. Just not all the world's music. I pick only what sounds tasty to my ears. Should I feel guilty that I don't find too many music artists that do that to my ears?

I don't do "can't stop listening" phases anymore. Yes, I'm narrow minded, because I'm happy with what I purchased till now. But why feel guilty because some random internet guy say so?

Edited by zdr
Link to post
Share on other sites

The same way someone can also not like Zep, the Beatles, the Stones, Elvis Presley, etc. I think "hate" is a very strong word. Definitely one I would not apply to music. There are artists I favor and some I don't like so much but there are none I outright hate.

For a band that was as original and groundbreaking as Led Zeppelin, they have some of the most narrow minded fans I've ever encountered when it comes to embracing other music styles and current music.

Alright, alright, alright! I'll change the word "hate" to the word "dislike"...are you happy now???! :rolleyes:

And in my opinion, if a person doesn't "open up" to a particular genre of music, it ain't narrow minded at all because if there is one thing that I've learnt (fairly recently, of course!) is that a person's music taste is extremely personal and subjective! For instance I pretty much "dislike" a LOT of today's mainstream stuff like Gaga, rap and some of the stuff which the "mass" absolutely love! Does that make me narrow minded? I think not! And I also think that no person should be "forced" into liking something (especially music) just because the "whole world" likes it! Its just not done! Whether a person wishes to be a "go with the flow" sort of person when it comes to music is their choice! Anyway, I pretty much assume that you are certainly going to "attack" me now because of my comments...oh well! I hate having any sort of misunderstanding with anyone around here but I pretty much had to post my opinion! Anyway, cheers, Jahfin! Hope you have a good day! :D

Edited by Kiwi_Zep_Fan87
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information. "Indie" is no more a genre of music than "Classic Rock". "Indie" is in reference to an artist being on an independent label. "Classic Rock" is a radio format.

Wikipedia was only the first return. How about this? http://forums.nutsie.com/viewtopic.php?t=20739

Yes, at the beginning, "indie" meant "independent" (and the dictionary give this only sense). But, de facto, on the "urban dictionary", it have more than one sense ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=indie%20music ). And one of them is a faggy, boring kind of music.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bootlegs are the purest way to listen to any group. It's stripped of all studio effects and wizardry and allows you to listen to the music, plain and simple. Also, if you weren't one to get into their live shows visually, bootlegs remove that aspect and allow you to just experience the music, nothing more and nothing less.

If all I ever heard by Led Zeppelin were bootlegs, they would be the first band I would think of for this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that I (and the other die-hard Zep fans) don't get exposed to a lot of music, every day, from radio, music televisions, internet?

But why is necessary to like it, in order to get some blessing from the cool people?

Maybe I don't need the blessings and I'm happy in my musical niche. I live the music, work to the music, sleep to the music,- music is always around me. Just not all the world's music. I pick only what sounds tasty to my ears. Should I feel guilty that I don't find too many music artists that do that to my ears?

Amen to that zdr! I couldn't have put it across better myself! :notworthy:B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand. I, personally, would not classify them as a Major league band, however (I realize that some might), I would say that R.E.M. is one these kind of bands. Hate me for saying this if You must, but, I absolutely do not see any appeal about this band, both musically and relevantly. Sorry to those who like R.E.M., just the way I think and feel. I will go as far as saying that Michael Stipe is probably the worst frontman ever.

I would say that U2 is considered to be a Major league band, but, I, again, do not see the appeal. I think Bono considers himself a Humanatarian and world Ambassador more and more lately. I think that this has gone to his head. Do not get me wrong, some of the things he preaches and rallies around are very good things. In my personal opinion, the best and only U2 song that I can listen to and appreciate is "Bullet the Blue Sky".

By the way, I am ready for any and all onslaught that may come my way for saying that R.E.M. and U2 are bands that YOU (I) JUST DON'T GET.

Depends on what era your talking about, both of them were good bands in the 80's and very early 90's, since then I agree not much to write home about with Stripe and Bono becoming rather annoying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU3fBfY9cyU

Edited by greenman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, at the beginning, "indie" meant "independent" (and the dictionary give this only sense).

I hate to break it to you but it still means artists on an independent label, it is not a genre of music. The artists that record for independent labels cover the spectrum musically so there's no way their sound could be summed up in just one sentence because none of them share a certain sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to break it to you but it still means artists on an independent label, it is not a genre of music. The artists that record for independent labels cover the spectrum musically so there's no way their sound could be summed up in just one sentence because none of them share a certain sound.

It can be both, "indie" has been a broad classiciation for reasonabley low fi rock bands with an unpolished vocalist for a good 25 years in the UK and seems to mean the same thing in the US over the last few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be both, "indie" has been a broad classiciation for reasonabley low fi rock bands with an unpolished vocalist for a good 25 years in the UK and seems to mean the same thing in the US over the last few years.

In the beginning that was more a symptom of the gear available to record with for those bands. Not so much now, you can record at home with freeware and get pro results with nothing more than a PC, your intruments and a few Shure 58's and 57's. When indie artists first started getting noticed their lo-fi recordings still required expensive recording gear just to get something on tape with that low quality result. No doubt bands that came after may have mimicked the sound of those recordings but that was probably a fluke rather than a style or movement in music. Still classifying it as a genre isn't accurate because the country-pop that records and gets their stuff out on an indie label has nothing incommon with something like Sentridoh. If that's the kind of stuff you are implying is indie and lo-fi. A lot of that is going way. Indie labels are starting to function like majors did years ago by signing well known and popular artists that have enough recognition to be profitable. What used to be the domain of indie labels is now being done via the inet with unsigned bands selling original music via mp3s on sites like Soundclick and Myspace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To kick things off, how about Pink Floyd? Zzzzzzzzzzz..........

After a dazzlingly unique debut, what do they do? Kick out the songwriter just because he takes too much acid and weirds-out for a few weeks, then spend the next 5 years and christ knows how many albums trying to figure out how to write a decent song. Their gigs are so tedious that they have to use blinding light shows and cruddy special effects to keep the crowd awake. They hit pay-dirt with Dark Side, an album with about three nice tunes, two guitar solos and a whole load of padding. Two good but bloated albums follow, and then what? Nothing. 90% of The Wall is utter shite, and after that, well, forget it.

And has there ever, in the history of rock, been a more egocentric, self-pitying, sociopathic lyricist than Mr Waters? Hey there, Big Dave, if you two ever do get back together, give ol' Rog a big hug. He needs it. But afterwards, just remember to stay out of spitting distance, ok?

Wow, talk about tipping over an icon. Nicely done. I don't agree with you fully but hey............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to break it to you but it still means artists on an independent label, it is not a genre of music. The artists that record for independent labels cover the spectrum musically so there's no way their sound could be summed up in just one sentence because none of them share a certain sound.

..OK..(?) :rolleyes:

//for an open-minded, your posts are pretty pedantic. Did you made a little research on internet before your response?

Link to post
Share on other sites

..OK..(?) :rolleyes:

//for an open-minded, your posts are pretty pedantic. Did you made a little research on internet before your response?

Think what you will about Jahfin, but he does not need to check out those things on internet. He is actually a great source for discovering new and old music that never been on rotation on the usual corporate radio stations or music television.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand. I, personally, would not classify them as a Major league band, however (I realize that some might), I would say that R.E.M. is one these kind of bands. Hate me for saying this if You must, but, I absolutely do not see any appeal about this band, both musically and relevantly. Sorry to those who like R.E.M., just the way I think and feel. I will go as far as saying that Michael Stipe is probably the worst frontman ever.

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.

I would say that U2 is considered to be a Major league band, but, I, again, do not see the appeal. I think Bono considers himself a Humanatarian and world Ambassador more and more lately. I think that this has gone to his head. Do not get me wrong, some of the things he preaches and rallies around are very good things. In my personal opinion, the best and only U2 song that I can listen to and appreciate is "Bullet the Blue Sky".

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Springsteen didn't really click for me either; neither did the Moody Blues or Jethro Tull (apologies to JT here) :unsure:

I dont care for Springstein but the Moody Blues and Jethro Tull were great in my opinion. Aqualung is one of the all time classic songs. songs like Nights in White Satin were good songs. They had alot of good material.

Edited by silvermedalist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...