pop vs. rock

[Fender Man]

I love classic Rock. I like some new rock too, But all my friends give me crap about my music. And they all listen to that pop crap. I tell them if you listen to a rock song, it never gets old, but if you listen to a pop song it tends to get old after a while, and you can't stand to hear it anymore. And rock musicians write their own music. They don't have songwriters who they have hired to write their music for them. That makes me mad. Real musicians never get the recognizition they deserve. But you find guys, hire them some songwriters, give them a makerover, and then all the girls and everyone else loves them. Pop has no substance. I could be famous if I had people to tell me how to dance, what to wear, where to go, and everything else I do. It makes me so mad. The cool bands like Hendrix, Zeppelin,Ozzy, AC/DC, Yngwie Malmsteen get no recognition. And another thing, I used to like Aerosmith, but since the Superbowl thing, I have no respect for them. Bunch of sell outs, How could rockers like Aerosmith get on the same stage as nsync. When Steven Tyler sand the line "it's gonna be me"I almost cryed. As a part of America's youth. Music is going down the drain. What do you people think. Am I just stupid, or is pop really agervating.

[Edited by Fender Man on 03-13-2001 at 06:18 PM]

[zepp_rules]

you're totally right, it's about time someone said something like that. pop music does not even come close to rock music. i once listened to Stairway to Heaven for 10 hours straight, and i still am not tired of it, it's still my favorite. rock music is still and always is the greatest, i have yet to see any guitarist, drummer, or bassist that compares to anybody from the seventies or early eighties, and i don't i never will.

[LuigiCabrini]

"i have yet to see any guitarist, drummer, or bassist that compares to anybody from the seventies or early eighties, and i don't i never will."

It's this kind of thinking that causes music to stagnate. First of all, I imagine that your musical tastes are limited. Are you familiar with any jazz or classical music? Are you familiar with less than popular rock music today? You need to expand your horizons, and instead of bemoaning the death of music, you'll realize that music has always gone through different phases, and that the same crap that's around today was around in the 70s.

"I tell them if you listen to a rock song, it never gets old, but if you listen to a pop song it tends to get old after a while, and you can't stand to hear it anymore."

Rock songs don't get old? I'm surprised that you think that it's possible for anything to never get old. I've got to always listen to new stuff, I could never stand to listen to stairway to heaven 10 hours straight. Certain pieces are more timeless than others, and bear more repeated listening, but there's always a limit.

[James]

Luigi's right about what he said. I agree. Now to respond to the Aerosmith thing: I agree it was sort of a put out to see them performing with nsync, especially to a guy like me who is a giant Aerosmith fan. But I don't lose respect for them because of it. Why wouldn't they want another chance to speak to the population? And if even one person in that audience who was brought up on Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys saw Aerosmith rockin' and decided to give them a try and buy a CD, wouldn't that make it worth it?
Also bear in mind that rockers performing with 'poppers isn't an unusual concept. It happens a lot. I remember with a shudder that cover of Kashmir (Zeppelin) done by Puff Daddy, and Jimmy Page played along on the video. No recognition was given to him in the video as the original writer, it was just a few seconds of him playing his Les Paul for novelity sake. And what about Sting performing "I'll be Watching You" at the Grammy's, again with Puff Daddy. It happens a lot.

[jake sommers]

Yep, Publicity is all it was and that's why they did it. They had a chance to promote their new album upon the magnitude of watchers. Hell if n'sync came to me today and said i could open for them....heck, i'd put my hate aside and open for their pitiful selves.

[Fender Man]

What I am trying to say is, good ol' rock 'n' roll, is slowly dying. Everyone likes this techno stuff and hardcore stuff. We need more good rock bands.

[Bardsley]

Hmmm, I am a big rock fan, let me say that. But in fact, I am a music fan. If I hear what I like, I don't sit there and think whether it is pop or not. Are u2 a rock band or a pop band? They are big, and polished, and they use technology, so maybe they are a pop band. On the other hand, they "write their own music" and they come from a rock background, so maybe they are rock. Maybe in some instances rock music is pop music, by virtue of the fact that it is popular.
The Beatles started out as a pop band, in fact, you could easily look to them for the start of bands like nsync and backstreet boys. Now, they are remembered as being great. Hmmm
These are all random thoughts.
If people continue to listen to rock music, it will live. If they don't, then why should it continue to exist? If no one is interested in rock music, what is the point in it?
Music needs to continue to break new ground, to challenge the listener, to experiment, to push boundaries. That is what the great rock bands were doing in the 60's and 70's, but to continue to play that sort of music today is missing the point.
Why complain about modern music, because it is no longer dominated by guitar?
Why is electronica any less valid? If it is tapping into a youth audience looking for something new, then maybe it is the new rock music.
Now, I'm not saying there is no place for the past, in fact, looking back is always a huge part of moving forward. Music will stagnate though, if we all sit around dreaming of the halcyon days of guitar based rock, rather than think of what is relevant NOW.

[James]

I think it all comes down to this: you can't write off ALL of today's music as trash; god damn, music is such a vast area how could you? But you can get fed up with MAINSTREAM music (I'm talking about Spears, N'Sync, Limp Bizkit, etc.) which should be regarded as a product or image, like a new pair of Nike's. So don't get all down just because you're not seeing anything interesting or deep on MTV, because it's out there. Music has always and will always be out there.

Btw, one thing I really do miss in mainstream music these days is the lack of: 1) Cool vocals- remember how Plant, Roth, Tyler, Axl Rose and the like didn't just speak lyrics but really SANG! And not just sing lyrics all the time but used their voices as instruments as versatile as any other instrument, and; 2) The lack of meaning in lyrics. I haven't heard a mainstream song very recently that talks abouts true emotion. True emotion doesn't sell as easily as "Hit my baby one more time" or "Rollin'", or "Pimpin Deyz Bitches"...

[Bardsley]

Did you think perhaps it is merely because you don't want to hear any meaning in anyone's lyrics? And weren't we just talking about nsync, I mean I don't like them, but to complain on one hand of these crap boy bands and then complain about people not being able to sing is silly. Those guys can sing, they might not scream in pain, but hey. I could list countless people around here who can sing perfectly well. It's like you guys are picking on some musicians for some things, and others for other things, and translating it into a suggestion that modern musicians can't do any of it.
What's the point in complaining about the music scene? Go out and do something about it if it annoys you so much, and if you don't get noticed, maybe you might develop a new respect for the people who you constantly suggest have no talent.
Fender Man said that he too could be famous if someone told him where to dance, how to stand etc. Maybe he should consider why it is that he isn't famous then, and others are.It's very easy to criticise, it actually takes conviction to do something about it, but then you wouldn't have anything to complain about would you?

[James]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about singing. I never said they CAN'T sing, I just said that they tend not to do interesting things with their voices anymore. Plant would manipulate his voice in cool ways to add more depth to a guitar part or whatever. It's hard to explain, but I didn't mean that vocals lack emotion now (I've seen that guy from Korn break down crying after a performance).

But I stand by what I said about mainstream music's lyrics usually (not to say all the time) lack substance to them. Keep in mind, most of these bands (all the popular boy bands) don't even write their own lyrics.

[Bardsley]

Before Dylan and the Beatles, no one wrote their own lyrics.
All the great jazz singers and musicians generally play other people's music. Most classical pianists play nothing but other people's work, but we don't get stuck into them, it's how they interpret the work.

[James]

Before Dylan and the Beatles, nobody wrote their own lyrics? Like who? Sometime SOMEONE must have written those lyrics. As for jazz musicians not playing their own music, I think I would have to disagree with you. Isn't the essence of jazz improvisation anyway? As for classical, yes classical is based around written stuff and isn't intended to stray very far from what the sheet music says, but I think we're getting a little bit off topic here when we get into classical.

[LuigiCabrini]

Sure someone wrote the lyrics, just not the people who sang them. As for jazz musicians, you're right, in the sense that they played their own improvised solos, they were playing their own music. However, even today many jazz musicians don't compose all that much, prefering to play songs written by others, and express themselves in their solos. As for classical music, I don't know that that's off the topic. I think the point was that it's possible to be doing something musically worthwhile even if you're not playing your own music. However, since imho most of the new pop bands aren't doing something musically worthwhile, the point is sort of moot.

[jake sommers]

This topics seems to be going back in to the way my topic "We're dealing with a new species..." left off.

[James]

Well I think we must draw a line between classical music written by Bach and the like and performed by contemporary players and pop songs written by songwriters and played by pop bands. True in theory it's the same thing really: replaying what's already been written, but imop there is a line that can be drawn here. Whatever, I'm feeling lightheaded and forgot what point I'm making.

Btw, be it pop OR classical, I don't see how any true musician can be contently playing ONLY other people's material with no room for personal musical expression. Just my opinion.

[Bardsley]

But what qualifies you (or anyone) to say that "most new pop bands aren't doing something musically worthwhile"? I understand that I am being fairly stupid in picking a point with possibly the one person here who seems to agree with me in some way, but it is soooo easy to say something like that without thinking.
Wgat do you mean by your statement? Isn't it worthwhile that millions of people worldwide get enjoyment out of pop music? Isn't it worthwhile that performers and their songwriters are trying to reach a young audience who can't connect with the male dominated phallo centric guitar based rock music?
Now don't get me wrong, that's exactly what music I play, and listen to, but I don't feel like I have the right to suggest that other music is not "worthwhile" simply because I don't like it.
Interesting new rock music that comes out, is music that doesn't ignore the influence of pop culture, but uses it, along with any other styles that the band might be influenced by.
Are we going to continue to ignore the great new technology available to musicians, because it is used in dance clubs? Wouldn't it be a bit like shunning the piano when it was invented?
For great rock music to continue, it has to be a part of today's culturerather than ignoring it and pretending that we are still living in the 70's.

[Fender Man]

What I am trying to say is, that no guy would listen to nsync, more less sing there music. They're olnly doing it for money and girls. Know what I'm saying?

[Bardsley]

I don't recall hearing the interview where they said they were only doing it for money and girls, but I assume you have heard them say that, or you wouldn't make such generalised statements, hmmm.
Anyway, even if they are doing it just for money and girls, why shouldn't they? Plenty of people do their jobs just for money, so wouldn't you do a job if you got both mnoney, and girls?
Seriously though, there are guys who listen to nsync, and I would find it hard to believe that they are not doing it for a love of music, as well as any other reasons they have.

[James]

Bardsley I see what you're saying, trust me I do (I've argued the same thing on this board several times). I'm not saying that there aren't bands out there today that sometimes fall under the "mainstream" category that aren't doing anything musically worthwhile. "Isn't it worthwhile that millions of people worldwide get enjoyment out of pop music?", well in what sense do you mean worthwhile? Is "Hit me baby one more time" *musically* worthwhile? Or is it merely a product to be sold, an image to be had. This could be argued both sides I guess, but imop this type of n'sync, spears, backstreet boys is not musically worthwhile. I say this because I can't consider it true music belonging to the respective artists when a) they don't even write the songs or lyrics and b) they don't even actually sing it in concert. Imop britney spears is a beautiful face with an average voice that some agent realized could be extremely profitable. Therefor I don't consider her a musically wortwhile artist, even though she does sell an extremely large amount of records and is probably as rich as most of the rock legends we all revere.

"Isn't it worthwhile that performers and their songwriters are trying to reach a young audience who can't connect with the male dominated phallo centric guitar based rock music?". Personally I don't feel that these performers or songwriters are trying at all to reach an audience's emotions, but only their wallets. And don't get me wrong about new bands, because there are a ton of great bands out there that fall into mainstream category that still make their own music and in every sense that counts are true rockers. I'm talking strictly about the Boy/Girl groups and other pop stars (notice how they're referred to as pop stars and not "musicians" or "artists"). I would certainly never write off a peice of new music just because it doesn't have a screeching guitar solo. Bands like Tea Party, Tragically Hip, Our Lady Peace, (just off the top of my head) make interesting music without heavy emphasis on guitar, and they turn a nice profit as well as make original music that speaks to them and their audiences.

"Anyway, even if they are doing it just for money and girls, why shouldn't they? Plenty of people do their jobs just for money, so wouldn't you do a job if you got both mnoney, and girls?", to respond to this one... going back to the musically worthwhile thing- how is an artist musically worthwhile when the "music" they churn out isn't treated as music, but as a product that they are selling. Sure they have a right to make music and make lots of money and get the girls, but when this because the focus then they are no longer "musically worthwhile" but instead are just employees of record companies, doing their jobs, as you put it.

[Fender Man]

What I'm so down about is that no teenagers hardly listen to rock music. It makes me mad how some really talented people work really hard and make good music and get nowhere. when other people hardly work and are so "successfull." We need more rock 'n rollers.

[Fender Man]

And another thing, I know a lot of people who can sing, and can sing really good. But it takes real talent to play and instrument like guitar, drums, etc. Or to write good music or lyrics. Pop musiscians don't have much talent. A lot of people can sing, but who can be in a band and write good music. Hmmmmmmmm. Ask yourself that question.

[Christoph]

Originally posted by Bardsley
Seriously though, there are guys who listen to nsync . . .

Bahahahahahahaha . . . !

[Bardsley]

Ok, well I can see the humour in that comment too... hehehehe, god I hate those guys.
Oh how it was a waste that Jeff Buckley died, I am listening to him sing Hallelujah, it is fantastic.
On another note, I saw Dylan two nights ago. It was amazing, as he is my idol, and he did a great concert. Whoever it was talking about using voice in interesting ways, he can barely get the notes out, but you should've heard him sing Highway 61, in which the "oooooonne" he screamed for longer than some people sing entire verses.
It is odd though, I like him as a modern performer, and also what he did so long ago. It is on;y when you see him in concert for the first time (as I just did), that he no longer exists as that young 24 year old rock legend, or the 20 year old folk musician, or the 30 year old who sung Blood on the tracks. YOu see photos and hear albums of him so much younger, it is odd to think that it doesn't exist anymore.
I realise this is completely off the topic, but it is odd to see someone who has managed to span the generations, constantly creating relevant music, rather than being stuck in one time.

[Lordathestrings]

Less hype-driven stuff like Blues and Jazz have always been bubbling along under the surface. Every once in a while, some exec from The Biz gets tired of the usual dreck, and people like Kenny Wayne Shepherd are 'suddenly' discovered.

From a marketing standpoint, the only difference to The Biz, is the amount of push applied to the product.

I'm sorry to tell you the truth about the Tooth Fairy, but talent has less to do with it than drive. If you really want to make it BIG, then you gotta buy into making music as a business.

Even Michaelangelo and Da Vinci had patrons who paid for their work. The patrons often made demands on the artists to do a particular kind of work. The Sistine Chapel ceiling was (more or less) made-to-order.

The marketing target demographic (the only vote that counts with The Biz), consists of people who will "give that song 9 outa 10 'cuz itz gotta good beat an' itz ez2 danss 2" The Biz caters to these musically illiterate slobs because they are willing to part with good money for mediocre 'product'.

If ya wanna play music 'cause ya LOVE it, thas' OK.

If your chops catch the attention of The Big Guys, you'll have to decide whether you want to turn a perfectly good hobby into a job.

Meanwhile, keep singin'; keep playin'; an' try to remember why it's called playin'.


I'd like to hear from Lee the Vee on this topic. I have the feeling he's seen this from just about every side there is.
Hey, Lee! How 'bout it?

[Bardsley]

In fact, it was only after the rennaissance that the idea of an artist as a genius emerged. Before then, the artist was most often there to put into paintings what the patron described. There are still remaining documents that show how detailed the demand got, including suggestions about a "grey spot on the left flank" of a horse. It is a fairly modern idea of an artist creating something for himself or herself, for the purpose of creating art rather than creating something to show the majesty of a patron. I don't doubt that drive has often more to do with getting noticed than talent, but if you look at the great things that have come out of ambition, that is no bad thing. Look at U2, just four guys who wanted to shake up the world. Look at plenty of bands, the talent isn't what execs go for, it is the chemistry, the ability to thrill an audience, and to entertain, and the promise of greater things to come.

[Fender Man]

Oh well, let's put the focus on rap.

The one thing I want, is for rap to just go away. If I had one wish it would probably be to never here a rap song, that is just my opinion about it. Is there anyone out there that feels who knows how I feel.

[Edited by Fender Man on 04-07-2001 at 10:21 PM]

[Joseph]

Believe me, Ive waited...

Well, I guess the lesson that has been learned by many musicians all over the world is that (if you're going to sell out, you might as well do it all the way, just to clear up any confusion, preventing a split between record sales.) But I really don't see anything wrong with an artist trying to expand his horizons a bit, theres nothing wrong with sharing the stage with a new generation of musicians (those who are totally against the grain of what you're music stands for)as long as you don't make a habit out of it. :D Sure it just might create alot of speculation, [i]but it also shows that you arent afraid to take chances, (i'm not talking about chances to fatten up your wallets, but a chance in reaching out to a brand new generation.

Take Aerosmith for example, millions of people around the world are wonder how they have been able to stick around for so long. People speculate that it has alot to do with the fact that they have gradually added new elements into their sound, (which in some ways alot of people feel is a method of pulling the wool over their eyes. But thats far from the case, because through all of the changes, Aerosmith has hung onto to that original spark that started this group, and their original intentions have not changed. I think as long as you can still hang onto to that original core of who you, then you're doing just fine. As long as you refuse to let others define your music, then you can't go wrong.

Through the continuous attemps in repeating the same inteitry that existed in the seventies, musicians have failed miserably, and I feel it has alot to do with the fact that they have too many options when it comes to sound. Alot of musicians today would rather define their sound from pushing a few buttomns, instead of through time and effort. Most of the bands from the seventies and early eighties relied on technique, and bringing their personality to its highest level of completeness through music. But today, there are alot of music who have gotten into the business for all of the wrong reasons, where they continiously dabble with sound, instead of getting in touch with what naturally inspires them. There isn't that much honesty in the music industy today, and its safe to say that musicians all around the world have added different sounds to their style for the sake of selling for records, and provoking re-action within the majority of people. Being that they have forgotten what really makes their blood boil, and the hair stand up on the back of their necks. But to say that Aerosmith is lost is a crock of ****, because their music still has that same groove to it, whether or not their latest release is rather commercial, despite the fact that they have opened doors for a new generation of listeners, their music is still recognized what it is, and thats pure rock. And you could analyze it till your face turns blue, but when a band continues to leave their mark with time and effort, and what truly inspires them, they shouldn't be condemned.

So its fine to incorporate different sounds into your music, as long as you truly feel its the next best step, but when you're inticed by greed and what others wan't, you're destined to fail...

-Joseph