pop vs. rock

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]

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.