"New Rock Bands"

What is all this crap about all the new rock bands that are really punk? Some examples are the Hives, Vines, Strokes, and all the others. I personally think they sound horrible and have no talent. you?

The Strokes and The Hives sound great and have loads of talent.

I hate the Vines with a passion.

I also love the White Stripes and Black Rebel Motorcycle Club.

[Edited by Led Zeppelin on 10-05-2002 at 10:34 AM]

Who cares what label gets put on them?

All I know is that these bands will probably not be around(in the mainstream circuit) for an awful long time. So, I don't waste my time judging them.

Why bitch about bands you hate? When you could be praising the bands you love?

yeah trend is deffinity right there! but to add i dont think thier anything that makes me wanna get up and listen to them. The only reason thier mainstream is due to the crappy music these days

I wouldn't bitch about the bands I hate, but everywhere I turn I hear of them on tv, radio, and zines, and I just can't take it anymore.

Talent is hard to come by today.

Most of these new famous rock bands sucks. First of all, none of them got a good guitarplayer our any other musican in the band. I´m mean, most of them ain´t got a guitar solo.

Hives from Sweden suck. I don´t find them talanted. Songs are same, 3 chords and perhaps 2 different rythm and go for it. No suprises, no solos nothing. But they are a good live band not that they are too tight but there´s lot of energy.

Most of these bands mix pop with rock and pop music sucks big time. My friend, this we got today is a rape of good old rock music. With enogh promotion, anyone can be famous and looks are more important than talent.

The Hives don't play solos...so what? To me its an acheivement not to play solos and to be able to restrain yourself like that. I don't know what the reason is for their not playing solos...whether its because they can't or because they feel it wouldnt fit in with the music or because its cliched (because it is!), it's a good enough reason whatever. Even if they actually can't, it takes a lot of honesty and restraint to know and admit that you can't and to just stick to what you know best. Rhythm guitarists are a lot easier to work with than lead guitarists and a lot less arrogant...a good rhythm guitarist can fit in with anything, even if its just playing the same thing as another rhythm guitarist, whereas a lead guitarist will just solo over the top half the time, which can sometimes ruin the effect. Rhythm guitarists are also a lot easier to get on with in other aspects of life - not over competetive, arrogant or elitist like a lot of lead guitarists. I got kicked out of my old band for the clash between two lead guitarists both trying to solo a lot. I went seeing them ast nite with only one guitarist and he played NO SOLOS...it sounded so much better and i was very impressed by the level of restraint he had, as he used to be the stereotypical elitist lead guy like ive been going on about. I'm now in a band working with a rhythm guitarist instead of another lead and it really is a lot easier, but im trying to cut down on my soloing and brush up on my rhythm playing to improve our overall sound. Remember, a band is more than just the sum of how many guitar solos it has or how "good" the lead guitarist is.

I agree and I'm not saying that those bands are bad because they don't have any solos. I rather a band have good sounding rhythm guitars than a sucky solo.

I agree, alot of bands I listen to dont have many solos, or none at all. Not to say I dont like solos but you can be over-indulgent and just play solos for the hell of it, no matter how bad they are and then find out your in Bon Jovi.

Some guitarists cant play solos, but are still damn good.

Whats wrong wiht Bon Jovi?
Some of Ritchie Sambora's live solos are cool.

Hehehehe. I don't mind some of Bon Jovi's stuff and some of the solos are great, but its a very funny and also very true point. Bon Jovi would be a lot classier and a whole lot less cheesy if they had less solos...It seems to me maybe they only do it because they dont know what else to put there and they can't (be bothered to) think of another song structure. If a song has a really ace riff these are sometimes the best ones to leave a solo out of because it can overshadow the riff.

I dunno, I think thats one of the reasons Ritchie doesn't do as many huge impressive solos as the other hair band guitarists did. He came up with some killer riffs, better than most, but he's no regular shredder or anything.

Think what you want but a solo spot is important in a song. OK if there´s a song our two that don´t include a solo that´s normal but if thre´s 10 songs and no guitarsolo what´s so ever, than it sucks and no matter how good the band is I wouldn´t buy they record. To only hit A/D/G/E/C is boring like death. It means, you have never put time to actually learn guitar and your songs no matter how good they are, are from a musicans point of view bad and boring. And that includes all new bands ´cause they album is made of 5-6 chords wich they play in different order. Use your Illusion guys, and save us from boring rock music wich is killin´ all the goog and impressive rock music we once had.

Noel Gallagher once said that solos are rubbish and that´s because he was never abel to play one. There´s hell more passion in a guitar solo than in some stupid stiff rythm.

Originally posted by Dejan Sajinovic
Think what you want but a solo spot is important in a song. OK if there´s a song our two that don´t include a solo that´s normal but if thre´s 10 songs and no guitarsolo what´s so ever, than it sucks and no matter how good the band is I wouldn´t buy they record. To only hit A/D/G/E/C is boring like death. It means, you have never put time to actually learn guitar and your songs no matter how good they are, are from a musicans point of view bad and boring. And that includes all new bands ´cause they album is made of 5-6 chords wich they play in different order. Use your Illusion guys, and save us from boring rock music wich is killin´ all the goog and impressive rock music we once had.

Noel Gallagher once said that solos are rubbish and that´s because he was never abel to play one. There´s hell more passion in a guitar solo than in some stupid stiff rythm.

C'mon!
You can get just as technical with your rythm work as your lead work. I'm all for a good solo, but [u]only[/u] if it fits the song, and I can think of a lot of songs where the solos just don't fit. I can also think of a lot of songs that desperatly need a solo.

I think what this comes down to is that a rythm part, no matter how tricky doesn't nearly provide the ego boost that sawing away in 32nd notes does, and some of really need that. I'm one of them; I constantly have to fight myself to do what a song needs rather than show off.

Its all well and good that some songs are well suited by slos, and others arent, but I think what some of us are getting at is that there are too many songs that solos dont fit in. You can get technical with rhythm guitar, but I bet a lot of people on this site would agree when I say lead guitar is more difficult and therefore requires a different, more hard to come by skill. Not all lead guitar mind you, but a lot.

I totally disagree Dejan. Thats a silly attitude shared that Im sad to say is shared by alot of guitarists. I used to have a similar attitude(when I was 13) but now its not important to me to have solos in songs. A good chord progression or riff is better to me than 10 solos, but that said most songs I listen to still has amount of lead work - especially Oasis, Noel Gallagher is a fine lead and rhtyhm player and has some great solos, but he has a point - but its not important.

I like to take the piss out of Bon Jovi as much as possible. I actually ahve a couple of their singles but on general they just annoy me. That kind of happy-metal, I dont like it.

New songs are not any good but the older ones are very good. Now it´s more like *****kin´ pop music rather than rock. Riche S. used to have amazing guitarsolos befor but I don´t know what happend now.

And by the way mr. Zepp. how come you like them (I asume that you) ´cause Jimmy usualy plays 2-3 min. solos on evry song live.

I never said I dont like solos, I just said I like alot of stuff that doesnt have any.

A chord is as good as a solo to a deaf man.

A jazz chord or something may be as good as a solo, but a bunch or power chords isn't. If you really know your stuff you'll agree when I say they arent chordes anyway, they're intervals.
Thats my point anyway.