Which "cool" band do you detest the most?
- Thread starter slyder35
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is a major difference between angsty musical theory loving nerds and genuine musicians who explored new horizons.SonicKoala said:
The many individuals within the 1990's regardless of how talented they were did NOT by any means evolve the genre of rock or otherwise further. All it did was add pseudo anger for a generation that had nothing to whine about minus their self-absorbed anger and entitlement to everything. (It was the Clinton era, who had the right to honestly complain about anything?) It was shallow, it was without a positive step forward...it was essentially shit in the long run. Nirvana was a mixture of taking a style that had already been done before but marketed it towards kids who had no knowledge of music at the time. That is why they became popular, because of the time, not because of genuine talent.
No, I do not listen to only metal. Classical, folk, opera, rock, jazz, blues, etc etc.
What our generation did was take music..be it chords, song structures, messages, etc...that had already been done before in a much higher fashion, and essentially copy it but add a modern image to it. There are notable exceptions but in the end they truly accomplished nothing but enjoyment to the times in which they lived.
And the fact that you stated that you love Metallica and Rain in Blood shows me you have no true appreciation for metal. That genre of music has done so much for the planet in terms of musicianship, songwriting, sound, elements, ensuring music as a whole moves forward...and overall creating something different with used and seemingly outdated techniques. The problem I have with all those bands mentioned is that they added NOTHING new besides a "current sound" of the 1990's. It was on the surface, it was there to be absorbed by the ignorant masses, it was classless, and in today's standard laughable. Yes there were some notable exceptions such as Alice in Chains, the rise of Buckethead, and the such... but the generation seriously contributed nothing.
It takes merely a single listen to understand and comprehend the redundant bullshit of the 90's but to understand genres of more complexity requires a certain ear.
Alright, since you insist on being arrogant and vague in your argument, I'll try to maintain myself (despite that my inner music fan is enraged by your ignorance) and answer your response point by point. Yes, I agree that there is a difference between angsty musical nerds and genuine musicians, a disparity that you seemed to ignore in your original argument (if I remember, you said music was NOT meant to be an output for angsty musical nerds, but oh well we'll just ignore that).Arsen said:
Okay, you claim that none of the musicians in the 1990s (regardless of how talented they were? Um, okay) did not evolve rock. This is where the really vague part of your argument comes into play. What does that mean? In my opinion, you can only evolve rock in one logical way - that is originality and experimentation. Musicianship, songwriting, sound, new techniques - all of these are things which prominent Indie bands of the 1990s expanded upon and experimented with (INCLUDING RADIOHEAD, but other favourites of mine including The Flaming Lips, My Bloody Valentine, Neutral Milk Hotel, Built to Spill), and there influence continues to be felt in many of the bands present in the indie/alternative rock scene of the present day. You know, the one you know absoloutely nothing about because, after all, "thank god for European metal", right?
You then go on to diss Nirvana, because it's so easy to diss Nirvana, isn't it? They were one of the most successful bands of the 1990s, and are by and large considered the most important. You then use the HORRIFICALLY ignorant argument that, because they were mainstream, this somehow translated to them being cheap sellouts who were repackaging their old influences for the sole purpose of selling records - BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Kurt Cobain was as far from "mainstream" as you can get - he was a musician, and "Nevermind" was just him writing the best songs he possibly could. His sole intention was never to sell records - that just HAPPENED. People connected with his music. "Nevermind" started the entire grunge scene - this record wasn't being PUSHED on anybody! It's impact was a complete ACCIDENT - hell, Geffen figured that the only worthwhile single on "Nevermind" was "Come As You Are", they hadn't even CONSIDERED releasing "Smells Like Teen Spirit"!
By today's standards laughable? Yeah, I suppose that's why Nevermind continues to be heralded as one of the greatest albums of all time - oh, but those are all just people from that ignorant, formless mass of mainstream music consumers who know nothing about real music, isn't that right? Oh, but then there's the countless musical magazines/guitar magazines who consistently praise that album, but I suppose they're just idiots too. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass. There is so much MORE to music than just technical prowess, or complex song structures. Despite the simplicity of Cobain's music, the visceral energy and emotion contained within his music (moreso in "In Utero", "Nevermind" is really just an amazing pop-punk album) is still present. Because of the time? You really think that expanded knowledge of music changes people's tastes? I'm sure you believe that if everyone was as blessed with such astounding musical knowledge as you clearly are, then we would all be listening to metal, right? Your arrogance astounds me. A key issue with your argument is you need to accept that people have different tastes.
Second, HOW did the thriving indie scene of the 1990s take and copy the musical ideas apparently already done to a much higher degree in the 70s and add a modern image to it? You ever notice how literally ALL the music in the 1990s sounds little to nothing like the 70s (Well, you probably don't, because you remain willfully ignorant of the bands I'm actually talking about)? Only accomplished enjoyment in the times they lived? - once again, this is hearkens back to your astounding musical ignorance; the influence of the 90s carries over to this very day. You seem to have this idea that music which began in the 90s suddenly DIED come 1999, and then the music being made today is something completely different, completely unphased by the music that came before it. You are completely wrong in this assertion, obviously, and the many bands of the 90s continue to have a profound influence on the music of today (Nirvana is one of those bands... so is Radiohead, OH GOD THE AGONY).
Finally, the bands I mentioned added something completely new - The Flaming Lips, My Bloody Valentine, Pavement, Radiohead, Built to Spill, Sonic Youth, Beck, Smashing Pumpkins; there is no precedent for these bands. Sure, you can hear vague hints of their influences, but almost all of their stuff is HIGHLY original. They all tried something new - new sounds, new techniques, someone from the 70s wouldn't recognize ANY of this. Yes, some of the more mainstream bands added a "current sound", but that was largely the grunge scene of the early to mid 90s - and it isn't it so wonderfully ironic how you continue to call the music of the 90s redundant and meaningless, yet you acknowledge bands like Alice in Chains and Soundgarden are worthy of praise (two bands part of that "current sound" of the 90s). Hell, I didn't even mention a SINGLE grunge band on my previous list. Most of those are alternative rock bands who saw little mainstream success (apart from Smashing Pumpkins, and like 2 Radiohead songs), and who's influences have carried over. Second, how does me saying I like Metallica and REIGN (spell it right for fuck sakes, you're suppose to be the fucking fan of this music, christ) IN BLOOD show I have no true appreciation for metal? Just because I like 80s thrash metal makes me ignorant? Hell, at least I'm not knocking metal - I'm the first to admit I have comparatively little knowledge of the metal scene, and I'm aware of its expansive nature. However, you have NO knowledge of the Indie scene, and yet you continue to argue that it's all mainstream crap (In other words, make yourself look like an arrogant idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about).
And then, you end your argument with another reitoration of your astounding ignorance of how the music of the 90s is all "redundant" bullshit - if you knew JACK SHIT about the diverse collection of music that was made in the 90s, you wouldn't be saying something so profoundly stupid. Yes, it does take a certain ear to listen to more complex genres of music - too bad you don't have it.