me playing guitar (don't act like you're not impressed)

*smiles sarcasticaly* Fucking sheeple lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lnopia the great

a lot of people in canada still listen to the radio, and i have heard of record companies buying their own product to chart faster

---

important distinction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maks

when was the last time you listened to a band because you saw them on a billboard? who even listens to radio anymore? most people discover music through word of mouth, if your band is good and they have a youtube video people will have heard of your band. if they haven't it's probably because no one shared it with their friends because no one liked it.

---

This is actually a big problem that is going to lead to the death of the music culture if it keeps going the way it's going.
The thing was back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, is that talented people would eventually congregate in California (or Seattle in the case of Grunge). They did this because they were committed to what they were doing. Of course, there were a lot of failures who congregated in Hollywood too, but the point is that the music industry turned in to a machine that would pump out good music (it would pump out bad music too, but good music was bound to come out once in a while).

With the internet, this machine died, plain and simple.

When's the last time you heard a good song that was "new", and not a song that you liked just because of the image associated with the band.

In the words of Sick Boy "Yeah its not bad but its not great either, is it? and in your heart although you know it sounds 'alright' its actually just shite"

plug drugs why do you type so many words

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lnopia the great

there have been psych studies suggesting that people will favor music they are told is a hit/popular, which is exactly what advertising is deisgned to do

---

most people don't have a bullshit detector anymore either, it's scary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli

plug drugs why do you type so many words

---

just speed read that shit, skim it, 10 seconds tops bro

and its because of adderall
I end up wanting to type a damn thesis every time i start out a post, my fingers just start flapping around on the keyboard uncontrollably and i have to sit here and wait till the spasm is over and the post has finished being typed

im not reading it but im going to guess about 80% of it is shit you have almost no clue about but its presented in a way that makes it sound like you`re the worlds foremost expert

you think that's what i'm all about don't you

The British Invasion was a pretty defining moment in both nations histories, actually. Through the 60s, 70s, 80s, all that shit, you had a fucking military occupation going on. At least some badass music came out of the subjugation of America, though... and I like to think it was sort of a marching song that was played when we helped beat back Big Brother's government in 1984.

The Beatles are over-hyped,
and I think most of the British stuff was created as a result of the young future British-musicians interpreting American rock and roll from the 50s

Once rock and roll went overseas to Europe, it was able to evolve past its simplistic blues and folk rhythm to incorporate melodies found in traditional European classical.
So I guess I agree, Britain was crucial to music as we know it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

This is actually a big problem that is going to lead to the death of the music culture if it keeps going the way it's going.
The thing was back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, is that talented people would eventually congregate in California (or Seattle in the case of Grunge). They did this because they were committed to what they were doing. Of course, there were a lot of failures who congregated in Hollywood too, but the point is that the music industry turned in to a machine that would pump out good music (it would pump out bad music too, but good music was bound to come out once in a while).

With the internet, this machine died, plain and simple.

---

the advent of the internet means that the entire world is california now I'm not sure how congregating in one specific area of the country is any more convenient than congregating on youtube and facebook. he music industry has no interest in pumping out good music, they are interested in pumping out whatever people will buy.

Quote:

---

When's the last time you heard a good song that was "new", and not a song that you liked just because of the image associated with the band.

---

most of what's "new" to me isn't necessarily "new". probably the last rush album, the last ween album, or the last corporate avenger album, I dunno which came out most recently. people who care about music couldn't give a fuck about the "image" of the band that's purely for marketing to the posers.

anyways my point was that people aren't ready to decide for themselves what they like and don't like again,
they've been spoon-fed for too long

So the "underground internet music scene" is just pumping out one load of garbage after the next

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

The Beatles are over-hyped

---

every single successful musician since the beatles will willingly claim the beatles as one of their influences, regardless of their background, regardless of the genre. it's not hype if it's true.

actually i would argue that most modern music has a "good sound", but its just retarded lyrics and no actual musicians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

anyways my point was that people aren't ready to decide for themselves what they like and don't like again,
they've been spoon-fed for too long

So the "underground internet music scene" is just pumping out one load of garbage after the next

---

you're still missing the point. there are no good underground bands because the good ones become popular and cease to be underground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rootbeer

actually i would argue that most modern music has a "good sound", but its just retarded lyrics and no actual musicians

---

I am the egg man. Goo goo ga joob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maks

most of what's "new" to me isn't necessarily "new". probably the last rush album, the last ween album, or the last corporate avenger album, I dunno which came out most recently. people who care about music couldn't give a fuck about the "image" of the band that's purely for marketing to the posers.

---

There is a huge gray area in what constitutes a band's image. You could say that music itself brings image and self-identity with it whether sought after or not. You have to identify with the emotion being portrayed musically or else it won't sound good

One thing a lot of music historians will tell people is that if you want to understand what kind of frame of mind people had in distant generations of the past, listen to the music that was popular back then - the emotions in the melody are usually a good representation of what emotions people back then identified with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

There is a huge gray area in what constitutes a band's image. You could say that music itself brings image and self-identity with it whether sought after or not. You have to identify with the emotion being portrayed musically or else it won't sound good

One thing a lot of music historians will tell people is that if you want to understand what kind of frame of mind people had in distant generations of the past, listen to the music that was popular back then - the emotions in the melody are usually a good representation of what emotions people back then identified with.

---

why do you say image when you mean sound, genre, or style?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maks

every single successful musician since the beatles will willingly claim the beatles as one of their influences, regardless of their background, regardless of the genre. it's not hype if it's true.

---

To me, the Beatles (especially the songs written by Paul McCartney) sound way too repetitive, simple, and up-beat, like some sort of children's song you'd have to sing during music class in grade school.
I like the Beatles' more psychedelic songs (strawberry fields forever, I am the walrus, etc) and not-so-coincidentally John Lennon was the main writer for those songs - he was the Beatles' sole source of creativity as far as I'm concerned.

One thing I've noticed with a lot of Beatles songs is that they'll have a good sound and style up until the chorus (which was probably written by McCartney) which sounds again like those repetitive up-beat grade-school songs "Mary had a little lamb" and whatnot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maks

why do you say image when you mean sound, genre, or style?

---

synaesthesia from drug use maybe

also when people use the word "image" in music culture, they don't typically mean a single frame or visual image, they mean the impression that something gives.
This impression often includes a band's principles, philosophy, and beliefs

its not just the clothes they wear or what kind of car they drive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

To me, the Beatles (especially the songs written by Paul McCartney) sound way too repetitive, simple, and up-beat, like some sort of children's song you'd have to sing during music class in grade school.
I like the Beatles' more psychedelic songs (strawberry fields forever, I am the walrus, etc) and not-so-coincidentally John Lennon was the main writer for those songs - he was the Beatles' sole source of creativity as far as I'm concerned.One thing I've noticed with a lot of Beatles songs is that they'll have a good sound and style up until the chorus (which was probably written by McCartney) which sounds again like those repetitive up-beat grade-school songs "Mary had a little lamb" and whatnot

---

Sounds more like you're comparing early vs later rather than lennon vs mccartney. also, the simple answer is they needed each other. Listen to Lennon's solo records where he's working with yoko instead of paul and you'll understand. if lennon hadn't been part of that team he'd be remembered like fogerty or neil young, not john fucking lennon.

Anyway, it's fine that you don't like them, but that's completely subjective. Whether or not they are over-hyped is objective, and if anything they are under-hyped considering they influenced every single act that came after them.

most people like bandss with a simpler "image" (getting laid, getting money, doing drugs, and just being an asshole in general)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

also when people use the word "image" in music culture, they don't typically mean a single frame or visual image, they mean the impression that something gives.
This impression often includes a band's principles, philosophy, and beliefs

its not just the clothes they wear or what kind of car they drive

---

their principals, philosophy, and beliefs are no different than the clothes they wear. I'm paying these people to play me songs, not bitch about freeing tibet. I think it's great what Bono is doing for little black kids doesn't make U2 suck any less in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maks

Sounds more like you're comparing early vs later rather than lennon vs mccartney. also, the simple answer is they needed each other. Listen to Lennon's solo records where he's working with yoko instead of paul and you'll understand. if lennon hadn't been part of that team he'd be remembered like fogerty or neil young, not john fucking lennon.

---

They needed each other may be, but if you took out John Lennon and replaced him with someone else, all the psychedelica would have been gone and The Beatles would have been indistinguishable from the beach boys.

I can't comment on John Lennon's solo material because I haven't heard enough of it, but I bet it would have sounded a lot better if he did it with a group of peers and not yoko ono. I actually have a John Lennon / Yoko Ono vinyl in a box right next to me, but never listened to it just because of its reputation, should I give it a whirl for educational purposes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maks

their principals, philosophy, and beliefs are no different than the clothes they wear. I'm paying these people to play me songs, not bitch about freeing tibet. I think it's great what Bono is doing for little black kids doesn't make U2 suck any less in my book.

---

The emotions you indentify with in a song are fine-tuned to your beliefs whether you know it or not. Why do you think pink floyd and led zeppelin are almost universally panned as stoner music by people who don't like them? It wasn't their "image" as you define it; they dressed the same as most other bands when up on stage.

Tool's drummer Danny wears a college basketball jersey up on stage a lot; Maynard sometimes doesn't wear anything at all and shaves off every piece of hair on his face to be completely void of "image" as much as possible so he can build a new image from the bottom up.. Tool has image though, a lot of it. idk.. that's just a theory of the stoned though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

They needed each other may be, but if you took out John Lennon and replaced him with someone else, all the psychedelica would have been gone and The Beatles would have been indistinguishable from the beach boys.

---

That they would have sounded like the beach boys is a bit of a stretch, george harrison was way more psychedelic than lennon they just never let him write anything. in terms of success though, they would have been right there with the beach boys you're right about taht.

Quote:

---

I can't comment on John Lennon's solo material because I haven't heard enough of it, but I bet it would have sounded a lot better if he did it with a group of peers and not yoko ono. I actually have a John Lennon / Yoko Ono vinyl in a box right next to me, but never listened to it just because of its reputation, should I give it a whirl for educational purposes?

---

depends on what's on it. watching the wheels is a good example of what I'm talking about. It's a very good song, but it's missing something you can't quite put your finger on, like it's almost dead or something. Paul would have given it what it was missing, either in the writing or in the studio. I'm sure about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plug Drugs

The emotions you indentify with in a song are fine-tuned to your beliefs whether you know it or not. Why do you think pink floyd and led zeppelin are almost universally panned as stoner music by people who don't like them? It wasn't their "image" as you define it; they dressed the same as most other bands when up on stage.

---

They have a sound that appeals to stoners. It has nothing to do with the image the band puts out per say, more like the image reflected back onto them by their audience.

Quote:

---

Tool's drummer Danny wears a college basketball jersey up on stage a lot; Maynard sometimes doesn't wear anything at all and shaves off every piece of hair on his face to be completely void of "image" as much as possible so he can build a new image from the bottom up.. idk.. that's just a theory of the stoned though

---

maynard has been cultivating an image of "guy who's way too cool to be a rock star" for over a decade. the stuff you mentioned isn't any deeper or more meaningful than what marilyn manson does, it's all theatrics it's all just food for the posers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cody

You got something to say about John Fogerty?

---

yes, he's nowhere near as popular or influential as john lennon. they're barely even on the same planet.

of course they do you live in virginia. call me crazy but I'm gonna go ahead and guess that lynard skynard probably does really well in those polls too.