PEARL JAM

[pinback]

Problem is mate, that every band listed there is contrived non-sense.

[Cultseeker]

Buuuuuuut...I think some of the bands Olivavu likes are 'bad taste', does that mean that really I've got 'bad taste' and he hasn't and I just don't realise it because I'm wrong?

[pinback]

Nice try at flaming there...

[Cultseeker]

This is exactly what I was thinking. When someone says 'they're no Blind Melon' for example, my immediate reaction would be 'well, thank f**k for that, they were rubbish'. It's musical dogma, being told these bands are/were good.

[pinback]

Like all art, if he (or anyone) can establish validity through critical merit from a legitimate argument, then yes.

[Olivavu]

You appear to be missing my point.

In my opinion Blind Melon were nothing special; Rage had a great debut and a few decent covers and children of the sun, but were mainly a bit crap; alice in chains were very samey; I don't know Filter.

Even NIN and Faith no More were a bit patchy.

Hardly any of these were truly commercial, those type of bands are stilla bout, you have to find them for yourself.

[pogal]

Problem is mate, that every band listed there is contrived non-sense.

I get you're point though. I've been reviewing local bands for ages and have witnessed the explosion of the Sunderland scene from it's infancy. It was/is only the bands that fit the bill that are picked up. Other, more decent and original/organic acts are left to suffer the inevitable break of non-immediate success. This is a very real state of affairs and truly rotten. It is also a very real reflection of the state of new music in general.

[Olivavu]

But you can validate the artistic merits of Blind Melon. Hence, you can't state that it's a dogmatic idea.

[pinback]

What do you chaps think about Soul Asylum?

Exactly.

It's not just a case of 'because I say so', it's because they were truly gifted musicians that locked in so well...it just cannot be denied or overlooked.

And you know this how..?

[Cultseeker]

Honestly guys, the word 'contrived' pops up about 56 times a day on this board, without any explanation as to why some band are 'contrived' and others aren't. It's like a default word designed to win the argument, but in reality it's just aimed at bands that people don't like/

[Olivavu]

What do you chaps think about Soul Asylum?

I think it's because you never show any evidence of it in your posts. Of course, he could be wrong.

[pogal]

Exactly.

It's not just a case of 'because I say so', it's because they were truly gifted musicians that locked in so well...it just cannot be denied or overlooked.

And you know this how..?

[Olivavu]

Because you are slating the entire new music scene on bands like Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand and Arctic Monkeys!

Good music is out there. Go and find it.

[Cultseeker]

Okay the Rakes are a bit contrived but Muse and the White Stripes certainly aren't.

[Olivavu]

For f*cks sake man, they won't use any recording equipment post 1979 - if thats not contrived I don't know what is bud.

[Cultseeker]

Yes, but they are still new music and still exist, which is the point. Rather than slate the state of new music achieving commercial success, how about you just find the really good new music that is out there? That way, you could actually have an input in making it commercially successful.

And for me, Blind Melon were really not all that and Filter were nothing compared to Fugazi.

[VCK]

The next trend is late 80's hair rock mate. Mark my words, I was right about the retro 70's thing with the Darkness and The White Stripes. Be warned.

[pinback]

Not a massive fan. I appreciate 'Grave Dancers Union' more than anything else of theirs.

[pogal]

I know good music is out there and I'm always looking for more.

I have a massive personal collection of music and it's always being increased.

The 90's does make up the majority of my collection though...being that it's the most fruitful decade, it's no surprise.

[pinback]

Right, so now your "massive collection of music" enables you to tell me what the most fruitful period in music history was? Behave yourself.

And have you stopped to consider why you think the nineties was the most fruitful decade? I'm sure my father would argue with you a great deal on that point, and I would even stoop to your level and say he has a larger collection of music than you, even though it isn't really the point.

He didn't grow up in the nineties, so that music was not as relevant to him as you - don't you get it? You worship these bands and base your opinions of everything after them on the fact that you heard them when your musical taste was forming. That's why they touched you more, and why you rate them over everyone else! My father would tell you to shut up and listen to music from the sixties, my grandfather the forties, because that's when they formed their tastes!

It's not rocket science to understand that is it? And the fact that 14-year-olds are basing their tastes on what they're hearing today... Yet you still berate them as being clueless, just as my father did to me and would to you.

Edited August 7, 2006 by pinback

[pogal]

Nicely put matey boots, but unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears as I've already brought this up on a couple of occasions before, only to meet a wall of objectivity, 'valid' good bands and and that. My dad was 18 in 1968 and constantly tells me that that was the best period in music, dismissing the 80s 90s and 00s. Now I'm beginning to find my generation doing the same thing to the kids. It's a bit depressing tbh - people are just incabable of seperating the music they like from their first snog and have to build up some empirical evidence for why it is the best.

[funkymp]

superb post pogal

the bit about relevance is a good point - i know a lot of people that can relate to say the arctic monkeys, franz etc and i very much doubt in 10/20 years there going to forget about them, as they have had a big impact on there lives as they were growing up.

people will look back on this decade as a fruitful time in music, because they grew up with the music, people arent gonna just go 'the 00's sucked cos bla bla' sucked or whatever, theres a lot of good non-commerical/commerical music around if your willing to give it a go

[AloneInDecember]

i actually disagree somewhat with the point that musical taste does not really evolve, the majority of the bands i listened to when i was younger were older ones, the first band i truly liked was black sabbath, who were just a little past my time, and even now, i listen to the beatles and pearl jam, and current music, so it is possible to connect to different eras music. Also, i live near southampton, portsmouth, and at a push london, and it is true that nearly all music at the moment is "indie", all local pubs book indie bands, all indie bands come through on tours, the only bands starting up are indie bands, so if that doesnt define the new music scene, i dont know what does; and even NME admit that there is a huge glut of boring samey indie bands, and its what keeps them in press.

[funkymp]

oh yeah, on the towers of london mention - the fact there getting there own TV show, i say give it 6months before they become pretty well known to the general public, it'll be a sad day in music (in my eyes) but its going to happen

[pogal]

oh yeah, on the towers of london mention - the fact there getting there own TV show, i say give it 6months before they become pretty well known to the general public, it'll be a sad day in music (in my eyes) but its going to happen