Nutswingers...must Die

[ragingflea002]

[quote="MaryJoeWanna (derek)"] emo kids who go on and on about some sh*tty band like korn or slipknot. Speaking of which, they make millions of dollars a year, what do they have to be so angry about? [/quote]
That's my logic behind it as well. If you're singing about being depressed, you better have a wife like Courtney Love and legal issues over your kid.

I don't want to see you with a supermodel wife or girlfriend in a nice Ferrarri with a 30 million dollar home like Bill Gates. I sure as Hell don't want to hear you bitch about how your life sucks under those circumstances.

Fallen, why is it we don't see any of those people anymore? I want someone to say "OMFG YOU JUST DON'T GET THEM STOP JUDGING PEOPLE LIKE THAT. THEY LIVE REAL LIVES. THEY'RE SO DEEP"

Give me something to laugh at besides this high dude in Jazz band today.

"Holy s**t, teach, you wanna hear some fuckin' music? He can play fuckin' Guns N' Roses...Dude, play "Sweet Child O' Mine" again......So kick ass... What's that? You want me out of the room? Well whoop de fuckin' doo. I love you all, bitches."

Back on topic...

Nirvana was the last punk band to pretty much have legitimate lyrics. Some people sing about killing themselves and never do it. Kurt sang about it, then fuckin' blew his head off. He told the truth, to an extent.

Now, they do it for the attention, just like the gothic posers and the wannabe punks.

"I hate myself for this
I feel like I could kill myself"

Then repeat it 50 times over the course of an album. What purpose does it have? Want suicidal people to listen to your album and feel that they aren't alone?

Well, we could save lives that way, but hearing them talk afterwards is gonna make me wanna kill myself.

"This stuff saved my life......"
"Aw...HELL no...."


_________________
Not all who wander are lost.
"The separation between spirit and logic is reasonable because spirit is defined by faith and logic forces others to think about what they have faith in."

[fallenangel]

I still say "Don't Close Your Eyes" by Kix pisses all over whatever that garbage Good Charlotte put out with that retarded video was... If anyone actually changes their mind about killing themselves because Benji or whatever the fuck his name is says "hold on", I doubt the world would suffer much had they offed themselves. You know [i]why[/i] they wrote a suicide song? Because these mopey little fuckers are sitting in the dark writing angst about cutting themselves, and a song saying "omg I'm so here for you..." sells. But of course it has to be generic enough to get through their thick heads.

Plus Kix had some level of talent. Great vocals, melody, hook, guitar...

And people do type in all caps with horrid spelling and grammar. Just not here. But especially on any board related to a specific group or person, if you say anything or link anything that isn't gushing praise, you can expect every nutswinger in the world to delurk and throw a tantrum. Kinda funny.

"But who am I to tell you that I've seen any reason why you should stay
Maybe we'd be better off without you anyway!
I got a one way ticket on your last chance ride
got a one way ticket to your suicide
Got a one way ticket and there's no way out alive" - Axl (actually, all ten minutes of Coma are a shining example of excellent lyric writing...you don't have to be nuts to write good lyrics, but it certainly helps)
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

I know the deal with the selling and sales. Maybe I could say it a better way.

There's no more individuality. Everyone seems to be copying another. There's no more imagination. All you have to do is yell and whine about how depressing (your)life is and an album sells like wildfire.

I mean, there's no more diversity. You could tell the difference between the Misfits and Nirvana. Two different styles, one focusing on darker or simpler subjects:

Attitude
You got a fuckin' attitude

Inside that bitter brain
There's gotta be a whore
If you don't shut your mouth
You'll be feeling fuckin' floor bitch

and the one on melancholy:

I will never bother you
I will never promise to
I will never follow you
I will never bother you

Never speak a word again
I will crawl away for good

And one of them did.

There's no more genuinity in punk. It's all posers now. The fans aren't helping, either.
_________________
Not all who wander are lost.
"The separation between spirit and logic is reasonable because spirit is defined by faith and logic forces others to think about what they have faith in."

[fallenangel]

To be fair, this trend isn't [i]that[/i] old. Since around '94. Hell, by '92 everyone was about ready to strangle any band that still dared to touch a pair of spandex 'cause the scene was bloated. 12 years of the same bands, as talented as most were and more genuine than today's pop crap, it was boring. The pop trend (boybands, Britney, Christina) got old and has since more or less died off (their concert figures are terrible). This punk thing will kill itself off soon enough.

The problem isn't that every band is copying, all bands copy. But they're copying the wrong things. They're copying Nirvana without anything worth saying. They're copying the bands that rebelled against the overdone glam music, but what do these current groups have to rebel against? There weren't 10 years of image and guitar virtuosos before them, there were boybands and grunge. La di fuckin' da, what a rebel.

And with the current state of "money over music" when it comes to signing groups, it doesn't look to get any better no matter what the next trend is. It's too easy for a label to sign a bunch of 17-year-old brats that will do whatever they say just to make one record and be forgotten. <_<
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

Actually, the trend has been around for a nice long time, but the ones who followed the trend became classics. Most of the bands from England after the Beatles were inspired by the Beatles to make it.

They did. The Stones and The Monkees, both. Plus, numerous other bands around the world.

Punk will kill itself, but then something else will take over. More rapping in rock.

All bands copy? Not necessarily. Originality has sprung in a few bands. Red Hot Chili Peppers used funk bass and guitar with upbeat vocals for the first time. Jimi Hendrix created the Metal genre with his playing. Based of basic inspirations, but not copying.

If you meant the newer stuff, then, yeah. Nirvana was good band because the lyrics actually meant something, and the guitar finally got good in Kurt's final recording. The end of "You Know You're Right" was more complicated than anything else Kurt wrote. Actually had a complicated solo(effects and it was faster).

I'm not sure if they're copying Nirvana anymore. In fact, I don't think that's the deal anymore at all. It's these people, mainly:

Misfits
blink-182 (b. 1992)

Misfits is only powerchords. blink-182 heard one concert(not Nirvana, amazingly) and picked up their instruments the next day. Made it big.

No idea how to look at it anymore. I've seen maybe 2 punk bands that actually were punk. Soundgarden and Nirvana. Maybe Green Day. Not likely, however.

Avril spawned the whining s**t, though. There was an automatic boom of whining punk poppers after "Let Go" was released. The newer stuff is basically male Avril.




_________________
Not all who wander are lost.
"The separation between spirit and logic is reasonable because spirit is defined by faith and logic forces others to think about what they have faith in."

[fallenangel]

Various clarifications:

When I said "this trend isn't that old", I mean the trend of DIY punk/pop bands with no talent. "This trend" referring to a specific breed of group, same as boybands, hair bands, metal bands, etc. Whatever the flavor of the moment is. Punk died, hair bands burned out, grunge killed itself, it's only a matter of time before DIY Punk-Pop gets too bloated and something else takes over. Will that something be good? Probably not, as I said in the last paragraph of my post up above.

As for "all bands copy", they do. Perhaps not as blatantly as some of the more current groups, but without Hanoi Rocks there would have been no Guns n' Roses. They took what Hanoi was doing (hard rock and punk with a glam image) and ran with it. They were extremely glam in the very beginning then turned away from that and got a more ballsy image that fit their tunes. But they took the Hanoi formula and made it work in their own way, earning the success Hanoi should have. I don't mean all bands look at another and say "I'm gonna do that", but every single one is influenced by others. They take parts they like and put them together. What I was saying is these current pop-punk groups are looking at the wrong people.

They're looking at Nirvana and the other "simple" groups and thinking "wow, that's so cool, I can do that" because it's easy. You don't have to be Eddie Van Halen or Joe Perry to play Smells Like Teen Spirit. The problem is they're just recreating a sub-par knockoff that's no longer relevant. Nirvana was so huge and influential because they followed 12 years of glitter and spandex and complex tunes with great production and huge stage shows. They proved you can write a groundbreaking song without all that. But these current bands aren't rebelling against that and aren't proving anything. Their music has no purpose other than being uselessly simple and empty.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

[quote="fallenangel (fallen)"] 1. When I said "this trend isn't that old", I mean the trend of DIY punk/pop bands with no talent.

2. As for "all bands copy", they do. Perhaps not as blatantly as some of the more current groups, but without Hanoi Rocks there would have been no Guns n' Roses. They took what Hanoi was doing (hard rock and punk with a glam image) and ran with it. They were extremely glam in the very beginning then turned away from that and got a more ballsy image that fit their tunes. But they took the Hanoi formula and made it work in their own way, earning the success Hanoi should have. I don't mean all bands look at another and say "I'm gonna do that", but every single one is influenced by others. They take parts they like and put them together. What I was saying is these current pop-punk groups are looking at the wrong people.

3. You don't have to be Eddie Van Halen or Joe Perry to play Smells Like Teen Spirit. [/quote]
1. Understood.

2. Again, I'm not sure. You can trace them all back to a specific origin. But that origin in itself is the original. Looking back, I don't believe that Buddy Holly and the Crickets copied anyone. They were among the first to use a basic rock(as we know it) style. All the modern groups have taken influence from earlier generations of rockers, but the earlier generation came up with the style.

3. I would love to hear either one of them give that song a better solo. It would be a very interesting touch to that song.

Note: I can see how people have copied the Beatles by using feedback, but the Beatles came up with the idea. The Beatles also had their own unique style of rock unheard of in the world, which is why they became so popular.

If I'm confused, I must apologize. I'm a little out of it today. Hell, more than a little. I fuckin' hate Zyrtec....
_________________
Not all who wander are lost.
"The separation between spirit and logic is reasonable because spirit is defined by faith and logic forces others to think about what they have faith in."

[fallenangel]

But they all copied [i]something[/i]. Of course it had to start somewhere, but they were all inspired to pick up an instrument from someone, and none of them started creating amazing original works the instant they did. They had to have heard someone else play and think "I want to do that...". What I'm saying is (or trying to say), is that everyone is inspired to start playing by someone else... Hell, Ozzy was inpsired by the Beatles, and we all know how similar they are. He wanted to be like the Beatles and ended up in a completely different direction, but he [i]started[/i] by aspiring to be them. These new groups aren't aspiring to be The Beatles or Van Halen, they're trying to be Nirvana and Soundgarden n' all that. But they're missing the purpose of those bands, thus what they're doing is worthless. And without the experience of "trying to make it" and playing the club circuit and actually having to come up with a following, they're being signed so young before they even have a chance to develop into anything else but a knockoff.

Am I still making sense? I don't know anymore... :wacko:
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

Oh, you're making plenty of sense. I'm just glad to finally have a little discussion here where we don't see eye to eye. We agree too much for my liking. ^_^

And it true that [i]everyone[/i] is inspired by someone else, but it doesn't mean you copy their styles. If it's okay to use me as an example......

My inspiration include:

Saul Hudson
Tom Morello
Jaco Pastorius
John Fruciante
Jimi Hendrix
B.B. King
Kurt Cobain
Van Halen
George Harrison
Keith Richards
Michael McKagan
Flea

In those people, you'll find:

Metal
Punk
Hard rock
Jazz
Soft jazz
Fast jazz
Classic rock
Funk bass

My playing doesn't seem to be similar to any of those. It's...weird. It doesn't seem to have any jazz influence, and Slash is completely different in style. I don't use effects like Tom Morello, and my bass will only sound like funk if I play funk in jazz band. It doesn't sound like the Beatles, as it's hard rock. Neither does my guitar.

They inspired me, hardcore. But my style doesn't sound like a single one of them, and I haven't copied any of them yet. My solos are nowhere as awesome as Slash's or Van Halen's, I just move as fast as I can to the beat. My verses aren't like anything I've heard.

I sound terrible if I'm playing any of them, as well, compared to the other's I know. Except for the intro to "Sweet Child O' Mine".

That strayed from copying. I'm sorry. I guess what I was trying to say was that the style I try to play doesn't sound like anyone I ever heard, so I don't know who I could have copied from. I just sound like....me.

Now, THAT is more confusing than what you wrote. :wacko:
_________________
Not all who wander are lost.
"The separation between spirit and logic is reasonable because spirit is defined by faith and logic forces others to think about what they have faith in."

[fallenangel]

But you [i]can[/i] and [i]do[/i] play songs by them, don't you? Nirvana, Guns, RHCP, whatever... And perhaps your sound isn't like any one of them, but I'm sure (perhaps without even realizing it) that you fuse things you admire about each of them into your performance. A certain energy of so-n-so or the particular "style" of what's his name. I'm not saying groups blatantly copy (good ones), not at all. The Hanoi Rocks/Guns n' Roses example I gave, listen to them back to back and they sound nothing alike. But Axl took what Hanoi was doing, just the idea of it and the ballsy style, and applied it to his original vision. Bands that outright copy another are boring and what cause a scene to become bloated and old.

And what I was trying to say before isn't that bands try to be exactly like their influences. Who would really want to be a cheap imitation of their idol? But they want to achieve what that person did in their own way with their own music. The people who look up to The Beatles and Van Halen and Black Sabbath etc. etc. etc. all aspire to be legendary virtuosos with great skills and something "special". The problem as I see it is these newer groups who are instead looking up to legends like Nirvana and lacking the "special" part. You can't be another Nirvana, you can't even [i]do[/i] what grunge bands did right now because it's no longer relevant. The whole purpose and statement is gone. So these kids, instead of trying to be as great as Eddie VH and come up with something amazing, are looking at how "cool" Kurt still is and trying to be that. But without the context of the whole grunge scene, it's just talentless crap.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

[quote="fallenangel (fallen)"] But you [i]can[/i] and [i]do[/i] play songs by them, don't you? [/quote]
Sometimes, but not constantly. I see them as inspirations, but I try not to copy them. In fact, I've done my best to not copy them because I'd like to have my own unique style.

I see "copying" as [i]directly[/i] impersonating a style made famous by someone else. I don't mean by appearence, however. I mean as in guitar and lyrics. I mean, Linkin Park has a song where they've copied Rage Against the Machine's guitar in a certain part. They took it, decided to play it at a few octaves above, and made it famous. It's just like it.

I hope I have not confused you again.
_________________
Not all who wander are lost.
"The separation between spirit and logic is reasonable because spirit is defined by faith and logic forces others to think about what they have faith in."

[fallenangel]

I get it, and that is copying, but an extreme case of it. I more refer to that as "ripping" or "stealing". Like people who take art and post it as their own, vs someone who looks at another picture and draws it themself (the more changes the better, either only similar in style, subject matter, or completely reproducing the picture with their unique twists). Vanilla Ice taking the Under Pressure riff, Poison stole a few of their biggest riffs/melodies, there's lots of cases where it happens. But I don't consider it "copying", just stealing.

The issue isn't whether or not bands copy, by the way. I believe the point originally was that these newer bands suck because of who they're looking up to and trying to be. 99.9% of the great artists are not entirely original (I left the .1% for your supposed margin of those who are). They're all influenced and inspired by others and incorporate that into their work. The other point I was trying to make with the "all bands copy" bit was that almost all bands/musicians start out by playing other people's songs and generally continue to play other people's songs for fun. Then they expand beyond that and develop their own personal style. But these newer pop punk kids aren't expanding beyond the easily digested mallrat crap. They play a few simple riffs and never move beyond that.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall