They'd better start getting some lessons then. Idiots.

You won't knock them off their pedestals writing crap like:

Are we human or are we dancer?

Don't really care for the band, but I applaud their attitude tremendously. Out with the dinosaurs, in with the new. If you can rock hard enough, that is

DNRTFA but they don't say Led and Nirvana are shiatty bands, just that their influence has been constrictive. Big deal. Nothing to see here.

With Nirvana, go ahead. They were spectacularly overrated anyway.

But Zeppelin? Fark you, you pansies.

tnpir: With Nirvana, go ahead. They were spectacularly overrated anyway.

But Zeppelin? Fark you, you pansies.

So much THIS in THIS

How is what some other band did in the past constrictive to current bands?

Killers? Should have named themselves The Pussies.

Zeppelin and Nirvana aren't even remotely comparable.

"So well received" in Britain, eh? I'd like to see them make the same sort of statement about the Beatles or the Stones. They'd be burned at the stake...

"There are a lot of great bands weak pieces of shyte that have been held down or confined by the influence of these people"

fix #1

"There are a lot of great bands that have been held down or confined inspired and raised to new heights by the influence of these people"

fix # 2

whatever you choose to make of it...

I give them kudos for trying to knock giants off their pedestals and get people to quit looking at the past. That said, The Killers are farking terrible.

Rye_: You won't knock them off their pedestals writing crap like:

Are we human or are we dancer?

I love their stuff, but I just don't get this lyric. I liked it better when I thought it was "Are we human, or are we denser?"

mattharvest:
I love their stuff, but I just don't get this lyric. I liked it better when I thought it was "Are we human, or are we denser?"

I like to think of it as Dancer the reindeer. Whole different song.

Dogbeast: Not to defend anyone (lest I ruin my precious street cred), but the guy has a point - you guys are rubbish with new bands. That's why they have to come to the UK or Japan to get noticed, and then, when they're sufficiently popular, you jump on the bandwagon.

Case in point - Kings of Leon. Although they were indie darlings over in North America, they had to explode outside the US in order get recognition.

The US has terrible taste in music (look at the billboard top 20 for proof), but it's really no worse in other countries. All countries have stupid people that listen to stupid music.

The problem is that the US isn't willing to embrace anything new or different as easily as you can in the UK.

As for the Killers. Hot Fuzz was brilliant. Sam's Town sucked (except for When You Were Young - great single), and this album is like a giant polished turd.

"Somebody told me that you had a boyfriend that looked like a girlfriend that i had in february of last year"

The name of the band is actually pertinent. They kill my interest in listening to their shiatty music.

is this thread where we're posting the same thing in the duplicate thread?

Beatle_Matt: Dogbeast: Not to defend anyone (lest I ruin my precious street cred), but the guy has a point - you guys are rubbish with new bands. That's why they have to come to the UK or Japan to get noticed, and then, when they're sufficiently popular, you jump on the bandwagon.

And yet, we have the common sense to ignore massively popular overseas shiate like Travis and Robbie Williams.

(And before you get all foamy at the mouth, chill...I'm joking)

Case in point - Kings of Leon. Although they were indie darlings over in North America, they had to explode outside the US in order get recognition.

I don't know about that. I love music, and my GF loves KOL. We went to see them 2 nights ago. They weren't bad, but they certainly weren't memorable. No really bad songs, no really great songs, and most of the stuff sounded very very similar. Even my GF, who *loves* them and knows their stuff alot better than I do, kept asking 'haven't they already played this song?'

The US has terrible taste in music (look at the billboard top 20 for proof), but it's really no worse in other countries. All countries have stupid people that listen to stupid music.

The problem is that the US isn't willing to embrace anything new or different as easily as you can in the UK.

I'll kind of buy those two arguments. But the US is vastly larger than the UK, too. I'd be willing to bet there are far more people in the US willing to embrace the new and different than there are in the UK. It might be more valid to compare the NE corridor or CA with the UK than the whole US. After all, we ARE burdened with the country-loving flyover states (apologies to Austin, TX, which rocks)

Is this the Nickleback appreciation thread?

Srsly. Shut the fark up about Led Zepplin until kids are downloading your music 40 years after you wrote it.

/Nirvana however, would have fizzled out if Cobain hadn't offed himself.

whistleridge: I'll kind of buy those two arguments. But the US is vastly larger than the UK, too. I'd be willing to bet there are far more people in the US willing to embrace the new and different than there are in the UK.

but that doesn't really argue against the fact that the UK seems to have more variety in what is popular. Granted, the UK gets some rancid shiat in their pop charts, as does the US, but there's plenty of stuff that charts there that is more or less a cult act here.

I would suggest that saying you're going to knock Led Zeppelin and Nirvana off their pedestals pretty much guarantees that it will never happen.

"You tell 'em!"

whistleridge:
(And before you get all foamy at the mouth, chill...I'm joking)


I don't know about that. I love music, and my GF loves KOL. We went to see them 2 nights ago. They weren't bad, but they certainly weren't memorable. No really bad songs, no really great songs, and most of the stuff sounded very very similar. Even my GF, who *loves* them and knows their stuff alot better than I do, kept asking 'haven't they already played this song?'


LOL

I wasn't gonna foam at the mouth! I knew you were kiddin' :)

Two things:
1) Austin is like an oasis in a massive desert. I love that friggin city. I've only been once, but if I could live there I would in a heartbeat (ever been to the Ocktoberfest in Gruene?)

2) KOL are a VERY same-y band. Every song sounds like the last one...it's better than alot that is out there right now - which is unfortunate. We're in dire need of another musical "revolution" - a la 1992 or '77

Beatle_Matt: LOL

I wasn't gonna foam at the mouth! I knew you were kiddin' :)

Well...this IS Fark, so you can never be too careful.


Two things:
1) Austin is like an oasis in a massive desert. I love that friggin city. I've only been once, but if I could live there I would in a heartbeat (ever been to the Ocktoberfest in Gruene?)

2) KOL are a VERY same-y band. Every song sounds like the last one...it's better than alot that is out there right now - which is unfortunate. We're in dire need of another musical "revolution" - a la 1992 or '77

Austin is an oasis in a massive desert for a lot of things. And yes, Oktoberfest in Gruene is a thing of beauty.

And yes, we desperately need another 1992. Not a reinvention of that time, but something fresh and original. I remember when every week brought some awesome new band coming out with a killer album, and rock stations were popping up all over the place.

These days, you either have shiatty faux-rock like Nickelback, indie-darling-but-not-generation-defining rock like KOL, or great-back-in-the-day-and-cruising-on-autopilot like RHCP, STP, Foo Fighters, U2 or what have you (if any of those could be said to have been 'great'...debatable). A few acts continue to put out good material (Radiohead comes to mind), but they're not a new phenomemon. We need new.

I blame my generation (graduated HS in '96)...we had such awesome music growing up that we never needed to learn how to make any for ourselves. Alas.

whistleridge: Beatle_Matt: LOL

I wasn't gonna foam at the mouth! I knew you were kiddin' :)

Well...this IS Fark, so you can never be too careful.


Two things:
1) Austin is like an oasis in a massive desert. I love that friggin city. I've only been once, but if I could live there I would in a heartbeat (ever been to the Ocktoberfest in Gruene?)

2) KOL are a VERY same-y band. Every song sounds like the last one...it's better than alot that is out there right now - which is unfortunate. We're in dire need of another musical "revolution" - a la 1992 or '77

Austin is an oasis in a massive desert for a lot of things. And yes, Oktoberfest in Gruene is a thing of beauty.

And yes, we desperately need another 1992. Not a reinvention of that time, but something fresh and original. I remember when every week brought some awesome new band coming out with a killer album, and rock stations were popping up all over the place.

These days, you either have shiatty faux-rock like Nickelback, indie-darling-but-not-generation-defining rock like KOL, or great-back-in-the-day-and-cruising-on-autopilot like RHCP, STP, Foo Fighters, U2 or what have you (if any of those could be said to have been 'great'...debatable). A few acts continue to put out good material (Radiohead comes to mind), but they're not a new phenomemon. We need new.

I blame my generation (graduated HS in '96)...we had such awesome music growing up that we never needed to learn how to make any for ourselves. Alas.

Sad innit?

There's a couple of bands I'm really getting into now that are doing it for me like Glasvegas and Kasabian - but there's a lot of indie bands out there that are completely interchangeable - the disco/"4 on the floor" beat and tinny guitars. Good songs, but nothing original....

whistleridge: And yes, we desperately need another 1992. Not a reinvention of that time, but something fresh and original. I remember when every week brought some awesome new band coming out with a killer album, and rock stations were popping up all over the place.

I don't really see it happening. As much as I loved the early 90s, (if not for the music, the attitude towards music) I think the industry is completely different now. I think music downloading will make bands that would've been completely obscure a few years ago enjoy at least a little bit of success. (i.e. TV on the Radio, Sigur Ros, Arcade Fire, etc.) I don't think we'll get any monster-sellers like Ten or Nevermind, but we'll get plenty of Last Splashes, Sailing the Sea of Cheese, Ænima, etc.

FeedTheCollapse: whistleridge: And yes, we desperately need another 1992. Not a reinvention of that time, but something fresh and original. I remember when every week brought some awesome new band coming out with a killer album, and rock stations were popping up all over the place.

I don't really see it happening. As much as I loved the early 90s, (if not for the music, the attitude towards music) I think the industry is completely different now. I think music downloading will make bands that would've been completely obscure a few years ago enjoy at least a little bit of success. (i.e. TV on the Radio, Sigur Ros, Arcade Fire, etc.) I don't think we'll get any monster-sellers like Ten or Nevermind, but we'll get plenty of Last Splashes, Sailing the Sea of Cheese, Ænima, etc.

Saying we need another "1992" - I don't mean a return to the genre that we saw. We need another unknown band (or well known band - whatever) come out with a groundbreaking, earth-shattering popular album that changes everything that comes after it...

I think the industry has changed, but I don't think we've seen the end of big, multi-million selling albums. It's just that music right now is mostly garbage, so people aren't buying. I think I just got off-topic....

Sam's Town is better than the entire Nirvana Catalogue put together.

mattharvest: I love their stuff, but I just don't get this lyric. I liked it better when I thought it was "Are we human, or are we denser?"

It's a reference to Hunter S. Thompson saying that Americans were raising a "generation of dancers".

As for 1992...What people seem to not understand is that there were actually *two* revolutions going on at the same time.

On the one hand, you had the actual "indie" revolution - Nirvana, Sonic Youth, Jane's Addiction, Primus, etc - that were taking music to places that were completely away from the world that we knew beforehand.

On the other hand, you had Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, STP, all of whom were basically improving on what was established. They were the more "mainstream" side of the coin, and I think they had more influence in the long run than Nirvana & Co could ever have, simply because the "indie" idea is just that - independent of the music mainstream.

Just because you can put out a Nevermind, or Experimental Jet Set, or Ritual de lo Habitual, or Sailing the Seas of Cheese, doesn't mean that everyone is going to accept it. And while there is always going to be an audience for it in the open-minded crowd, that doesn't mean that it should be the ideal.

If someone is confined by their influences, that's their problem, not the problem of the influences.

FriarReb98: On the one hand, you had the actual "indie" revolution - Nirvana, Sonic Youth, Jane's Addiction, Primus, etc - that were taking music to places that were completely away from the world that we knew beforehand.

That wasn't the "indie revolution", that was the Alternative movement. Of which Nirvana is not part of, as Nirvana was a part of

FriarReb98: On the other hand, you had Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, STP,

The Grunge sound, of which STP wasn't part of, but rather part of the Alternative Sound.

Also, how can you talk about early 90s defining band and not mention The Smashing Pumpkins?

Beatle_Matt: Saying we need another "1992" - I don't mean a return to the genre that we saw. We need another unknown band (or well known band - whatever) come out with a groundbreaking, earth-shattering popular album that changes everything that comes after it...

that's what I was saying. Except I don't see one big band doing so, or even a series of bands. I think the days of the megasellers is over. In its place is bands bubbling up to the top. I think the time is ripe for someone to come out of nowhere and blow the hell out of the mainstream, but I don't think it will come to that.

I can't believe people seriously called Sonic Youth or Jane's Addiction "indie".fark me, indie in the early 90s was Guided by farking Voices, it was Pavement, it was Yo La Tengo, it was Superchunk, it was Built to Spill, it was Liz Phair, it was farking Built to Spill.

Tatsuma: I can't believe people seriously called Sonic Youth or Jane's Addiction "indie".fark me, indie in the early 90s was Guided by farking Voices, it was Pavement, it was Yo La Tengo, it was Superchunk, it was Built to Spill, it was Liz Phair, it was farking Built to Spill.

I think they were referencing bands who came form the indie circles up into the mainstream. The bands you listed were definitely 90s indie, but Sonic Youth, et al. were 80s Indie, which became "Alternative".

FeedTheCollapse: I think they were referencing bands who came form the indie circles up into the mainstream. The bands you listed were definitely 90s indie, but Sonic Youth, et al. were 80s Indie, which became "Alternative".

... but they were never indie! Unless we say that "indie" means "band who hasn't become popular yet".

FriarReb98: As for 1992...What people seem to not understand is that there were actually *two* revolutions going on at the same time.

On the one hand, you had the actual "indie" revolution - Nirvana, Sonic Youth, Jane's Addiction, Primus, etc - that were taking music to places that were completely away from the world that we knew beforehand.

On the other hand, you had Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, STP, all of whom were basically improving on what was established. They were the more "mainstream" side of the coin, and I think they had more influence in the long run than Nirvana & Co could ever have, simply because the "indie" idea is just that - independent of the music mainstream.

Just because you can put out a Nevermind, or Experimental Jet Set, or Ritual de lo Habitual, or Sailing the Seas of Cheese, doesn't mean that everyone is going to accept it. And while there is always going to be an audience for it in the open-minded crowd, that doesn't mean that it should be the ideal.

Technically 3 now that you mention it! There was the "Britpop" explosion as well. Oasis, Blur, Pulp, et. al.

Tatsuma: ... but they were never indie! Unless we say that "indie" means "band who hasn't become popular yet".



Sonic Youth certainly was, at least before DGC. Jane's Addiction is debatable, though.



Beatle_Matt: Technically 3 now that you mention it! There was the "Britpop" explosion as well. Oasis, Blur, Pulp, et. al.

in England, yes. Not until about 1995 or so in America.

FeedTheCollapse: Beatle_Matt: Saying we need another "1992" - I don't mean a return to the genre that we saw. We need another unknown band (or well known band - whatever) come out with a groundbreaking, earth-shattering popular album that changes everything that comes after it...

that's what I was saying. Except I don't see one big band doing so, or even a series of bands. I think the days of the megasellers is over. In its place is bands bubbling up to the top. I think the time is ripe for someone to come out of nowhere and blow the hell out of the mainstream, but I don't think it will come to that.

We're in a kind of "wasteland" where I don't think anyone really knows the best way to do make money or sell a ton of albums in the music biz. Now that you can download an album for free, you have to be really smart.

Special Edition sets of albums? CD + DVD's? Book inserts? The Radiohead "pay what you want" option, but if you spend x amount of dollars you get the CD plus plus plus?

Beatle_Matt: Technically 3 now that you mention it! There was the "Britpop" explosion as well. Oasis, Blur, Pulp, et. al.

Yeah, that would be the three main "revolutions" of rock during the 90s. In order of importance when it comes to the History of Music, I'd say it goes

- Alternative
- Britpop
- Grunge

As ubiquitous as grunge was back then, it deserves to stay in the bottom of the closet next to flannel shirts and acid wash jeans.

FeedTheCollapse: Sonic Youth certainly was, at least before DGC. Jane's Addiction is debatable, though.

Nope.

Sonic youth was noise rock, or experimental rock, or college rock. It was not indie rock.

Tatsuma: As ubiquitous as grunge was back then, it deserves to stay in the bottom of the closet next to flannel shirts and acid wash jeans.

I would couple grunge with the alternative movement as both had roots in punk. The Grunge movement came first, but the Alternative movement was its real legacy.

Tatsuma: Sonic youth was noise rock, or experimental rock, or college rock. It was not indie rock.

oh god, you're one of those people who think indie has a predetermined sound...

A wee bit pretentious, aren't we, laddie?

Rye_: You won't knock them off their pedestals writing crap like:

Are we human or are we dancer?

No truer words. I mean, it's a good song, but it's not "knock-Led-Zeppelin-off-their-pedestal" good. Not even f*cking close.

Oh, and PS:



/flame on!

tnpir: With Nirvana, go ahead. They were spectacularly overrated anyway.

But Zeppelin? Fark you, you pansies.

At least Nirvana wrote most of their own songs instead of stealing them from other artists of their time.

/loves both Led and Nirvana

FeedTheCollapse: I would couple grunge with the alternative movement as both had roots in punk. The Grunge movement came first, but the Alternative movement was its real legacy.

What? Alternative had its root in College Rock, and College Rokc had its root in Post-Punk. To link alternative with punk, we're playing Six Degrees of Separation here. And 6DoIT was a shiatty album, too, while we're at it.

Bands like Echo & The Bunnymen, early R.E.M., Dead Milkmen, They Might Be Giants, The Replacements, those are the kind of bands who led the way to alternative.

I'd agree that grunge was much more influenced by seattle-area punk, though I'd still say post-Punk played an important part of it as well.

FeedTheCollapse: oh god, you're one of those people who think indie has a predetermined sound...

I certainly know that Sonic Youth certainly wasn't early 90s indie rock, yes.

Beatle_Matt: We need another unknown band (or well known band - whatever) come out with a groundbreaking, earth-shattering popular album that changes everything that comes after it...

Say hello to Girl Talk (new window)

Bonus is that it's one guy who is a Biomedical Engineer by day and a rock star by night. Plus he lets you pay whatever you want for his album. You won't be disappointed (unless you hate music)

FeedTheCollapse: I would couple grunge with the alternative movement as both had roots in punk. The Grunge movement came first, but the Alternative movement was its real legacy.

I mean, there is so much stuff wrong with this, I don't know where to start. Not only did Alternative evolved from College Rock, which evolved from Post-Punk, but Alternative arrived on the scene before Grunge, as Grunge was an hybrid between different influences and early Alternative/late College Rock.

absoluteparanoia: Say hello to Girl Talk (new window)

Girl Talk is pretty awesome, but I wouldn't call a giant mashup album "groundbreaking, earth-shattering that changes everything that comes after it".

Tatsuma: I'd agree that grunge was much more influenced by seattle-area punk, though I'd still say post-Punk played an important part of it as well.



....and I would still argue that grunge helped bring Alternative into the mainstream. The Big Labels were picking up alternative bands in the 80s, but they never went anywhere. Nirvana helped put Seattle Grunge on the map, but also showed that said otherwise unmarketable alternative acts could be marketable. You're kidding yourself if you think Nirvana was not at all influenced by the 80s indie and alternative acts and was not responsible for help bringing Alternative to the mainstream.


Tatsuma: I certainly know that Sonic Youth certainly wasn't early 90s indie rock, yes.



in that they were no longer signed to an indie label, yes. What's your point? Either way, much like The Replacements, Husker Du, Dinosaur Jr, etc., Sonic Youth helped pave the way for the 90s alternative bands.