Do I like any of the mainstream music in America today? Absolutely not. It all sounds and looks the same to me.

[quote="Thinliine"]It would be nice if American bands would take a cue from late-80s/early 90s bands that had good musicianship[/quote]
Isn't that what most bands are doing now though? In my opinion, I think that bands should try to be as original as possible, instead of trying to imitate/rehash something that has already been done (unfortunately, the only thing mainstream/major label bands really care about is money)...

[quote]Hey, what's wrong with glam rock? Hell, that's what rock is all about. [/quote]
What? Mediocre artists with long hair, drugs, and money?

[quote="htdcmsg"]Isn't that what most bands are doing now though? In my opinion, I think that bands should try to be as original as possible, instead of trying to imitate/rehash something that has already been done (unfortunately, the only thing mainstream/major label bands really care about is money)...[/quote]

I disagree here. I think most bands do the job because they like music, but duh they try to make a living at it. They want to make good music that they think people will like. If you don't like it, find a different band. Originality? Musicianship is a dignified practice of ripping off everybody who came before you and changing it up slightly. We've been doing that since before fucking Bach, my friend.

There are some good bands in the US for sure, but I find more bands that appeal to me from Japan, for whatever reason.

superior, glorious nippon ^__^v, kudesai~, etc.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="clouds"]ANd worse yet, we've moved into the glamor of the 80s.[/quote]

Hey, what's wrong with glam rock? Hell, that's what rock is all about.

[quote="clouds"]However, both Japan and America seem to be unable to stop rehashing the music of the last 50 years.[/quote]

Isn't this exactly what all bands have been doing ever since the dawn of music?



[quote="Thinliine"]Sure there are plenty of fake indie bands.[/quote]

I can't see how you can have a "fake" version of something that doesn't mean anything. I mean, "indie" is a pointless word whose only implication is that the band is not signed to a major record label. Mind you, that means 99.99% of all bands in existence. Most of these bands attempt to emulate bands that are signed to major record labels. Therefore, it's all the same, and there is no stylistic line between "indie" and "not-indie." Indie is nothing.[/quote]

a) that better be sarcasm

b) If that was the case we wouldn't have new genres of music.

c) stop arguing for the sake of arguing you idiot.

[quote="htdcmsg"]
[quote]Hey, what's wrong with glam rock? Hell, that's what rock is all about. [/quote]
What? Mediocre artists with long hair, drugs, and money?[/quote]

That's kind of misinformed. Actually, it's incredibly misinformed.

Mediocre artists? Are you kidding me? First of all, the 80's was the setting for some of the largest strides in technical proficiency in rock music over the past 60 years. Secondly, some of the most impactful and tasteful music of the modern era was created by glam rock artists - Alice Cooper, David Bowie, Elton John, Lou Reed, KISS, Queen, T. Rex, etc. I mean, fuck, to say what you said, you quite possibly have to know absolutely nothing about music or music history.

Finally, long hair, drugs, and money are irrelevant. After all, some of the greatest artists to ever exist had all three in abundance.

[quote="clouds"]-snip-[/quote]

a) See above.

b) That's not true. All new genres of music simply build upon old ones.

c) It may be ridiculous, but when I'm right, I'm right. <insert gratuitous insult>.

[quote="Marekenshin"]We've been doing that since before fucking Bach, my friend.[/quote]
I know that. At least Beethoven, Chopin, and Mozart maintained a sense of originality though... I'm not saying that all bands have to be completely different from each other (that would be impossible), but they should at least try to stand out from other bands.

And you're wrong about bands just trying to make a living. I'm sure any band would love to be paid for playing their music (i'm talking about bands that aren't signed to a label). I would think that the most important thing though for any band is just getting your music heard (which is hard enough if you're not signed to a label).

To say that mainstream bands though (all of the bands that you see if you turned your TV to MTV; or any other popular music channel right now) are just "trying to make a living" is ridiculous.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]Finally, long hair, drugs, and money are irrelevant. After all, some of the greatest artists to ever exist had all three in abundance.[/quote]
Opinion.

[quote]First of all, the 80's was the setting for some of the largest strides in technical proficiency in rock music over the past 60 years.[/quote]
How unfortunate.

I never said they were "just trying to make a living." Let's see. Suppose you were in a very successful band and had boatloads of money. You get used to living rich. You'd want to keep that up, right? I'm sure you'd try to make music that would help you continue in that path. You're misreading what I was saying. I was talking about these mainstream successful bands everybody's bitching about.

Also, I hate when people try to call "indie" a genre. Indie = not signed to major record label. There's likely more shitty bands on Indie labels than not, just like major labels. Jesus.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]
Mediocre artists? Are you kidding me? First of all, the 80's was the setting for some of the largest strides in technical proficiency in rock music over the past 60 years. Secondly, some of the most impactful and tasteful music of the modern era was created by glam rock artists - Alice Cooper, David Bowie, Elton John, Lou Reed, KISS, Queen, T. Rex, etc. I mean, fuck, to say what you said, you quite possibly have to know absolutely nothing about music or music history.

Finally, long hair, drugs, and money are irrelevant. After all, some of the greatest artists to ever exist had all three in abundance.

[quote="clouds"]-snip-[/quote]

a) See above.

b) That's not true. All new genres of music simply build upon old ones.

c) It may be ridiculous, but when I'm right, I'm right. <insert gratuitous insult>.[/quote]

a) the overuse of the electric drum was pretty horrible in the 80s D: also most of the bands you named aren't glam rock, even if they wore makeup.

b) I don't there's a single source all genres came from.

c) Your generalizations and lack of taste win you nothing.

[quote="clouds"]LOL IM INDIE AND UR NOT[/quote]

[quote="htdcmsg"]
[quote="sheerheartattack"]Finally, long hair, drugs, and money are irrelevant. After all, some of the greatest artists to ever exist had all three in abundance.[/quote]
Opinion.

[quote]First of all, the 80's was the setting for some of the largest strides in technical proficiency in rock music over the past 60 years.[/quote]
How unfortunate.[/quote]

Check out the guy who uses nothing to backup his opinions, while simultaneously being owned with proper debate skills.

[quote]First of all, the 80's was the setting for some of the largest strides in technical proficiency in rock music over the past 60 years.[/quote]
Every generation makes equal strides.

Also, when did rock music start? The 50's. I think that the 70's and 60's were pretty fruitful when it came to technological advancements... The 80's just capitalized on the technology that really began, albeit with baby steps, in the late 60's and 70's.

And

[quote]stop arguing for the sake of arguing[/quote]

Please shut up. Great. YOu're on the debate team at your high school and plan to be a politician. Great. Arguing for the sake of arguing is really great.

[quote="htdcmsg"][quote]First of all, the 80's was the setting for some of the largest strides in technical proficiency in rock music over the past 60 years.[/quote]
Every generation makes equal strides.

Also, when did rock music start? The 50's. I think that the 70's and 60's were pretty fruitful when it came to technological advancements... The 80's just capitalized on the technology that really began, albeit with baby steps, in the late 60's and 70's.
[/quote]

DON'T FORGET ELECTRIC DRUNMS LOOLLLL

[quote="clouds"][quote="sheerheartattack"]
Mediocre artists? Are you kidding me? First of all, the 80's was the setting for some of the largest strides in technical proficiency in rock music over the past 60 years. Secondly, some of the most impactful and tasteful music of the modern era was created by glam rock artists - Alice Cooper, David Bowie, Elton John, Lou Reed, KISS, Queen, T. Rex, etc. I mean, fuck, to say what you said, you quite possibly have to know absolutely nothing about music or music history.

Finally, long hair, drugs, and money are irrelevant. After all, some of the greatest artists to ever exist had all three in abundance.

[quote="clouds"]-snip-[/quote]

a) See above.

b) That's not true. All new genres of music simply build upon old ones.

c) It may be ridiculous, but when I'm right, I'm right. <insert gratuitous insult>.[/quote]

a) the overuse of the electric drum was pretty horrible in the 80s D: also most of the bands you named aren't glam rock, even if they wore makeup.

b) I don't there's a single source all genres came from.

c) Your generalizations and lack of taste win you nothing.[/quote]

a) So the bands I named, who DEFINED glam rock, are not glam rock artists? I'd stop now, before you make a fool of yourself. And just because you don't like a particular instrument, such as electric drums, doesn't make it distasteful or bad. I don't like oboes, but I don't think that classical music is horrible for using them so much. And holy shit, what's with the excessive use of the guitar in rock music?

b) Right, I'm sure music started somewhere ridiculously simple, and built up from there. But that's what it did - it built, it evolved, from the ground up over a long period of time.

c) What? You not only fail to make sense, but you alarmingly fail to make a point as well.

Edit: As you continue to talk, it becomes increasingly obvious that you utterly fail at music, discussion, and debate, clouds.

[quote="htdcmsg"][quote]First of all, the 80's was the setting for some of the largest strides in technical proficiency in rock music over the past 60 years.[/quote]
Every generation makes equal strides.

Also, when did rock music start? The 50's. I think that the 70's and 60's were pretty fruitful when it came to technological advancements... The 80's just capitalized on the technology that really began, albeit with baby steps, in the late 60's and 70's.[/quote]

[b]Wow[/b], you fail so much here. Technique =/= Technology. Idiot.

[quote="htdcmsg"]
And

[quote]stop arguing for the sake of arguing[/quote][/quote]

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm arguing for the sake of being surrounded by fucking morons.