Conference mr1pst::music

    I have to agree in total to your opion of Rock today. Very
    depressing times indeed. I try, I really do try but I don't
    enjoy much of it at all. I don't believe that I'm getting too
    old either as I'm only 33.
    
    However, I do enjoy a number of 'Art Rock' bands immensely.
    Art Rock as defined by "The Rolling Stone History of Rock".
    
    Bands such as Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, Mott The Hoople, Bowie,
    Yes, Genesis, Procol Harum.
    
    I don't think I'll ever tire of listening to Floyd. Even in Sid's
    day they made some wild music.
    
    Jim C.
    

    
    I also agree with your statements.  Music today is strictly a business
    for involved people to make monetary gains.  If someone can make money
    from a band via some gimmick or whatever, then it doesn't matter
    whether or not said band is good or not, it's the money that matters.
    
    When bands like Hendrix, the Doors, and all the other bands of the 
    60's were around, most of them forged _new_ sounds.  They were 
    influenced by others who came before them, but their sound was new 
    and innovative.  They weren't necessarily _incredible_ musicians, but
    they didn't have other bands to listen to who came before them. When
    the Doors came out, whether you liked them or not, they had a really 
    unique sound, nobody at the time was playing anything that sounded 
    like them.  Today, it all sounds the same.  The big differentiating
    factor now seems to be how fast someone can play.  Rock music today 
    has become a vast wasteland with pretty inane lyrics as well.
    
    Gotta run - Lv 
    
    

    I've noticed that hand-in-hand with the comments here is the
    prevalence of "one-cut" releases: you hear the "hit" on WFNX or
    wherever, run out and buy the tape or CD, and then find out that
    the rest of the thing is fluff. Also, alternative rock stations
    seem to have very narrow playlists, so you really have to zip
    around the dial to college stations, specialty shows, and the like
    to hear even a fraction of all the new music that comes out.
    
    My roots are in the 60's and 70's too but I'm always looking ahead
    for new music as well. However, it's tricky. I read a lot more reviews
    now, get tips from friends, buy samplers (just bot a good one from Link
    records with some stuff by O-Positive, 360s, and a few other interesting
    bands) wait for sales, or better yet, wait for the release to appear as 
    a cut-out or used. 
    
    There's still some good rock out there, it's just harder to find.
    
    - Bob 

    
    The bottom line here is a bunch of suits sitting in corporate board
    rooms counting the beans and not paying any attention the music....
    
    Its recycled stuff because suits don't take chances when it come to the
    almighty $$$$$$.....
    
    hornet

    
    	Karl, thank you for saying that about that Chili Peppers
    	song.  That singer is so out of key - it makes me cringe.
    	How could the producer not notice it?!?  How could the
    	record company accept it?  And where would these notes go
    	in a musical staff?!?!?
    
    	Personally, I buy cars where my arm can rest on the emergency
    	brake so my hand aims directly at the SCAN button.  
    
    	Tom
    

    
    Depends on:
    
    Your age.
    
    The music you grew up on.
    
    What kind of music you like in the first place.

    re .7:  Bingo!
    
    The problem is with radio, not the music.  I find more interesting
    music to listen to these days than ever.  (note - I'm mid-30's.)  The base
    note complains about out of key vocalists, but lists The Who, Stooges
    and Cream as the bands he cut his teeth to.  Roger Daltrey was putrid back 
    in those days. Iggy Pop awful.  But I loved their music anyhow.
    
    .3 claims finds that after buying a CD or album based on what he heard
    on the radio, the rest of the CD is lousy.  I find just the opposite to
    be true.  IMO the best music is often that which doesn't get any
    airplay.  Course, I gave up on alternative rock stations because I feel
    most of today's alternative rock is just snob music.  You know, "you
    heard it hear first", "rock the boat radio", etc.
    
    Give me the John Hyatts, Michelle Shockeds, Sam Phillips, Marshall
    Crenshaws, REMS, Elvis Costellos, Pixies, Poi Dog Ponderings  and others 
    of today, and I'll match them up against any era in Rock.  Like .3 said, 
    there's good music out there; you just have to look for it.  You won't 
    find much of it on the radio, though.
    
    Mark.

    I can list the rock singers who are routinely on key on my fingers,
    maybe on one hand. Outside of rock, it's not much better. If I based my
    purchases entirely on perfect pitch, I'd own about 4 albums.
    
    I'll also add that I think that the Red Hot Chili Peppers, who've been
    singled out here for abuse, are a pretty hot band if taken sum total
    and not analyzed to death. After all, it's only rock and roll...
    Their version of "Higher Ground" is a classic.
    
    For those who want to blame radio, you've picked an obvious, but
    incorrect, target. While many bemoan corporate America, I'll remind you
    that it's the appetites of the masses that drive them. As a former
    commercial radio DJ, I would have loved to play some new and interesting
    music, but ended up leaving the business because I got sick of people
    requesting "Freebird" (or any other patently overplayed song).
    
    Further, in radio's defense, each station picks their playlist based on
    the generic "style" that most appeals to the audience (who, indirectly,
    pay the bills). Play something outside the appropriate style, and the
    phone starts ringing off the hook with complaints. Play two songs and
    the phone never rings again.
    
    For you "over 40s" types, I'll remind you that today's music is
    intended to appeal as much to you as the Beatles did to your
    grandmother (or your average grandmother). Just because it's called
    Rock, or pop, or contemporary, doesn't mean it's *your* rock. What you
    hear now is the basis for *today's* rebellion. Forget it baby. Drag out
    your Hendrix records and fire up the black light. You're out of your
    time zone.
    
    Brian

    <<< Note 232.9 by CLIPR::MARKEY "Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging" >>>

>    For those who want to blame radio, you've picked an obvious, but
>    incorrect, target. While many bemoan corporate America, I'll remind you
>    that it's the appetites of the masses that drive them. As a former
>    commercial radio DJ, I would have loved to play some new and interesting
>    music, but ended up leaving the business because I got sick of people
>    requesting "Freebird" (or any other patently overplayed song).
>    
>    Further, in radio's defense, each station picks their playlist based on
>    the generic "style" that most appeals to the audience (who, indirectly,
>    pay the bills). Play something outside the appropriate style, and the
>    phone starts ringing off the hook with complaints. Play two songs and
>    the phone never rings again.
    
    Brian, whether you intended to or not, you basically substantiated what
    I'm trying to say.  Since radio is obligated to cater to the masses, by
    definition radio is the least common denominator in what the public
    hears.  My point is that there is a lot of good music.  You won't find
    it on the radio.
    
    Mark.

Re .0:

Karl, I'll agree that today's rock isn't as innovative as earlier
rock.  After all, the pioneers of the 50's and 60's established
a style that has lasted a good 30 years or so.  Naturally the
people practicing within an established style are not going to
appear as innovative or new as the people who established the
style.

But I don't equate quality in music with a constant quest for
new sounds.  I do ask that the music express a distinct
personality.  And there are lots of folks with good musical
skills with something distinct to express working in rock
and pop today.  Take Bruce Springsteen for instance.  Lots
of folks hate him, lots of folks love him, but he has an
instantly identifiable musical personality.  And while most
of his music is very basic from the musician's point of
view, I like it anyway.  And songs like "With Every Wish"
from the new Human Touch album fuse great lyrical and
musical interest.

Poi Dog Pondering's "Wishing Like a Mountain and Thinking Like
the Sea" album is the newest rock sound I've heard in some time.
Unfortunately the new "Volo Volo" album dilutes that individuality,
but that's a discussion for another note.

As a thinking adult with some musical chops I find there's
plenty of rock music to relate to, including Joe Jackson,
Michelle Shocked, Bruce Cockburn, Melissa Etheridge, Prince
(you think I'm kidding?  This guy does polytonality, microtones,
counterpoint, and most people don't even notice), and many more.  

    All right - it's true - I've changed and the music hasn't.  It's still
    simple-minded lyrics with simple-minded yet energetic music backgrounds
    for adolescents.  And yeah, Iggy and Roger and the rest probably
    weren't qualified singers either.  
    
    I have found music that interests me, and not much of it is rock.. 
    and NONE of it is on the radio, which is another vast money-fueled
    wasteland.
    
    Of COURSE rock is borrowed !  It's just that the current generation is
    N iterations away from the originals, whereas in MY day (here we go..)
    the musicians cut their teeth on blues and boogie originators.. I'm
    sure the Black Crowes know who Meade Lux Lewis or Albert Ammons were,
    and Son House, and/and.. they sound like Aerosmith is their primary
    influence..  
    
    so you young twerps don't know the difference.  How sad. I do.
    
    karl

    
    	i'll agree you don't find it on the radio and i just don't listen
    no more.
    
    	Innovation in rock/pop seems to merely consist of adding some sort
    of foreign element to the standard 2 guitars,bass,drums etc.  Some of
    the biggest successes would seem to be adding classical, jazz, older
    pop etc to the mix.  Some of it is quite good.
    
    	Basically though, it is the music of adolecense - not really
    intended for intellectual consumption (not that it stopped anyone from
    trying).  Having just turned 41 I'm re-living 1963 and discovering who
    could play tight cool rock-n-roll without benefit of distortion or
    rack devices. Early Beatles had shitty leads but great rythm guitar and
    bass. The Stones were plain awful in '64, much better later.  Trying
    to figure out who played well in America because of the awful,
    compressed, reverb heavy American production techniques (geez they are
    still with us - yeccchhh!).
    
    	I'm trying to conciously drop my snobbishness these days. So what
    if the music is heavily borrowed - if it has that jump, that spark,
    fine, if not move on.  I keep hearing the same chord formations in
    classical - sometimes it works, sometimes no.
    
    who cares?

    RE: .13
    
    Are you trying to say that radio programming is *not* based on
    demographics? (I'm kind of lost as to exactly what you're disagreeing
    to). You list a bunch of stations in your area, all of which follow
    very well defined formulas. Is your point that the formula *creates*
    the demographic? If that is your point, your point is wrong. Just ask 
    Arbitron. You have one "soup" station - WBBQ - in your area. In Boston,
    the closest thing is probably WBCN (but they'll hardly play *anything*).
    I would assume the market for a play anything station, is, in general,
    the set of people who like what you happen to currently be playing.
    Five minutes from now, you could have an entirely different
    demographic.
    
    The other points you make are obvious and in no way contradict what I
    said, so I won't bother arguing about it.
    
    Now, just for a quick SET MODERATOR here:
    
    	Please *do not* plug your recordings in here, even if the purpose
    	is an example to prove a point. I'll let the previous example slide
    	as it serves as a quideline for what I *don't* want people to do.
    	Remember, DEC pays you to work for them, not to plug your own
    	business interests using their resources.
    
    OK, SET NOMOD
    
    Brian

    Please ignore the "SET MOD" comments at the end of the previous note as
    the note I was referring to, replies and author have all been deleted.
    
    Thanks,
    Brian
    MUSIC MOD

    RE: .16

    Brian,

    What I was trying to disagree with was the contention that radio was
    "blameless" in the narrowing of our musical horizons.

    I see radio as a "gate" for music to get to the common man.  Other
    gates include clubs, record stores, TV, etc.  Radio is different, only
    in the respect that it is the primary outlet for most people to be
    exposed to music.  The size of the gate thru which "new" music can flow
    is related to the breath of musical styles embodied by radio.  I see
    stations as being defined by their formats (demographics create these
    formats... do we agree?).  However, most formats today cater to only a
    portion of the audience (FOX = Classic Rock'n'Roll = middle class white
    guys with lots of disposable cash?), not the entire listening
    population. In essence, the gate is restricted.

    This is just my preference, but I like to experiment with life.  And I
    find that doing my little "experiments" with a diverse group of people
    is often quite productive in expanding my horizons (e.g., innovation!).
    I don't see radio as an absolute cause for a lack of breadth in the
    musical spectrum, but I do see it as a facilitator in the broadening of
    the same spectrum.  After the first few million times you hear _____
    (insert any Led Zeppelin song), you form a certain map of your musical
    reality.  Unless we are willing to challenge that map we will be
    musically stagnant and never grow.  The broader the spectrum of our
    musical outlets the greater the possibility that something will come
    along and challenge us.

    And couldn't we all use a little musical challenge now and then?

    later,

    douglas

    ps:  "Soup" stations generally don't work for business reasons, not
    audience reasons, or at least that has been my experience... but I
    don't want to over-generalize.
              

    
    Why don't I set a pointer here to note 180?  I'm getting tired of
    saying it, but there are new groups out there that deserve to be heard
    and 180 is one of them.
    
    No, rock music didn't die when the Beatles split up, as I'm really
    tired of telling some people.
    
    Don't mind me, it's just been a rough 2 months.
    
    Helen (aka Grumpy)

    
    	Don't know squat about demographics but, to me, putting this
    	Chilipepper guy in with Daltrey and the others as far as
    	singing on pitch is way out there.  Now, I actually happen
    	to like the song, but can't stand to hear how totally off
    	he is.  And saying you can count the singers who do sing on
    	pitch on one hand is, once again to me, totally absurd.
    
    	In guitarnotes, it was mentioned that Bruce is way outta
    	pitch on "Born in the USA".  While he is screaming, I don't
    	hear any flat/sharp notes.  
    
    	I'm usually pretty good about pitch (most guitarists' B string
    	is flat, for example), but I just don't hear many songs on the
    	radio where they're out.  
    
    	That tune is WAY out.  Too bad - it's a good tune to me.
    
    	Tom
    

    I tend to agree with most of .0 in that I haven't seen much real
    innovation lately.  Most of what has become popular over the last few
    years is just a rehash of forms, or in the case of the Black Crowes,
    like .0 said, it's either that they're trying to sound that loose, or
    just fall into it due to their own limitations (I think the latter is
    closer to the truth).  
    
    One band I've listened to a bit that in my humble O was pretty
    innovative was Dire Straits.  They had a lot of mainstream hits, but
    used a lot of different voicings and textures in much of their stuff
    that never got any airplay.  I'm not a big DS fan, but they do stick
    out in my mind as being fairly innovative. On Key?  Well, that's a
    whole 'nother story   ;-)
    
    Ken

    I believe the difference between now and 20 years ago is most of
    the guys that are making the negative comments, are sitting at home
    rasing their families and being model citizens, like our folks did
    back in the 60's and 70's.   They may go out on occasion but even then
    your probably real laid back, don't know many of the people in the
    place your at and those you do know are probably acting just like you.
    Bottom line your"listening" to the music today, in the 60's and 70's
    you were" living " the music, the parties, that special someone you had
    your eye on when a certain song happen to be playing, your "hotrod",
    your hair, your clothes, and lets not even get into your state of mind
    when you were listening to the stuff in the 60's and 70's.
    Your putting down the lead singer for the Peppers, and I suppose Bob
    Dillon was always on key, or even Hendrix, comeon, lets be serious. 
    The music back then ment something to you, cause you were a part of it  
    today its a part of your kids and in 20 years I guarantee you,
    somewhere a bunch of kids will be having this discussion again.
    
    
    
                                                       Howard
    
    By the way I'm 38 and the leader of a TOP-40 Dance Funk Band doing 
    everything from MC Hammer to Bell,Biv Devoe.  And I still love it.
    The new dances the clothes, the new technology, the new styles of
    playing, and all the other things that you were a part of back in
    the 60's and 70's are still there, the only difference is your not..
                                                                        

One difference to me is that groups like the Doors would not exist today as
they would be too risky (ie miss gigs, appear too drunk to perform) and cost too
much money.

Bottom line counts a lot more today.

How many bands have lost members in the last year or 2 due to substance abuse?
I look at this as your hobby costs the label money when you mess up.

Tim

    
    	Howard, I'm out there playing too!  Yes, I am picking on the
    	Pepper guy cuz it's so blatant.  Now, Bob Dylan never was a
    	singer too.  Tell you what, you get your singer who does
    	"My, My, My" to sing that tune.  Johnny Gill, Luthor -
    	wonderful vocalists.  Listening to them is like taking a
    	vocal lesson.  Pepperman, however...  
    
    	Hey Howard - don't bogart that joint!
    
    	Tom ;^)
    

>One difference to me is that groups like the Doors would not exist today as
>they would be too risky (ie miss gigs, appear too drunk to perform) and cost 
>too much money.

You've obviously never seen the Replacements.  

If you only ever see bands at big venues, then this is the case.  Go see a
bunch of underground bands at some local club (e.g. the Rat) and you'll see
plenty of drunken sloppiness (and occasionally drunken inspiration).

>How many bands have lost members in the last year or 2 due to substance abuse?

Everyone's favorite band to pick on:  Red Hot Chili Pepppers

    RE: .20
    
    Tom,
    
    I think what people were commenting on is the "baby and the bathwater"
    scenario. My comment was not that you can count the singers who sing on
    pitch on one hand, but that you can count the singers who *never* sing
    off-pitch on one hand. Yes, the singing is out on the aforementioned
    RHCP song and it should have been fixed before it was released (I also
    like the song despite that fact). Bad and, maybe, incompetent producer,
    granted. Decent band overall though. I've never heard anything else
    of theirs that had an offensive vocal and I don't even find "Under the
    Bridge" that bad.
    
    RHCP had been singled out as an example of what's wrong with current
    music and I happen to think they're an example of what's *right* about
    it. They were also singled out based entirely on the merits (or lack
    thereof) of one song. And then, the major objection was vocal pitch.
    
    When comparing old and new music, and confining the argument to FM
    rock, there's more music over 10 years old that I instantly turn off
    than music within the last 10 years. There's a lot of great old music,
    don't get me wrong, but you never hear any of it on the radio. At least
    the stations occasionally stumble onto good new music, in the hope that
    they'll attract young listeners. It's usually a mistake when they play
    something good, but it *does* happen. Of course, if it turns out to be
    good, the radio stations will beat you to death with it until you don't
    care how good it is - you hate it anyway.
    
    Brian

    
    One thing comes to mind in this discussion of "Old versus New:"
    
    The air has been saturated with cover songs for several years now!
     
    There was a topic, either in MUSIC or in GUITAR, on the subject last
    year or the year before.
    
    Why are artists covering the old songs?  Does the record company "make
    them" or is it just a lack of creative imagination?
    
    For instance...
    
    Born to be Wild       The Cult                   (Steppenwolf)
    Everlasting Love      U2                         (forget)
    Signs                 Tesla                      (5-Man Elec. Band)
    Radar Love            White Lion                 (Golden Earring)
    Smoking/Boy's Room    Motley Crue                (Brownsville Station)
    Hard to Handle        Black Crowes               (Otis Redding)
    Live and Let Die      Guns 'n Roses              (Paul McCartney)
    Higher Ground         Red Hot Chili Peppers      (Stevie Wonder)
    Don't Be Cruel        Cheap Trick                (Elvis Presley)
    What's Going On?      Cyndi Lauper               (Marvin Gaye)
    
    Well, you get the idea.
    
    I am basically accepting that the music of my youth is *old* and that
    it is music of a new generation.  My own biggest gripe is when an 
    artist just hasn't bothered to hone his/her *skill* and tries to rely
    on attitude and youth.
    
    I also think that it is much easier to rework an established piece
    of music than it is to create it out of thin air, with nothing but
    your ears and your imagination!
    
    FWIW,
    
    Brian

    re .28, you point out that U2 has done a cover of Everlasting Love and
    yet ignore all of their originals!  (Like, that's really *fair*!)  :-)
    
    Anyway, I think that there are rock groups today - U2, Tom Petty,
    Springsteen, REM, The Replacements, INXS, Midnight Oil - for example -
    who are doing stuff that is just as good as anything that was being
    recorded 20 yrs. ago.
    
    However, I admit that I don't like Red Hot Chili Peppers either.
    
    BTW, re .0, I'm also 42.
    
    Lorna
    

At least the new generation of artists give credit to the people they cover.

Several of the old generation were hesitant to credit the dead black men that
wrote the songs.

Rooth

    The only innovation of the current generation is happening over on the
    R&B side of things, via the rap revolution, as maligned as it is.
    This is the only currently original pop music form of this era.
    Johnny Gill, Bell, Biv, Devoe, etc. are not rock artists, but R&B
    , though, and the two formats are still pretty split.
    
    Many young people are listening to the original 60s hits (like my
    childhood never went away) recognize that the old is better than
    the rehash, or some of the blues cases ripoffs of ripoffs were
    better one generation back. At  least Jim Morrison brought some
    original interpetation to 'Back Door Man', the old Howling Wolf
    thing.
    
    I'm bored with the old tunes, and automatically bored with the new
    tunes by default, so I tend to look towards African-Caribbean-Latin 
    music world, with some American R&B mixed in, to play me something I
    haven't heard 18,000 times before. Even garage bands like Nirvana are
    a throwback to punk; a punk revival, of all things.
    
    Most bands have attitudes with the same old thing to say, mumbled
    unintelligibly, and out of key.
    
    And, the electric guitar has been about worn out as having anything new
    to say.
    
    
    
    

    I dunno, I'm out there playing concerts and clubs every weekend too and
    I don't see too much innovation anywhere.  I'm doing a blues circuit
    where innovation = persperation and our technical wizardry begins and
    ends with a wireless mike that our harp player uses on "Room to Move".
    
    We still try to be innovative by resurrecting old standards and putting
    more edge on them, and by writing original stuff that's technically 
    challenging, even though it still works within the general blues/boogie
    format.
    
    I disagree that innovation can only be found in the Rap/Funk/R+B
    gendre, but do wholeheartedly agree that the record companies/producers
    as of late don't seem willing to "go out on a limb" too often.  A few 
    exceptions do exist.
    
    There's a band up here called Phish who have broken through.  They got
    a great write up in Rolling Stone, and have a pretty unique sound and 
    style all their own.  They're doing their first national tour right now
    and are doing very well at it, yet their sound is so non-mainstream
    that even up here in their hometown, the radio stations play them only
    on occasion.     
    
    What I see as a problem is that in any gendre of music, be it blues,
    rock, what_have_you, it seems that the same trend happens:
    
    	1. the form becomes popular
    	2. good musicians lead the charge - the music becomes more popular
    	3. every kid with a $10 guitar tries to cop the form
    	4. pretty soon there's a zillion bands all playing the same form
    	5. people get sick of seeing "bad" bands
    	6. pretty soon the form itself suffers from a bad reputation
           and people say...
    
    		1. Blues Bands don't draw
    		2. Rock Bands don't draw
    		3. Metal bands don't draw
    		4. country bands don't draw
    
    Too many people nowadays jumping on the latest form to gain instant 
    popularity instead of taking the time to create innovation.  Relatively
    new forms such as Rap are unchartered waters, so innovation comes with
    virtually every new tune, for awhile anyway, that is until all Rap
    starts sounding the same.  
    
    

    RE: .30
    
    You mean, like the way Michael Bolton "acknowleged" the author of the
    song he won a Grammy for this year?  :^(
    
    K.C.

It's odd that people forget that the best tunes of any year are probably only
2 to 5% of what was released and played on the radio. There was a lot of
garbage on the radio in the 60's (just like there is now), but I'd say that
the percentage of songe that will become classics in any year remains
pretty much the same. I'm 38 and I remember the 60's quite well (as well
as a lot of what was popular in the late 50's too). I like things from the
50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.  Face it, we are all different, and what
I like may not be what you like. One thing that I find quite different between
the 1960's and now is that the radio stations tend to focus on more specific
crowds (demographics was brought up earlier), so the market is more focused.

This effectivly prevents me from hearing the range of artists on the same
station as I recall I used to back in the late 1960's and early 1970's. I do
find that I like to listen to different diverse stations so I get a better
sampling; that helps quite a bit. I think the Beatles were great, I also
like Buddy Holly and Eric Clapton. I thing that Queensryche is doing some
neat things (along the lines of concept albums, just like the who did). There
are only 12 notes in the western scale (Indian music has 21 if I'm not
mistaken), and there is a lot that can be done with it. If you don't like the
new music (almost everything is basically a rehash of something else someone 
has already done), maybe you just arn't listening in the right place, or just
don't know what areas that might appeal to you. I hate lots of the new stuff,
but then I hated lots of the old stuff too.

								Jens

    
    Hmmmmmm...
    
    I see lots of young folks picking on old hippies gone yuppie.  This is
    good! 
    
    -Ed_who's_31_and_not_sure_if_he's_a_baby_boomer_or_a_generation_x
    
    

I'm 51 and I can draw a line between Stick McGhee singing "Drinkin' Wine 
Spodeodee" (from 1949, the first rock&roll song I can remember) and Matthew
Sweet's "Girlfriend" album (currently in heavy rotation on my CD player).  Along
that line I can define a scatter diagram placing everybody else I like, from
Ray Charles to Wreckless Eric, Joe Turner to Sean Tyla, Rhythm Orchids to the
Blasters, Nervous Norvus to Scrawl, the Cadillacs to Galaxie 500, and I don't 
find any moment in that 43 years that I didn't have something good to listen
to.  

There was a lot of junk too, but I tried not to let it get me down.

    If the Red Hot Chili Peppers are the future of rock, then rock is in
    BIG trouble, IMO!
    
    I heard "Over The Bridge" and, although I don't know if this is really
    representative for the group, it stinks.  ANY of the songs I've heard
    by the Black Crowes blows this away.
    
    K.C.

    
    RHCP is NOT the future of rock. They fit in their own genre, which
    should NOT be confused with rock.

OK, I've got a few cents worth of opinion to throw in here....

re: covers songs

Come on folks, let's get real - almost every single band I can think of has
done cover songs at some point, including most the greats like The Who, The
Stones, Beatles, CCR, etc. Recording cover songs is hardly a new phenomenon,
and today's artists shouldn't be dumped on for it any more than the Beatles
should be for covering "Twist And Shout".

re: singing on key

I have to say that I rarely judge a singer on technical accomplishment. As 
many have already pointed out here, there are singers such as Springsteen and
John Fogerty and Neil Young that are hardly "great", but still some of my 
favorites. (And of course, Dylan is the easiest to pick on.) While there are
a couple singers that I might enjoy for technical merit (Mariah Carey comes
to mind - I hate her material, but love her voice), this is the exception
and not the rule.

IMO, passion and hearfelt singing (and songwriting) goes a lot farther, than 
being able to sing directly on key at all times. (Please note that I'm not 
necessarily defending the Red Hot Chili Peppers here, since I don't even like 
that song. This is more just "in general".) I'd much rather hear Neil Young 
warble his way through "Like A Hurricane" than listen to *anything* Michael 
Bolton wants to offer up!

re: stagnation in the music itself

I don't agree that music has stagnated - in fact, I might argue that is has
grown more in the past 3-5 years than at any time since the mid-60s.

I guess it depends upon how you define "rock". If you're thinking of it as
being a direct descendant of Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly, then you're right,
there probably isn't much new stuff to interest you. But then again, by
limiting the definition, aren't you automatically limiting your chances of
finding growth?

If you look outside the middle of the road, you'll see a lot of exciting
musical innovations happening. In the last five years alone, I can think
of three major new veins of rock that have come to the forefront - rap (MC 
Hammer), house music (C&C Music Factory), and speed metal (Metallica). That's 
three ENTIRE NEW CATEGORIES of music! Not to mention the blending of rap and 
heavy metal that's also occurred (ie. Faith No More, RHCP). 

You won't have to like all of these styles (or any of them), but you can't 
deny they're occuring, and that rock and pop music has hardly stood still!

re: blame for things being so "bland"

You have to look at realities - the record companies are in it for the money - 
that's why they exist, to make money (NOT to sign good acts! that's just 
sometimes a by-product!). So the companies sign bands that they think are 
commercialy viable (makes sense, no?). Don't blame the record companies.

And do not blame the bands that get signed - more than likely, they're playing
music they truly *like* to play. And if someone offers them a contract, why
should they turn it down?

If there's anyone to "blame", its the general public. Its up to the PUBLIC to 
support new and interesting music. Why do you think there are fifty different 
Bon Jovi clones out there? Because the people WANT them! If not, then they
wouldn't have gotten signed, and they wouldn't be so successful (many of them
routinely go gold and platinum)! If the majority of the people don't want 
to hear alternative music, you shouldn't blame the industry for not signing 
and promoting them. 

(As the part-owner of a small independent label, I know that I certainly
look for a band that is able to sell - that's the first requirement! Then
comes the music.... I might even sign a band I don't like that much, if
I feel they have commercial potential. Why not? My personal tastes shouldn't
dictate business decisions!)

re: finding alternatives

There is a LOT of good music out there. Not all of it is found on the radio.
But IMO, not all the good music is relegated to late night shows on college
radio. Artists like Melissa Etheridge and Queesnryche and even establsihed 
acts like Janet Jackson and U2 and Bruce Springsteen are being played on 
everyday commercial radio, and I think they've still got exciting and 
interesting music to play.

Hell, I even love the Black Crowes, even if they are 3rd generation 
Stones/Faces clones! (Not that I see the difference between the Stones
copying Chuck Berry vs. Black Crowes copying the Stones. Why does the former 
seem "legit" to some people, but the latter is "bad"? Sounds like a double
standard to me!)


Summary??? Well, I guess its just easy to see that I find as many great acts
out there now that I did 10 or more years ago, if not more. I love clasic
rock as much as anyone, and its even what I listen to more often than not
(I even sing for a band that covers a lot of classic rock). But I don't
believe that the bands back then are any better or worse than today's acts - 
there are always artists of all eras that both great and terrible. 

While you might hate to hear Kris Kross on the radio today, its probably no 
worse than hearing Vicki Lawrence on the radio 20 years ago. But 20 years 
from now, you'll have forgotten all about Kris Kross, and I'll bet you'll 
still occasionally pull out a U2 or Springsteen album!

alan

	Re: -1

	WELL SAID!!!

	I'll add that dumping on new music as not being as good as old music
	is like 1880's art critics saying that the new "impressionism" is
	crap.  Often times it's hard to adjust to the new when you're used to
	the old, but discovering why the new stuff is good in a different way
	from the old is what living and growing is all about.

	Mark (lover of new music across 3.5 decades)

	I just browsed through the replies quickly but Alan's reply was
	nice reading as usual, as was Tom's jagged-line theory, Rooth's
	get out there and hear it approach, etc.

	I'll start with something the author of the base note said.  I can 
	understand if you don't like much of the new stuff but I don't see 
	how you can then comment that nothing has changed.  It sounds like 
	your listening range hasn't changed much, not to say that's bad,
	what ever suits you.

	A bit on the radio thing, it seems to make sense that in a highly 
	competitive radio market such as exists today the diversity of radio 
	programming will be inversely proportional to it.

	I personally find it sad if some people are only able to view new
	music by the small percentage of it that makes its way to music
	television shows or for that matter to commercial radio.  
	
	It certainly isn't rocket science that much of the good stuff 
	pretty much consistently developed over the years comes from local 
	bands at small clubs then reaching a larger audience.  In just the 
	areas of local clubs and radio shows, excluding national and overseas 
	bands, there's so much out there.  Also back tracking leaves so much 
	to be re-discovered.  Just the other day while listening to a radio 
	show featuring Rough Trade bands I just got turned out to the Slits, 
	Metal Urbain, and got a wider view of many other bands that I was 
	familiar with from the late 70's to early 80's.  Even if you exclude 
	the new stuff it's hard to cover the past adequately enough.  I mean 
	even if you're an active listener and go to many shows I can't imagine 
	that you have heard every band	that might interest you from years 
	gone by.

	The overwhelming discussion about the RHCP reminds me of a hard to 
	miss observation I've noticed in some music papers that would lead 
	some people to think that only Metallica and Guns n' Roses exist 
	outside their primary area of focus.  They completely ignore many other
	bands but then again this isn't there forte.

	I find the amount of new and interesting stuff overwhelming at times
	but I enjoy it very much and and maybe I'm just naive but I'm
	still amazed at the breath in styles and sounds that some bands
	still come up with since they're using basically the same tools but
	with their creativity being the factor.  Sure there's many bands that 
	do sound similar but if it wasn't for some similarities then there 
	would be no style groupings and Tom's map would really be boring to 
	look at.  It would be harder to look back in terms of bands from a 
	particular area of commonalty.  I do dislike categorizing but in 
	examination of the past it's handy to have groupings such as blues, 
	jazz, rock 'n roll, hard rock, heavy  metal, puck, post-punk, modern, 
	experimental, etc.. etc. the names just aren't always helpful in
	discussing the present.

	The funniest comment I hard recently was a comment by the Seattle
	park folks about a band by the name of Seaweed, they were described as
	hardcore punks that would potentially invite the wrong crowd.  On
	a similar note the band Violent Femmes, someone took offense
	to their name.  I wonder if they have ever heard them?

	I started off to say just just a short bit but there goes lunch
	but as always I rambled on, just one last comment (for now) about 
	say Eric Clapton for instance who even states he was virtually 
	in a league of his own in his early days with his interpretation 
	of early blues artist who he unlike others has always given much 
	credit.  There's some purist who like only his old work but
	it would hardly be a challenge for him to be still putting
	out Cream, etc. outakes...

	Someone once mentioned the competition between bands but I don't 
	think  it's always the case, a bunch of Boston bands some time
	ago got together to perform Just What Friends Are for () and
	have a disc out in conjunction with From All Walks of Life with
	proceeds all being donated.  Some of the bands...360's, Robin Lane, 
	Heretic and about 15 I can't think of...

	- Jim

    Finally getting around to really reading some of the replies here ...
    I'll make general thematic responses as opposed to individual responses.
    
    The idea that any single band, or even any single sub-genre, represents
    the "future of rock" somewhat misses the point that rock has always
    been multi-threaded (so to speak). Let's face it, even rock's past is
    not that easily pigeon-holed. So no, the Red Hot Chili Peppers are
    *not* the future of rock. They're not even the future of "alternative".
    They're simply what's here, what's now. I've given up on the notion of
    defending this one particular band as what it is that makes people like
    or dislike an artist is so amorphous it cannot be defined and most
    certainly cannot be debated.
    
    On the other hand, this whole note started with two basic notions:
    
    	1. That new rock is, in fact, nothing new
    
    	2. That old rock, being closer to the "root" of the tree,
    	   is "better" (Having a hard time finding a "better" word
    	   here).
    
    I disagree with these notions. First, as with the Berlin Wall, the
    walls around musical form have crumbled. Frankly, I couldn't even come
    up with a generic definition of rock anymore (one that would apply to
    all cases). The melting pot of form is exactly what makes new music
    appealing to me.
    
    Further, the roots of the tree are OK and serve a definite purpose, but
    I prefer the flowers and leaves at the other end. Pardon my dabbling
    in metaphore here, but roots are functional and rarely frivolous.
    No one (that I know of) drives around in autumn to look at roots. The
    leaves are *just* as functional but much more interesting. The whole
    dynamic is really happening out there in the extremities of the tree
    where all the cross-pollinating is going on.
    
    Brian

    
    good point brian. To be honest, i like the nibbling at the whole tree.
    Some roots have nice sap, others are bitter. Same with the leaves. Just
    as it always was imo.
    

    
    	Heard a song this morning that cooked - on WAAF.  Not really
    	my cup of tea but a cranker for sure.  Anyone know who does
    	it?  (please, don't say the Black Crowes ;^)
    
    	"Life is a highway, I wanna drive it all night long...
    	 If you're going my way, I wanna drive it all night long..."
    
    	Tom
    

    Tom Cochorane (I KNOW I flubbed the spelling!) - Canadian rocker,
    formerly of Red Ryder.
    
    K.C.

    Life is a highway ! It's been in heavy rotation on my tape deck.

BTW, one thing I forgot to mention in my previous reply:

I'm really thrilled with the resurgance I've seen lately of the singer-
songwriter. No, I'm not referring to that period in the early 70s when 
Gordon Lightfoot ruled the airwaves, I referring to the fact that there have 
been a bunch of good albums released lately by talented songwriters, 
performing mostly acoustic-driven rock songs that are witty, enlightening, 
mature, quirky, insightful, and..... well, just plain good!

Some of the more recent releases that I've enjoyed include:

Willie Nile - Places I've Never Been
Steve Forbert - The American In Me
Peter Case - Six Pack of Love (a little spottier than the others, but still
             real good in some places)
Chris Whitley - Chris Whitley
Paul Kelly (and the Messengers) - So Much Water So Close To Home

And there are more out there. I gotta say that I've nver heard this music
on the radio. It seems to mainstream for alternative radio, but its not
played on rock radio either. Mostly, it just seems to get lost in the 
shuffle. But its great to hear people writing *songs*, as opposed to 
just riffs or samples, ya know? (Songs that you can play on an acoustic
guitar!) I hope the trend continues, and maybe some of these artists will
even break through....

alan

Matthew Sweet, Dwight Twilley, Greg Kihn

    Along the same lines...
    
    Lyle Lovett
    Robin Hitchcock
    Michelle Shocked
    Bruce Cockburn
    Sam Phillips
    Steve Earle
    Roseanne Cash
    
    ...and many others
    
    Mark.

>Some of the more recent releases that I've enjoyed include:
>
>Willie Nile - Places I've Never Been
>Steve Forbert - The American In Me
>Peter Case - Six Pack of Love (a little spottier than the others, but still
>             real good in some places)
>Chris Whitley - Chris Whitley
>Paul Kelly (and the Messengers) - So Much Water So Close To Home
    
    Funny how except for Whitley, these guys are all music biz veterans!
    Forbert and Nile started recording in the late seventies, Case was
    around then in the Plimsouls, and Kelly has been around for a few years
    as well.
    
    In fact both Forbert and Nile might be looked upon as "comebacks" as
    they both had long spells with no record contracts.
    
    						Brian