Modern Rock Bands

jettafiend wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Lady Gaga has more talent than 90% of the bands you listen to. I've never understand why folks can't appreciate things they don't necessarily like. I'm no fan of Lady Gaga's music, but I know she's a great songwriter and a brilliant musician. Quality is quality. Not hard to recognize that.

I don't get that about Lady GaGa. I have heard some stuff, but not all and talent was not the first thing that came to mind when I heard her sing. I would venture to replace the Lady GaGa claim with Pink who does write some of her material and Gwen Stefani as well. I can handle listening to Pink but not Gwen either solo or in No Doubt. Back in the day, there were some female pop-stars that had serious pipes, Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston come immediately to mind and more recently so does Natasha Bedingfield.

It's about stripping away the excess and looking at the core. People see all the pomp and imagery, not this:

So, why can't she sing like that all the time? that song is fantastic! I see your point, She has genuine talent.

jettafiend wrote:

So, why can't she sing like that all the time? that song is fantastic! I see your point, She has genuine talent.

The aforementioned Mariah Carey has scads of natural talent, then why has she spent a large portion of her career over-singing and creating one fluffy, forgettable producer-created confection after another? Because that crap made her RICH AS HELL!!!!!

I really just can't blame someone for taking their talent and figuring out a way to make themselves a pop legend.

S.D. wrote:

jettafiend wrote:

So, why can't she sing like that all the time? that song is fantastic! I see your point, She has genuine talent.

The aforementioned Mariah Carey has scads of natural talent, then why has she spent a large portion of her career over-singing and creating one fluffy, forgettable producer-created confection after another?  Because that crap made her RICH AS HELL!!!!!  

I really just can't blame someone for taking their talent and figuring out a way to make themselves a pop legend.  

Yup, Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta was a struggling artist/musician that noone gave a squirty poop about. But when she made a bizarre spectacle of herself and became "Lady Gaga", people took notice. The rest is music history. Awful, awful musical history.

Everyone is blessed with some sort of talent. Playing the piano and singing doesn't make her a "brilliant musician." Hundreds and hundreds of those artists are out there. Her management has just as much "talent" as she does as well as the songwriters she has help her write these songs...

I will say this about Gaga, she is very good at what she does and I thank her songs for producing some of the best cover songs I've ever heard.

Gaga makes catchy tunes. I was humming Bad Romance the other day out of nowhere. She also does some neat stuff with them. That said, all the "performance artist" shit is, well...shit.

Back on topic...  The new KORN song *Never Ever* is all over Modern Rock radio..




Actually it's here... So much better than that Never Ever blasphemy...

http://thegauntlet.com/music/236/Korn-Love-Meth

MetalRob331 wrote:

Everyone is blessed with some sort of talent.  Playing the piano and singing doesn't make her a "brilliant musician." Hundreds and hundreds of those artists are out there.  Her management has just as much "talent" as she does as well as the songwriters she has help her write these songs...

I will say this about Gaga, she is very good at what she does and I thank her songs for producing some of the best cover songs I've ever heard.  

I never said playing the piano and singing makes her brilliant. Her talent does, which runs far deeper than the video I posted.

You already know that I'm with Eyesore on this. Gaga is a real talent, quite unlike her contemporaries, I can completely understand a lot of you guys not enjoying what she does, but from someone who does, she does it well, really well.

Pink is also superb, probably the best hard rock singer there never was.

Mariah & Whitney both had talent, lots of it but were so overblown that I couldn't enjoy it. Wyclef Jean deserves a medal for being the first producer to turn round to Whitney and tell her to quit the histrionics and just sing the f**king song!  



The result is my favorite Whitney song by a street and a half  

Lady Gaga is far above her contemporaries. She's a brilliant songwriter & performer. She combines so many influences so seamlessly, & turns it into her own thing.

Mariah is a vocal diva. I'd put her talent wise in the same room with Pattie Labelle, Celine Dion, & Etta James. She also wrote a lot of her own material, like it or not. She was super successful with this. At least until she began to let all the "guest rappers" take over her albums.

Whitney Houston is the story of a true beautiful talent that let herself be robbed of her deserved lonegevity. Drugs, Alcohol, & a bad husband ruined a wonderful performer.

Women singers in r&b and pop are every where. Mariah, Whitney, and Dion are def Divas..I put Aguilera and Clarkson right up there with them vocally..As far as Pink goes...Great voice but other than her stripped down acoustic songs, she's just another lady voice imo

Just got done watching an Interview with Maria Brink from In This Moment. ITM never seen commercial success with their first three releases but their newest album Blood is all over rock radio. She simply stated they went in and wrote songs they wanted to write and what they were feeling. Just so happened they were more stripped down but still heavy and powerful.

Does commercial success make a band less relevant to the metal world? It seems when some bands are played on the radio it's a bad thing? Writing good music should never be a bad thing and when a band becomes popular, that shouldn't make people like them less.

When you get promoted at a job, is that a bad thing? Should people not like you bcuz you worked your tail off to get where you are? Hard work and dedication goes a very long way in this world and I applaud bands who evolve and get recognized for their talents.

That depends on who recognizes it (gives them their success), and what qualities those people value. People who claim something is hated simply because of popularity are short-sighted and have no place in a debate.

We are suspicious of "mainstream acceptance" of certain music because we know and see what music the "radio crowd" normally values and what traits are inherent in that music. The majority of those traits are opposite of or absent from music we prefer.

If I like steak, and somebody else likes turnips, it's unlikely that person is going to suddenly gravitate towards and sing the praises of my steak as-is. The steak that person likes is probably more turnip-y which in turn decreases my enjoyment of it.

Factors all change depending on the group of people. Each group has their own factors that pertain to their tastes and personalities. Say for instance I like certain metal because I connect with the escapism and heroism present in the music. I'm not likely to jump ship over to Three Days Grace because that music stands for neither, and actually parades around as overly worldly, emotionally limited, and so on. Those traits are going to attract people who understand that language (carry the same philosophy). If a band suddenly attracts that large group, nine times out of ten it's not going to be because that group changed their outlook on life overnight.


Barring all that, some people just listen to catchy music, which doesn't have to do with any of that, and nobody should worry about.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

That depends on who recognizes it (gives them their success), and what qualities those people value. People who claim something is hated simply because of popularity are short-sighted and have no place in a debate.

We are suspicious of "mainstream acceptance" of certain music because we know and see what music the "radio crowd" normally values and what traits are inherent in that music. The majority of those traits are opposite of or absent from music we prefer.

If I like steak, and somebody else likes turnips, it's unlikely that person is going to suddenly gravitate towards and sing the praises of my steak as-is. The steak that person likes is probably more turnip-y which in turn decreases my enjoyment of it.

Factors all change depending on the group of people. Each group has their own factors that pertain to their tastes and personalities. Say for instance I like certain metal because I connect with the escapism and heroism present in the music. I'm not likely to jump ship over to Three Days Grace because that music stands for neither, and actually parades around as overly worldly, emotionally limited, and so on. Those traits are going to attract people who understand that language (carry the same philosophy). If a band suddenly attracts that large group, nine times out of ten it's not going to be because that group changed their outlook on life overnight.


Barring all that, some people just listen to catchy music, which doesn't have to do with any of that, and nobody should worry about.

Great read, but all music is catchy. We wouldn't listen to it if it didn't "catch" our attention  

The new In This Moment album is awesome! Easily their best.

Eyesore wrote:

The new In This Moment album is awesome! Easily their best.

It is pretty damn impressive.. I do miss that style on songs like Lost at Sea and The Road. I know they lost some members. Blood is still badass...

MetalRob331 wrote:

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

That depends on who recognizes it (gives them their success), and what qualities those people value. People who claim something is hated simply because of popularity are short-sighted and have no place in a debate.

We are suspicious of "mainstream acceptance" of certain music because we know and see what music the "radio crowd" normally values and what traits are inherent in that music. The majority of those traits are opposite of or absent from music we prefer.

If I like steak, and somebody else likes turnips, it's unlikely that person is going to suddenly gravitate towards and sing the praises of my steak as-is. The steak that person likes is probably more turnip-y which in turn decreases my enjoyment of it.

Factors all change depending on the group of people. Each group has their own factors that pertain to their tastes and personalities. Say for instance I like certain metal because I connect with the escapism and heroism present in the music. I'm not likely to jump ship over to Three Days Grace because that music stands for neither, and actually parades around as overly worldly, emotionally limited, and so on. Those traits are going to attract people who understand that language (carry the same philosophy). If a band suddenly attracts that large group, nine times out of ten it's not going to be because that group changed their outlook on life overnight.


Barring all that, some people just listen to catchy music, which doesn't have to do with any of that, and nobody should worry about.

Great read, but all music is catchy.  We wouldn't listen to it if it didn't "catch" our attention  

Gotta disagree there. Not all music is accessible, and that's a good thing. That was the strength of Stravinsky's work as he wanted to present something to an audience who would rather work toward transcending the esoteric nature of the piece rather than attach themselves right away. In this sense the relationship between the work and the listener is strengthened, and it takes an eternal hold on them. The accessible can be rather fleeting in that the listener is attached so strongly at first listen, that the effect wears off more quickly. The difference between accessible and inaccessible music is a good thing. I like it both ways: music that grabs me right away and music that demands my total focus. Art works the same way in any format.

My gripe is with the general audience who claims inaccessible music to be "boring." That in itself is nearsighted. It's okay not to like it, but to call it boring is to miss out on a lot of what's being presented. Besides, I never called their accessible radio rock "too exciting."

BTW, good examples of inaccessible music: Neil Young (to some at least), The Residents, Nick Cave, early REM (a lot of people disagree with me on this), some Lou Reed, Captain Beefheart, Merzbow. A lot of people find My Bloody Valentine inaccessible (I think they're brilliantly catchy).

I like Taylor Swift.

corplhicks wrote:

BTW, good examples of inaccessible music: Neil Young (to some at least), The Residents, Nick Cave, early REM (a lot of people disagree with me on this), some Lou Reed, Captain Beefheart, Merzbow. A lot of people find My Bloody Valentine inaccessible (I think they're brilliantly catchy).

I disagree with Neil Young and Lou Reed.

They might not be everyone's boat, of course, but they are still pretty straight ahead rock n' roll.

MBV has some catchiness to them, after repeated listenings, but on the whole I think they fall far more into the inaccessbile category, right along with a lot of the early 90s shoegaze scene. I feel like bands like MBV and Slowdive and such, you almost have to want to like. You aren't going to hear it once and just get it stuck in your soul.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

I like Taylor Swift.

Is she modern rock? 

MetalGuy71 wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

I like Taylor Swift.

Is she modern rock? 

Ha, somewhere in this thread someone said that such-and-such modern rock bands were better than Taylor Swift. So my comment was a vague defense.

Also, since I saw some discussion about Lady Gaga and apparently a Rhianna video, I felt it fit.

Fair enough. Carry on. Nothing to see here people. Keep it moving.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

BTW, good examples of inaccessible music: Neil Young (to some at least), The Residents, Nick Cave, early REM (a lot of people disagree with me on this), some Lou Reed, Captain Beefheart, Merzbow. A lot of people find My Bloody Valentine inaccessible (I think they're brilliantly catchy).

I disagree with Neil Young and Lou Reed.

They might not be everyone's boat, of course, but they are still pretty straight ahead rock n' roll.

MBV has some catchiness to them, after repeated listenings, but on the whole I think they fall far more into the inaccessbile category, right along with a lot of the early 90s shoegaze scene. I feel like bands like MBV and Slowdive and such, you almost have to want to like. You aren't going to hear it once and just get it stuck in your soul.

Inaccessible doesn't just mean boring. It's just a type of music that is more difficult for the common ear to slide in to. To you and me, Reed and Young are faaaaaaaaaar from boring. I find Young more engaging than, say, Dream Theater. But few of his songs were written with a hook or the radio in mind. Play the entirety of After the Gold Rush for a modern-day teenager and see if they make it through the whole thing. Harvest was probably the one album he wrote with an actual single in mind, and even today he admits it was his pop album (before Reactor came along, of course).

Inaccessible music is the best IMO. It matures a listener's ear and opens them up to a world of unconventional beauty. That's why saying Young and Reed inaccessible is a huge compliment from me .

I'd like to sit a teenager down and force them to listen to Henry Cow, Gong or Can.