f13.net

f13.net General Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Righ on May 18, 2004, 06:40:20 PM



Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Righ on May 18, 2004, 06:40:20 PM
Here's an article (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA417981?display=Top%20of%20the%20Week) about problems with the Fox TV series American Idol's voting process. It speculates about folks using speed-dialers to repeatedly call for a contestant to swing the vote, or just to tie up telephone lines, so that attempted votes go unanswered. It also mentions that online gambling sites offer odds on contestants, and paraphrases a reply from the Fox network, who say that they throw out votes obviously cast by speed-dialers.

Isn't this too easy? All one has to do is drop a significant wager, and then speed dial, consecutively, using the most bleeding obvious dial pattern to the other contestant's voting line. All these votes will be thrown out, and the line for that contestant will be unable to answer real votes. The contestant with the longest odds (and presumably the worst voice and/or stage presence) will win. Since it's all about diabolical teeny pop, and it's run on the Fox network, no harm is done.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Rasix on May 18, 2004, 07:38:51 PM
I'd be more thankful if you just hit the entire contest with a nuke from orbit.  I'm pretty sure I don't live anywhere near the where they tape, and one little nuke won't hurt too bad.

Reality TV makes me stabby. Reality contest TV makes me extra stabby.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Margalis on May 18, 2004, 08:00:33 PM
Maybe if you speed dial enough, everyone will get zero votes each and they can all lose.

Seriously...who cares? The real absurdity of the show is pretending that being a pop star has anything to do with singing anyway. They should go up there, dance, and lip synch.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 18, 2004, 08:01:22 PM
Quote from: Rasix
I'd be more thankful if you just hit the entire contest with a nuke from orbit.  I'm pretty sure I don't live anywhere near the where they tape, and one little nuke won't hurt too bad.

Reality TV makes me stabby. Reality contest TV makes me extra stabby.


A-fucking-men.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Kyper on May 18, 2004, 09:29:16 PM
I'm going to be in the minority here.  I like the show.  I'm a big fan of nearly all kinds of music and enjoy seeing and hearing new talent (and new people who seriously lack talent).  

It doesn't matter a bit who wins or loses among the finalists.  Each gets important exposure to music industry bigwigs who can sign them at the drop of a hat.  In fact, I suspect the singers who get voted off the show have a better shot at long, successful careers.  Idol winners are quickly overexposed and their popularity can flare out quickly.  They also have to sign horrible contracts with Simon Cowell and Simon Fuller's production company.  

I'd hate to see the show turned into a gambling scam, since that will kill it faster than it would otherwise fade into oblivion.  

Btw, I'm a Fox employee on the local level, not the national level.  The show's success or failure doesn't really impact my job or the skimpy ass raises Uncle Rupert gives his employees.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Righ on May 18, 2004, 10:08:27 PM
Ass raises from Uncle Rupert sounds dirty.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Kyper on May 19, 2004, 12:26:51 AM
Quote
the skimpy-ass raises Uncle Rupert gives his employees


fixed.  hehe.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2004, 07:02:26 AM
All the show ever really showed me was how trivial the pop music industry could be. Don't worry about having your own music, don't worry about your own talents, we'll just put it up to mass democracy and then sell you like the Flavor of the Month and Baskin Robbins.

Can they sing? Sure, but all American Idol shows is how musical success can be nothing more than a star factory. And the fact that they keep doing the show over and over is really just Malibu Stacey with a new hat.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Dark Vengeance on May 19, 2004, 07:42:36 AM
Quote from: Paelos
And the fact that they keep doing the show over and over is really just Malibu Stacey with a new hat.


Quote from: Malibu Stacy
Trite and insipid pop music is HARD!!


KTHXDRVTHRU

Bring the noise.
Cheers............


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: HaemishM on May 19, 2004, 09:25:22 AM
Quote from: Kyper
I'd LOVE to see the show turned into MORE OF a gambling scam THAN IT ALREADY IS, since that will kill it faster than it would otherwise fade into oblivion.


FIFY.

I just want someone to kill them all, get them the fuck off my television because their 15 seconds was up long after my patience wore thin. You would think that the absolute ripping the no-talent fucktards get on the audition shows, as well as the pure insipidness of the contests would serve as a warning to all the other no-talent assclowns out there to never audition for the show. But NOOOOOOOOO, not only do some of the retards audition once, they audition AGAIN, in a different city, hoping the judges will hate them less. And worse, some mutt sees possibly the worst singer ever, that William Hung moron, and signs him to a record deal and PEOPLE FUCKING BUY THE ALBUMN.

AMERICA, ARE YOU ALL FUCKING SLACK-JAWED RETARDS?

But hey, imagine that, phone voting isn't fair. On a Fox Show. Who'd have fucking thunk it?

I like what Lewis Black said. Where are Fox's Animals Attack when you need them?


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Sky on May 19, 2004, 09:34:15 AM
Welcome to the music biz 101. When I was in school for studio engineering (recording engineer), the majority of students were all on track to be songwriting studio folks. Some of the classes even outlined how to create pop music and how to shop it for artists. I got one of several sour tastes about the industry in those classes.

That's really the worst part of the industry, because it's also the most profitable. Find someone who can carry a tune, then have your label people make them over, give them songs, package it all nicely with a bow and play it over Clear Channel stations until you puke or buy the album. Cut out checks to all involved, and everyone but the talent is a house resource (and the talent, once signed, is as well, but usually short-term, easier to groom new talent than to deal with diva-itis unless she's /really/ moving units). It's a machine, well-oiled by the chucklenards who buy pop tripe.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2004, 09:47:37 AM
Kind of a side track, but have yall really noticed the lack of "Rock" music formats on the radio today? My rock station in atlanta plays good music, but it's very much based on harder classic rock and the 90s. I just don't see that much in the way of good new hard rock. There's alternative rock, but that's about the only new stuff I see turned out. I can't find new bands on the radio playing in the style of AC/DC or Gun's and Roses or the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Except of course the Peppers themselves.

My question is, is alternative rock the only new rock available? Or have I missed the boat and there is something more out there for my tastes? I don't really like the whiny, brat-like, high-pitched screaming of a lot of alternative rockers, so I'm hunting around.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 19, 2004, 10:03:23 AM
Quote
AMERICA, ARE YOU ALL FUCKING SLACK-JAWED RETARDS?


A rhetorical question if I have ever seen one, since the answer is painfully obvious.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Nebu on May 19, 2004, 12:33:28 PM
I have lost almost all faith in the music industry.  For every no talent idiot on American Idol, there are 20 more talented singers/musicians that just "don't have the right look".  The whole thing has turned into a fucking joke.  Maybe this is why I love John Popper... he overcame his looks with talent.

I played in some very successful bands in the Minneapolis music scene for almost 10 years.  One band that I was in was playing the top venues in town and in the regional area. Our guitarist was an INSANELY good, Juliard-trained musician.  Our brilliant manager gave him the toss and replaced him with a pretty boy hack... and we got more jobs.  That's when I left the business.

As for alternative, there are other options.  Norah Jones is a great example of a young artist that has stayed with her forte.  There is a lot of great music out there, you just have to hunt for it.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Signe on May 19, 2004, 01:48:10 PM
I worked in artist management for years.  I can honestly tell you that it's a very nasty way to make a living.  Nearly all aspects of it are cut-throat and corrupt... venues, personal management (that was me, that was), record label, talent agency, promotions... no difference.  I finally left in disgust.  It was us (the management company) against them (the artist and everyone else). That attitude was not just expected, it was encouraged.  

My company not only managed bands, but athletes (Phila. Flyers, mostly) and Pat Croce (Mr. Sport's Medicine)... we fucked them around, too.  Not too much with Croce as he happened to be my boss's best friend.  I finally left in disgust and never once missed it.  My job nearly made me think the world would be a better place without music or sports at all.  I won't even say what I think about American Idol as I get a loud humming in my head when I try and think about it.

I was an angry girl then... but I'm better now.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: stray on May 19, 2004, 03:07:19 PM
Hey Sky: What school did you go to? How much was tuition? I had a friend who went to Full-Sail, but it cost an arm and a leg. Just a musician here, but sounds like engineering would be a nice "job" job.

Quote
My question is, is alternative rock the only new rock available? Or have I missed the boat and there is something more out there for my tastes? I don't really like the whiny, brat-like, high-pitched screaming of a lot of alternative rockers, so I'm hunting around.


Being a guitar player, I really don't like to say it, but I think Rock is dead. For now at least. As for "alternative", it's back to the underground, sometimes filed under "Post-Rock" or "Indie" (I really do hate labels, but oh well). What's considered "alternative" is kinda the exact opposite really, considering the definition of the word.

I'm not sure what to suggest. Maybe Queens of the Stone Age? Shellac. Jon Spencer. That's Rock. Even Jack Black does a good job at it. There are also plenty of other great bands out there, but not "Rock" rock per se.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Krakrok on May 19, 2004, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: Paelos
I can't find new bands on the radio playing in the style of AC/DC or Gun's and Roses or the Red Hot Chili Peppers. My question is, is alternative rock the only new rock available? Or have I missed the boat and there is something more out there for my tastes?


That is because the record companies don't want you to be a rebel anymore. Rebels infringe copyrights (aka download SuP3R iLL3g@lz Mp3z!!1).

They want to stuff an apple in your mouth and hook their vacuum cleaner up to your wallet.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Kyper on May 19, 2004, 04:54:18 PM
Commercial music is an industry.  It churns out product, like the local Ford plant churns out cars.  The difference is, the music factories sell their product to radio and teenagers.  Some of it, I like.  Some of it, I hate.  American Idol is just another factory, like Sony, Arista, Columbia, et al.  

I enjoy American Idol because it's throwaway music.  It's like a piece of candy (or bubble gum, if you prefer).  You enjoy the taste for a while, but it's soon gone and you find something else to try.  I have no problem having an appreciation for the temporal, the fleeting moment of hearing a song with a good hook and a good singer.  Other types of music are appreciated for very different reasons:  their passion, their statement, their musicianship.  

As for talented singers and musicians, Detroit is loaded with them.  You can find a great performance in any of a dozen or more bars on a Friday or Saturday night.  Only a handful of these folks actually "make it" on a national level, because of the way the business side is run.  

One of my favorite local bands is a funk/rock group with members in their mid-30s.  They've tried and tried and can't make a national impact.  The reason?  They're too old.  Kid Rock used to DJ for them when he was still a real kid and even signed them to his label.  Still, no luck for them.  It's too bad because they're as good musically and on stage as any national rock act I've seen.

As for the current sorry state of rock music, I think the genre is due for another "revolution".  The last big force to change rock was Nirvana and Cobain's been in the ground for a decade.  I'm holding out hope that the next wave will be something worthwhile.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: stray on May 19, 2004, 05:18:13 PM
Quote
The last big force to change rock was Nirvana and Cobain's been in the ground for a decade. I'm holding out hope that the next wave will be something worthwhile.


For every Kurt Cobain that comes along, a whole slew of shit comes along with it that robs him of everything he's worth. I'd hate to see good music commoditized again. It happened with Elvis, the Beatles, Metal, Hip-Hop, Punk, Electronic, etc.. Let mainstream society have their Shit and enjoy it, and if they want something better, all they have to do is open their minds and explore.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: schild on May 19, 2004, 05:27:24 PM
Quote from: Kyper
As for the current sorry state of rock music, I think the genre is due for another "revolution".  The last big force to change rock was Nirvana and Cobain's been in the ground for a decade.  I'm holding out hope that the next wave will be something worthwhile.


To say that Nirvana CHANGED rock is an overkill. He paved the way for an era of pseudo punk/grunge with Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, and a few other bands of the early-late 90's - almost all of whom were superior to Nirvana (including the Foo Fighters, who wouldn't have existed if Cobain hadn't shot himself). But changed rock? Not a fucking chance. The 80's hair bands had a bigger impact on rock than Cobain did. If anyone changed the face of rock it was when Metallica cut their hair and the 'pop industry' started churning out singers like Britney Spears and decided that bands like Limp Bizkit, Staind, et al. were real bands and not just commercial entitites.

Meh, I haven't given a shit about rock since around 1995. I'll stick with my Kraftwerk/Frontline Assembly inspired industrial. Fuck Rock.

EDIT: Oh and I'll argue to the death that Pearl Jam's "Ten" or Soundgarden's "SuperUnknown" is vastly superior than any of Nirvana's offerings. Just because a bunch of teenagers were in touch with Cobain's shit doesn't make the music ANY better. If he hadn't shot himself he might have learned a couple chords.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Disco Stu on May 19, 2004, 07:50:22 PM
Quote from: schild

To say that Nirvana CHANGED rock is an overkill. He paved the way for an era of pseudo punk/grunge with Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, and a few other bands of the early-late 90's - almost all of whom were superior to Nirvana (including the Foo Fighters, who wouldn't have existed if Cobain hadn't shot himself). But changed rock? Not a fucking chance. The 80's hair bands had a bigger impact on rock than Cobain did.


You are an idoit. Yes Nirvana is over rated, but they are over rated for a reason. They changed rock and roll, compleatly and totally. Hair metal didn't die with the 80s it died with the debut of Smells Like Teen Spirit. Argue all you want about the quality of the songs they produced (personlly Sixteen Stone is my favorite rock album of the 90s) but the fact that they paved the way for every major rock act of the 90s is unquestionable. None of the bands you mentioned would have been more than a blip on the radar if it wern't for Nirvana.

O and...

Quote from: schild

Meh, I haven't given a shit about rock since around 1995. I'll stick with my Kraftwerk/Frontline Assembly inspired industrial. Fuck Rock.


You're a fucking tool.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: schild on May 19, 2004, 09:38:48 PM
Quote from: Disco Stu
You are an idoit. Yes Nirvana is over rated, but they are over rated for a reason. They changed rock and roll, compleatly and totally. Hair metal didn't die with the 80s it died with the debut of Smells Like Teen Spirit. Argue all you want about the quality of the songs they produced (personlly Sixteen Stone is my favorite rock album of the 90s) but the fact that they paved the way for every major rock act of the 90s is unquestionable. None of the bands you mentioned would have been more than a blip on the radar if it wern't for Nirvana.


First of all, if I remember correctly Pearl Jam and Nirvana's greatest albums came out at the exact same time of the exact same year. I'd wager a bet that "Jeremy" shared the charts with "Smells like Teen Spirit" for most of the year as well. Before "Nevermind," and the song "Smells like Teen Spirit" Nirvana was nothing more than a 'blip' on the radar' as you put it. And to be even more specific, hair metal died when Bon Jovi decided to stop making it.

More than that, don't attribute shit to Nirvana other than being another band of the "Seattle Scene," the only thing that made them more than that was Cobain killing himself (which he gets ABSOLUTELY no sympathy from me for, heroin is not something I admire). Before that, the only songs people cared about were "Lithium" and "Smells..." Sure, it COULD be argued that Soundgarden only had 2 songs as well (that were worth a shit), "Spoonman" and "Black Hole Sun." Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains had many more hits than Soundgarden or Nirvana could have hoped for. So if you want to attribute influences, at least understand it was the entire Seattle Scene, not just Cobain, his needles, and his whorish wife.

Quote from: Disco Stu
You're a fucking tool.




Now we're talking. Tool is better than Nirvana any day of the fucking week. I can also assume you have no clue who Kraftwerk and Frontline Assembly are, otherwise you'd have said nothing. Paving the way for an entire subculture that's lasted 20 years is a lot more than Nirvana can say. The 'alternative' section the Seattle scene made in the 90's doesn't even exist in record stores anymore (I'm talking about small ones, not huge monsters like Best Buy, etc). But you'll find an industrial section in many, many small record stores. Alternative split into punk, rock, and pop.

Also, don't make fun of me until you learn how to spell, idoit.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Rasix on May 19, 2004, 10:19:48 PM
*post burned to the ground by author because arguing over which band was more influential is pointless*

Can't we all get back to the point of this thread?  Hating a show that promotes mediocre singers to pop stardom.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: stray on May 20, 2004, 12:36:09 AM
Quote from: Rasix
*post burned to the ground by author because arguing over which band was more influential is pointless*

Can't we all get back to the point of this thread?  Hating a show that promotes mediocre singers to pop stardom.


Ya know, I haven't even seen the show once. I have no business here anyways =)

BTW, anyone here seen "Hype!"?


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Rasix on May 20, 2004, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: stray
Quote from: Rasix
*post burned to the ground by author because arguing over which band was more influential is pointless*

Can't we all get back to the point of this thread?  Hating a show that promotes mediocre singers to pop stardom.


Ya know, I haven't even seen the show once. I have no business here anyways =)



I've seen it once by accident (well parts of it, my wife will watch it on occasion).  I think my middle school musical featured better vocalists (no seriously).


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Mesozoic on May 20, 2004, 04:27:58 AM
What annoys me most about these shows is how their goings-on often end up getting reported as news.  FOX is especially bad about this for local news, but even Dateline bothered to do a "story" on The Apprentice.  

Watching a news report on a fabricated and completely unrealistic reality TV show while people die in Iraq, the War on Terror goes on in Afghanistan, North Korea brandishes WMD, AIDS and famine kill untold numbers across the world, and a hotly contested presidential campaign comes into full swing?

Thats a well-marked milestone on the highway to cultural oblivion.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Sky on May 20, 2004, 06:56:02 AM
I was living in LA when the grunge wave hit. I remember sitting on the steps of the Roxy singing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" with my singer. Some unknown band named 'Pearl Jam' was on the marquee.

Quote
Hey Sky: What school did you go to? How much was tuition?

Actually, I was going to school while living in LA, Long Beach to be exact. Surprisingly, the City College had a great recording program. I took it at first just to legitimize things for my asshole father who didn't understand that music was a business, too. But it turned out great (several state of the art recording studios), except I had to drop out to move to the Bay Area, heh. LA was a total mess at that time and there was a much better scene in SF, especially for heavier and artistic bands. Most of the instructors were performing musicians and working studio folks, not 'teachers' like you get in the majority of music schools I looked at.

So to answer your question, it was Long Beach City College, and at the time I was a resident of california, so it was $5/cr hr to a max of $50/semester.

I've made a lot of mistakes while I was in the music biz, but dropping out of that school is the only thing I really regret. Had to be done, ebcause of the music scene, but I still wish I had finished school and stayed there with all the studio connections I was getting.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: DarkDryad on May 20, 2004, 07:08:32 AM
Quote from: Paelos
My rock station in atlanta plays good music, but it's very much based on harder classic rock and the 90s. I just don't see that much in the way of good new hard rock.


Arent good and new rock like oxymorons? I mean lets face it now days they will sign anyone who can sream well. No thanx I'll take my AC/DC andZeplin and all untill they actually get someone who can do more than yell at me. My wife does that fine.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Dark Vengeance on May 20, 2004, 07:59:45 AM
Quote from: schild
Before "Nevermind," and the song "Smells like Teen Spirit" Nirvana was nothing more than a 'blip' on the radar' as you put it.


Before "Nevermind", Nirvana was an indie band playing their flavor of power pop in small venues in the Pacific Northwest. Their only previous album, Bleach, was done on the Sub Pop label and made for under $700.

Consider that Teen Spirit wasn't the phenomenon, or even Nevermind. After Nirvana hit it big, Bleach became a multi-platinum album, and Sub Pop went from a small underground label to a household name for Gen X.

Not only did they help bring the Seattle Scene to the forefront, but the entire indie scene as well. With Nirvana's success came a renewed interest in A&R based on looking for bands that could put together a good song....not just a collection of virtuosos with rock and metal pedigrees.


Quote
More than that, don't attribute shit to Nirvana other than being another band of the "Seattle Scene,"


Yeah, like the Beatles were nothing more than another band of the British Invasion. For lack of a rebellious young rock hero, Cobain became the Gen X version of Morrison, Hendrix, and Lennon...all rolled into one.

Perhaps you don't remember much about the music scene in the late 80's. It was all Glam Rock, with bands like Motley Crue and Poison and Warrant and Guns-n-Roses....all doing the same formulaic crap. Songs about rock chicks, doing drugs, and kicking ass....with the standard 2-3 rock ballads per album. It was the guy in your High School with the mullet and molester moustache who would yell "kick ass!", flash the horns, and start headbanging or playing air guitar to vapid songs like Doctor Feelgood at the prom. Fuck, go pick up an early album by Extreme if you want to hear the sort of shit that ruled the day before grunge.

Metallica was still "speed metal", and was held in that stereotypical "headbanger" mode, along with other bands like Megadeth. In fact, Metallica's early catalog picked up a lot of steam after their Black album, which also came out in 1991, and shared airplay and the charts with Teen Spirit, PJ's Even Flow, Alice's Man in the Box, and Soungarden's Outshined. "Mighty Met" supported the album by touring with GNR, who were supporting their Use Your Illusion albums (at the time, they looked to be the glam band most likely to survive Grunge).

But in the explosion of interest in new music, you also had Nine Inch Nails and Ministry coming to the forefront....and within 2 years, Smashing Pumpkins were huge, and Tool & Rage Against the Machine were beginning to establish a strong national following.

Quote
the only thing that made them more than that was Cobain killing himself (which he gets ABSOLUTELY no sympathy from me for, heroin is not something I admire).


As if he was the first rock star to do heroin. He killed himself, and aside for conspiracy theories, it's pretty clear that he did it on purpose. Why would you give someone sympathy for doing what they wanted to do?

Quote
Before that, the only songs people cared about were "Lithium" and "Smells..."


And "Come As You Are", "Heart Shaped Box", "In Bloom"...those were all the big singles with videos.

Quote
Sure, it COULD be argued that Soundgarden only had 2 songs as well (that were worth a shit), "Spoonman" and "Black Hole Sun."


Wow, you came into them late. Try "Outshined" and "Jesus Christ Pose" from the album Badmotorfinger. The Superunknown album was circa 1993.

Quote
Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains had many more hits than Soundgarden or Nirvana could have hoped for.


Alice made it on songs like Man in the Box (from Facelift), and then had a huge sophomore effort with Dirt. Dirt contained such songs as Them Bones, Rooster, Would?, Angry Chair, and Down in a Hole.

Pearl Jam had several hits off of Ten, including Jeremy, Even Flow, Alive, and Black. Their subsequent albums became a tad bit forumlaic for my tastes....for a while, every single they released sounded like another version of Betterman.

Quote
So if you want to attribute influences, at least understand it was the entire Seattle Scene, not just Cobain, his needles, and his whorish wife.


Cobain was undeniably the biggest rock star of the last 15 years, and he was the poster child for the Seattle scene, grunge, alternative, etc. And he hated the fact that he was the poster boy....IMO he wanted to be Johnny Rotten, not Mick Jagger.

Cobain and Nirvana were not the only influences that changed rock, but they were a major one. Even bands like Alice, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden weren't the angry, misanthropic, defiant bands that Nirvana was. And moreover, you had people singing along with the songs like they were nursery rhymes....often without even knowing all the lyrics, or having a fucking clue what they meant.

Quote
Tool is better than Nirvana any day of the fucking week.


I agree with this wholeheartedly. If nothing else, because they put it all together on a much deeper level. Musicianship, great lyrics & themes, extraordinary art direction, a commitment to artistic integrity, an experimental nature. They are the Pink Floyd of this generation.

Quote
I can also assume you have no clue who Kraftwerk and Frontline Assembly are, otherwise you'd have said nothing. Paving the way for an entire subculture that's lasted 20 years is a lot more than Nirvana can say. The 'alternative' section the Seattle scene made in the 90's doesn't even exist in record stores anymore (I'm talking about small ones, not huge monsters like Best Buy, etc). But you'll find an industrial section in many, many small record stores.


I'm familiar with both bands, and I enjoy industrial....but I don't see the removal of the "alternative" section to be a testament to cultural relevance. Most mainstream observers would more quickly identify bands like Nine Inch Nails, Ministry, or Front 242 with industrial than they would either of the above. And indeed, those bands have had far more crossover success.

Quote
Alternative split into punk, rock, and pop.


That's because "alternative" was formerly the "everything else" category. Punk, 80's styled light techno, goth, and even industrial. It could have just as easily been called "shit they don't play on the radio, plus the Cure and Depeche Mode". Basically, if it wasn't easily classifed with Rock, Pop, Metal, R&B, Soundtracks, Jazz, Blues, or Classical, it was probably in the alternative section.

The Seattle scene came on, and all of a sudden "Alternative", Rock, Metal and Pop became fairly well blended. In subsequent years you had bands like Green Day and Rancid emerge as "Alternative" bands...adding yet more ambiguity to the term. Bands like Dave Matthews, Phish, and Hootie and the frickin Blowfish were being categorized as Alternative by some folks, for God's sake.

A split had to take place as the music scene changed, particularly as fans were watching "punk" music come to the forefront in a bastardized candy-assed commercial sort of way....bands like Blink 182 and Good Charlotte being placed in the same category as the Exploited, DK, Minor Threat, and Sham 69 is a fucking travesty that still turns my stomach.

Anyway, I'll let it sit at that. I agree with you on many points, but I think you have underestimated the impact Nirvana had on the music scene while Cobain was still alive. And hell, if nothing else out of that era, we brought back the fucking summer concert festivals with Lollapalooza, which was quickly imitated with the Woodstock rehashes, Warped Tour, Ozzfest, etc.

Sorry to go all SirBruce on the subject...just felt it made for interesting discussion.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2004, 08:44:59 AM
Nirvana... they changed the music INDUSTRY. They didn't change the music.

Fuck, look at it this way. Without Nirvana, there would be no "Simple Plan." Look at Simple Plan for a moment. Listen to the hooks, the chorus, if your stomach can handle it. Please try hard not to think of 98 Degrees or N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys when you listen. Try really hard. You can't do it, I know I can't.

Nirvana made "alternative" music a commodity, or more precisely the ghoulish cockmunchers who latch onto decent acts like lampreys made alternative music into a commodity. I mean, if Nirvana is the alternative, what the fuck are they the alternative to, exactly? The guitar is almost straight heavy metal, just with a lot more fuzz. The lyrics are decent teen angst, but they aren't any more relevant or rebellious than most of the good punk of the 70's. Shit, Alice in Chains and Soundgarden WERE "heavy metal" until Nirvana hit it big; then because they came from Seattle and had a heavy sound, suddenly they were "alternative." So what exactly are they rebelling against again? Over-produced hair bands? So they wear flannel instead of leather and suddenly they are the saviors of music? Listen to Nirvana's "Bleach" then listen to "Nevermind" and tell me that Nirvana didn't get better with a heavy-handed producer (hello Butch Vig!).

The music business is a BUSINESS, and these guys are playing music to make money. The only difference between Nirvana and Limp Bizkit is how MUCH money they would be happy with. Well, there's also the matter of talent, but really, talent means all of jack shit in the music BUSINESS. You can't sell talent, you can sell hooks. Fred Durst wants gold-plated pimp cups and Kurt Cobain wanted to be able to stop washing dishes and eating Top Ramen. But they both wanted to make money with their music, as does every other musician out there.

Nirvana made another type of music into a sellable commodity. Same goes with people like Eminem, or Madonna. That's their impact on the music industry.

Now you want to talk artistic merit, that's another discussion entirely, which has fuck all to do with the business.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Shockeye on May 20, 2004, 08:54:16 AM
Quote from: stray

BTW, anyone here seen "Hype!"?


"Hype!" was very entertaining. The Supersuckers own all Seattle bands, hands down.

I do encourage everyone who has even a passing interest in the Seattle scene to view "Hype!" because it chronicles the evolution of the scene pretty well.

And as a whole "where are they now" addendum to "Hype!", Megan "Dickless" Jasper is now running Sub-Pop.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Shockeye on May 20, 2004, 08:58:12 AM
Quote from: Dark Vengeance
Alice made it on songs like Man in the Box (from Facelift), and then had a huge sophomore effort with Dirt. Dirt contained such songs as Them Bones, Rooster, Would?, Angry Chair, and Down in a Hole.


"Facelift" was merely "ok" in my book. I didn't really think Alice was anything much until "Dirt". They proved they were songwriters in addition to simply playing instruments. "Dirt" ranks easily in my Top 5 of anything to ever come out of the Pacific Northwest.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Nebu on May 20, 2004, 09:20:25 AM
You guys will probably cry when I say that the "Seattle Rock Scene" was pwnd by what some call the most successful female fronted band in the annals of hard rock. Well, until the arrival of the grunge scene... anyone remember a little band named Heart?  They were an upstart founded in the early 70's (like 1974 I think) and helped create the thriving rock scene in Seattle today.

What Nirvana did was brilliant and I think unintentional at the same time.  They helped with the surgical removal of the hair band/glam-rock that was still slapping out the same formulamatic crap they were producing in the 80's.  Were they phenomenal musicians? Not really... but they did help create some momentum for a new direction in the industry.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Dark Vengeance on May 20, 2004, 09:36:45 AM
Quote from: HaemishM
Nirvana... they changed the music INDUSTRY. They didn't change the music.


Well, what you are saying is true, of course, but they did change the music scene rather drastically.

Most metal at the time was all about playing really fast, having an encyclopedic knowledge of scales, and being able to sustain a solo for 3-5 minutes (check out any live Dokken album for a prime example of what I'm referring to). A fair amount of metal also had this odd, almost progressive tilt to it...comparing metal artists like Yngwie Malmsteen to a progressive rock band such as Dream Theatre isn't much of a stretch.

Anyway, one of the things that came with grunge was the slowed-down two-ton fucking HEAVY guitar. Guitar players started doing some alternate tunings like dropped D or even tuning the entire guitar down a half step or more. Listen to the guitar sound on Kickstart My Heart from Motley Crue and compare it to the guitar sound on Them Bones by Alice in Chains, Outshined by Soundgarden, or anything by White Zombie....which sounds more like a typical guitar sound today??

Additionally, other sounds started coming back along with it, including the use of slide guitar, distorted bass, distorted vocals, more prevalent use of wah, flange, and phase effects in songs....all in pursuit of a HEAVY sound. Hell, Tool's guitarist played through a bass amplifier to add a thicker crunch to the low-end....and IIRC, White Zombie used all of the effects mentioned above pretty extensively.

The subject matter was a lot heavier as well....take bands like Tool, Rage, or Nirvana singing about philosophy, political upheaval, or non-conformist apathy (respectively) and compare it to Motley Crue singing about "kicking ass on the wild side", Warrant crooning about the double entendre of "Cherry Pie", or Ratt's inane "Round and Round", and you can see a distinct difference.

Not that these other elements didn't exist before Nirvana or grunge....but their success got record companies interested in finding new independent acts that didn't necessarily sound like other successful bands. And it got the kids interested in checking out stuff they wouldn't ordinarily have listened to.....jocks in my High School listening to Smashing Pumpkins and Tori Amos come to mind.

It wasn't just Nirvana of course, but to an extent, they were like the spark that helped set off the powder keg. Unfortunately, today, the pendulum is swinging back the other way....toward safe, sanitized bullshit, at least within the mainstream. At least enough kids have been turned on to looking outside of mainstream music to discover the underground scene and find stuff that's actually worthwhile.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: schild on May 20, 2004, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: Dark Vengeance
Lots of stuff.


You had me going along with everything you were saying til you mentioned fucking Dokken. Jesus man, that's like raining on your own parade.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: schild on May 20, 2004, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: HaemishM
The only difference between Nirvana and Limp Bizkit is how MUCH money they would be happy with. Well, there's also the matter of talent, but really, talent means all of jack shit in the music BUSINESS.


Which is why I haven't supported the RIAA for the last 5 years. Like seriously, if I can't get a CD through an indie label, a band web page, or a used CD store with trade-in's, it just won't get listened to.

One day talent will mean something again. Hollywood just needs a couple more Gigli's and honey's and the music industry just needs a couple more William Hung albums to outsell whatever the next 'big' thing happens to be.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: cevik on May 20, 2004, 10:04:54 AM
Eh, Nirvana stole their style straight from the Pixies, if we're going to celebrate revolutionaries, we should at least go to the source..


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Dark Vengeance on May 20, 2004, 10:18:24 AM
Quote from: schild
Quote from: Dark Vengeance
Lots of stuff.


You had me going along with everything you were saying til you mentioned fucking Dokken. Jesus man, that's like raining on your own parade.


Even when I did so to deride the sad state of the metal scene of the late 80's?

I realize it's the musical equivalent of having a woman mention your grandmother during sex, but cmon....things were NOT all sunshine and rainbows back in the day.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Dark Vengeance on May 20, 2004, 10:28:56 AM
Quote from: cevik
Eh, Nirvana stole their style straight from the Pixies, if we're going to celebrate revolutionaries, we should at least go to the source..


The sound and style was hardly revolutionary. Even Cobain himself frequently pointed out that they were little more than the 90's version of Cheap Trick. He was the first to tell people that Nirvana wasn't really doing anything new.

They didn't create the style, but they brought it to the forefront, and made it popular....and they did so with a measure of artistic integrity intact (listen to Radio Friendly Unit Shifter from In Utero and tell me that was what the label wanted as a follow up to Nevermind). While I have no issue with celebrating the Pixies on their own merits, I disagree that we should credit them with the success of Nirvana.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: DarkDryad on May 20, 2004, 10:32:17 AM
Goddmaned kids and thier music. The 70's and early 80's kicked this shit in the ass... but hard.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2004, 11:22:00 AM
THERE'S NAUGHT WRONG WITH DOKKEN, LAD!

Well, ok sure there is, including the lead singer sucking copious amounts of cock, but the guitarist had his moments. If you like that sort of thing, which I do.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Shockeye on May 20, 2004, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: cevik
Eh, Nirvana stole their style straight from the Pixies, if we're going to celebrate revolutionaries, we should at least go to the source..


And Pixies were heavily influenced by Husker Du, who were influenced by Johnny Thunders, etc etc etc


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Sky on May 20, 2004, 11:52:47 AM
Quote
You guys will probably cry when I say that the "Seattle Rock Scene" was pwnd by what some call the most successful female fronted band in the annals of hard rock.

How ignorant do you think we are? We're discussing the late 80s/early 90s, not the 70s. Don't you remember the incredible jugband that dominated the Seattle scene after the gold rush in the 1800's? :P
Quote
Which is why I haven't supported the RIAA for the last 5 years.

From a business perspective, this is stupid. By boycotting the RIAA and not supporting the /good/ artists, you remove another weight from 'our' side of the balance, because the mindless pop shoppers are still rabidly buying pop tripe. So to an accountant, that's less sales of that good artist compared to the pop crap. If everyone who enjoys good music boycotts the RIAA, then all they will sign is pop tripe.

At least if you support the artists you like they have a chance to move on when their contract runs out and you show the industry that good music is worth paying for.

I remember what it was like to be and actionable on issues. I marched with NORML, which was my cause of note in the 80s. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't think through your actions to the logical conclusion. Not buying music you like through major labels just tells major labels that that kind of music isn't viable, but the schlop like American Idol is, because it's still selling like hotcakes. And they can pump that fabricated shit out forever. Talent will only get rewarded in the industry if it sells. If you aren't buying, then why would they sign talented artists?

Dokken. I've seen them live a couple times, they put on a hell of a show, great band. Check out 'Mr Scary'. The drums and bass were a bit plain (part of the 'revolution' was ditching that crappy style of 4/4 basic drums + plodding single note bass as a major style, thank god), but as Hammy mentions, George Lynch is a tiger on guitar. Too bad he was in a band during that era, with that singer, who wasn't a bad singer, just had a real shitty and annoying style.

Hey, I never knew Adam Jones played through a bass amp! I'm using my bass amp and 1x15/8x10 combo for my guitar right now, heh. Guess I'll just skip buying a marshall stack and say it's how it's done these days!


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Dark Vengeance on May 20, 2004, 12:40:16 PM
Quote from: Sky
Hey, I never knew Adam Jones played through a bass amp! I'm using my bass amp and 1x15/8x10 combo for my guitar right now, heh. Guess I'll just skip buying a marshall stack and say it's how it's done these days!


Jones did a lot of bizarre things to get his specific sound. In particular he managed to find a setup where the level of distortion increases based on how hard he hits the strings with his right hand. Thus, in songs like "Forty-six & 2" from Aenima, he can gradually make the main guitar theme more and more distorted as the song progresses. Not easily duplicated, and really cool.

Of course, he's also been known to use a vibrator to get sustain and feedback, so I don't know if I'd emulate everything based solely on the fact that he does it.

He gets my vote as best guitarist of the 90s.....not the best technical player by any stretch, but Jones is the master of extracting just the right sound to provide what the song needs. never heard him do a solo that doesn't actually move the song forward and take it to a different place....which IMO puts him head and shoulders above virtuousos like Malmsteen who can dazzle you with pentatonic and mixolydian scales in their solos, but can't always make it relevant.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2004, 01:14:07 PM
Malmsteen could play the shit out of some academic stuff, but he couldn't write a moving song to save his ass. All he ever did was spew out scales that they teach in school sped up to 78 with lots of metal distortion. Total crap.

People like Tool's guitarist, or even Trent Reznor may not be as good technically as guys like Malmsteen. But they know how to write effecting music, even with sounds that should normally not be considered musical in nature. Same goes for the guys from Ministry and Front 242 (Skinny Puppy).

As for Nirvana were ripping off the Pixies were ripping off Husker Du, they were all continuing variations on "The Song," that great universal body of music that keeps building over the course of human history.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: stray on May 20, 2004, 06:52:17 PM
Quote
Malmsteen could play the shit out of some academic stuff, but he couldn't write a moving song to save his ass.


Or any cock-rockin' guitar virtuoso for that matter (except Eddie perhaps). Vai, Satriani, Johnson can't write songs for shit either. I'll take Ry Cooder or Tom Verlaine over them any day.

I'm not a Tool fan, but I do dig the guitarist. As for bass-amp setups though, Josh Homme did a lot to popularize that sound with Kyuss (that and tuning to C). Nowadays it seems all metal guitarists (even Kerry King) sound like that (by way of the 7-string and Mesa's).

As for me, I'm all for the pursuit of ear-shattering ultra-treble guitar, coupled with Bass so low it's makes people feel like they're gonna shit in their pants. Indoor-shows only, of course.


Title: Winning on long odds
Post by: Righ on May 20, 2004, 07:18:44 PM
Quote from: stray
As for me, I'm all for the pursuit of ear-shattering ultra-treble guitar, coupled with Bass so low it's makes people feel like they're gonna shit in their pants. Indoor-shows only, of course.


Only way to feel the noise is when it's good and loud,
So good you can't believe it's screaming with the crowd,
Don't sweat it, get it back to you,
Overkill, Overkill