Printable View
ask and answer the questions you're interested in
do you think Slash's first outing with Snakepit, 'It's Five O'Clock Somewhere', would have made a good Guns N Roses album, with Axl Rose on vocals? If I'm not mistaken the instrumental sections for a whole batch of songs on the album were composed by Slash for the supposed next GNR album, but Axl refused 'em
Back when that album came out I bought about 10 copies of the cd for $0.99 each. I sold them to used cd shops over the years.
I have never heard even a second of the album tho, lololololololololol.
Is it any good? Much (any?) instrumental stuff on there?
I'm waiting for my copy to arrive from a discogs seller. I didn't listen to the YT vid I posted above. I like my first listen to be with the cd booklet in my hands. lol I know
I only very recently got into G'N'R, right after starting that 'high school music' thread. I got Appetite & the Illusions now, some good stuff on there (Illusions are bloated though)
so I'll get back to you on that
So I am aware Yoko is to blame for the Beatles breaking up and she is insufferable attention hungry cunt. Why was Lennon so obsessed with her. He was only one of the most famous people on earth and could of done better easily. What was his issue? I am not at all familiar with the Beatles history.
He was hypocritical (aren't we all) but was also self righteous and was into the 'I'm an Artist' thing. I think he could connect with Yoko on that level
I think Lennon was deeply insecure and needed someone to basically boss him around
will update, still haven't received my copyQuote:
Originally Posted by Hal Incandenza
Seems to me like John Lennon craved a mother figure. He never really had a proper mother-son relationship with his own mother, he lived with his aunty when he was young and his mum died while he was an early teen which he never got over. He once said something like "I lost my mum twice - once when I went to live with my aunt and once when she died"Quote:
Originally Posted by b-dolo
The guy slayed pussy like a mad man but he wanted that mother-son relationship badly so he ended up with Yoko who he apparently called mother. His song My Mummy's Dead is tragically sad
He basically credited Yoko for stopping him being a misogynist. He says something about it on 'Getting Better'.
Of course at the same time he was cheating with Yoko on his previous wife.
Yoko Ono was an interesting artist but it was obviously jarring to people when Lennon went from his accessible duo with McCartney to the extremely avant garde Ono.
I think The Beatles were basically done by that point anyway. I don't think it was all Yoko's fault, they would have splintered regardless. If Lennon had lived they might have reunited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_62zKxOr0
Gone down a Beatles rabbithole the last hour or so.
I'm pretty sure John and Yoko had an open relationship. I don't think John stopped openly slaying hoes when he was with her.
Did any cunt watch the recent 'Get Back' doco? I absolutely loved it. Fascinating. Obviously it's edited a certain way, but it's like 8 hours of footage from the 'Let It Be' sessions and it's mostly a pretty good thyme. They were nowhere near as dysfunctional at that point as the world has always been lead to believe.
Also Yoko basically just sits there and never says a word, so the whole thing about her seems to be greatly exaggerated too.
I was actually going to mention that in the overrated bands thread how so much of what is legend about The Beatles is grossly exaggerated.
I haven't seen the documentary but I've seen clips on youtube and the clips show a completely different atmosphere to what I've been reading about for the last 20 years. There's one instance where George says "I think I'm leaving the band now" and I think it's Paul who says "Oh okay George" and that's it lol maybe it's been heavily edited and there's a fiery episode in between those two talking that's left out but the drama was nowhere near what I thought, I kept hearing about how tense the sessions were and they were at each other's throats and here we have them at their supposed worst and it looks like the most chilled sessions ever.
Another legend was how controlling Paul was like a dictator and then you see clips of him encouraging the band to do some work while the band, especially John, are fucking around and Paul never gets angry or raises his voice from what I saw. They'd have probably never got anything done without Paul. I gained a lot more respect for Paul from those clips he was nowhere near what people have portrayed him
But The Beatles nerds - which are like 90% of the reason I get tired of the band quickly - still find shit to dump on Paul like when he's playing his guitar while George is talking to him about a song then he looks George dead in the eye and says it's a good idea but because he didn't stop playing he's a bad guy lol John seemed like a total wanker though he was always in the background making smart arse comments from what I've seen.
And I don't think I even heard Yoko talk besides one instance where I think it's her who's asking if anyone wants a drink that's it, she honestly looks like she doesn't even want to be there.
The main reason I brought this up, was because of this video of Yoko getting her mic turned off. I'm sure most people have seen it.
I can't imagine Paul being a dictator. I don't think you ever heard him raise his voice in songs or interviews.
Supposedly George Harrison had the most beef with Yoko, but Lennon obviously didn't care because they still worked together after.
I like McCartney solos more because he has this relentlessly upbeat attitude, but the early Lennon solos are very close to Beatles songs so they're great too.
In regards to OP : I finally received the album from Austria. Slash's first would have made a more than solid G N R album. The singer on there is okay, replace him with Axl and you have a ready to go G N R album. The lyrics are there and so are the instrumentals. Predictably good riffs obviously.
I should compare this one to Chinese Democracy by playing them back to back to find out which one sounds the most vintage G N R. Nice lil project for later on this week.
Who is considered the best rock bands of the 70s? I know of the bands who were the most popular. Zeppelin, Doors, Who, Sabbath. Etc. But that doesn't necessarily equate to being the best musicians/lyricist. I'm thinking on the lines of raps golden era, when the most recognized artists are not always considered to be the favorite among purest.
https://www.musicgrotto.com/70s-rock-bands/
pretty good list imo, it has all the big names, in various rock genres, and the list is not too long
I often dive into '100 best bands (seventies)' type lists to discover stuff that's new to me, but the linked list above has the bands that really matter
Led Zeppelin at 1 is an immediate fail. I'm not a big AC/DC fan but there's no way there aren't on the list especially when bands like Joy Division who only released 2 albums in total and only one was in the 70s are on there. Santana is way too high they should be a top 10.
Yeah the numbers are off but the names are a good bunch.
I guess Joy Division is there because of their 'influence' on a genre IDK
I didn’t realise bdolo was asking for band suggestions. I like Joy Division fwiw
For me the best band of the 1970s are Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath but I think a best bands from 1966-1976 is a more interesting discussion because a lot of greatness was released at the end of the 1960s and some bands like The Doors, Velvet Underground, Grateful Dead did their best work in the 1960s and garage/psych/prog is better than punk, new wave and glam rock.
When did it die and why?
When did what die?
Rock music. It was the biggest thing besides pop from the 50s until the 90s or maybe early 2000s. Now its niche music, rarely innovative or popular and mostly aping previous decades or trying to keep up with pop trends.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hound
Grunge sped up the process of separating classic rock/hair metal/metal from alt rock, a process that had been started by punk earlier on I think
I am totally out of the loop with current mainstream rock, anything after say 2000
I don't know if rock died. maybe?
There's probably people out there who think when they buy a Coldplay album they're listening to rock. lol
There isn't really such a thing as mainstream rock after like 2007ish. Like you say, theres acts like Coldplay, but theres no pretence of them being rock at this point.
Bands that started before that point still have big live followings, but don't sell records.
So rock music isn’t the dominant radio station tune so that means it’s dead? jazz must be dead too.
Well we could argue over semantics or philosophy of art instead, but the fact is its not important to pop culture like it once was. You probably understand what I'm saying and are just being obtuse because you like arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hound
There are still good jazz acts, and there are probably a few new good rock bands about, which is nice on an individual level, but meaningless in terms of the direction of popular music.
That's a completely different discussion from "rock is dead" then.
"Rock n Roll" probably hasn't been the dominant force in popular music since the late 1970s and arguably was at its peak from the mid 1950s to the late 1960s
Nah its dead, it legit sucks now. Rock acts were still hugely popular through the 80s and 90s. Something happened. I would say its a combination of different things but I'm interested what you and others think.
Okay rock is dead, RIP
the latter was a good spirited response song (kravitz & prince were friends) and is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, nice funk touches in there esp in the second half. I also love the guitar part from 04:05 onward. this song dates back to a long period I was heavily involved in Prince music, buying tons of bootlegs too and seeing a concert once in a while.
I don't follow rock music t6o closely and this may be a small aspect. I have noticed, that most vocal leads now a days seem be actual good singers and all sound similar. It seems like in the past the front man was more about being an entertainer and having a sound unique to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaDynasty
^ Yeah they were superstars.
I think another thing is electronic music was able to innovate and change faster. Its not like rock music can't come back to the mainstream but it has to be something that doesn't sound old or like pop.
In recent years I really love Temples who are prog/psych and Paris, Texas who are probably the best rap/rock group I've heard.
Any other new rock groups that are good?
I have seen a few interviews. One that comes to a mind is by Henry Rollins. But also on a recent podcast by a lesser known rock artist. Which call out U2 as being bad musicians. As someone who doesn't play, are the really that bad? I like some of their earlier work. What in particular makes them suck?
I think theres a certain amount of jealousy/snobbery from other musicians, especially looking at the amount of success U2 have had. They aren't bad players, but also definitely not virtuosos. Their recent album where they strip back a selection of songs is a good example, they can play but they don't play anything very difficult. They rely a lot on studiocraft, effects and songwriting, which is fine because they do that stuff better than most bands.Quote:
Originally Posted by b-dolo
Also Rollins is like the proto incel, I'm not sure I'd trust his opinion.
Understood. Great replyQuote:
Originally Posted by ShaDynasty
U2 fell out of favor with the critics and some colleagues in music but essentially they are still the same band and before. some of their 80s and 90s output remains golden to this day
they took a huge hit publicity wise when tgat album of theirs was included for free on iTunes for new Apples or whatever it was
'But but but I don't want this U2-album in my collection!' a lot of crying over nothing