Good Bands from the Late 60s - 70s?

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 8, 2007, 7:44 pm

I'm finding that I really like the psychadellic rock from the late 60s - 70s lately, and a lot of the more mainstream music too. I guess I'm expanding my horizons, because most of this is way better than any of the poppy garbage that's "in" today.

Being 22 I guess I missed out.

So far I've discovered:

Pink Floyd (omfg

"Wish You Were Here" and "Dark Side of the Moon" are my new two favorite albums ever, and I still need to pick up "The Wall" and whatever else is out there.) -- by the way how's the stuff from before Roger Waters was in charge?

There's something about how he wrote entire albums to play continously merging all the songs together is just awesome

The Eagles (not psychadellic, I know)
Creedence Clearwater Revival (^same)
Fleetwood Mac (^same)

My question is: What are some of the other Pink Floyd-esque bands of that era? I'd never in a million years have guessed I'd find a favorite band in my father's record collection.

I bought the Grateful Dead without listening to them first and was sorely disappointed...

How are The Doors?
Or The Beatle's Sgt. Pepper stuff?

What else is there? This is like a newly found pot of gold, lol.

...

My parents were right when all through my highschool years they said that there's no talent out there today and I told them they were just lame

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » August 9, 2007, 3:50 am

The Beatles from 'Revolver' on.
The Who
The Kinks
Cream
The Doors
Jimi Hendrix
Fleetwood Mac
Procol Harum
The Velvet Underground
Early Frank Zappa
King Crimson
David Bowie
Early Genesis (

That's what immediately popped into mind, there are tons more of course.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 9, 2007, 4:09 am

I wouldn't say there is no talent out there today... Just that a lot of the commercial 'music' these days is crap. You can still find talented artists they're just not (usually) as prominent.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 9, 2007, 8:03 am

Led Zeppelin ranks up there with Pink Floyd.

The Kinks, already mentioned, don't get enough credit for lyrics and original songs that were covered by other bands later.

Also mentioned:

Fleetwood Mac
The Doors (if you want extreme psychedelic, listen to Jim Morrison's American Prayer album)

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 9, 2007, 8:19 am

Aslanna wrote:Just that a lot of the commercial 'music' these days is crap.

It was then as well, I think. Todays pop (and rap) will be forgotten for the most part as the listeners grow up and realize it's utter crap

Pink Floyd - Animals is a must have, a lot of the better stuff came out in the mid 70s IMO. Umma Gumma is another good one.

Grateful Dead - Not at all what most people expect, I've got most of their albums. "Blues for Allah" is good, "go to Nassau" is better. Easily the best live band I've ever seen

Early Black Sabbath
Frank Zappa - Hot Rats
Tom Waits
Anything with Eric Clapton
Alice Cooper
Funkadelic - Maggot Brain, a little odd a times, but wow. Title track is amazing.
Early Lou Reed - Rock and Roll Animal is good
ZZ Top, early and recent.
The rest of my list would mirror Drolgin's pretty much.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » August 9, 2007, 9:39 am

The former post was a real quick one, I'll add suggestions for album names with which to start as the discographies of some of those people are quite overwhelming...

The Beatles: Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road. For fun and weirdness try out Magical Mystery Tour, there should be psychedelic for you in spades.
The Who: Live At The Isle Of Wight and Live at Leeds as well as Quadrophenia
Rolling Stones: Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed and Get Yer Ya Ya's Out
The Byrds: Fifth Dimension
Cream: Disraeli Gears
Creedence Clearwater Revival: Cosmo's Factory
David Bowie: Low, The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars
Genesis: Selling England By The Pound
Jimi Hendrix: Are You Experienced?
John Lennon: John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band
Pink Floyd: Animals, Piper At The Gates of Dawn and Dark Side of the Moon

As usual there are tons more but these are what I'd throw your way for your first-off edumacation into the wonders of old fogey music.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 9, 2007, 9:45 am

You're getting good suggestions, so I'll just say that you must listen to live Grateful Dead if you plan on listening to them at all. There's no point to listening to their studio stuff.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 9, 2007, 11:06 am

Aabidano wrote:
Aslanna wrote:Just that a lot of the commercial 'music' these days is crap.
It was then as well, I think. Todays pop (and rap) will be forgotten for the most part as the listeners grow up and realize it's utter crap

I think that statement is incorrect. So far I've seen maybe 20 different bands listed in this thread, and I think there will be a large number of people who will look back as fondly on 20 bands/artists from the 90s-00s as you do on those bands from the 60s-70s. Just like the generation before you might have thought that rock was crap and couldn't hold a candle to the great 20 bands from the 30s-40s, the generation after you is going to look back at current rap music with the same fondness.

Pop music of any decade is pretty much crap imo ("I'm Henry VIII I am..."), but in the future you can bet that Hanson's "Mmm Bop" or some song by Avril Lavigne will be on an oldies station the same as whatever garbage from the 60s and 70s is today. They'll probably play back-to-back.

That said, I agree with most of the suggestions in this thread. My tastes lean a little heavier in general, but I can't recommend Led Zeppelin, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Black Sabbath, late Beatles (I think that most of their mid-60s pop stuff is garbage) or Funkadelic enough.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 9, 2007, 11:11 am

What I intended:

Aabidano wrote:Most of Todays pop (and rap) will be forgotten for the most part as the listeners grow up and realize it's utter crap

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 9, 2007, 2:15 pm

Jethro Tull is another great one from that era, need to track some down.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 9, 2007, 2:54 pm

Aabidano wrote:Jethro Tull is another great one from that era, need to track some down.

Heh.. my folks had the Thick as a Brick album. The packaging was pretty cool.

As a general rule, I fucking despise any and all prog-rock.
I was inundated with that shit while I was growing up and have no desire to hear it ever again.

Knarlz · Post by **Knarlz** » August 9, 2007, 3:26 pm

oooo...

Yes, albums 2-4
To Bowie, I would add Diamond dogs and Alladen Sane.
Creedence had lots of good stuff ( although were to top 40 sucessfull in the day to be concidered cool by many ) Get greatest hits, vol 1, covers 90% ( missing midnight special though)
Jefferson airplane. Best Of, covers the early years well.
For Procol Harom, Broken Baracades is good , which leads to..
Robin Trower. Bridge of Sighs.
Steely Dan!! not psycadelic but niether are most of the groups you mentioned.

Supertramp
Roxy Music, although an aquired taste..
Be-Bob Delux, post Psycodelic era glam want'a bees but I liked them in the day ( no one else I knew had ever heard of them though)
For the Stones I would add Exile on Main Street and half of Beggars Banquate

Albums in those days were generaly 15-17 minutes per side, any more was prone to having skip points.
As such the 4-cd 25th anaversory Woodstock set is good. Several tracks that couldn't be crammed into the first 2 album releases ( 5 vinal disks)

There was a progressive rock thread here somewhere, check that out also.

The First 3 albums I bought were:
The Doors-The Doors (first album)
Jimi Hendrix-Are You Experienced
Cream-Disraeli Gears
These had just been released. It was a good era for a teenager music wise (other than that draft thing when you hit 19.. I had a high number

)

Momopi · Post by **Momopi** » August 9, 2007, 4:02 pm

I would like to add moody blues, mama's and the papa's, zebra, jim croce, cat stevens, earth wind and fire and second the motion of steely dan, those guys make amazing music. Ya I like mellow type music TT. Also Rush is superb, in my opinion the most musically all around talanted band since the beginning of rock, although they are more late 70's early 80's

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 9, 2007, 5:32 pm

Early Jefferson Airplane, specifically the album "Surrealistic Pillow" is pretty great. If the word "Starship" appears on the album, ignore it.

EDIT - missed Knarlz mention of Jefferson Airplane. The best of is a good intro, but it misses a lot of excellent stuff.

Also, while it's probably not exactly what you're looking for, Country Joe & The Fish is worth checking out.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 9, 2007, 5:57 pm

miir wrote:
Aabidano wrote:Jethro Tull is another great one from that era, need to track some down.
Heh.. my folks had the Thick as a Brick album. The packaging was pretty cool.

We used to play D&D with Jethro Tull - Songs from the Wood playing.

Was good roleplaying music at the time!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 9, 2007, 6:11 pm

God I hate Rush so much. Plus they don't fit into this genre.

I love the image of Winnow playing Dungeons and Dragons and blasting Jethro Tull.

To contribute to the list: check out Spirit.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 9, 2007, 7:25 pm

If you're 55 or so, you had it so good with your amazing cars that were a dime a dozen, the atmosphere of the music scene, and the amazing bands. If I had my pick I'd go back to '65 and be 18 years old, and pray I didn't go to vietnam.

I forgot to mention that I was listening to Zeppelin as well... not sure how I could forget them.

I was very disappointed in the dead, it reminds me of southern folk music heh. Casey Jones is the only o.k. song from them that I've heard.

Gonna check out Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or whatever that one was called, and the doors for sure. And Hendrix.

I'm starting to realize what I really really like about Pink Floyd is the "strangeness" of it. The sound effects, the amazing solos, and good lyrics to top it all off. Animals was on my to-get list, I have the song "Sheep" from a greatest hits album and I love it. If any of the bands mentioned are along those lines, please point it out, I'm a newb

I'll eventually hopefully have my hands on all their work, and for bands that I really *really* enjoy, I buy the actual CDs instead of downloading them just to have the cover art / cliff notes.

I still stand by the music of today being shit. I don't know about back then but when your label writes your songs for you and provides you a band to play them and all you have to do is sing, you're not an artist you're a pretty face with a voice.

Not saying it's all bad, but it just seems like mostly you hear shit on the radio that if heard back to back with another artist of the genre, you couldn't tell the artists apart.

Today there are "Bands" (Velvet Revolver, Incubus, Green Day, Tool, etc) and there are "Performers" (Kelly Clarkson, Justin Timberlake, Rhyanna, etc), and sadly, the masses seem to go for the Performers, because that kind of music is the "in" thing.

Thanks for the suggestions so far, keep 'em coming.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 9, 2007, 7:34 pm

If you like Pink Floyd and Eric Clapton, you'll love:

miir · Post by **miir** » August 9, 2007, 8:56 pm

I still stand by the music of today being shit. I don't know about back then but when your label writes your songs for you and provides you a band to play them and all you have to do is sing, you're not an artist you're a pretty face with a voice.

The music scene in the 60s and 70s was just as awful.

The top 2 songs from 1969 were Sugar Sugar and Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In.... Two pretty fucking horrible songs whos only appeal is their novelty value.

The top 10 of 1975 contained some real fucking gems like "My Eyes Adored You" by Franki Valli and "Have You Never Been Mellow" by Olivia Newton John.. someone Like Minnie Ripperton would be considered a hack even by today's standards.

Manufactured 'performers' have been around since.. well since the origin of modern recorded music.

People get nostalgic about bygone eras of music because most don't remember the most popular music at the time was actually pretty fucking bad.
For every prefab, mega-popular pop artist in the 60s/70s/80s/90s... there were hundreds of GREAT bands that weren't topping the charts. The same is true today.

It's cool if you want to wax nostalgic about old music... but don't kid yourself that the music scene back then was any better than it is today.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 9, 2007, 9:00 pm

Today there are "Bands" (Velvet Revolver, Incubus, Green Day, Tool, etc) and there are "Performers" (Kelly Clarkson, Justin Timberlake, Rhyanna, etc), and sadly, the masses seem to go for the Performers, because that kind of music is the "in" thing.

Oh please jsut stop before you make yourself look like an even bigger idiot.

Two of the performers you listed (I have no clue who the fuck Rhyanna is) are actual SONGWRITERS who wrote most (if not all) the tracks on their latest albums.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 9, 2007, 9:37 pm

Neziroth, the only real division I see in that list of yours is rock v. r&b. There's some real talent on the second half of your ledger.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 9, 2007, 9:59 pm

when your label writes your songs for you and provides you a band to play them and all you have to do is sing, you're not an artist you're a pretty face with a voice

As per your criteria, the following are not artists:

Frank Sinatra
Tony Bennett
Aretha Franklin
Billie Holiday
Ella Fitzgerald
Bing Crosby
Louis Armstrong

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 9, 2007, 11:08 pm

Great quote from Jethro Tull's. "Skating Away on the Thin Ice of a New Day"

Well, do you ever get the feeling that the story's
too damn real and in the present tense?
Or that everybody's on the stage, and it seems like
you're the only person sitting in the audience?

A few Jethro Tull samples:
Skating Away on the Thin Ice of a New Day

Thick as a Brick extended concert version. He breaks out the flute about halfway through and eventually gets into his peacock stance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toHlMD50eYY

Find me a cool flute player these days!

Really don't mind if you sit this one out.
My words but a whisper - your deafness a SHOUT.
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
Your sperm's in the gutter - your love's in the sink.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 11, 2007, 8:20 pm

wow miir way to get all defensive about your Justin Timberlake and Kelly Clarkson.

In my eyes, they're talentless fucks.

Seriously, they broke into the music scene because they were pretty. Do you think Kelly Clarkson would have won American Idol if she was a troll? Do you think Justin Timberlake would be anywhere NEAR as popular today if he wasn't a good looking dude?

If you think that then you're the one who's mistaken.

Give me a band that writes their own music with lyrics that aren't about "Bringing sexy back" set to a catchy beat.

I'm so tired of these popular-over-night *performers.* It's not music. It isn't.

And yeah, I still think the music scene in the 60s and 70s was better then because there was no fucking mtv to ruin it.

Show me a band or artist from today that's as original and inspirational as the Beatles / Rolling Stones / Van Halen / Jimmy Hendrix.

I realize my list was rock vs r&b, it wasn't really my intention to bash R&B, and I'm sure there are some great artists, but I don't listen to it so I don't know who they are to list them. Unfortunately, a lot of the "performers" I mentioned earlier are R&B artists

Maybe I'm way off base, seriously, if I am then I apologize, but in 1975 I bet that every week there wasn't some "HOT NEW ARTIST" that was an overnight sensation, was there?

That's all I was saying is that today that's the trend and it's bullshit and all of this hype over that sexy new song pushes actual talent out of the spotlight.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 11, 2007, 8:59 pm

I find a few logical flaws in your argument. Are you saying no "pretty" people have talent? Or only "trolls" make good artists?

As you're only 22 it's easy to look back 30-40 years ago on bands and see how influential some of them happened to be. To ask "Show me a band or artist from today that's as original and inspirational as the Beatles / Rolling Stones / Van Halen / Jimmy Hendrix" is a bit much. Who knows how certain bands will influence future generations and bands? Here's just a few I can think of that are/were influential to some degree. To what degree time will tell: REM, Nirvana, U2, Pixies, The Clash, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Guns N Roses, Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead.

(Note I don't necessarily like all those bands mentioned. I'm looking at you Nirvana! They're also not all "from today" but (with exception of Van Halen) you seem focused on Late 60's-70s and they definitely came after that.)

Not to mention not all those artists you named are totally original. Beatles? Rolling Stones? Please. Who do you think influenced them?

John Lennon wrote:Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been a Beatles."

Good bands/artists will take what's come before and make it their own. It's worked that way for decades. Centuries even. That doesn't necessarily make it original though.

There are a lot of talented artists out there right now. I think the problem is you're getting all your exposure from commercial outlets. So of course you're only seeing what sells. Just because an artist isn't in the spotlight doesn't mean they are non-existant.

And I definitely think Kelly Clarkson is a talented vocalist. I haven't really heard the new album where she wrote her own songs so no comment on the songwriter aspect. But to say someone has no talent because they don't write their own material is a bit ignorant as well. Sarah Brightman for example! She's a (superb) vocalist but if you said she had no talent I'd tell you to have your head examined.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 11, 2007, 9:32 pm

wow miir way to get all defensive about your Justin Timberlake and Kelly Clarkson.

In my eyes, they're talentless fucks.

I just get pissed off when someone who knows fuck-all about music starts shooting their mouth off about who has (or has not) talent. You clearly have no fucking idea of what talent is.

I don't enjoy Justin Timberlake or Kelly Clarkson's music but I recognize their talent. Justin Timberlake is a very talented performer and Kelly Clarkson is an amazingly gifted vocalist. She's got an impressive range and a gritty/raw quality in her voice that's reminiscent of Melissa Etheridge and Janis Joplin.

Give me a band that writes their own music with lyrics that aren't about "Bringing sexy back" set to a catchy beat.

That's fine if you enjoy a more traditional band lineup, but why must you cut-down and criticize music that you don't personally like by saying they have no talent?

I'm so tired of these popular-over-night *performers.* It's not music. It isn't.

And yeah, I still think the music scene in the 60s and 70s was better then because there was no fucking mtv to ruin it.

How long do oyu think the Beatles were around before they had their first hit record?
What about the Rolling Stones?
Jimi Hendrix's first album was a smashing success.

What the fuck is so different about the overnight successes from the 60s and 70s?
Do you consider them music because they were overnight successes before you were even born?

And what the fuck does MTV have to do with it all?
Is MTV even around anymore?
Man, blaming the state of music on MTV is like... so ten years ago.

Show me a band or artist from today that's as original and inspirational as the Beatles / Rolling Stones / Van Halen / Jimmy Hendrix.

I could list dozens of bands that are even more original and inspirational than those bands but there's not much point as you've already decided that all music these days is complete rubbish.

And what one person considers inspirational, another considers shit.

Maybe I'm way off base, seriously, if I am then I apologize, but in 1975 I bet that every week there wasn't some "HOT NEW ARTIST" that was an overnight sensation, was there?

Yes, you're way fucking off base.. and you can't prove a point by making retarded exaggerations.

Anyway.. when you grow up you'll understand that it's OK that people have different tastes in music.
Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it's shit.
I hate a lot of music... pre-fab R&B, Prog-Rock (esp Tool), Rap/Hip-Hop, Country, Metal and most dance music... but I can understand why a lot of people like those genres. Musical taste is totally subjective. So if you think some band is absolute shit... you're most definately mistaken. If you think 70s music is better than '00s music, you're completely wrong.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 11, 2007, 11:54 pm

Jesus. Fucking. CHRIST

I shouldn't have to start every line with "In my opinion," but apparently I do. It's MY opinion that they're no talent people who are famous for being sexy. (thanks MTV.)

I didn't even want to start an arguement in this thread, I wanted some music ideas.

Miir:

I don't enjoy Justin Timberlake or Kelly Clarkson's music but I recognize their talent. Justin Timberlake is a very talented performer

That's the same fucking thing I was getting at, sorry it wasn't spelled out. He's a PERFORMER not a MUSICIAN. Sorry, it's how I see it. You don't have to agree but don't tell me I don't know what I'm fucking talking about when it comes to what I like and what I want to hear.

to quote me to help clarify:

In my eyes, they're talentless fucks.

How long do oyu think the Beatles were around before they had their first hit record?
What about the Rolling Stones?
Jimi Hendrix's first album was a smashing success.

No shit. You're only reading parts of my posts, apparently. I said that I don't like how there's a NEW HOT ARTIST EVERY WEEK. Ok? Same page? The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Hendrix -- all of them had one thing that all these new artists today don't. They stuck around, continuously and consistently made good music, and proved themselves to be good musicians.

I could list dozens of bands that are even more original and inspirational than those bands but there's not much point as you've already decided that all music these days is complete rubbish.

Again, no I never said all music today is rubbish. I thought I made it clear that all of the super-commercialized music today is mostly rubbish though. I'll stand by that.

And what one person considers inspirational, another considers shit.

DING DING DING

You're denying me that right to consider it shit.

Miir we're saying a lot of the same things. I'm sorry that you didn't realize that I was stating the things I said as my own opinion, and I apologize that I bashed Justin Timberlake and Kelly Clarkson, because that's obviously a sore subject.

Just read back before you post again and make sure you pick up everything I wrote instead of taking shit out of context anymore. Music is such a shitty argument anyhow because you can't account for taste.

IN MY OPINION, I MEAN. DON'T GET MAD.

Aslanna:

I find a few logical flaws in your argument. Are you saying no "pretty" people have talent? Or only "trolls" make good artists?

That, once again, is not what I said. I said those two particular cases, along with a lot of others would have never made it big with their generic commercialized music if they weren't pretty people.

As you're only 22 it's easy to look back 30-40 years ago on bands and see how influential some of them happened to be. To ask "Show me a band or artist from today that's as original and inspirational as the Beatles / Rolling Stones / Van Halen / Jimmy Hendrix" is a bit much. Who knows how certain bands will influence future generations and bands? Here's just a few I can think of that are/were influential to some degree. To what degree time will tell: REM, Nirvana, U2, Pixies, The Clash, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Guns N Roses, Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead.

Notice that you didn't name any commercialized shit, which is exactly what I was saying earlier. I completely agree with that list.

There are a lot of talented artists out there right now. I think the problem is you're getting all your exposure from commercial outlets. So of course you're only seeing what sells. Just because an artist isn't in the spotlight doesn't mean they are non-existant.

I agree. I think I mentioned that as well:

That's all I was saying is that today that's the trend and it's bullshit and all of this hype over that sexy new song pushes actual talent out of the spotlight.

We agree 100% there.

But to say someone has no talent because they don't write their own material is a bit ignorant as well.

I'm going to put this out there, In my opinion (phrase of the day) an artist who doesn't write his or her own music is comparable to a comic who doesn't write his own material. He can deliver it well, and he can get laughs, but it's not his stuff. I just have way more respect for artists who can write a good song with more than 10 different words.

"I'm bringin' sexy back,
Go 'head be gone with it"

Are there any other words in that whole song? Seriously, it's a huge song, but mostly because girls love Justin, and it's put over a catchy beat. The lyrics are so stupid though.

I really hate how every thread on VV turns into a shit slinging fest lately.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 12, 2007, 12:08 am

On this day in 1975, the billboard hot 100 #1 song was "Jive Talkin'" by the Bee Gees. Barry F'in' Gibb!!

Have you found any stuff that you enjoy from the suggestions made, Nez?

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 12, 2007, 12:18 am

So far I've checked out some of The Doors, which I'm liking, along with some Hendrix, but basically I've only listened to the popular songs he had, so I don't know much about him that I already didn't, but I'll be picking up "Are You Experienced" when I find it.

Definitely going to check out Eric Clapton and some Beatles next.

And that Roger Waters album that spang posted, I have to give him a chance since I like his other work so much.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 12, 2007, 12:29 am

Personally I wasn't slinging any shit. I was actually having a serious discussion. You said some things I didn't particulary agree with and posted a response. That's pretty much one of the main reasons why message boards exist. I enjoy the organic nature of threads in places like this.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 12, 2007, 12:54 am

That's the same fucking thing I was getting at, sorry it wasn't spelled out. He's a PERFORMER not a MUSICIAN. Sorry, it's how I see it. You don't have to agree but don't tell me I don't know what I'm fucking talking about when it comes to what I like and what I want to hear.

So a singer isn't a musician?
A singer who writes and sings their own songs and sells millions of albums has no talent?
A person who writes and produces hit records is not a musician?

What is your criteria for someone to be considered having talent?

Justin Timberlake writes, sings and performs music that you dont like but he, (and I quote) is a "Talentless fuck"?
Kelly Clarkson (under an amrican idol contracutal obligation) sells millions of records for her label then nearly gets dropped because she insists on releasing an album of her own songs is also a "Talentless fuck"?

Miir we're saying a lot of the same things.

I don't think we are.

Again, no I never said all music today is rubbish. I thought I made it clear that all of the super-commercialized music today is mostly rubbish though. I'll stand by that.

And my original point is that for the past 40+ years, popular, commercial music has been rubbish. There's nothing different about the 60s, 70s or the 80s. Prefab 'bands', commercial, overnight sensation, one-hit-wonders and performers singing other peoples songs has been a staple of popular music since the 40s.

Don't try to romanticize the 60s and 70s like they were the last bastion of good music becuase you only mae yourself look stupid.

I really hate how every thread on VV turns into a shit slinging fest lately.

Only threads where people spew retarded shit.
This is VV... you should expect to get called out when you make asinine posts.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 12, 2007, 12:57 am

Kelly Clarkson sucks and Neziroth is right in that respect!

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 12, 2007, 8:43 am

Personally I wasn't slinging any shit. I was actually having a serious discussion. You said some things I didn't particulary agree with and posted a response. That's pretty much one of the main reasons why message boards exist. I enjoy the organic nature of threads in places like this.

Wasn't referring to you. I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

So a singer isn't a musician?
A singer who writes and sings their own songs and sells millions of albums has no talent?
A person who writes and produces hit records is not a musician?

I will never call Justin Timberlake a musician. I'll call him a fucking talentless hack until I die. Sorry if you're a fan but I'm allowed to have my opinion about him.

I'll never call anybody who doesn't write thier own music a musician either. They're a performer. They're performing somebody elses work.

Those are my opinions.

My criteria for having talent:
-Good Lyricist
-Good Writer (Writes lyrics that mean something) -- sorry Justin that doesn't mean you
-Unique sound -- somebody who you can tell who it is just by flipping past the song quick.

3 simple things that Justin Timberlake just doesn't fit all of. Go start your own Justin Timberlake thread if you want to discuss him so much, because to me he's nothing and I'm done talking about this with you.

Kelly Clarkson is taking a huge step in the right direction by writing her newest album herself. She *is* a good singer, and her voice is great, and if she turns out to be a good songwriter, then fine, I'll say she has talent.

But I still don't like her

Thanks everybody else for your suggestions.

I really hate how every thread on VV turns into a shit slinging fest lately.

Only threads where people spew retarded shit.
This is VV... you should expect to get called out when you make asinine posts.

Flaming was so popular here because we all played EQ and argued about shit in the game, that's understandable.

Now the only reason people start slinging their shit around is because they think they're internet badasses and have nothing better to do. I love how you defend it with "WELL THIS IS VV!!!! I'M EXPECTED TO BE A DOUCHE!! LOLZ"

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 12, 2007, 9:41 am

just to let you guys know. This thread is very close to being locked.

Nez, if you want some help in finding new music, I would suggest you not piss on other forms of music you don't like. That's just gonna upset someone who might have helped you find new music.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 12, 2007, 10:55 am

It wasn't my goal to offend anybody.

I stated my opinion, and I'm not going to change what I said. People (Miir) didn't agree and this thread went to shit in a hurry.

Miir, I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on this one, usually I agree with what you say on these forums.

Feel free to lock it or retard it or whatever. I doubt much good is going to come out of it at this point.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 12, 2007, 12:41 pm

I doubt it can be locked without a large amount of backlash. It's been established that while forum moderators have the ability to do that they don't have the authority.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 12, 2007, 12:50 pm

Aslanna wrote:I doubt it can be locked without a large amount of backlash. It's been established that while forum moderators have the ability to do that they don't have the authority.

then what DO the mods do?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 12, 2007, 2:00 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Aslanna wrote:I doubt it can be locked without a large amount of backlash. It's been established that while forum moderators have the ability to do that they don't have the authority.
then what DO the mods do?

Stolen from the moderator fourm. Don't tell anyone:

Sylvus wrote:I just wanted to remind people the spirit in which you were made moderators. We were looking for people to add content, not change other peoples' posts.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 12, 2007, 2:03 pm

locking a thread wouldn't be changing a post

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 12, 2007, 2:10 pm

I didn't say the quote was totally relevant to this particular thread. It was a response to your question as to what they do. Or are supposed to do. The key part of Sylvus' quote being "add content". The "change other peoples' posts" was in the context of the thread it came from.

Knarlz · Post by **Knarlz** » August 13, 2007, 12:22 pm

Back on topic....

The psychadellic rock era is roughly defined as 1965-1975

At the begining many social and musical events occure including but not exclusively
Dylan goes electric.
The "surge" in Viet Nam ramps up.
FM radio licences are damb near free and easy to aquire. This sets up free-form radio, this allows the stoned DJ working for free to play what ever ( FM car radio is an expensive option)
Dr. Timothy Leary, and the Beatles (who ruled the top 40 AM radio)take psychadellic drugs.
Frat boys start smoking pot.

By the end
Dylan is just an x-folk singer
Siagon falls
FM radio is owned by coprorations. (This only gets commericial air play for mass demographics to sell comertials , Kiss and Be-gees)
Timothy Leary's dead. John Lennon is an acholic herion addict.
Frat boys switch to cocaine.

By no means an exhaustive review of the changes. Between those years there was a great deal of "alternitive" music that had a large and essentually free exposure through mass media outlets.
Miir is also correct that the mainstream comertial coperate machines created and pushed what in retrospect was mainly pop drivel and crap. A lot of it showed some creativity and talant but like today much did/does not. At least for awhile we had free access to, in retrospect, was some pretty good stuff, that to a large extent the content was created and controled by the artists themselfs.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 12:51 pm

I'm with Neziroth on this one, sorry. I quickly tire of people arguing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the un-original crap that 95% of music is nowadays. Yes, there has always been pop influences in music since there was an audience to listen to it - but if you really can say that in the 60's it was as bad as it is now, you are way off base.

Our culture has made it acceptable for there to be a a new 16 year old black kid (every week it seems.) to be taught how to sing, dance, have someone else write lyrics for him and throw him on stage. This is also the case with Justin Timberlake type stuff (dance classes, voice lessons, etc), and pop girl shit too, it's just the Ne-yo's and Ushers, chris browns, etc that annoy me the most.

I don't care if it's rap with a shitty beat, or hard rock, or porn music - I will take the person that writes their own lyrics and does things their way to the highest extent possible over the cookie cutter bullshit that is taking over music lately, something needs to be done about it before creativity is completely raped out of mainstream music and you have to search for underground shit to listen to something half decent.
(I know this isn't going to happen, I know it's the 14 year olds watching MTV that fuel this, I know they are the majority and they are the ones bringing the money to the record companies, so things won't change. However, it also makes you wonder - with piracy of music/movies being such a hot topic nowadays, and a lot of people citing the low quality of music as a big reason they don't pay for stuff, you would think that maybe these companies would take the hint. Apparently though, they would rather be stubborn and try to get everything their way.)

Saying that one of these people that is put through star school to become famous does not have talent is not opinion, it's fact. I'm sure about 50% of 16 year old kids could be on MTV singing this bullshit too, if they went through the same dance/voice/etc lessons that they put these people through.

That being, it's not all black and white - there are a lot of people that I thought wrote their own shit, just to find out that they didn't, and vice versa.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 13, 2007, 1:02 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Saying that one of these people that is put through star school to become famous does not have talent is not opinion, it's fact.

Sorry. You're wrong. That is an opinion.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 13, 2007, 1:02 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Saying that one of these people that is put through star school to become famous does not have talent is not opinion, it's fact.
Sorry. You're wrong. That is an opinion.

Wait, which was an opinion? that he was wrong, or that his comment was an opinion rather than fact?! HALP!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 13, 2007, 1:04 pm

It's a fact that he is wrong. Sorry to confuse. Happy to clarify!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 13, 2007, 1:12 pm

Aslanna wrote:It's a fact that he is wrong. Sorry to confuse. Happy to clarify!

whew, I was starting to worry. Thanks Lizard!

Post by **Sylvus** » August 13, 2007, 3:43 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Saying that one of these people that is put through star school to become famous does not have talent is not opinion, it's fact. I'm sure about 50% of 16 year old kids could be on MTV singing this bullshit too, if they went through the same dance/voice/etc lessons that they put these people through.

That's one of the dumbest things I've read today. What metrics do you use to guage talent? Would you say that Michael Jordan was a talented basketball player? Tiger Woods a talented golfer? They both practiced, a lot. They both had coaches/caddies/etc. that helped them push their talent to the next level. What musicians, outside of rappers, do you feel are talented? I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if they play an instrument, they had some sort of lessons at some point, or if they are a singer, they've worked with a vocal coach at one point or another.

Now if you want to say that you're not a fan of the music produced by talented individuals who are put through the whole boy-band, pop music machine or whatever, we can agree on that. It's not my style, doesn't really speak to me and I've never bought an NKOTB, Backstreet Boys or N'Sync album. But to say that Justin Timberlake is not a talented person is completely factually incorrect. He's a gifted singer and dancer (and his acting on SNL at the very least has been as good as anyone else in the last few years), and wouldn't be one of the most famous and popular artists today if he weren't.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 3:54 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Saying that one of these people that is put through star school to become famous does not have talent is not opinion, it's fact. I'm sure about 50% of 16 year old kids could be on MTV singing this bullshit too, if they went through the same dance/voice/etc lessons that they put these people through.
That's one of the dumbest things I've read today. What metrics do you use to guage talent? Would you say that Michael Jordan was a talented basketball player? Tiger Woods a talented golfer? They both practiced, a lot. They both had coaches/caddies/etc. that helped them push their talent to the next level. What musicians, outside of rappers, do you feel are talented? I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if they play an instrument, they had some sort of lessons at some point, or if they are a singer, they've worked with a vocal coach at one point or another.

Now if you want to say that you're not a fan of the music produced by talented individuals who are put through the whole boy-band, pop music machine or whatever, we can agree on that. It's not my style, doesn't really speak to me and I've never bought an NKOTB, Backstreet Boys or N'Sync album. But to say that Justin Timberlake is not a talented person is completely factually incorrect. He's a gifted singer and dancer (and his acting on SNL at the very least has been as good as anyone else in the last few years), and wouldn't be one of the most famous and popular artists today if he weren't.

I might partially concede the point to you sylvus, but definitely not the bold above. Plenty of the most popular artists out today are no talent ass clowns. Because the people buying said boy bands albums are 13 year old girls that like them mostly because they "are so dreamy" and any talent they may have is just a bonus.

I have zero respect, and will not acknowledge someone as talented that does not write their own music, period. Just like I would not call someone a talented author if 50% of the book was actually written by someone else, but they took credit for it.

The valid point that I made, that has been ignored so far is this: You could put nearly any teenage kid through the dance classes/vocal training these people have gone through and have similar success - that makes them nothing special, innovative, or original, which I think are all necessary to call someone talented.

That, and I can seriously sit down and listen to any R&B singer out today (including Justin Timberlake) and if you listen to their lyrics - they all say EXACTLY the same thing, they just change the name of the girl that broke their heart/they are in love with. It's a pretty pathetic and unoriginal genre, and kind of always has been that way. The only other kinds of music I can think of that comes anywhere near this is Country (and 75% of modern rap from the south).

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 13, 2007, 4:09 pm

Most artists do give credit to the songwriters.

Also, there is a reason much of the music being "debated" is referred to as "pop-music," and it has nothing to do with soft drinks/colas/cokes/etc..

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 13, 2007, 4:16 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I have zero respect, and will not acknowledge someone as talented that does not write their own music, period. Just like I would not call someone a talented author if 50% of the book was actually written by someone else, but they took credit for it.

That's fine. Just realize that's an opinion and not a fact as you tried to claim.