zago
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 978
|
Post by zago on Dec 18, 2006 12:03:01 GMT -5
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 18, 2006 12:06:11 GMT -5
Sounds about right. Where's Tool or Pearl Jam though? What's with the overabundance of 2005 songs on there? And why is Wasteland so popular and Through The Iris and Waking Up did bullshit? Man, I hope their next album takes the bull by the horns or they're gonna be a one-hit wonder.
|
|
zago
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 978
|
Post by zago on Dec 18, 2006 12:09:30 GMT -5
overabundance of 2005 because are late 2005 release and continue to have big airplay in first month and then continue to have a bit of airplay during all the year. here a similar chart (not yet complete). www.mmr247.com/mmrweb/AllAccess/ -year to date report - charts by formats - Alternative
|
|
|
Post by American Idiot on Dec 18, 2006 13:52:26 GMT -5
According to the Mediabase Alternative Year-To-End Chart, since the year is basically almost over the list is very similar. Here's what it is as of currently. That number at the end means total spins. The Top 50 can be found in this link www.mmr247.com/mmrweb/AllAccess/YTDCharts.asp?format=r3R . Btw Pen, if you don't feel like clicking the link, Vicarious is at #13, World Wide Suicide is at #23, and The Pot is at #35. 1 RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS Dani California 57742 2 THREE DAYS GRACE Animal I Have Become 53505 3 BLUE OCTOBER Hate Me 52012 4 AFI Miss Murder 49766 5 30 SECONDS TO MARS The Kill 48883 6 10 YEARS Wasteland 47725 7 RACONTEURS Steady, As She Goes 47597 8 BREAKING BENJAMIN The Diary Of Jane 39961 9 STONE SOUR Through Glass 38888 10 FALL OUT BOY Dance, Dance 38757
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,690
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Dec 18, 2006 14:40:57 GMT -5
I guess I'll officially concede the race to RHCP, as it looks like there's essentially no chance 3DG can gain 4000 spins on them in a matter of 2 weeks.
I'm still in disagreement with the way this system works. Airplay should really only be counted for weeks on the chart, at least. That would probably be the most accurate. Or at least assigning point values for positions on the charts. Then, recurrents wouldn't be counted. I mean, come on, I don't see how "The Hand That Feeds" was a top 40 song for 2006. And "Black Hole Sun" or "Song 2" might even crack the top 100. Come on.
|
|
|
Post by American Idiot on Dec 18, 2006 16:44:30 GMT -5
I guess I'll officially concede the race to RHCP, as it looks like there's essentially no chance 3DG can gain 4000 spins on them in a matter of 2 weeks. I'm still in disagreement with the way this system works. Airplay should really only be counted for weeks on the chart, at least. That would probably be the most accurate. Or at least assigning point values for positions on the charts. Then, recurrents wouldn't be counted. I mean, come on, I don't see how "The Hand That Feeds" was a top 40 song for 2006. And "Black Hole Sun" or "Song 2" might even crack the top 100. Come on. I agree. Its amazing how many recurrents and golds are played as much as whats out there currently in the Top 50. I'm not sure about some kind of solution though.
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,690
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Dec 18, 2006 17:18:28 GMT -5
Yeah, unfortunately, there's probably nothing that can be done. It's not like listeners are writing their stations by the dozens, encouraging them to play a greater percentage of current hits, and stop playing 70% recurrents and golds. And even then, are these hotshot programmers actually going to change their playlists by that hefty a margin? Unfortunately, alternative is slowly becoming like the Active Rock and AC formats. I'm not encouraging alternative to be like CHR/Pop, playing 90% of what's on the charts right now.
It's bothersome because, to the average listener, it makes the music scene now look that much more dire, which couldn't be further from the truth, IMO.
It's just unsettling to me, in a way, that these same STP, AIC, and Nirvana songs get played over and over and over and over. Add that to #1 songs from the '00s being played time and time again, and it's swelling the playlists, making what's popular now look like mincemeat in comparison.
"Man, alt-rock stations play 60% grunge, so music must have ruled in the '90s but now it's just afterthought garbage." Quite ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by American Idiot on Dec 18, 2006 19:41:42 GMT -5
Once in awhile when one of my stations plays strickly only 90s music on a special weekend or specific time period of older stuff, I realize how many songs there really are that I competely forgot about that never get played anymore. As much I like and admire the same Nirvana/Metallica/Alice In Chains/Pearl Jam/Soundgarden/the list goes on gold titles that paved a huge part of music today, I can't help but cringe everytime one of them comes on and wishing they played more "minor" hits or ones that didn't do nearly as well. It actually hit me this morning when WPBZ was doing their "90s at 9" two hour block of 90s music. They played songs by Matthew Sweet, Del Amitri, Sprung Monkey, and The Urge that totally slipped my mind that they ever existed.
|
|
zago
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 978
|
Post by zago on Dec 18, 2006 20:14:03 GMT -5
"Man, alt-rock stations play 60% grunge, so music must have ruled in the '90s but now it's just afterthought garbage." who say it?? '90 music was 2 times better than now..would you compare nirvana,PJ,AIC & Co to falloutboy or Panic??ahahah laughing.. '00 mainstream sux..is full of kid-band with nothing new,ok band that ruled in '90 (PJ,RHCP,Tool,Radiohead& co), have lost their creativity and release mediocre albums (compared with their masterpiece)..but maybe is still the better things we have in '00. Apart of The Strokes,Mars Volta,Sigur Ros,System Of A Down,Coldplay,Queen Of The Stone Age,The White Stripes,Franz Ferdinand,Bloc Party and The Killers, 00 good bands are almost all in underground or in semi-mainstream status..
|
|
oscillations.
Diamond Member
Opinion = Fact
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age.
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by oscillations. on Dec 18, 2006 20:15:52 GMT -5
Well, I like 3 out of the Top 10 songs. I guess that's something, although last year I actually found the Top 10 quite agreeable. I don't remember. And oh, yes it is very dire. Very dire indeed. Prospects, at best, are grim. Beckon the life support systems at once (90% recurrents!) *just joshing with you, jdmasta!* hahaha
|
|
|
Post by jaxxalude on Dec 18, 2006 20:27:11 GMT -5
Dear mods, could you please change the name of this sub-board from "Alternative / Rock" to "Corporate / Rock"? Thanks very much. Best, jaxxalude
|
|
|
Post by tortuga on Dec 18, 2006 20:29:45 GMT -5
^^ Hipster altert.
|
|
oscillations.
Diamond Member
Opinion = Fact
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age.
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by oscillations. on Dec 18, 2006 20:32:54 GMT -5
^^ Honesty alert.
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,690
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Dec 18, 2006 22:06:26 GMT -5
I say we start a revolution.
Organize a revolt!!! Burn down the homes of Jesse Hasek, Pete Wentz, and Jack White for being such sellout, corporate-mongers.
And then real indie bands will conquer the mainstream and become popular. Until they conquer the charts and cross over, which would only take a mere matter of weeks. Then, we would have to tar and feather them and their producers.
Then the next wave of bands will become successful - radio will play them, they will conquer MTV. We'll hang them in the streets of Seattle.
I'm kidding, of course. But are weezer, RHCP, :30STM, AFI, Stone Sour corporate? Come on, jaxxalude.
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,690
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Dec 18, 2006 22:11:28 GMT -5
"Man, alt-rock stations play 60% grunge, so music must have ruled in the '90s but now it's just afterthought garbage." who say it?? '90 music was 2 times better than now..would you compare nirvana,PJ,AIC & Co to falloutboy or Panic??ahahah laughing.. '00 mainstream sux..is full of kid-band with nothing new,ok band that ruled in '90 (PJ,RHCP,Tool,Radiohead& co), have lost their creativity and release mediocre albums (compared with their masterpiece)..but maybe is still the better things we have in '00. Apart of The Strokes,Mars Volta,Sigur Ros,System Of A Down,Coldplay,Queen Of The Stone Age,The White Stripes,Franz Ferdinand,Bloc Party and The Killers, 00 good bands are almost all in underground or in semi-mainstream status.. That's quite a few bands you named there who have conquered the world in the '00s. When all is said and done, '00s bands may not be as influential as '90s artists (which would be hard to do anyway because artists post-'94 pretty much began it all to begin with). But they will be equally successful and will certainly leave an imprint with influential, groundbreaking music. There are many other '00s bands I could add to your list (those who have generated enough success to be deemed 'popular'), but I wouldn't know where to begin. Californication, By The Way, and Stadium Arcadium are all excellent albums. Tool's two most successful albums have been from this decade. Pearl Jam have made two 4-star albums this decade. Audioslave have been the most successful supergroup in recent time. I'm not a Radiohead fan so I can't judge. Sounds to me like you're just longing for the "glory-days", which is fine.
|
|
oscillations.
Diamond Member
Opinion = Fact
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age.
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by oscillations. on Dec 18, 2006 22:36:49 GMT -5
Why don't you give Radiohead a listen then, and still try to maintain how groundbreaking these radio acts of the 2000's are? Play "Paranoid Android" and try to tell me that somehow they aren't worthy of more credit/respect/cultural status than Stone Sour, for heaven's sake! Don't just say you aren't a fan - EXPLORE the world outside radio for once. You may actually like what you find.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 18, 2006 23:23:17 GMT -5
I don't care. Good music is good music. People need to lay off the cultural crap and just enjoy themselves. In my opinion all these artistic debates add up to is a whole lot of circle jerking and no real conclusions.
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,690
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Dec 18, 2006 23:35:07 GMT -5
Why don't you give Radiohead a listen then, and still try to maintain how groundbreaking these radio acts of the 2000's are? Play "Paranoid Android" and try to tell me that somehow they aren't worthy of more credit/respect/cultural status than Stone Sour, for heaven's sake! Don't just say you aren't a fan - EXPLORE the world outside radio for once. You may actually like what you find. Come on now. Here, you're just not being fair. I don't even listen to the radio beyond what my alternative station plays (which is quite limited to begin with). I've listened to pretty much every band who appeared at the Warped Tour last summer. Some of those get radio play, sure, but the vast majority are essentially your average AP-Fuse band who are very non-commercial to begin with. I could show you my playlist right now. You have the more commercial artists (Yellowcard, Muse, Breaking Benjamin) mixed with Bright Eyes, Andrew W.K., Oceansize, Arcade Fire, Bayside, Dredg, Emery, Fugazi, (adding more bands: Academy Is, Silverstein, Straylight Run, so many more. Hell, most of my stuff has probably been touched at one point or another by radio or "video", but I just don't think you're being fair by implying that I'm something of a corporate lemming. I will say that I admire alternative radio for exploring new and different genres this year. It seems like this has been a year where "a little bit of everything" has generated a buzz - funk/soul, reggae, alt-metal, grunge & post-grunge, industrial hair metal, punk-pop, post-punk, emo, indie, and virtually everything in between. Now, if you want me to listen to bands outside Fuse or AP, or most magazines, then you have an argument. I'm usually one to defend alt. radio, true, but that doesn't mean it's all I listen to. I guess I'm a little hurt that you would think that.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 19, 2006 0:08:13 GMT -5
You listen to Oceansize and Dredg. You are cool. I am not being sarcastic, either.
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,690
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Dec 19, 2006 0:12:26 GMT -5
You listen to Oceansize and Dredg. You are cool. I am not being sarcastic, either. Yay! Thanks, penance!
|
|
oscillations.
Diamond Member
Opinion = Fact
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age.
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by oscillations. on Dec 19, 2006 1:24:51 GMT -5
I'm usually one to defend alt. radio, true, but that doesn't mean it's all I listen to. I guess I'm a little hurt that you would think that. Well, you go out of your way to defend it with such conviction (and usually attack bands that don't fit into the format as it is), that it's not competely unreasonable for me to theorize that your tastes have largely been informed the corporate rock media (yes, Fuse and AP are definitely a part of that world - the Vans Warped tour bought the fucking magazine, ha!). I would say the same for anyone who only ever discusses music played on TRL or Z100. I would say you're only allowing yourself to be fed whats available via the most immediate vessels. And your Radiohead comment confused/irritated me (do you mean you have never really listened to their albums or do you mean that you HAVE but just don't like them?) I mean you obviously are passionate about music; to me it's bizarre that you choose to target that energy towards this dying format. You like Fugazi. That's awesome - but you do realize the difference between them and most of the other acts you listed, don't you?
|
|
jdmasta289
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 3,690
|
Post by jdmasta289 on Dec 19, 2006 1:54:13 GMT -5
I'm usually one to defend alt. radio, true, but that doesn't mean it's all I listen to. I guess I'm a little hurt that you would think that. Well, you go out of your way to defend it with such conviction (and usually attack bands that don't fit into the format as it is), that it's not competely unreasonable for me to theorize that your tastes have largely been informed the corporate rock media (yes, Fuse and AP are definitely a part of that world - the Vans Warped tour bought the f**king magazine, ha!). I would say the same for anyone who only ever discusses music played on TRL or Z100. I would say you're only allowing yourself to be fed whats available via the most immediate vessels. And your Radiohead comment confused/irritated me (do you mean you have never really listened to their albums or do you mean that you HAVE but just don't like them?) I mean you obviously are passionate about music; to me it's bizarre that you choose to target that energy towards this dying format. You like Fugazi. That's awesome - but you do realize the difference between them and most of the other acts you listed, don't you? I don't understand how you've been under the impression that I have criticized any groups that don't fit the genre? I'm honestly trying to see your side of the argument (on that front). I generally don't slam anything that could be considered "rock" in the first place. (I admit that I have a little too much fun "hating" on pop/rap/R&B musicians). You know, I haven't watched TRL in like five years (except a couple of times over the summer when I was over at my friend's house - he lives and breathes MTV), and I really don't read any truly mainstream music magazine other than Rolling Stone. My radio station is a largely anti-corporate one (you should listen to Lazlo sometime via internet). Now if you want to call Warped, AP, AbsolutePunk, Rolling Stone, here (haha), Fuse, Spin, or NME corporate - then that's fine, because that's where I get most of my news. But I just think you're making me out to be something I'm not. No, I have listened to Radiohead's Bends and Kid A albums (rather, many - not all - songs from them). I've listened to all their singles, by the way, including "Knives Out" and that road song (can't remember the title). I haven't listened to their '00s albums, so if you want to judge me from there, fine. I think you're thinking that (for example) because I like Fugazi, I could or should think Hawthorne Heights is crap. I disagree. I try to find redeeming qualities in all aspects of what is considered "rock" music nowadays. As for this topic, I think my miniature rant (and I'll admit it was one) was fair because I wasn't veering off topic - aren't we discussing the year-end radio charts to begin with? I respect anyone's musical opinions (and certainly yours - hell, if anyone has original opinions or ideas, it's you). But I would rather not follow the bandwagon. I truly and honestly care about alternative radio nowadays. I've been following the alternative chart (I guess I should distinguish alternative from the other rock formats) for several years and I feel I have an obligation to care because I want the representatives of the music I love (I realize not all of them you may like) to do well and have many people like them. I stick to my own playlist, but I also want the format to do well, if that makes any sense. Maybe it's a character flaw. Maybe I just need constant reassurance that the format isn't dying - it shouldn't die, lol. Maybe I also like what you consider "commercial" (which, by the way, isn't Justin Timberlake or Hinder, just thought we'd get that straight ) because I feel it's a unifying ground between me and, say, someone like my cousins who aren't intense music listeners like me (I realize they still like Citizen Cope and NeedToBreathe). If anything, your comment has inspired me to go find more music on my own. I am definitely not a corporate lemming, I just want my home format to do well. I think everyone (including you) should feel that way. Even if you think they should be playing -better- artists. And I want the music of my time to hold a candle to the classics in terms of popularity (and there are many popular artists nowadays that I am certain you respect - but I realize influence is naturally out of the question.)
|
|
oscillations.
Diamond Member
Opinion = Fact
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age.
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by oscillations. on Dec 19, 2006 2:04:51 GMT -5
I don't care. Good music is good music. People need to lay off the cultural crap and just enjoy themselves. In my opinion all these artistic debates add up to is a whole lot of circle jerking and no real conclusions. Right, but that's just the type of thinking that serves the interest of maintaining the status quo.
|
|
oscillations.
Diamond Member
Opinion = Fact
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age.
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by oscillations. on Dec 19, 2006 3:08:59 GMT -5
Well, you go out of your way to defend it with such conviction (and usually attack bands that don't fit into the format as it is), that it's not competely unreasonable for me to theorize that your tastes have largely been informed the corporate rock media (yes, Fuse and AP are definitely a part of that world - the Vans Warped tour bought the f**king magazine, ha!). I would say the same for anyone who only ever discusses music played on TRL or Z100. I would say you're only allowing yourself to be fed whats available via the most immediate vessels. And your Radiohead comment confused/irritated me (do you mean you have never really listened to their albums or do you mean that you HAVE but just don't like them?) I mean you obviously are passionate about music; to me it's bizarre that you choose to target that energy towards this dying format. You like Fugazi. That's awesome - but you do realize the difference between them and most of the other acts you listed, don't you? I don't understand how you've been under the impression that I have criticized any groups that don't fit the genre? I'm honestly trying to see your side of the argument (on that front). I generally don't slam anything that could be considered "rock" in the first place. (I admit that I have a little too much fun "hating" on pop/rap/R&B musicians). You know, I haven't watched TRL in like five years (except a couple of times over the summer when I was over at my friend's house - he lives and breathes MTV), and I really don't read any truly mainstream music magazine other than Rolling Stone. My radio station is a largely anti-corporate one (you should listen to Lazlo sometime via internet). Now if you want to call Warped, AP, AbsolutePunk, Rolling Stone, here (haha), Fuse, Spin, or NME corporate - then that's fine, because that's where I get most of my news. But I just think you're making me out to be something I'm not. No, I have listened to Radiohead's Bends and Kid A albums (rather, many - not all - songs from them). I've listened to all their singles, by the way, including "Knives Out" and that road song (can't remember the title). I haven't listened to their '00s albums, so if you want to judge me from there, fine. I think you're thinking that (for example) because I like Fugazi, I could or should think Hawthorne Heights is crap. I disagree. I try to find redeeming qualities in all aspects of what is considered "rock" music nowadays. As for this topic, I think my miniature rant (and I'll admit it was one) was fair because I wasn't veering off topic - aren't we discussing the year-end radio charts to begin with? I respect anyone's musical opinions (and certainly yours - hell, if anyone has original opinions or ideas, it's you). But I would rather not follow the bandwagon. I truly and honestly care about alternative radio nowadays. I've been following the alternative chart (I guess I should distinguish alternative from the other rock formats) for several years and I feel I have an obligation to care because I want the representatives of the music I love (I realize not all of them you may like) to do well and have many people like them. I stick to my own playlist, but I also want the format to do well, if that makes any sense. Maybe it's a character flaw. Maybe I just need constant reassurance that the format isn't dying - it shouldn't die, lol. Maybe I also like what you consider "commercial" (which, by the way, isn't Justin Timberlake or Hinder, just thought we'd get that straight ) because I feel it's a unifying ground between me and, say, someone like my cousins who aren't intense music listeners like me (I realize they still like Citizen Cope and NeedToBreathe). If anything, your comment has inspired me to go find more music on my own. I am definitely not a corporate lemming, I just want my home format to do well. I think everyone (including you) should feel that way. Even if you think they should be playing -better- artists. And I want the music of my time to hold a candle to the classics in terms of popularity (and there are many popular artists nowadays that I am certain you respect - but I realize influence is naturally out of the question.) I agree with that last part - I want to see the Alternative format do well, but not if I have to compromise my principles on artistic quality. I want to see it succeed on the original terms of its promise: to be an avenue for all types of left of center music (a la college rock in the 80's) to get attention. I've never bought into the theory that certain "sounds" or "genres" should dominate the format. To me, a quirky electro song, a Gnarls Barkley song, and a Sonic Youth song all fit into the ideological basis of the format (in it's purest sense) and should be given equal exposure. It's not supposed to be a "safe" format. I think the harder rock music can find a home on other specific ROCK formats - there IS a place for them elsewhere - a mainstream platform, but there is no home for THE KNIFE other than "Alternative", you know? However, I don't live in a vacuum & I realize that Alternative now is taken in an entirely different context that it used to be, so the fact that I can't agree with what the word currently entails format-wise doesn't make my arguments any easier with people who have "come to accept" that "Alternative" indicates a range of styles suited for a certain "rock"-leaning audience (and believe Nirvana's success created "alternative" - this is the definition I despise most). So, that little bit of background info brings us to my relationship with the format in 2006 - I still believe it should be used as a vehicle to promote countless styles of music (and with a handful of exceptions, Alternative has been dominated by post-grunge, active rock/metal, and emo pop-punk this year - I'm sorry that's not a lot of variety. For every "Crazy" there were 20 "Hate Me" 's. To find the "variety" on the format, check #s 35 and lower - that's where you'll see the diversity start, thanks to a few brave stations that play whatever the f**k they want). Yes, I'm an idealist in this sense, but it doesn't really matter because I've given up on radio ever being able to fulfill this purpose again. Thusly, I've moved on, but somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I want to see the format succeed & get excited when originality prevails. This is why you see me ejaculate over Muse, Arcade Fire, Gnarls Barkley, etc. I love it when truly creative and even "weird" music wins over the masses enough to shift the cultural barometer just a little bit to the left. Is it a transgressive streak? Perhaps. But, as you said, you love watching "your" acts succeed, and I love "mine" to do the same - on their own terms. (And Muse "belongs" to both of us, so we aren't completely polar opposites, eh? ;) ) So, this indicates two further components that I use to "judge" music: - I admire originality, risk-taking, and uncompromise in music. I'm not saying I go out of my way to find "weird" music (although what's weird to me might be normal to you, and vice versa). But it's true I gravitate towards progressive, experimental artists. - But I also love more "traditional" acts who always get it just right. The Raconteurs aren't that "original" but they provide something unique in 2006 and make well-crafted pop music with hooks and details just distinct enough to make them a cut above the rest. I'm all for quality pop music. - but the best & most memorable pop music is that which DEFIES not accomodates conventions. That's why I DO actually enjoy Justin Timberlake, Nelly Furtado, etc this year. They made pop more "daring" or "edgy" than their peers because they strayed from the path most taken. Same with Girls Aloud, but in my own opinion, even more so. At the end of the day, however, if I were to evaluate the aforementioned Girls Aloud with, okay, Radiohead again, I would not be able to pretend that "all things are equal if I like both bands", because one is clearly "better" than the other (and I hate to use the word "better", but to drive the point home, I think it's best to in this case). I can like two bands equally, while still understanding that my reasons for liking each are mutually exclusive. I can even say that Radiohead and Girls Aloud both equally excel at what they do, but I would never, at the end of the day, be able to say the both acts are a.) equally talented b.) equally important c.) can be taken equally as seriously. One is clearly, again, "better": Radiohead. If The Raconteurs & Radiohead were being compared using the same approach (which, of course, is the only logical way to evaluate music & yes, people should be able to justify their tastes through critical thinking), the results would largely be the same: both are good at what they do, but one is clearly better (Radiohead). Why in this case, since the whole murky "manufactured pop" issue isn't a factor with The Raconteurs? Because - and this is where I will admit subjectivity (but 99% of critics, journalists, people who do this type of evaluating everyday would agree) - unconventionality and innovation MUST trump the status quo or the easy hit in order for music to progress. So to me (and them, I guess), while "Steady, As She Goes" is a wonderful pop song, "Paranoid Android" (or your notable RH track of choice) is a more important one, and for the purposes of this post, a "better" one. That doesn't mean that you have to LIKE them more, but one should be able to appreciate the difference between LIKING and RESPECTING something (and hopefully, we manage to do both most of the time). So, I guess, jdmasta, the argument can be paralleled back to your post by challenging you to compare The Arcade Fire/Fugazi/Muse (heck, even Oceansize) with Silverstein/ Bayside/ Breaking Benjamin/ Three Days Grace. I suppose it's possible to like all those bands equally, but I'd really doubt you'd somehow claim Bayside is as innovative and worthy of the same level of respect as Arcade Fire. Art may be art. Food may be food. Music may be music. But it doesn't mean all things in these categories were created equal. Whether you're comparing cheeseburgers to filet mignon, Thomas Kinkade to Miro, or The Vines to Nirvana (both acts I am proud to call myself a fan of, I might add), someone is always going to want to inquire what makes something "special" vs. ordinary & what is "breaking new ground" as opposed to retreading the old & what bands are "in it for the right reason(s) & who is in to make a quick buck. I guess that person is me, and I believe it's healthy & rewarding to ask these questions everyday.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 19, 2006 12:31:24 GMT -5
I don't care. Good music is good music. People need to lay off the cultural crap and just enjoy themselves. In my opinion all these artistic debates add up to is a whole lot of circle jerking and no real conclusions. Right, but that's just the type of thinking that serves the interest of maintaining the status quo. I'm not sure what you mean, but just as you seem concerned about the world leaning too much in the direction of the mainstream, I think there's a significant danger in leaning too heavily toward the progressive. Some of the most enduring and endearing songs of our time weren't built on being arty or culturally significant: they were simple, but they were enjoyable and memorable. I personally like a lot of different rock acts, but as an example let's pretend I was strictly a metal fan. If I'm going to venture outside my realm at all, it would most likely be to explore underground metal acts, because that's what appeals to me the most. Maybe I'll find a few acts elsewhere that catch my attention, but maybe they're not going to instill the same fire in me that a good thrash tune would. People are going to like what they're going to like, and I guarantee that even you push every single one to explore their world beyond mainstream radio, they're still not going to like the bands that you would want them to like. People are wired in different ways and that's why we have the diverse music market that we do. Maybe you're right, and maybe alternative should take a chance on more obscure acts. Hey, it would be neat to see some relatively unknown bands get a shot at the top spot. But are you willing to extend that courtesy to bands like 32 Leaves, Souls Harbor, Hourcast, 3 Mile Scream, Boy Hits Car, the Accident Experiment, Sinch, Split Shift, Idle Sons, or Classic Case? Bands that are not as well-recognized and receive little if any radio promotion but are arguably little or no different from the bands currently on the radio right now? My guess is probably not, because the point you're making is that you want something "diverse". So let's say alternative followed your cue. But what about the people who enjoy the music from Stone Sour more than they enjoy bands like the Vines or Radiohead? That's being unfair to them, and maybe you don't particularly care, but the whole point of the radio, at least at this point in time, is that it can appeal to everyone. The problem with alternative radio is that it has become the dominant rock format, looming large over active rock and regular rock stations like a giant over a countryside. By default, alternative rock has to be tuned into what the mainstream populace wants. It can't afford to turn itself completely into a tool for the underground, because it has to play what's going to get the most attention from listeners. That means it has to play Blue October at least in as equal an amount as it plays Muse. Otherwise they lose that audience, and again, maybe you don't particularly care if they lose that audience or not, but I don't think the end result is going to be that Muse sales go up. I like Muse, but not everyone does. If they start hearing Muse every day instead of Godsmack, they're not going to start rushing out and buying Muse albums, they're just going to turn their radio off. That's why I think radio is better the way it is now. If you look at the chart right now, you see Incubus, MCR, RHCP, AFI, Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, Stone Sour, Breaking Benjamin, The Raconteurs, Three Days Grace, 30 Seconds To Mars, Tool, Muse, Fall Out Boy, (+44), Snow Patrol, Evanescence, The Killers, Angels And Airwaves, Pepper....the list goes on, but this is an especially diverse array of bands here. MCR and Fall Out Boy may come from similar roots, but they both have a totally different sound. Same with Stone Sour and Tool, same with Breaking Benjamin and Three Days Grace, and especially so with Angels And Airwaves and (+44). You're upset that bands like Breaking Benjamin and Stone Sour are taking up spots that you'd rather see be used by more obscure groups, but maybe there are people that would rather see the spots taken by Muse and The Raconteurs be used by Papa Roach and Lostprophets. What I'd personally like to see is for less people to care about what they feel is culturally significant and just focus on what makes them feel good. If they're one and the same, great. Then enjoy it and let everyone else listen to what they want to. No one's ever going to be completely happy at this rate. It would be nice if we could all just get along. Hey, Muse and MCR are going on tour together real soon. Maybe if they all become great friends, it will inspire people to drop this whole silly argument and join hands. Or maybe not.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Dec 19, 2006 12:35:46 GMT -5
Just to add to my post, I think I mentioned this before, but at the Buzz Bake Sale, Idiot and I found that MCR, Taking Back Sunday, 30 Seconds To Mars, Kill Hannah, Buckcherry, and Papa Roach were all friends. Why is it that bands can (most of the time) respect each other as peers and fans can't? Is it simply a case of it being bred from shared experience or do we just all suck? It sounds tired, but I don't know why we all can't just get along.
|
|
|
Post by jaxxalude on Dec 19, 2006 16:19:27 GMT -5
If I only knew that a half-joke would degenerate into this... I'll come back later with some of my thoughts on this. Need to organize them.
|
|
oscillations.
Diamond Member
Opinion = Fact
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age.
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by oscillations. on Dec 19, 2006 17:11:40 GMT -5
Maybe you're right, and maybe alternative should take a chance on more obscure acts. Hey, it would be neat to see some relatively unknown bands get a shot at the top spot. But are you willing to extend that courtesy to bands like 32 Leaves, Souls Harbor, Hourcast, 3 Mile Scream, Boy Hits Car, the Accident Experiment, Sinch, Split Shift, Idle Sons, or Classic Case? Bands that are not as well-recognized and receive little if any radio promotion but are arguably little or no different from the bands currently on the radio right now? My guess is probably not, because the point you're making is that you want something "diverse". Right. I AM talking about diversity, not obscurity. And if those bands you mentioned would do something to advance music in some way, I'm all for them being played, but if, as you said, they basically are just lesser-known versions of what corporate rock has already given us, then what's the point? Yes, I'm aware that commercial radio has reduced music to a product that must appeal to the LCD - I am not stupid. The point is that people shouldn't so willing to take this laying down. Then again, if it services YOUR particular needs, why the f**k should you care? That's the all-American attitude, and I don't see that changing. But it doesn't mean alterations can't and shouldn't be made. We CAN successfully toy with the formula. It's been done before. If those types of acts were moved to where they belong - Mainstream Rock & Active Rock, then maybe those formats WOULD grow again and everyone could be happy. Alternative could be the freaky format, and the more generic material would be played on the two formats designed specifically for nu-rock. Actually, there have been interesting case studies done that prove this theory wrong. People DO learn to tolerate and even LIKE what they are repeatedly exposed to. If Muse were played as much as (insert current #1 here), their sales & overall popularity WOULD go up. Logically, exposure always breeds new fans. If the whole format switched overnight to play riskier material, then yeah, you would probably be correct because a lot of people might not give it a chance. BUT, if this transition occured gradually, it can work beautifully. By the way, this is not just me philosophizing - this is a very real method that several stations in this country are currently employing. I happened to be privy to discussions all kinds of interesting (and hopeful) marketing strategies this past summer at my workplace. I can tell you that this particular station's ratings now are higher than they were 5 years ago, when they WERE more engaged in the corporate rock scene. What is their #1 song right now? "Le Disko". Most requested? "Le Disko". :) Sneaky, sneaky, but brilliantly executed.
|
|
|
Post by jaxxalude on Dec 19, 2006 17:27:52 GMT -5
Girl, only after you reply to the part of penance's case that's lying below you will deserve to be asked to marry me, since you've saved most of the trouble I would have of actually having to organize a reply, just like a good woman always does to her beloved man! I'm not sure what you mean, but just as you seem concerned about the world leaning too much in the direction of the mainstream, I think there's a significant danger in leaning too heavily toward the progressive. Some of the most enduring and endearing songs of our time weren't built on being arty or culturally significant: they were simple, but they were enjoyable and memorable.
|
|
oscillations.
Diamond Member
Opinion = Fact
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age.
Joined: February 2005
Posts: 10,130
|
Post by oscillations. on Dec 19, 2006 17:37:45 GMT -5
LOL! Okay, jaxxalude, I will do that for you as the lowly chambermaid I am . But I actually have to go right now to a department store & buy a sweater for my Grandmother for Christmas! (I'm not even joking!!!) lmao
|
|