Is "Rock" dead?

[Helios]

Is Rock dead? What exactly is "Rock"? How do you define it, and has that definition changed, expanded over time or is pop culture in need of an new, degeneralized, decentralized taxonomy?

I've heard the argument made that the majority of modern music that is impulsively labeled under "Rock and Roll" is so different from the forefathers of the name that it shouldn't even be called "Rock". Compare Green Day with the Beatles, for instance. Can those two bands really be reconciled into the same family of music? And what about all the different sub-genres of Rock? How many can you think of off the top of your head? Why are all of them considered Rock, because they all have guitars?


Has the quality of (popular) music decreased since decades past, and who's to blame if it is? Is there any hope in what might someday be considered a second "golden age" of Rock?

Discuss away.

[Coded-Dude]

teh problem is the size of the corporate music industry.......they are powerful, but becasue of arrogance and a bad tatste in music, they are currently in state of self-induced destruction.
Radio has become a corporate jukebox, and nothing good evvr coems from limiting free enterprise for the sake of money(thats how monopolies are created)

[Boggy700]

Just as with dreaming, it's not dead it's just that it's been forgotten.
(That's mostly from Waking Life.)

I think it's difficult to define 'Rock' music because I think music is beyond definition.
All basic genre names are good for is giving a starting point of reference as to the sound.
They tell us what fundamental style to expect.
I would say that although the two bands sound very different, The Beatles and Green Day do belong to the same basic genre of Rock.
But nothing is ever as simple as that.
There are countless sub-genres to take into consideration.
But we won't now.
Actually, upon re-reading your post, I will.
:
Rock
Progressive Rock
Alternative Rock
Funk Rock
Pop Rock
Rock & Roll
Post Rock
Electro Rock
Indie Rock
Rap Rock
J-Rock (although it's debatable as to whether or not "Japan" can be considered a genre,)
Avant Rock
Ambient Rock
Country Rock
Folk Rock
Experimental Rock
Psychadelic Rock
Nu-Rock
Classic Rock
Contemporary Rock
Future Rock
Noise Rock
Minimalist Rock
Grunge Rock
Shock Rock
Hair Rock
Glam Rock
Blues Rock
Pretty much any and every combination of any genre and rock.
They are all considered "Rock" because they have all evolved from the fundamental Rock sound and style.
That is why we have the basic genres.
To show us where we've been, and how far we've come, and where to go next.

I believe that the quality of popular music has decreased since decades passed.
Well that's not entirely true.
I believe that the quality of popular new music has decreased since decades passed.
Some things will always be popular because they may have been culturally defining in some way.
For example, long after the majority of the public have forgotten Green Day, The Beatles will still be remembered and still be popular.
Unfortunately not as popular as they once were, because the popular music is swaying people's musical taste away from the older, more important bands, groups, musicians and artists.
We are the generation who missed out on the most important time in music and art and culture, and got left with the people who tell us about it.
Popular music used to be better because it all sounded fresh and original.
These days, everything seems like a new rehash of old rehashes of original stuff.
Which is not to say that it's all bad.
Just that nothing seems to stand on it's own anymore, without adequate comparison to anything else.

I don't think there will be a second "Golden Age" of Rock, because the first Golden Age was a result of a huge creative explosion in a time when Rock was still relatively new and people had barely began to scratch the surface (not that they weren't good, mind you.)
To have a second Golden Age, we'd need a significant new discovery in music.
Something that opens up all new pathways.
No!
Something that opens up all new fields, heights, depths, widths, dimensions!
Something that gives us a huge area fresh to explore.
Something that gives us a new unsolvable puzzle.
Something that reveals that the picture we've been working on is only a small part of a much larger canvas.
Of course, this is all already available to us, but we need to use our imaginations.
We need to think for ourselves instead of waiting for someone else to make this grand discovery.
We should be trying to unlock this secret that we're not even ready for.
We should be mixing more genres and mediums instead of wishing for new ones.
We should be creating instead of recreating.

[Otacon305]

It's in a coma.

[The Dude]

I wouldn't blame it on the Corporations so quick, they are just a middle man. There has to be a demand for them to sell the records. So I blame it on customer (today's youth) for buying the shit that is on the market right now.

I gotta say that the British Invasion of the late 60's early 70's was the golden age for rock, I fear there will be no renaissance

[Jesus]

Rock and Roll is Dead. Chuck Berry, Richie Valens that Rock n Roll (the original forefather rock n roll) exists as an underground sub culture merged with rockabilly and psychobilly, but is for the most part dead.

Rock, what is called rock today is just a bastard son of punk merged with the faggot step-child grunge with a hint of the golden child 70's Rock. It is however so shit it should just be put in the corner. No-one likes modern rock.

[Helios]

To have a second Golden Age, we'd need a significant new discovery in music.

What do you mean "new discovery in music" ?

[Boggy700]

A "new discovery" as in something that adds another level to the music of today.
Something like a new and significantly different sounding instrument.
Or a completely new style.
Or for people to universally expand their understanding of music, so more complex compositions can be created.
The best way I could've said it was one of the ways I did say it,
"Something that reveals that the picture we've been working on is only a small part of a much larger canvas."

Like I said, the first Golden Age was an explosion of new sounds, so until we have a way of creating even newer sounds that we have today, there won't be another explosion.
You can't explode exploded explosives.
Well, not unless you add more explosives.
And it has to happen in a sudden dramatic increase in newness, as opposed to a gradual curve as has been happening.
Another way of acheiving this is for every musician to experiment and develop their sound in private, and then when they've evolved their sound significantly, everyone releases their new sound upon music, and we leap forward, instead of slowly stepping.
Of course, this leaves for long periods of time where no original music is being created (a record company's dream.)

For example:
If The Beatles were to have released one of their later albums right after their first one, that would've been a huge leap.
(It's better that they released all that they did though, of course.)
The best example I can think of is if Radiohead released 'Kid A' right after 'Pablo Honey'.
That would've been an even bigger leap than it already was.
(But then we wouldn't have gotten 'OK Computer' and 'The Bends'.)

But back to the immediate point.
It's like in a point-and-click game when you're stuck.
You try pointing and clicking on everything, using your items everywhere.
THEN you find a new item.
And you use that everywhere until it works, and unlocks a whole new big area and you find even more items.
And the plot progresses much further.
Contemporary Rock is kinda like a point and click.
People don't have all the elements they need, but that's okay they're content to not progress the art any further.
Actually, that doesn't really work.

Also, another way to bring around a second Golden Age of Rock is to get bands with a real passion for Rock music.
A band that doesn't want to progress the art, just to adhere to the traditional rock sound and style.
A band that does it well, and with plenty of energy.
I know that sounds like a contradiction to what I just said before, but I'm not saying that only one way works.
You can acheive results by pushing something in either direction.
Like when Gilbert Gottfried told The Aristocrats to an audience.
They were offended by a joke he told, so he stopped pushing it that way, and pushed it as far as he could in the opposite direction, told one of the most offensive jokes in the history of comedy, and completely won the audience over.
But I digress.

Now to digress a different way.
All these things I've said may make me sound like the kind of person who is stuck in the past.
Well, only slightly.
BUT!
I wouldn't want to be a music fan in the past at all, I'd rather be a music listener in the future because that way all the good music throughout history will be around, and there will be more of it.
But I'm really happy where I'm at now.

[Helios]

Well far as this second golden age of rock is concerned I think it could be soon but it wont sound like what rock has traditionally sounded like for years. Because Imo "traditional" sounding rock has been exhausted to the limit.

Bands like The Mars Volta and Dream Theater that can mix in elements from other genres and the end result is great. I think the future of music lies in taking current genres to the extreme limits and mixing some genre elements to produce a genuinely new and original sound. I remember the first time I heard Dream Theater's 'A Change of Seasons', perfect example of taking it to the extreme damn near 24 minutes long but its fucking brilliant.

I think its only inevitable this happens, and im even gonna say within the next couple years.

Led Zeppelin's "The Rain Song" and "Being Simple" by Judybats; "I'm Broken" by Pantera and "Chochise" by Audioslave; The Beatle's "Lady Madonna" and Sublime's "What I Got." Def Leppard's "Rock of Ages" has the same intro as Offspring's "Pretty Fly For a White Guy." This one song we played in band a few months ago... Can't remember the name... But it was very reminiscent of the main theme for Lord of the Rings. Jet and Oasis blatantly copy the Beatles. N*SHIT and all those pop groups were clones of each other. Oh yes, and by some twist of logic Nickelback copies themselves.

All these songs sound alike, whether they share the same riffs, rhythms, intro, or whatever. There's tons of other examples, though I can't remember anymore off the top of my head. This isn't including the millions of covers that have been produced by newer artists to fill up the space on their CDs.

[Mirai]

Rock is far from dead, as far as the commercial side is concerned.

Look at these figures.

U2 - How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb 2004
12 Million Units Sold
The Killers - Hot Fuss 2004
3 Million Units Sold
Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand 2004
3 Million Units Sold
The Darkness - Permission To Land 2003
5 Million Units Sold
Velvet Revolver - Contraband 2004
2 Million Units Sold
Matchbox Twenty - More Than You Think You Are 2002
6 Million Units Sold
Linkin Park - Meteora 2003
10 Million Units Sold
Foo Fighters - In Your Honour 2005
1 Million Units Sold
Green Day - American Idiot 2004
5 Million Units
Red Hot Chilli Peppers - By The Way 2002
10 Million Units

Now, you may disagree as to whether or not some bands in the above can be considered rock. Pull your head out of your arse. As much as I don't like it, all of the above can be placed in the category of rock. It's just how the term works nowadays.

The above are all albums released in the last 5 years. Some are not incredible sellers compared to older sales (U2's The Joshua Tree sold 19 Million, if remember correctly, Guns N Roses' Appetite For Destruction sold 26 Million, but then, that's the biggest selling debut album of all time), but then, are we expecting Killers or Franz Ferdinand's debut albums to equal the sales of U2's 11th or the Peppers' 8th?

Who ever thinks rock doesn't have commercial viability anymore hasn't done their research. Sure, rap is giving rock a bit of a beating in sales recently, but that doesn't mean it isn't commercially viable.

[Helios]

Britney Spears has sold over 85 million worldwide since she debuted in 98-99 I think, doesnt mean her music isnt shit to everyone who has good taste. Im not talking about commcercial viability a lot of people today have shit taste in music so shit music sells well. You're missing the point that its shit.

Besides, of the bands you mentioned how many started out in the 90's or earlier? All of them except Franz Ferdinand and The Killers. When I mean new rock is mostly bad I do mean new rock, not 10+ year old bands releasing new cd's.

[D3adcell]

Most of those bands listed by dee dubya are shit bands.

The only rock I listen to anymore is classic rock. That or metal.
We got like 4-5 classic rock stations here around dallas and one 'modern rock' station (which blows ass and considers fall out boy to be rock).

What really sucks though is that bands change their genre all the time. Look at greenday, they used to be kind of a 'modern rock' or something and were decent, now they are like emo punk rock and they suck. They are total sell outs. It's ashame what money can do to the industry.

[Boggy700]

Rock is far from dead, as far as the commercial side is concerned.

Look at these figures.

U2 - How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb 2004
12 Million Units Sold
The Killers - Hot Fuss 2004
3 Million Units Sold
Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand 2004
3 Million Units Sold
The Darkness - Permission To Land 2003
5 Million Units Sold
Velvet Revolver - Contraband 2004
2 Million Units Sold
Matchbox Twenty - More Than You Think You Are 2002
6 Million Units Sold
Linkin Park - Meteora 2003
10 Million Units Sold
Foo Fighters - In Your Honour 2005
1 Million Units Sold
Green Day - American Idiot 2004
5 Million Units
Red Hot Chilli Peppers - By The Way 2002
10 Million Units

Now, you may disagree as to whether or not some bands in the above can be considered rock. Pull your head out of your arse. As much as I don't like it, all of the above can be placed in the category of rock. It's just how the term works nowadays.

The above are all albums released in the last 5 years. Some are not incredible sellers compared to older sales (U2's The Joshua Tree sold 19 Million, if remember correctly, Guns N Roses' Appetite For Destruction sold 26 Million, but then, that's the biggest selling debut album of all time), but then, are we expecting Killers or Franz Ferdinand's debut albums to equal the sales of U2's 11th or the Peppers' 8th?

Don't forget that those figures might not include mp3 sales.
Also, illegal mp3 downloading would have taken a chunk out of the sales of all forms of music.

But I think a lot of people just don't care about music as people used to back in the day.
With good reason.

[Otacon305]

Rock may not be dead, but good rock certainly has it's foot in the grave.

[Omega]

A new discovery in music, as you put it, cannot happen with powers like MTV running the industry.

[Bloodman]

Classic rock has always been the only rock for me.

Hair flair is more my taste.

[Otacon305]

Metal, and it's sub-genres. \m/,

[Negativity]

The Beatles and The Ramones for el win.

[dncardman]

Britney Spears has sold over 85 million worldwide since she debuted in 98-99 I think, doesnt mean her music isnt shit to everyone who has good taste.

And about 60 millions of those bought it for the posters.

[Mirai]

Britney Spears has sold over 85 million worldwide since she debuted in 98-99 I think, doesnt mean her music isnt shit to everyone who has good taste. Im not talking about commcercial viability a lot of people today have shit taste in music so shit music sells well. You're missing the point that its shit.

Besides, of the bands you mentioned how many started out in the 90's or earlier? All of them except Franz Ferdinand and The Killers. When I mean new rock is mostly bad I do mean new rock, not 10+ year old bands releasing new cd's.
And I wasn't responding to you retard, I was responding to whoever said that rock no longer has commercial viability.

And if you wanna talk about new rock bands, when you look at bands like U2, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, and bands like that, take a look at how their debut albums did.

They were hardly noticed when they first appeared, just like today's new bands. They need to have time to grow.

Also, 5 of the 10 bands I listed released their debut albums 2000 or later. Get ya facts right.

Now, as for whether they are shit or not, that's a matter of oppinion. I hate Green Day with a passion, but there is no definition of good and bad in music because that is unfortunately objective.

All I meant by my post is rock still has commercial viability, which means their is still a proving ground for new rock bands to come out and revive it.

And, while I'm at it, could you please give me specific criteria as to what music is good and what is shit? Could you give me the values it must reach? Because you seem so certain that music today is shit.

I agree with you that rock and roll is in dire need of a new lease on life, but that's oppinion. Don't state your oppinion as fact. Why did I cite statistics? Because simply put, those are the only facts we know for certain, that can't be skewed by oppinion.

[Negativity]

I think one of the big attractions of early rock is that it was, well dance music.

Our new just isn't.

[Helios]

And, while I'm at it, could you please give me specific criteria as to what music is good and what is shit? Could you give me the values it must reach? Because you seem so certain that music today is shit.

I agree with you that rock and roll is in dire need of a new lease on life, but that's oppinion. Don't state your oppinion as fact. Why did I cite statistics? Because simply put, those are the only facts we know for certain, that can't be skewed by oppinion.

A fact is merely a statement that isn't an opinion - it doesn't necessarily have to be true to still be considered a fact. But if you insist on it being my opinion fine. I base my opinion on the sound of the music and the lyrics. You can pick almost any band at random today and you can find that it has either overly simplistic melodies, bad lyrics, or more commonly its all been done before.

You think people are going to be listening to Panic at the disco or Fall out boy in 30 years? No, but plenty of us still love the Beatles and Led Zepplin. Everything that comes out in the mainstream today is disposable or as I like to call it "flavor of the month". There's nothing in the music to make you think or feel anything except whats presented in the lyrics which are extremely shallow to begin with.

Its not just my opinion either, plenty of established musicians and just people with actual taste in music feel the same way. It doesnt take a degree in the arts to know Britney Spears is trash. I feel one way about this and so do you and lets discuss that, and not turn this into sticking our thumbs up our ass and just sitting here because its all "opinion".

[Mirai]

What's wrong with a simplistic melody? The Beatles had heaps of simple melodies. Many classic songs from the Golden Age of Rock and Roll had simple melodies. How can you just dismiss a song for having a simplistic melody?

And one man's trash lyric is another man's gold.

Music is a feeling. You can't look at sheet music or a tab and say "My God, it's brilliant" or "Another flavour of the month". You have to hear it and feel it first.

What if next month the next big thing in music begins, it's the revival of rock and roll, a new golden age begins that continues for 20 years, and you hate the new stuff even though it has complex melodies and deep thoughtful lyrics?

You hate it, but it lives up to those criteria, so does that make it good or bad?

The Golden Age has returned. Yay!

You hate it. Aww.

Guns 'N' Roses had some of the greatest musicians in the mainstream at the time. Anyone who doubts Slash's ability on the guitar needs to to pull their ears out of their arse. Duff had the bass to back it. The drumming was solid. The lyrics varied from deep to anthemic to shit.

Even when the music was complex and the lyrics were deep, some of their songs were awful. And that's coming from a Gunners fan.

So despite complex melodies and rhythms and deep lyrics, some of those songs were shit.

Next point - what's your favourite band?

Mine's U2. I know a lot of people don't like U2, but that's their oppinion. I know a lot of people who like U2. I mean, you gotta be doin something right to get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, right?

So who's right? The people who like U2, or the people who hate U2?

Can you say an oppinion is right or wrong? My oppinion is they are talented musicians. I'm willing to bet that someone's going to follow my post disagreeing with me. So can you say one oppinion is right and one's wrong?

The truth is, the next golden age of rock and roll could start tomorrow and you might never see it, because you just won't want to accept the fact of it for whatever reason.

And, as sad as this is to say, in response to the whole "won't be remembered in 30 years" idea, let me state a sad fact.

It's been 10 days since "Good Riddance (Time Of Your Life)" was released by Green Day. Still heard today. Who would have thought a Green Day song would survive 10 years...

[Negativity]

I think one of the big attractions of early rock is that it was, well dance music.

Our new music just isn't.

[Boggy700]

Music is a feeling. You can't look at sheet music or a tab and say "My God, it's brilliant" or "Another flavour of the month". You have to hear it and feel it first.

I half agree.
I think that there are (at least) two sides to music, as there is with all art forms.
The technical side and the personal side.
Even if no one likes a particular song, it could still be considered by all to be a technically excellent piece of music.
And even if everyone likes a different song, it could still be considered technically stupid.
I was on a bus today and overheard someone refering to a song as "good party music", and started thinking about how some people will only ever like music that can attribute to some situation in their life, such as good party, dance, chill music, and etcetera.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
These days most people just want music that they like to listen to, regardless of the technical complexities, or lack thereof, that the song may or may not contain.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
And there are some people who consider themselves "academic" with regards to music, and will only listen to 'intelligent' music, regardless of the enjoyment they may or may derive from the experience.
I find something to be wrong with this.
Sure it's good to be intelligent, but not at the expense of enjoying life.
But those people can live however they want.

It's like with videogames.
You know, "Graphics vs. Gameplay".
Which is more important?
Technical excellence or enjoyability?


What if next month the next big thing in music begins, it's the revival of rock and roll, a new golden age begins that continues for 20 years, and you hate the new stuff even though it has complex melodies and deep thoughtful lyrics?

Well sure, not everybody will like the music that's being made, but that's not what makes a Golden Age (as far as I can see.)
The music only has to be culturally significant.
Hitler is both culturally significant, and a target of mass hatred.
...I honestly forgot where I was going with this.
Oh well, less reading to do.


You hate it, but it lives up to those criteria, so does that make it good or bad?

It makes it good in a way, and bad in another way.
Things aren't black and white.
They're Technicolor.


Can you say an oppinion is right or wrong?

No.


The truth is, the next golden age of rock and roll could start tomorrow and you might never see it, because you just won't want to accept the fact of it for whatever reason.

That's true, a lot of people won't want to recognise certain music as being "good", if for no other reason than they just don't like it.
Those people are being completely subjective, and have no stance of authority on music.
In my opinion.


And, as sad as this is to say, in response to the whole "won't be remembered in 30 years" idea, let me state a sad fact.

It's been 10 days since "Good Riddance (Time Of Your Life)" was released by Green Day. Still heard today. Who would have thought a Green Day song would survive 10 years...

You're right, it's a popular song that has lasted over ten years.
I like it too (well, I used to like it, but it got overplayed to me.)
But I doubt that Green Day will ever be nearly as culturally important to warrant them being part of a new Golden Age of Rock.
But hey, I'm not familiar with much of the music of Green Day, and I'm no authority on music.
So I don't know anything.

[Mirai]

I don't know if you were trying to argue or support me...

But yeah, you basically just supported everything I meant.

But, just in regards to the last part about Green Day. I'm familiar with some of their stuff, I don't really like it. However, I think that they could be just as important as many other big bands.

Bands today are influenced by the greats - The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, Etc. - and yet their music has a sound of it's own, though this sound is generally considered to be inferior to the old school rock and roll.

A cruel twist of irony could be that the bands of the next Golden Age of Rock and Roll could be citing bands like Green Day and Blink 182 as their influences.

Don't confuse that as "Green Day are the saviours of rock and roll," it's just we don't know what's around the corner, so who's to say where the next Golden Age will come from. Green Day could surprise us all still...

[nesman]

I love music, and everything about it. I'm a huge Classic Rock listener, and the big bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, etc. all are influences to me. Back then, there was a passion for rock, a lot of energy. Even in the 80s rock still had an energy to it, a passion. (but I'm an 80s fan too, lol) The Police, though they were a pop band, blended reggae and New Wave into their music and had a great energy too it. (The live version of So Lonely on their Live album had a great solo, imo) Bands like Pink Floyd showed how sounds and effects in their early space rock days added upon music. Dark Side of the Moon added pioneering sound but also showed how powerful lyrics are. The Wall was a perfect concept album in that it showed a story. I was reading an analysis on the Wall and it is mad long! Their concerts for it and the movie were pretty crazy too, albeit a financial disaster. Rush also stressed lyrics importantly and had themes in their music like Pink Floyd.

But today I feel that music isn't creative anymore. Since bands in the 70s and 80s explored a lot of rock, there isn't much to it anymore. Not just rock, but maybe rap as well isn't creative anymore. I don't listen to rap, but today's music is all just about drugs, gangs, girls, etc. Rap was much better in Tupac's days, but all it is today is crap or perhaps had nothing going for it since the beginning.

I wish there would be another Golden Age, or period where a lot of classic rock bands reunite and start doing tours again. But the truth is they hate each other, too old, or died of drugs. Jimi Hendrix is dead, Freddie Mercury is gone, Roger Waters and David Gilmour of Pink Floyd probably will never tour again with each other (Live8 was awesome though), 2/4 of the Beatles are gone, Paul and Ringo are only left. But every band had a style to themselves, and their way of doing rock, but today its all just the same. Some bands like Incubus impress me, since their not that popular and stand out.

Sorry for straying from the question, Is rock dead? Well, in a way its only gotten stale and abused by greedy recording companies. Pink Floyd warned of this in their album Wish You Were Here. The Police had trouble finding a record label since in the late 70s New Wave bands were given label priority, they had to mask their reggae influence to get the label. If record labels would stop being so greedy and bands so bland maybe we could get good music like our fathers did. But it is up to the customers as well. People buying shitty music will only continue this cycle.

On a side note, WHERE DID ALL THE GUITAR SOLOS GO???

[Mirai]

There's still a lot of good guitar solos about, but most people won't accept that a band post 1990 can do a decent guitar solo.

[Boggy700]

About the guitar solo thing.
I think that a lot of bands nowadays don't do guitar solos because they don't want to be too self-indulgent, they want to please the average listener.
Or something.
Actually, maybe not.
Of course, self-indulgence is often the cause of the most energetic music.
I enjoy listening to self-indulgence because it gives greater insight into the creativity of the artist.

Not that I find guitar solos to be at all overly self-indulgent, and I do understand that a listener will often be pleased by a guitar solo.
So I now change my mind.
Nevermind.

[Mirai]

A lot of bands that one would never go to for a guitar solo do have some alright solos going.

No way would I compare them to the likes of Slash or Buckethead or Clapton, but not every guitarist is gonna be a virtuoso. However, I'm not necassarily going to recommend these to those of you who are looking for technical proficiency. I haven't bothered to look at these tabs, but I enjoy them for the feel they give.

U2 - Bullet The Blue Sky
The solo is cool on the Joshua Tree version, better on the Rattle And Hum live version, and if you get a chance to see the Vertigo 2005 DVD, it's fucking awesome on that version. It's a decent length too, as opposed to most of the stuff being put out today.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Can't Stop
Sick solo. Nuff said. It'd be hard to get your guitar solos noticed in the same band as Flea, but John manages it.

Velvet Revolver - Slither
Kind of cheating, coz it is Slash, but hey, it's still fucking awesome.

Hmmm... Upon searching out more awesome solos, it was hard to not return to those three same bands. Not for lack of good sounding solos, just for lack of solos that aren't short. Most of the other solos I love, but they rarely make it past 15 seconds. There is a problem there, I must say.

[Ihsiin]

Shit songs were made back in the day, shit songs are made now, it's just that shit songs don't get remembered. In twenty years from now people will look back and remember only the good songs (I can't think of any, but I'm not much of a rock fan) and complain about how there's so much crap flying around.

[Zer0-Sum]

Rock, in the "Classic" sense, killed itself in the 70's with to many drugs and to much booze. No really, look at all the great artists that could have kept R"Rock" a live and well that died from dumb azz decisions like doing heroin and drinking booze mainly. Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, the list could go on FOREVER. They were young, dumb and now dead. Such is life....

[Mirai]

I'm pretty sure the list couldn't go on forever...

[Zer0-Sum]

I'm pretty sure the list couldn't go on forever...

I know, but you get my point. To much great talent wasted by drugs. Sure have fun, waste some, party like a rock star. But die on herorin? Just plain stupid. Even in these modern times. Lead singer of Sublime(can't think of his name right now), that dude from Mud Honey, Lane Staley, ect....all stupid.

[Mirai]

But you make it sound like the only people with talent and who were ever capable of having talent are either dead or killing themselves.

We still got McCartney.

Lennon was murdered, no death from excess there.

Freddy Mercury didn't die of excess either.

Buddy Holly went down in a crash, not thanks to excess.

Another thing, it's easier to treat someone as a genius once they're gone. Cobain is looked at like a genius today, but it's kinda tasteless to say a dead man is talentless...

[Zer0-Sum]

But you make it sound like the only people with talent and who were ever capable of having talent are either dead or killing themselves.

We still got McCartney.

Lennon was murdered, no death from excess there.

Freddy Mercury didn't die of excess either.

Buddy Holly went down in a crash, not thanks to excess.

Another thing, it's easier to treat someone as a genius once they're gone. Cobain is looked at like a genius today, but it's kinda tasteless to say a dead man is talentless...

No that was not my point at all. Imagine how it would be if say Jimmy Hendriz never died? Or anyone else in the music biz that died of some dumb ass drug over dose. Yah see, Buddy Holly never really knew that he was going to die on a plane. It just happened. Life is like that. But a heroin user? Those fools are trying to cheat death every time they shove that needle in their viens. Or drank their livers to death. JUST PLAIN OLD STUPID! That is my point....

[Jesus]

Actually,

Freddy Died from excess.

Excess of Bum sex.

[Mirai]

Of the above two posts, I agree with Doesy's.

Like you said, life's like that. Hendrix could have not shot up and then been hit by a bus. Or he could still be alive today and still making music. It wouldn't really change the fact that people today apparently don't have the same talent as those from yesteryear, would it?