View Full Version : Is Alternative rock dead?


Death rock boy
02-06-2002, 03:01 PM
This question has been presented to me about 8 or 9 times in the past few weeks just in magazines and on T.V. and it seems a hot topic at the moment.

What's your take on Alternative rock? How do you define it and furthermore, by your definition is it dead?

FearFactory
02-06-2002, 03:03 PM
<font color="orange">Alternative Rock will only die when all rock music ends up sounding the same.

I never got what made it alternative... maybe because the music was gay?
</font>
<font color="red">

------------------
http://raversaregay.homestead.com/files/USA.gif
"I can always count on you"
"That's true, up to 21"

Death rock boy
02-06-2002, 03:08 PM
Probably because it was an alternative to the hair-metal shit that had preceded it, and of course pop music.


But I agree with you, I deem Alt. Rock as anything which is (without sounding too cliche) honest in it's approach. Music which is different without the artist forcing it to be different.

Mayfuck
02-06-2002, 03:15 PM
I remember this topic being posted in 1998.

Death rock boy
02-06-2002, 03:18 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
I remember this topic being posted in 1998.</font>

probably, but then, that was 4 years ago. And besides, it'll be nice to compare results http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif

FearFactory
02-06-2002, 03:20 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
I remember this topic being posted in 1998.</font>

<font color="orange">That's fucking sad.

I remember it being posted in 1999.
</font>
<font color="red">

------------------
http://raversaregay.homestead.com/files/USA.gif
"I can always count on you"
"That's true, up to 21"

silvergeek
02-06-2002, 03:21 PM
david berman:

punk rock died when the first kid said: "punks not dead, punk's not dead"

i think the same applies to alternative rock, or any kind of rock.

------------------
"Nostalgia isn't what it used to be"
AIM: silvergeek000

Death rock boy
02-06-2002, 03:26 PM
But it's kind of an ongoing thing. I mean, I personally think that Alt. Rock in the strictest definition (i.e. not just the early 90's bands) is not "dead". It's the kind of music that lays in waiting.

I suppose it has to do with art over industry. Thats the problem with a lot of bands these days. Even the supposed rock bands are just releasing a 12-song 8-page booklet album. The entire Alt. rock is much the same as it was in the late 80's: Not an alternative. It's been diluted far to much by bands like Creed, who have just created mediocre-to-shit rock music (not to mention Linkin' Park, Limp etc.)

But then, you have bands like Radiohead, who are true Alternative. They are progressive, and they have not catered to the masses yet at the same time have simply gained the respect of a large enough musical audience to warrant worldwide fame.

FearFactory
02-06-2002, 03:31 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Death rock boy:
It's been diluted far to much by bands like Creed, who have just created mediocre-to-shit rock music (not to mention Linkin' Park, Limp etc.)
</font>

<font color="orange">I think creed are tolerable. At least they can play their instruments and sing.

Though I'm not a fan, I don't understand the amount of shit they get from people... unless you're basing it all on scott stapp's ego.... then again, you shouldn't be judging their music based upon the attitude of the front man.

linkin park would be good if they got a better lyricist and dropped the rapping.
</font>
<font color="red">

------------------
http://raversaregay.homestead.com/files/USA.gif
"I can always count on you"
"That's true, up to 21"

glued_on_wings
02-06-2002, 03:46 PM
No it isnt dead, becuase you wouldnt have bands around like Jimmy Eat World, Rival Schools, Thursday, ect ect... To me those are alternative bands. Alternative may not be as mainstream as it once was but it isnt dead..

Rock On..

------------------
- I use music (http://www.gluedsboots.cjb.net) as some kind of weird salvation to get away from life... -
-We will miss you!! The Smashing Pumpkins (1988-2000) -
Sad Machines Audio Archive (http://www.crosswinds.net/~sadmachines)
Glued On Wings FTP (ftp://smashing:pumpkins@sadmachines.d2g.com)

Death rock boy
02-06-2002, 03:47 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by FearFactory:
<font color="orange">I think creed are tolerable. At least they can play their instruments and sing.

Though I'm not a fan, I don't understand the amount of shit they get from people... unless you're basing it all on scott stapp's ego.... then again, you shouldn't be judging their music based upon the attitude of the front man.

linkin park would be good if they got a better lyricist and dropped the rapping.
</font>
<font color="red">

</font>


Because to me both bands cut across the grain of what makes a great band great.

Creed are shit, I'm not going to say "they're playing old music" because thats stupid, noone can play new music without at least supporting themselves on old music. But they're content to just write the same similar sounding stuff (both musically and lyrically). There is a dynamic and a laziness in the new breed of rock bands thats frustrating: Creed are not trying. They're just content to be a band, and to continue to just be a band. If they were to continually attack both their own values and their audience, then they would be alternative, because they would be changing into consistently new yet quality trends. As it is, they've found a niche and now they're just getting fat in it. I think thats a good word to describe it, fat. The general impression is one of an industry today that just make some songs and release them on some CD's and play some shows and do some interviews. Everything is so similar and so matter-of-fact for these bands that they're boring. And because they don't try to remain fresh, they can't be a truly great band. They're just a band.

As for Linkin' Park (LP, cos I can't be bothered to type it out), that's even worse. The greatest thing I've ever heard about Linkin' Park is this from their record company spokesman:

"They're fantastic. They embody every aspect of alternative rock and originality. They are so fresh"

That's not a direct quote, but you get the idea. But what he is saying contradicts itself. How can you be the pinnacle of something which has no strict conventions?

For example. Nirvana weren't a better Soundgarden. SP weren't a better Nirvana. Each band was individual, had an individual stance and an individual place in the culture of the time. LP are just the opposite, they're just the cream of the crop. They're the better P.O.D, the better whatever. Just the same way Incubus are the better Hoobastank. There are these strict genre borders and all bands are doing is putting themselves in one and seeing how far up it they can get.

So I guess what I'm saying is bands like Creed are not interesting. It's not even totally the music's fault, it's the way they're content to just be a band, and the same sounding band, and the same looking band, and the same band on tour, and the same band in the studio etc. There is nothing about them that defines them, just that they are supposedly the best at what they do, which is really undisputable, but thats the bad thing. If we live in a time when bands are just bands, and the best band is the best, then there is nothing special about the individual bands. You have alright bands and the rest of them.

KingKong
02-06-2002, 03:52 PM
My understanding of alternative rock is that it was used to define bands in the mid 80's (Sonic Youth, Replacements, Husker Du, REM, etc.) who were relatively outside of the mainstream up to when Nevermind hit. After that, the term was used incorrectly to define most rock from that point up until now. I won't pretend to know everything about time periods I wasn't a part of so I don't really know but in my view the term is meaningless applied to any new band. But then again it doesn't really matter how you label a band.

smashingjj
02-06-2002, 04:04 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by FearFactory:
<font color="orange">I think creed are tolerable. At least they can play their instruments and sing.

Though I'm not a fan, I don't understand the amount of shit they get from people... unless you're basing it all on scott stapp's ego.... then again, you shouldn't be judging their music based upon the attitude of the front man.

linkin park would be good if they got a better lyricist and dropped the rapping.
</font>
<font color="red">

</font>well one think creed can't do is sing. I listened to 'weathered' today for the first time, because I got anxious when the guitarist of my band said he considered it great.

some songs were good (no.1, 3, 10); most were mediocre. but what spoiled it all in my opinion was stapp's voice. it's so cliche, it occurred to me he just wanted to be rock with his singing style, instead of actually being it. why is it so popular to sing like Eddie Vedder and Scott Weiland did ages ago? because Vedder defined their kind of rock? damn. Aaron Lewis from Staind sings a bit in the same 'dialect', but at least his voice is...nice.

and Stapp's ego is revolting as well. in their commercials someone says "Weathered, the new album by the best rock band in the world!!1". and in an interview Stapp mentioned Weathered musically was the most diverse album he could think of. well there were maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, but most of the music sounded exactly the same. 8 or so of the 11 songs had the same worn-out soft-loud scale style.

and their subtle guitar playing style is just borrowed from the SD-era Pumpkins. it seems like they based their whole style upon songs like Mayonnaise or Spaceboy.

but I guess I'm not very original by flaming Creed on this board. let's quit.

------------------
Mallow (http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/mallow)


http://www.director-file.com/cunningham/5226.jpg

Slurpee
02-06-2002, 04:57 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Death rock boy:



Creed are shit, I'm not going to say "they're playing old music" because thats stupid, noone can play new music without at least supporting themselves on old music. But they're content to just write the same similar sounding stuff (both musically and lyrically). There is a dynamic and a laziness in the new breed of rock bands thats frustrating: Creed are not trying. They're just content to be a band, and to continue to just be a band. If they were to continually attack both their own values and their audience, then they would be alternative, because they would be changing into consistently new yet quality trends. As it is, they've found a niche and now they're just getting fat in it. I think thats a good word to describe it, fat. The general impression is one of an industry today that just make some songs and release them on some CD's and play some shows and do some interviews. Everything is so similar and so matter-of-fact for these bands that they're boring. And because they don't try to remain fresh, they can't be a truly great band. They're just a band.</font>

I completely agree with the sentiment of this paragraph. Creed and such bands have aspirations, but they are aspirations based solely around success. Billy Corgan (just using him as an example, not THE example) had both artistic and commercial ambition, and I think it's the lack of the former that really disturbs us in today's bands. Sometimes, in a joking fashion (such as "chocolate starfish...") they sort of release a pseudoart album, but the individual songs never change, never explore. The mainstream, at the moment, is actually self-restricting: you get there and you stay with what got you there. On the front lines, there is simply no desire to be known for being an artist - just for being a rock star or an emotional whiner. Will the next Creed, AAF, Lifehouse, Linkin Park, or Limp Bizkit album ever have the same change in sound that Nirvana showed from nevermind to in utero? That the pumpkins showed between SD and MCIS? That weezer showed between blue and pink? No, they will not. Bottom line: Creed doesn't suck, they're just not interesting.

Lie
02-06-2002, 05:09 PM
The alternative rock movement is over, yes. I wish people would stop trying to either re-create it or have a funeral for it.

When you label music from a certain period of time pertaining to a certain group by a certain name, the sentiment and style of that music, not counting universal sentiments of music, are not going to live on forever as a movement. That doesn't mean elements of it aren't going to pop up in various places, and that it didn't mean anything, it just means that we should be looking ahead instead of back. That kind of movement comes from looking around, above and beyond the current music scene and using recycled materials from the past to create something new and appropriate. To me, that's the primary definition of alternative music, but the fact that we have a movement named after it makes it difficult to distinguish between the two.

------------------
Boot the grime of this world in the crotch, dear.

The exploding boy
02-06-2002, 06:07 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by KingKong:
After that, the term was used incorrectly to define most rock from that point up until now.</font>

yeah, most rock that wasn't "classic" sounding. I rememeber an interview with Billie Joe (who's not an authority on the subject but i quote him because i thought it was true) a few years ago on Lolapalooza being THE alternatve music festival and he said he though the term was silly because "Alternative to what?". And it's true.

bittertrance
02-06-2002, 06:22 PM
it was dead when every city in the country got 3 "todays alternative" radio stations...

alternative to what!?!?!

Liquid-J
02-06-2002, 06:40 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by glued_on_wings:
Alternative may not be as mainstream as it once was but it isnt dead..

Rock On..

</font>


that was weird. roCk oN..

Death rock boy
02-06-2002, 07:04 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Lie:
The alternative rock movement is over, yes. I wish people would stop trying to either re-create it or have a funeral for it.

When you label music from a certain period of time pertaining to a certain group by a certain name, the sentiment and style of that music, not counting universal sentiments of music, are not going to live on forever as a movement. That doesn't mean elements of it aren't going to pop up in various places, and that it didn't mean anything, it just means that we should be looking ahead instead of back. That kind of movement comes from looking around, above and beyond the current music scene and using recycled materials from the past to create something new and appropriate. To me, that's the primary definition of alternative music, but the fact that we have a movement named after it makes it difficult to distinguish between the two.

</font>


But Alt. Rock isn't really a 90's thing. I mean, although that was the Alt. Rock era, or the grunge era or whatever, I think Alt. Rock has always been around. Blues was Alt. Rock, Zeppelin was Alt. Rock.

I think it's like this, and I've been thinking about this the last few years really. Lets take grunge as an example. Grunge and the early 90's movement arose out of a basic frustration thats evident in todays music: Hair metal had parodied itself. What Van Halen and Aerosmith had originally done, to make that big anthemic arena rock, had gone full circle, and by 88/89 nearly all the hair metal bands were just comedy copies of what had happened before. Grunge (and I'm applying grunge to every early 90's rock band for ease not accuracy) arose out of the frustrations of that parody. It had become so bloated, so uninteresting, that it wasn't fun no more. I mean, grunge wasn't the opposite, the antithesis of hair metal. Look at Billy Corgan's soloing on Gish and SD, it's pretty Van Halen. Rather, it wasn't destroying the genre but offering an alternative look on music with some of the genuine qualities of the era.

Then Grunge became a label, and the label became a set of conventions:

Angst
Screaming
Loud/Quiet
Verse/Chorus

etc etc. And that was grunge, and if you did that you became popular. So the Alternative became the Norm, much like Aerosmith became Danzig and Van Halen became Malmsteem: It just imploded and became so analysed it lost all meaning. And grunge turned to post-grunge, with bands like bush. And post-grunge slowly became nu-metal. And now, bands like Staind are comedy grunge. They sing the lyrics we expect from depressed grunge stars to the music we'd expect: 4 chords for the verse, and then a distorted version for the chorus.

So, as far as I can see, just like Corgan and Billie Joe say, and how I interpret it is that what was Alt. Rock became mainstream pap. They're not saying it's dead or it was never real, but that everything that is alternative and popular eventually just becomes popular. And what happened to grunge with bands like Bush is happening to nu-metal with bands like Puddle of Mudd or whatever shit you wanna take an example from.

So, I'm not saying we're going to have NU-GRUNGE!!!111!! or anything, but what's evident really is the cycle coming full circle again, like the late 80's metal. A handful of original bands become labeled, figured out, and every industry insider wants his own profitable version. The scene becomes diluted and boring and eventually a parody of itself, and a new breed of bands come along, for a few years they reign, and then they'll become a parody over a decade, just depends whether you're an innovator or a clone I guess.

Like I said, I'm not saying we're going to have some new musical movement, but you'd probably be naieve to think rock music isn't going to go any further and that it's just going to decline.

Honey Spider
02-06-2002, 08:00 PM
to me you cant really define alternative after only one album. my view on it is that its rock that progresses and explores different elements and grows and doesn't just stay that same cd after cd.

------------------
"Robert Smith of Terrytown said he has been renting erotic movies almost every week for the past 20 years."

bittertrance
02-06-2002, 08:02 PM
but where is it going?

compare 1984 and 1992...rock sounded really different right?

well take 1994 and 2002...rock still sounds the fucking same as it did in 1994!

sure there are a few bands here and there that progress and change the way things sound, but they are getting zero attention by mtv, radio, etc.

this is why ALT rock is dead...people that make money off of it won't let it happen, it's too risky of an investment

ravenguy2000
02-06-2002, 08:03 PM
Who the fuck cares?

------------------
http://ravenguy98.homestead.com/files/Factory.jpg

KingKong
02-06-2002, 08:22 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:

well take 1994 and 2002...rock still sounds the fucking same as it did in 1994!

</font>

No it doesn't.

Death rock boy
02-06-2002, 09:30 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
but where is it going?

compare 1984 and 1992...rock sounded really different right?

well take 1994 and 2002...rock still sounds the fucking same as it did in 1994!

sure there are a few bands here and there that progress and change the way things sound, but they are getting zero attention by mtv, radio, etc.

this is why ALT rock is dead...people that make money off of it won't let it happen, it's too risky of an investment

</font>


But that's the beauty. Every now and again an album or a band come out that people are drawn to, with or without record company marketing. Nirvana never mean't to be huge, in fact I read somewhere the company estimates for Nevermind were about 20,000 copies, which is nothing really.

And, to take your example of the 1984-1992. Think about it logically. The music didn't really evolve within the industry, Nirvana exploded and so did the grunge scene. Really, 1984-1991, in terms of market success, music didn't change.

To that extent, a band could come out this year with an album that was innovative, and explode, much like grunge.

I doubt it will happen like that, but there is evolution and there is revolution, and grunge was a revolution.

darkagency
02-06-2002, 09:47 PM
Its has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of big music mergers happened in the 90's Time Warner is now the king of the world as far as distribution goes.......its this lack of compitition and the new styles of marketing that have really changed things....kids today are sold rebelion and in most cases they know it and just dont care...its like the young have just become apathetic and I think this is reflected by the bands because they are the same way....the entire musical climate has changed.....back in the 60' 70's it was all "lets try this and see what happens"...nowadys its already been test maketed and their is and earning projection.....so in essence musicians lack balls these days......they only see as far as their food dish.and are content to do so....I hope this made a little sense at least

THRILLHO
02-06-2002, 09:52 PM
<font size=10>
YES
</font>
what more is there to say?

TimRoss
02-06-2002, 09:59 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by darkagency:
Its has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of big music mergers happened in the 90's Time Warner is now the king of the world as far as distribution goes.......its this lack of compitition and the new styles of marketing that have really changed things....kids today are sold rebelion and in most cases they know it and just dont care...its like the young have just become apathetic and I think this is reflected by the bands because they are the same way....the entire musical climate has changed.....back in the 60' 70's it was all "lets try this and see what happens"...nowadys its already been test maketed and their is and earning projection.....so in essence musicians lack balls these days......they only see as far as their food dish.and are content to do so....I hope this made a little sense at least </font>


Well said.

Death rock boy
02-06-2002, 10:00 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by darkagency:
Its has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of big music mergers happened in the 90's Time Warner is now the king of the world as far as distribution goes.......its this lack of compitition and the new styles of marketing that have really changed things....kids today are sold rebelion and in most cases they know it and just dont care...its like the young have just become apathetic and I think this is reflected by the bands because they are the same way....the entire musical climate has changed.....back in the 60' 70's it was all "lets try this and see what happens"...nowadys its already been test maketed and their is and earning projection.....so in essence musicians lack balls these days......they only see as far as their food dish.and are content to do so....I hope this made a little sense at least </font>


I certainly agree with that to an extent, they are definitely being sold angst (I mean, look at Staind) and don't really care. But then, look at Radiohead, or the Strokes. Huge bands who seem to arise out of nowhere, and now we already have The Hives, as a sort of answer to The Strokes.

Markets change, in 1998 we probably would have been saying we'd never see rock as popular as it is now, but it's certainly popular (albeit shit). I guess what I'm saying is however many forecasts and predictions have been made, you just cannot anticipate what will be popular. It won't be long before we have a bunch of Strokes clones and the industry is harking on about 70's garage rock and The Ramones. It's comforting, but also true to realise, like bono said, nothing will change the spontaneity and unpredictability of the industry. Napster was going to rule the industry 3 years back, and it was posing a serious threat to the market: But it didn't change anything. And in just the same way, The Strokes, The White Stripes, bands like these, pretty old fashioned "grassroots" rock bands are suddenly making a comeback. People are getting bored of nu-metal, and I think the industry is gearing up for a revisit to the art-music phase.

matt reeder
02-06-2002, 10:20 PM
Go listen to Mudhoney-now!

x-man
02-06-2002, 10:31 PM
i agree with darkagency's points on the mergers forcing things in a certain way, and musicians dont have balls anymore. Nobody out there I see understands how to push the cultural edge, let alone are willing to.

I dont think the new war on terrorism, the internet, the general evolution of technology in these times can be overlooked when considering Rock (Alt. Rock) as 'dead or alive'.

Billy has said that the rules have changed, the way bands became successful in the past may not apply in the future...Napster was poised to have a real influence in these matters but the industry closed quickly once they got off their collective duff and moved into action.

I wonder if Billy still thinks the labels are trying to convince the artist that the industry and the mergers are forces to not even try to fight...that's sort of the context. errrr. close enough.

We have limited free speech if what you speak against controls the very distribution so that you can be heard. Can the internet, mp3's, SHN's, etc. really change that aspect of the music industry?

Is this the real Synthetic Army? I've wondered.

Folladori
02-06-2002, 10:41 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by x-man:
i agree with darkagency's points on the mergers forcing things in a certain way, and musicians dont have balls anymore. Nobody out there I see understands how to push the cultural edge, let alone are willing to.

I dont think the new war on terrorism, the internet, the general evolution of technology in these times can be overlooked when considering Rock (Alt. Rock) as 'dead or alive'.

Billy has said that the rules have changed, the way bands became successful in the past may not apply in the future...Napster was poised to have a real influence in these matters but the industry closed quickly once they got off their collective duff and moved into action.

I wonder if Billy still thinks the labels are trying to convince the artist that the industry and the mergers are forces to not even try to fight...that's sort of the context. errrr. close enough.

We have limited free speech if what you speak against controls the very distribution so that you can be heard. Can the internet, mp3's, SHN's, etc. really change that aspect of the music industry?

Is this the real Synthetic Army? I've wondered.

</font>

Who is Billy?

Tards.

------------------
http://allstarpowerup.com/incoming/joeshill-gimp.jpg

All Star Powerup Music. The one, true way to goodbye depression. (http://www.allstarpowerup.com/)
AIM- JetsPartTwo

darkagency
02-06-2002, 10:42 PM
I agree with you x-man we have a very limited free speech.....Clear channel communicatios owns all most all Modern rock stations as well as counrty and top 40....they set the formats..and control what the nation listens to..with hardly any compitition...the radio stations are basicaly the same from town to town these daya with very little reginalism.....also i think payola and sexola are much bigger problems than most people think these days

FearFactory
02-06-2002, 11:22 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by smashingjj:
why is it so popular to sing like Eddie Vedder and Scott Weiland did ages ago? because Vedder defined their kind of rock? damn. Aaron Lewis from Staind sings a bit in the same 'dialect', but at least his voice is...nice.
</font>

<font color="orange">I've been accused of ripping off tons of vocalists... everyone from David Bowie to Aaron Lewis. I don't strive to sound like them, I just sing how I sing. I'm pretty certain that's the case with scott stapp and other vocalists who get accused of "ripping off" others. In fact, many people accused Scott Weiland of ripping off Eddie Vedder.

It's a lot harder to try and sing like someone else than sing like you, anyway.
</font>
<font color="red">

------------------
http://raversaregay.homestead.com/files/USA.gif
Put on the mask and dance for daddy!

Mathboy
02-06-2002, 11:53 PM
The 90's alt-rock movement is dead, but alternative music isn't, in the sense that reasonably good music is still being produced outside the mainstream. If anything, with the Majors focusing on the current new-rock sound, the Indie scene -- the alternative to that mainstream -- has only gotten more diverse and interesting. Geez, what's with the essays? It's pretty straightforward.

Death rock boy
02-07-2002, 07:41 AM
I think it's true that the main reason for the descent of the quality of rock music is just that the bands these days are too scared and lazy to really try to attack peoples values. By that, I don't mean be as ridiculous as possible, just to be different.

teioh
02-07-2002, 08:56 AM
music never dies, it just changes, and if you don't like it, then thats your fucking problem. i don't want to be the equivalent of a 50 year old rocker in leather jacket and blue jeans when i get older.
alternative rock isn't dead, but maybe rock is a little broke

Buggle
02-07-2002, 11:54 AM
As long is there is a mainstream then there has to be an alternative which consists of music that does not sound like acceptible mainstream music. It slips around, alternative music isn't dead, it's just that what was alternative a few years ago is mainstream now. The two things co-exist and shape each other. The mainstream develops quicker than the alterniative so we are just in a stage right now where a shift is starting to take place.

illiterate
02-07-2002, 01:11 PM
Stapp on VH1, talking about hearing Tremonti playing metal riffs for the first time...

"OK. That's not really what I'm into right now, but you're all I've got."

I find that really inspiring.

By the way, I'm not really into techno right now, but I'm going to start DJing because I want to famous and all I've got is this drum machine.

See what happens when Tremonti quits. Should be interesting.

Death rock boy
02-07-2002, 01:28 PM
I guess the other question that goes hand in hand with the topic is does being alternative have more importance than being good.

I mean, Soundgarden, SP, although it was "alternative music" it was also really good. If a band made something that sounded like that, but it was really good, would you be less inclined to respect it because of it's link with the past

smashingjj
02-07-2002, 04:28 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by FearFactory:
<font color="orange">I've been accused of ripping off tons of vocalists... everyone from David Bowie to Aaron Lewis. I don't strive to sound like them, I just sing how I sing. I'm pretty certain that's the case with scott stapp and other vocalists who get accused of "ripping off" others. In fact, many people accused Scott Weiland of ripping off Eddie Vedder.

It's a lot harder to try and sing like someone else than sing like you, anyway.
</font>
<font color="red">

</font>
well, being accused of singing like a whole bunch of other singers is better than being accused of sounding like just one singer. I guess.

but when a band sounds like another band that already existed, and isn't that good or at least somewhat original, I don't think it's interesting. I don't think that Scott Stapp would have sung like he does if he had never heard Vedder.

------------------
Mallow (http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/mallow)


http://www.director-file.com/cunningham/5226.jpg

paranoid
02-08-2002, 04:17 PM
this thread is gayer than richard simmons.

nirvana not meant to be big? please. the "grunge" scene WAS exploding at the time BEFORE they began recording nevermind. (ever hear of subpop? it was getting bigger). the corporate labels catch a hold, sign nirvana (and many others), produce nevermind and lead the nation to believe that that was the record that broke grunge.

its rock and roll. there aint anything alternative about it.

------------------
I can suck my own ****.

[This message has been edited by paranoid (edited 02-08-2002).]