Worst Decade in Modern Music?

Quote :

tl;dr you don't need to be classically trained to be a good musician, but it helps.

Just out of curiosity where does the punk movement fit into this?

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

tl;dr you don't need to be classically trained to be a good musician, but it helps.

Just out of curiosity where does the punk movement fit into this?

You don't need any training at all, and you can produce complete and utter shit, and hundreds of spike-haired sheeple will still buy your albums?

As much as I kid, I actually like punk. I was an anarchist punk when I was 13. Than at 14, I realized "this is stupid" and I stopped considering myself a punk and an anarchist.

That's not to say I still don't like the music, if anything, I think going from punk to just plain ole' omnivorous music nerd has given me a more objective, stronger appreciation for the genre. I admit, it's full of some utter shit (Anti-Flag; Crass), but it also has some good bands in it, and it proves you don't need a bunch of fancy equiptment or professional training to RAWK!

My favorite punk bands...

60's-70's proto-punk: Iggy Pop and the Stooges; MC5; the Electric Prunes; the Seeds; the Undertones
Late 70's First Wave Punk: the Ramones; the Jam; the Clash; Blondie; the Sex Pistols; Television; the Talking Heads; the Buzzcocks; the Adicts; the Misfits; the Damned; Siouxsie Sioux and the Banshees; the X-Ray Spex; the Cramps
80's Punk (mostly hardcore and pop punk): Dead Milkmen; Fugazi; Black Flag; Bad Brains; Screeching Weasel; the Descendents; the Queers; Pansy Division; Rites of Spring; the Mr. T Experience; NOFX
90's Punk (pop punk; riot grrl; emo): Jawbreaker; Green Day; Rancid; Bikini Kill; Bratmobile; the Donnas; Operation Ivy; Pansy Division; Sleater-Kinney; Sunny Day Real Estate

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

tl;dr you don't need to be classically trained to be a good musician, but it helps.

Just out of curiosity where does the punk movement fit into this?

The part where you don't need to be classically trained?

Or, not necessarily classically trained (though on many instruments that's the only kind of training available), but trained in general. Without years influence from different teachers, showing them what they've learned over the years. Yes, they will probably have a sound entirely their own, but it will be a much harder road and they will probably not go as far as they would without someone showing them a map.[/analogy]

Like I said though, there are exceptions to every rule. I know a guy that can live two weeks in a country and speak their language. Some people are just irrepressibly talented, even without training.

Quote :

The part where you don't need to be classically trained?

But does that make inherently make them inferior because they have no training despite it being a defining trait of the genre? I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the point I'm trying to make/working on understanding so bear with me. I'm a little loopy today.

Quote :

You don't need any training at all, and you can produce complete and utter shit, and hundreds of spike-haired sheeple will still buy your albums?

i mad, but you have good taste.

Quote :

Sunny Day Real Estate

Actually one of the first emo bands! :B

Dr. Professor Science wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

InkWeaver wrote:

And as for Supergrass: *tackle* CAN WE BE FRIENDS NAO

That depends. Can you hear us pumping on your stereo?

Nightmare-inducing video aside, that's actually some really good music, if a little repetitive. Okay, a lot repetitive. Still, I'm going to have to look into them.

Also, it sounds like they're singing "humping" and I can't unhear it.

Might I suggest Caught By the Fuzz or Diamond Hoo Ha Man.

And if you find yourself a fan of Supergrass, than I have more you should check out... [musicnerd]

Supergrass are usually associated with the Britpop scene of the early 90's, other good Britpop bands include Oasis (overrated yes, but "What's the Story Morning Glory" is a great album, particularly the songs Hello, Champagne Supernova, and (of course) Wonderwall) and the Verve (check out Bittersweet Symphony, Drugs Don't Work, and Love is Noise).

Other bands that influenced Supergrass vary. Most of their influences you've probably heard before (Elton John, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones), but two of their awesomest influences are semi-obscure, late 70's punk bands that I adore, the Buzzcocks and the Jam. [/musicnerd]

Sorry if any of my posts come off as too fanboyish, I don't get to squee about this stuff a lot. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

i mad, but you have good taste.

1) Thank you.
2) You have to admit a good chunk of punk is utterly horrible, annoying crap. Sure you've got bands like the Ramones and the Cramps that put out good ole' fashioned, kick ass rock n' roll, but than you've got multitudes of bands like Crass and Anti-Flag who not only miss the fucking point, but are weighted down by pretentious douchebaggery in their attempts to be "socially conscious".

Quote :

Actually one of the first emo bands! :B

Yeah. Sexist as some of them are (I felt a twinge of irony and guilt at putting them up next to Bikini Kill and Bratmobile), I have to admit a weakness for old emo bands. I also have Jawbreaker and Rites of Spring up there, in case you didn't notice! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

The part where you don't need to be classically trained?

But does that make inherently make them inferior because they have no training despite it being a defining trait of the genre? I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the point I'm trying to make/working on understanding so bear with me. I'm a little loopy today.

No. But it does mean that they lack years of discipline and musical education that professional classically trained musicians have. Years which might have made them better musicians.

Basically, I'm not saying they're inferior to anyone or anything but what they might have been if they had had years of classical training.

And it's fine. I'll just try to address the point I think you're trying to make until you figure it out

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

tl;dr you don't need to be classically trained to be a good musician, but it helps.

Just out of curiosity where does the punk movement fit into this?

I thought they were just a bunch of working class kids pissed off with Public School educated rich kids filling radio airwaves with over-the-top Prog Rock. I'm not that big on the Punk thing though, so my way of thinking is probably very generalized and I'm biased in my love for over-the-top Prog.

Just Chipper wrote:

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

tl;dr you don't need to be classically trained to be a good musician, but it helps.

Just out of curiosity where does the punk movement fit into this?

I thought they were just a bunch of working class kids pissed off with Public School educated rich kids filling radio airwaves with over-the-top Prog Rock. I'm not that big on the Punk thing though, so my way of thinking is probably very generalized and I'm biased in my love for over-the-top Prog. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[musicnerd] As stated above, I love punk rock (so I have a bias against over-the-top Prog [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ), and I can tell you exactly what happened.

It all really began in the 60's and early 70's, with the proto-punk bands, bands that aren't really considered punk, but who definately laid the groundwork for the movement. Most of these proto-punk bands were small garage rock bands (we'll get to garage rock revival later) that you've never heard of (ie: the Electric Prunes; the Seeds), however, some of them were pretty big. Two of the first protopunk bands (and two of the biggest) are the New York art-rock band The Velvet Underground (you might know them as Lou Reeds first big musical project), who would inspire the predominately nihilistic bent and the general non-professionalism (some members of TVU had no training at all) of the punk scene. The second big proto-punk band is, surprisingly, the Doors who, though they didn't directly inspire many of the later punks, would indirectly inspire the punk movement through their "revolution for the hell of it" message.
Than came the next evolution, bands like Iggy Pop and the Stooges (Iggy Pop was inspired to perform by watching Jim Morrison at a concert) and the Motor City 5 (commonly shortened to the MC5), who would bring the sounds even closer together, producing wild, fast, garage rock. The MC5 even brought a brand of extreme leftist politics into the mix that would later inspire the politics often (too often, I think) associated with punk. This is the closest proto-punk gets to actual punk.
In the 70's, at a little club in New York called CBGB's, the punk scene began as a way of artistic expression. A number of local New York bands like the Talking Heads and the Ramones were fed up with the mindless pop of disco and the endless, over-the-top wankery of prog, and couldn't find anywhere to play their music. Eventually, someone (I think Patti Smith) convinced the owner of CBGB's to start letting these local bands perform in his club. Before you knew it, CBGB's was ground zero for the American punk movement. These were the first punk bands, though you could argue the Ramones were the first "punk" punk band. Basically, they were the first band to put the sound together, combining 50's rock n' roll, 60's pop and garage, and fast, buzz-saw guitar chords to make what would be known as the punk sound.
One British man, Malcolm Mclaren, was there to watch the punk scene develop. Inspired by the scene he saw in New York, he returned to Britain and opened a clothing shop called "Sex" (though the name changed often) which sold what Mclaren called "anti-fashion", laying the groundwork for iconic punk fashion. This wasn't Mclaren's only contribution to the scene, however. Taking 3 aspiring musicians under his wing (Steve Jones, Paul Cook, and Glen Matlock), Mclaren began managing them as a band. However, the band needed a lead singer, a good frontman to represent the band and symbolize it's image. Auditions were hosted, and the winner was John Lydon, a janitor chosen not for his ability to sing, but because of his angry, snotty image. After a comment on his teeth made by a fellow band mate ("my god, you're rotten!") John Lydon quickly changed his name to Johnny Rotten, and the Sex Pistols were born.

And that's about it. The Sex Pistols started the UK punk rock scene, and every punk rocker since has been inspired by both the New York and the UK scene in some fashion.

For the worst decade, I'd have to go with the 80s, if only for the egregious use of synthesizers. I do still like some music from then, though.

At the classically trained vs not debate: The only place I really see it as mattering is singing. Because if you're not singing properly you can destroy your vocal cords.

I picked 60s. When the Beatles is the decade's best band, there is a problem. Pack of stoners playing some sad insult to rock. They did have one or two good songs, but those were pop more than rock (Hard Day's Night, Yesterday, and Come Together).

Then you have the Rolling Stones. Like the Beatles, but with a better vocalist. How they weren't more popular than the Beatles, I'll never know. Maybe they weren't QUITE as buttfucking ugly as the Beatles were. But for every piece of garbage they come out with, like Beast of Burden or Get Offa Mah Cloud, they had a something like Ruby Tuesday or Paint It Black.

This doesn't the generic, hippy FailRock that was being sprayed about everywhere by the end of the decade. Or Woodstock, the biggest clusterfuck of bad music that existed prior to Fall Out Boy, The All-American Rejects, Well-Known Secret, Hawthorne Heights, and From First To Last touring together.

Also, let's think what this decade missed. AC/DC's glory years (70s and 80s), Black Sabbath's glory years (70s), Ozzy's solo glory years (80s), metal's glory years (80s), arguably Rolling Stones' best years (70s), and the use of soap.

The only real redemption the 60s has is Jimi Hendrix, but then he died.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Then you have the Rolling Stones. Like the Beatles, but with a better vocalist.

LOL WUT. Have you heard Mick Jagger sing? ANGEH! AEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENGEH! I like a couple of their songs, but for the most part, the Stones were just sad.

The Rolling Stones fucking sucked. They had exactly two good songs - "Paint It Black" and "Sympathy for the Devil", and the latter was covered by Ozzy so much better than the original version.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

This doesn't the generic, hippy FailRock that was being sprayed about everywhere by the end of the decade. Or Woodstock, the biggest clusterfuck of bad music that existed prior to Fall Out Boy, The All-American Rejects, Well-Known Secret, Hawthorne Heights, and From First To Last touring together.

I was going to be all vehement in defense of Janis Joplin and Jefferson Airplane, but then I actually figured out who was saying this. So I´m just going to say: Janis Joplin. Jefferson Airplane. You might not understand it, but I hope the rest will.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

This doesn't the generic, hippy FailRock that was being sprayed about everywhere by the end of the decade. Or Woodstock, the biggest clusterfuck of bad music that existed prior to Fall Out Boy, The All-American Rejects, Well-Known Secret, Hawthorne Heights, and From First To Last touring together.

I was going to be all vehement in defense of Janis Joplin and Jefferson Airplane, but then I actually figured out who was saying this. So I´m just going to say: Janis Joplin. Jefferson Airplane. You might not understand it, but I hope the rest will.

ONE PILL MAKES YOU LARGER
ONE PILL MAKES YOU SMALL
AND THE ONES THAT MOTEHR GIVES YOU
DON'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL
GO ASK ALICE
WHEN SHE'S TEN FEET TALL

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

This doesn't the generic, hippy FailRock that was being sprayed about everywhere by the end of the decade. Or Woodstock, the biggest clusterfuck of bad music that existed prior to Fall Out Boy, The All-American Rejects, Well-Known Secret, Hawthorne Heights, and From First To Last touring together.

I was going to be all vehement in defense of Janis Joplin and Jefferson Airplane, but then I actually figured out who was saying this. So I´m just going to say: Janis Joplin. Jefferson Airplane. You might not understand it, but I hope the rest will.

What I've heard of Janis Joplin was fucking terrible. My dad has a CD of her's. It is

FUCKING

TERRIBLE!

Miss Prince wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Then you have the Rolling Stones. Like the Beatles, but with a better vocalist.

LOL WUT. Have you heard Mick Jagger sing? ANGEH! AEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENGEH! I like a couple of their songs, but for the most part, the Stones were just sad.

GE OFFA MAH CAH

Miss Prince wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Then you have the Rolling Stones. Like the Beatles, but with a better vocalist.

LOL WUT. Have you heard Mick Jagger sing? ANGEH! AEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENGEH! I like a couple of their songs, but for the most part, the Stones were just sad.

Miss Prince, think about who you're talking to. The guy's probably trollan'.

Also: Welcome back Mikey. (for better or for worse)

Janis Joplin would have been a lot better if she'd limited herself to a carton a day. I like the Beatles, never got the appeal of the Rolling Stones.

gaijinguy wrote:

Janis Joplin would have been a lot better if she'd limited herself to a carton a day. I like the Beatles, never got the appeal of the Rolling Stones.

They have the same appeal as the Ramones or AC/DC. They're a damn great rock n' roll band, nothing more. I personally like all three of the above, but some people won't.

On another topic: Mikey has an incredibly predictable taste in music. C'mon, Mikey? All heavy metal and hard rock? Why couldn't you throw us all a curveball and admit a neverending love for the Carpenters? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

the biggest clusterfuck of bad music that existed prior to Fall Out Boy

Oh, Mikey, we all know you bought Under the Cork Tree. Everyone did, so you don't need to feel bad.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

the biggest clusterfuck of bad music that existed prior to Fall Out Boy

Oh, Mikey, we all know you bought Under the Cork Tree. Everyone did, so you don't need to feel bad.

*raises hand*

Mr.Doobie wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Janis Joplin would have been a lot better if she'd limited herself to a carton a day. I like the Beatles, never got the appeal of the Rolling Stones.

They have the same appeal as the Ramones or AC/DC. They're a damn great rock n' roll band, nothing more. I personally like all three of the above, but some people won't.

On another topic: Mikey has an incredibly predictable taste in music. C'mon, Mikey? All heavy metal and hard rock? Why couldn't you throw us all a curveball and admit a neverending love for the Carpenters? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

the biggest clusterfuck of bad music that existed prior to Fall Out Boy

Oh, Mikey, we all know you bought Under the Cork Tree. Everyone did, so you don't need to feel bad.

1.) I like SOME hip hop stuff. But only to the point that some of the songs are funny, or some of the stuff where they are shouting about pussy is like rock but without any great musical talent. And it's good for dancing.

Did you know there are some dipshits who don't consider headbanging to be a dance? Disgusting.

2.) Dance Dance wasn't bad. Fall Out Boy was actually the best of the Girly Boy Bands Who Suck Dick. But they also seem to be the ones who set off the fucking FLOOD of Girly Boy Bands Who Suck Dick that were even worse than FOB. Like Panic! At the Disco, Armor for Sleep, From First to Last, and all of the other REALLY shitty music my turdball sister listened to.

Dr. Professor Science wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

That depends. Can you hear us pumping on your stereo?

Nightmare-inducing video aside

Are you kidding? The video was the best part!

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I picked 60s. When the Beatles is the decade's best band, there is a problem.

OHSHIT SOMEONE JUST DISSED THE BEATLES