A Challenge for 21 Century Rockers!

[Groovy Man]

We are talking about music that is only 3 years old, not 43 years old. It hasn't had time to be judged for it's long term relevance.

Some (not all) of the 2008 albums listed here, aren't that popular now, so I doubt they will be ''classics'' in 40 years

They're only personal favorites - not big monster albums - that will never be classics.

Kind of proving my point - ''rock is dead'' - or if not dead, it's on life support - near death.

Pretty amazing how you can not hear something and yet already know what it is. I'm impressed.

I was honest, and said I haven't heard everything on your list, but from the bands I knew, I made my comments - that obviously you didn't like...but it's just my opinion.

Do whatever you want. It is obviously very important to you that you somehow "prove" that your list is superior to anyone else's. Whatever...

It's about music....CLASSIC ROCK vs. MODERN ROCK...

Don't like it, don't participate, like I said in the opening post...

And don't get all defensive, and make this about me....

So, now can I roll my eyes at you?



We're just taking about music.

Groovy, you are right! 2008 was a sucky year.....in my life BUT **** if I didn't find a lot of great music that year! Thanks for reminding me

And thank you for helping me prove my point, that 2008 sucked!

Your list was great! Thanks bud!

 

[lady_barrett2112]

^ A lot of Nolob's albums are metal....not that they're anything wrong with that...I'm talking just good old rock and roll....


to me there's a big difference between rock and roll and metal.

Metal is a sub-genre of rock and roll just like grunge, punk, garage, folk, alternative, etc. These sub-genres wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for rock and roll.

Also, what is your definition of "straight," rock and roll? Because a lot of the artists that are classified as rock and roll have huge roots in other genres such as blues, country, etc. Take The Doors for example, they are classified as a rock band but if you listen to songs like LA Woman and Roadhouse Blues, they lean more towards the blues side. Led Zeppelin is another prime example. They were not only influenced by the blues, they outright plagiarized from the blues in some cases.


As far as your argument, I'm not gonna disagree with you. I will admit that I am a bigger fan of the "classic" rock and I honestly can't think of 50 albums of today. However I can think of a few newer bands that are very solid in my opinion. Rev Theory, Breaking Benjamin, Three Days Grace and Wolfmother are the bands that immediately come to mind when I think of "modern" bands I really like. Sadly they are not as highly recognized as they should be because trashy pop and hip hop have been forcefully spoon fed to the masses.

Rock may be dead by mainstream standards but it will never die completely. Luckily the youth of today are being inspired to pick up the guitar and perform thanks to rock's heavy hitters we've all come to know and love. And maybe, just maybe when society wakes up from the hypnotic state they've been put in by media garbage like Rolling Stone magazine and record executives, the rock and roll beast will wake up from its slumber to retain its rightful throne.

 

[Riff Raff]

Being dead by mainstream standards is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Prime]

To be quite honest, I really don't even see why there should be a point to be made. Everybody likes different bands from different years for their own reasons. That's why music is subjective. People like mainstream bands, hell I even like some mainstream bands. I don't listen to the radio, but that doesn't mean they're bad. I've also got a large variety of underground bands that have recently released albums in the past year or so that are phenomenal artists. And to be fair to the thread starter, I also like a lot of albums that were released in the 60's and 70's. When it boils down to it, it's all about taste, there really shouldn't be any points to be made, because than it becomes this "my music taste is better than your taste" thing, and that's not what music is about.

We're all here to share our tastes in music, and have a good time doing it. That's why i'm here at least. I like what I like. Groovy likes what he likes, TUNEZ likes what he likes, and that's the way it is supposed to be.

 

[lady_barrett2112]

To be quite honest, I really don't even see why there should be a point to be made. Everybody likes different bands from different years for their own reasons. That's why music is subjective. People like mainstream bands, hell I even like some mainstream bands. I don't listen to the radio, but that doesn't mean they're bad. I've also got a large variety of underground bands that have recently released albums in the past year or so that are phenomenal artists. And to be fair to the thread starter, I also like a lot of albums that were released in the 60's and 70's. When it boils down to it, it's all about taste, there really shouldn't be any points to be made, because than it becomes this "my music taste is better than your taste" thing, and that's not what music is about.

We're all here to share our tastes in music, and have a good time doing it. That's why i'm here at least. I like what I like. Groovy likes what he likes, TUNEZ likes what he likes, and that's the way it is supposed to be.

I couldn't have said it better myself Prime.

Although I will say topics like these make for some really interesting debates.

 

[Groovy Man]

Metal is a sub-genre of rock and roll

I'm quite aware of that. But the topic here is rock music - not heavy metal music.

There is a difference.

Would you talk about The Rolling Stones in a thread topic of metal being dead or alive?

I made it clear in the opening we were talking about rock music, and if you wanted to bring in other genres of music, to beef up your list for 2008 - it only proves my point of rock being dead or barely alive, on life support, near death.

I know it's upsetting for rock fans seeing ''rock is dead''.....including me. I'm not happy about it...I wish there were bands today as good as Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Who, Stones and Led Zeppelin - I'd be doing back flips....but to keep on hearing, you gotta dig for it, is getting old, especially after digging you find nothing. I give up on trying to find new good music. I 'd rather dig somewhere else and find an new old band I haven't heard yet.

We're all here to share our tastes in music, and have a good time doing it. That's why i'm here at least. I like what I like. Groovy likes what he likes, TUNEZ likes what he likes, and that's the way it is supposed to be.

Yeah, that's all fine and well...but, to come into a classic rock site and debate 2008 was a better year for rock music, than 1968 - now, I find that ludicrous.

Maybe I'm just too classic rock for some people.

 

[Prime]

Yeah, that's all fine and well...but, to come into a classic rock site and debate 2008 was a better year for rock music, than 1968 - now, I find that ludicrous.

Maybe I'm just too classic rock for some people.

I believe it's been stated quite a few times that this isn't just a "classic rock forum". It's the name of the forum, but we offer all genres, of all years.

 

[ILoveJimmyPage]

There were only a few great albums from the 60's. The 80's had some great ones that were more metal. The 90's were blah for me. Newer rock is ok. Give me some 70's rock anyday!

THIS.

Most of the albums I could list (though I'm too simple-minded to do so) are from the 70's. And as for the 80's, and I may catch crap for this, I loved 80's pop way more than about 90% of 80's rock. I just couldn't get into the hair bands like Poison and Motley Crue, though power ballads are pretty good in small doses. 90's were OK for me up until about 1995, and after that I get pretty fuzzy on what I liked. As for the 2000's, it's a mystery to me, and quite honestly I really haven't found "THE BAND" that I loved in that time frame besides Coldplay (who are always hated on on here, though they're fantastic). Nice Viva la Vida mention but their earlier stuff was far more superior.

And I can't help but notice that threads like these always seem to come back to this sentiment: "It's all a matter of opinion!", and it seems like a dog chasing its own tail and gets nowhere or to a huge fight.

Music is one of those subjects that are up to interpretation, much like religion or politics, which is why this forum will never run out of anything to talk about.

 

[Riff Raff]

I believe it's been stated quite a few times that this isn't just a "classic rock forum". It's the name of the forum, but we offer all genres, of all years.

Agreed, and that was pretty much told to me when I joined lol

 

[METALPRIEST]

^ A lot of Nolob's albums are metal....not that they're anything wrong with that...I'm talking just good old rock and roll....


to me there's a big difference between rock and roll and metal.

Working on my list now...but first let me say that this isn't fair. Why? Because your list has psychedelic rock, folk rock, prog rock, hard rock, ...there is a difference between all of it and not just metal. I'll try to expand on my list but I'm just defending that metal can be on these lists. It's all a form of "rock"


Oh and when I'm done with my list, it doesn't mean that I don't like classic rock or have EVER lost my love for it, cause I haven't and never will. Like many others, I just can't stop exploring and enjoying music.

Anyway...will be back with my list in a bit from 2008.