i mostly agree, but the moog has been around since the 60s. while you could get full on moog albums it was much more of a novelty than a start of a new synth based style (i have the moog christmas record hehe). and prior to that you had the dada-ist toying with the idea of anti-art in the 20s (basically a REALLY old school precursor to modern ambient electronic and free jazz when it came to their musical offerings). it really wasn't until the 80s that full on electronic bands really started taking off (as in bands that had 0 traditional rock instruments).

technology will play a factor but it will ALWAYS be about how the musician chooses to use the technology. i remember an interview with martin gore from depeche mode where he made the very valid comment that a lot of people never bothered tweaking the factory presets on their synths. they would simply use what they had as they figured it was supposed to be used, and then wondered why they sounded like plastic. it's the same thing happening to a LOT of rock bands, regardless of their level of success. the prevalent attitude is, i play guitar, drums or bass - they're supposed to be played like a guitar, drum, or bass. so how is that going to sound fresh?

i really think the biggest factor technology has on music right now is that anyone can record and release something to the world now. it's got nothing to do with new gear or instruments and everything to do with how creative an individual truly is.

the only people who think music is dead are the ones who worship celebrity.

Agree with you 100%

while i'm flattered if this continues this forum will get really boring really quick hehehe :p:

oh yeah - frusciante = effing awesome.

Haha yes, sorry o agree with you wholeheartedly again.

I finally got Slane and hyde park on CD's. The solo's during those two shows blow me away. He has changed so much from his ealier works.

hehehe haven't actually paid much attention to the peppers in a long time. i just can't get into their stuff as much as i used to. his first solo disc still blows me away almost 15 years later.

i'm just waiting for flea to finally get off his butt and whip out that guest filled solo disc he's been mulling over for a while now where he only plans to play trumpet.

if music is communication (as many here and other places argue), hip-hop is quite possibly the best form of music


everyone here has such predictable and pigeonholed opinions of music.

And what makes you stand out oh wise one?

Nice to know you feel that way...How does Hip Hop communicate more effectively than any other genre?

i can dig that. hip hop at it's best is documentary, alot of waste gangsta rap probably took some artistic licence or whatever though. It's just words over beats, you can't get any more direct than that if you're trying to communicate a point. It's not restricted to realism though, extended metaphors, surrealism, it's all good...

Wow, I thought I was the only one who noticed that. Old Flaming Lips is good, but their new stuff just blows everything out of the water. And no, as with many Indie bands, I haven't bought into this Animal Collective hype.

Many of todays hot Indie bands are merely copying older bands, but they imitate them so poorly that people consider them to be innovative. Modest Mouse for example were just trying to copy other Indie bands like Pixies and Built to Spill, but they sucked at it so much that they somehow managed to sound original.

If theres one modern Indie band I give two shits about, it would be My Morning Jacket. Even with the obvious classic rock influences they manage to sound very original and different. Add to that they can actually play their instruments and their albums don't sound like they were pieced together in 5 minutes by a deaf person, for an Indie band thats a breath of fresh air as far as I'm concerned.

So why do you post here then if we are all so predictable?

I'd sooner classify them as plain ol' rock than indie...:\

Not sure if I follow the "pieced together in 5 minutes by a deaf person" comment. Are you referring to Animal collective's style or the general production value of indie records?

I wouldnt say dead just sleeping theres alot of people out theres that only turn their ear.

What?!

Led Zeppelin fan and probably just trying to get 15 posts , just ignore him :)

i'd call my morning jacket dream pop, but that's just me. when i listen to them i always feel like i'm underwater (in a good way)

Ok then, thats like what? One of many Indie sub-categories.

Ha, I get that impression too. Its all that reverb.

Lol, Pixies and Built to Spill sound nothing alike so to combine the two = original.

A lot of bands mix influences together and are still called un-original.

Primarly because they have influences.

The Beatles had influences too. I guess they're unoriginal.

I'm saying that the reasons people give for calling certain bands unoriginal tend to be really stupid.

"Nervana r unoriginal cuz theyre influinched by teh pixies"

Yeah I get that.

Another example:

"2 bndz that sound nuthin alike combnd is unriginzl lol"

T R O L L A L E R T

beatles suck anyway

IRONY ALERT

btw Crow, congratulations on FINALLY changing your avatar.

Jesus, dude. Just the point that you're making POPULAR MUSIC of any sort, metal, prog, pop, rock, whatever, means that you have influences! The point that you have such things as guitar riffs or 4 beats per bar etc. means you've got influences. It just depends upon what those influences are. So if your inspiration comes from the most commonplace and generic of sounds, then the result is generic and unoriginal. If it comes from more diverse ends of the spectrum and ends up not sounding generic but rather unique, then it's original. It's that simple. Originality has nothing to do with influences and everything to do with results. All have influences; question is, what you do with them.

And hence a summary of the dichotomy at the root of why your posts and claims in general here are quite so very wild and ridiculous: on and on he goes about innovation (which is no more rampant in EDM than it is in Indie, anyway), and when it comes to one of the most innovative and groundbreaking groups in muisc history, all he can say is that they "suck anyway".

songs are communication.

music is a reflection of life through sound.

so see if I've got this right... music's not dead?

that's entirely up to the individual. my definitions above only really apply to my own perspective on life.

music can't die guys, sorry to break it to you

Lol thats what I've been thinking this whole time.^ I mean c'mon, how would it? There will always be a demand for music.

I think music's undead. A world where people enjoy the music of Arcade Fire has to be at least partially zombified

hey, Funeral is one of the best chamber pop albums of all time

Yeah, Arcade Fire kicks mucho ass.

yeah, I call it 'Church music' *shudder*

Huh?

TRANSLATION:they're ****

So this is your church then?

no this is like a disused meat freezer with holes in the walls, and through each hole sticks a different mouth with interesting opinions about music, occasionally vomiting a reel of tape for me to assemble and learn from. The lunch menu is pop tarts doused in cheap cider.

that is the worst analogy i've ever heard