:pssst: It was because he was going off topic.

Really?

I don't know what thread you were reading but I didn't see that at all. I saw someone who already entered the thread with his mind made up and wasn't the slightest bit interested in what anyone else had to say to him.

I gave him an example of something he was looking for and he dismissed it twice without even bothering to listen. So much for 'the OP wanted genuinely to discuss a topic that interests him.'

He can speak for himself, if he wishes. In my opinion, there's no requirement that somebody start a thread with much of an open mind. It's still potentially interesting what others have to say regardless. This forum would have more activity if name-calling and other unfriendly behaviors were discouraged.

Then why only ask a question in the original post?

If he had started this thread by calling it 'Music Has Become Stagnant' and made a long tedious post about how there isn't another Eddie Van Halen or Michael Jackson I would have known what his position is right from the start and wouldn't have wasted my time taking his question seriously and giving him a serious answer.

It's people who pull stuff like this that wastes everybodys time that is annoying about this place, not one mild insult said out of frustration.

Right. He posed a question so he needs to accept all opinions on the matter...

I disagree!!
 

I don't believe music has stopped evolving, but i do believe that it is recycled however what makes music seem brand now is the artist behind it, and what they bring to the plate as well as their passion.

My company encourages to show the skeleton or the backbone into why people get into art, and possibly it allows their material to have a greater meaning, Let me know if you want to have a look!

If you were a hard-core Republican, wouldn't you be curious to at least hear short answers about your neighbors' political views? Therefore, don't get mad at someone for asking; and remember he never said, Please write a lengthy reply.

i personally don't think so, if anything music has become overflooded..

there's ALOT (and do mean ALOT) of bands out there, some of them pushing the envelope, some of them just trying to get a hit song..

Just because these bands are not famous or you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Music is always evolving, always moving forward sometimes in a direction we don't like but is still moving forward..

im personally stuck in the 90's grunge era but even so.. i recognise that bands like Deerhoor or Of montreal or even less experimental bands like Arcade fire

are still out there doing what they love without compromising their vision.

So music is still evolving and Rock is far from dead, you just gonna know where to look.

You love getting on your high horse when it comes to new members, don't you?

I saw plenty of infractable posts from pursuing and none from a mod.

Hey, I wanted to comment on your post.

So, I sort of agree and disagree. I understand that there may be bands or artists out there that continually (try to) push the envelope. But then you made the statement that "you just have to look for them". I wish I had a penny for every time I've heard this. If something is truly ground breaking, you shouldn't have to go looking for it to no avail. It would more than likely be well-known. Today, I just don't see that kind of innovation you got from The Beatles, Zeppelin, MJ, EVH, Hendrix, etc... I kind of feel like its not really our fault either. It was easy to innovate in the earlier days because there was still tons of undiscovered styles and sounds. But I kind of feel like we've discovered it all. How else can you explain how stagnant popular music has become? If there were any more groundbreaking new sounds or styles to be unveiled, you know the large corporations would be force-feeding it to everyone. Its like that with film too, very few original ideas or approaches, and many remakes of older films etc... I honestly believe that rock music in it essence is completely dead and will never come back. Every time I try to write or be creative on guitar, I stop and think "I'm a guitarist, WOW! Very innovative. " I think people are getting tired of the whole 'rock band' concept with guitars as the main sound. It's been done for half a century now. The entire scope of what a band is and how the music is made and approached will have to completely change for there to be any true originality and renewment to progressing creatively and musically (like it did when rock and roll was being created). The people who stick to using guitars and other old instruments will never be innovative. I think it really is that simple.

However, contrary to popular belief, I AM interested in your opinions.

I see other very good answers on the previous page. However, if it seems like I'm slow to respond to some of them, its because I'm accessing this forum via my iphone and I live in a low service area. So I apologize.

Lack of new instruments. But I agree with the rest of the paragraph, especially the good-music-becomes-popular reasoning and "we've discovered it all." (Maybe bands could experiment with more sharing of lead vocals.) Stick around and don't let people goad you into spouting off.

And there I can say that some, er, influential veterans seem to like toeing the line without actually crossing it and have other members say harsher things (possibly 'infractable') on their behalf and then watch the subjects of derision get mad. When is that going to change? If (ironic since the subject is about music getting stale) it feels stale in here, why not instead get enjoyment from assimilating more forum visitors?

i do see your point that basically everything has been done before but i only agree to an extent..

First of all, not every music artist wants to be a radical and "redefine" what is music. and second of all with time everything will be a given.

For a time Marylin Manson was shocking, now we are used to Him, you are also focusing in mainstream music, Bands everybody knows so you are following the majority's taste in music..

now i ask you, aren't most of the bands we love not popular ones?

Rock history may tell me Jimmy hendrix was a innovator but i still prefer Joey santiago..

What good is innovation if you can't make a good tune?

What you consider innovation is subjective, Music artists Have their own vision apart from yours and they innovate within that.

Now your talking! That's exactly the kind of answer I was looking for! I think your mostly right. Although, I must say, I don't know why someone would get into music if they didn't want to be creative or innovative. I kind of feel that it is my obligation as a musician to not allow music to deteriorate or lack. My thinking is "full speed ahead". I'm just at a loss for new ideas right now because I think music (esprecially rock) is basically used up. I think the reason it has faded and lacks new innovators is simply becayse there's nowhere else to go with it. And honestly, another generation of rock bands and guitar players would even give ME a sick stomach. I think people have grown tired of the same o same o rock band with a guitar player scenario. As much as I love it, I know I have. But what, if anything, would take its place? And how could one ever possibly invent a new instrument that would ever have the impact tht the electric guitar had? These questions lead me to the innevitable conclusion that music is basically dead. Innovation is that thing that happened in history, it doesn't happen in this day.

It also kind of seems like we've seen it all. We've heard every tuning, we've seen all the weirdest, wildest, and coolest things one could do with a guitar. We witnessed the most spectacular stage shows, we've heard countless variations of every style imaginable. I just don't see what other vectors or avenues of musical creativity there are left to conquer. Someone please tell me I'm stupid for thinking this.

Is that suggesting that Hendrix didn't have good tunes?

Show me where it's happening and I'll stop it

...and Joey Santiago was influence by Jimi Hendrix.

no not really, my point is that most ppl think Jimmy hendrix is a big deal but i don't..

So while they see him as an innovator i don't

im obligated to give Jimmy his props of course i do recognise his mark in music history but my true point, what is innovation if you don't recognise it as so?

I find more innovation in other artist than in Jimmy hendrix yet those artist will be never recognised as great Jimmy but they are the ones who influenced my music taste.
And to me.. They ARE Innovators and have pushed music to evolve and if @PC Doesn't see it that way, it doesn't make him right

@Pursuingchange

Do not mess with the formula, cause it works!

I hope he was joking actually..I'm just going to assume that he was. Liking Santiago over Hendrix is crazy enough, but to insinuate Hendrix didn't make good music is well...laughable.

Here's my take on hendrix. Yes, he WAS innovative in every sense of the word. However, if it wasn't he who had come up with that style of playing, it would have been someone else. That guitar style is what rock was progressing to, it would have happened with or without him. But the fact is, it didn't, and he is remembered and loved for being one of rock guitar's truest innovators.

Are you confussing personal taste with innovation? You give Jimi "props" and say you "recognise his mark in music history" but don't see him as innovative.(Isn't that how most music critic recognise a musicians' mark in music history by saying they were innovative?) I'm not saying you must like Jimi Hendrix, but I don't see the point of questioning the idea that he was innovative on guitar based on personal taste. If you were to question Jimi Hendrix contrabutions to music based on his contemporaries and other guitarist before him, that is dfferent story because at least there's attempt to bring what his place was in music into perspective.

He likes the Pixies. I guess there is a temptation to edit history to pick up where you favorite band starts.

Heres my take on Hendrix, he was more than just a innovator. He was brilliant, and imo opinion the best all around musician to have ever come along. From his lyrics, to his guitar work and vocals he was the total package, and his moment in time couldn't have been better. To simply categorize him as just an innovator is almost an insult to one of Rock and Rolls greatest icons of all time, and arguably the most influential artist of all time. Maybe rock would have progressed eventually to where Hendrix took it to, but the fact is it didn't until he did it. Along the way telling stories of all his lifes encounters, with genius guitar work and articulate lyrics to compliment his unique one of a kind vocal stylings. You like who you like, but I think the lasting impression Hendrix has left on music is certainly more deserving than just merely a nomination for being a decent innovator. To me he was THE biggest innovator and so much more. So in the words of the great Forrest Gump "Thats all I have to say about that"

I like Jimi Hendrix, I feel uncomfortable with him being the number one guitar of all time. If you say he was the number one guitar player of Rock than that is different.

Jimi Hendrix brings all he knew into his personal style. There is Buddy Guy and Wes Montegomery and a bunch of others rolled up into his musical vision. His genius was natural, not something one can achieve through guitar lessons or imitating another guitar player, etc. There is a lot a different things going on in one song. I think one little phrase in one of his songs could be a whole style of playing guitar.

Dude, I said he was one of rock guitar's truest innovators. I never said he was just a decent innovator. I said he was innovative in every sense of the word.

Evolving bring new flavors \m/

You don't have to be aggrandised to be a "true innovator." I've heard many many innovators who can experiment into forming their own sound without being treated in a godly manner, or aren't even well known. I think you're mixing up "innovator" with "revolutionists." They may link, but it doesn't mean one has to be a revolutionist in order to be an innovator. You also have to consider that it's not really up to the musician. They may be an instigator, but it's society who invest and make it into a statement.

It starts getting bad in #60 and continues for at least a page. Two of the people should know better and a third party eggs it on in a post that would be an infraction in many forums. I've seen this story before and would like assurances that the pattern stops here.

If I was doing what you wanted I would have given out an infraction for the thread starter when he started throwing his toys out of his pram when people didn't agree with him. That's in post No 57 BTW.

Instead I decided to post a reasonable response to his original question to which he first ignored and then dismissed out of hand when I made a point of mentioning it again he then continued with his insistence people were disagreeing with him for the sake of it.
I could have probably given him an infraction for that too for deliberately trolling.

But I didn't, why didn't I?
Because the guy was new and I didn't want to start hurling infractions at him on his first day here. Which ironically is totally at odds of your theory of us 'assimilating more forum visitors'. He chose to go down that road so we allowed him to, It's that simple really.

For the most part this is a laid back forum that lets is members be treated like adults, occasionally things might get a little out of control and that's where we step in. I don't see anything in this thread that's gets any worse than a little heated and I don't see anything worth infraction or banning anybody for.

Wow. Seriously? We're clearly reading two different threads here.

I didn't advocate any punishments. Also, he wasn't/isn't trolling. But there's a big difference between not punishing newcomers and being friendly to them. There are reasons why few visitors become regular contributors.

Why are you white knighting this guy?

At one point he called a mod a mother****er. He also called another member a chicken ****. Which veteran member post crossed the TOS line moreso than his posts?

I'm not "white knighting" him. But at least he seems smart and capable of starting worthwhile discussions, which is in line with the kind of active new member the site needs. The bad side wouldn't have surfaced fast if people hadn't been hostile toward him. Like I said, it's a pattern that probably drives away some people who have started participating or even before that. Advice to all: be friendlier to new members.

People were only hostile towards him because of his attitude, which it should be pointed out he admitted to and apologised for later on. And fair play to him for that he could have just walked, but he apologised and chose to start again.

I'd much rather give him respect for that than to kiss someones ass just because they are new.

I'm perfectly nice to new members, just as long as they're the same to me.

If I hear that term 'white knighting' one more time I swear I will ban someone.

I don't know if you were talking about my post. I was responding to the OP in a general sense, then he took it personally. I had no idea that a similar argument was going on until I read the entire topic.

If I say it again, can I be the one to choose who you ban? :)

You're naughty and need a spanking. ;)

Ah, so these tag-teams sometimes are accidental. Then I must specifically ask the big-name members to usually wait a few hours to raise objections to points made by newbies. If someone else answers first, then probably don't say anything. The last thing a non-trolling new member wants is to be quickly jumped on by multiple members.

Er... what? Are you saying you think most of the time there's some sort of conspiracy to disagree with someone as a group? Bizarre.

So in your opinion, one of the perks of being a long-time contributor to the site should be more restrictions placed on one's posting? How does that make any sense?