Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

That's cool that Pete Wentz did do that. It takes a little class, something that more modern artists could use, to acknowledge influences and forerunners. And that is a good point about the Wentz bass, that it puts a good starter instrument into the hands of new players.

Erik - and none of them are here without the Ramones.

Matt - Yes, and Pete ended up inspiring this kid, who won't put down his bass today -

LIke I said, I'm skeptical of any young band these days if they're promoted or affiliated in any way with a major label or tour. The guys running the show in such organizations, IMO, woudn't know a decent band if it landed on them. They have atrocious taste. They know nothing about music, nor car much about it for that matter. Now, show me a good indy band and I'll believe there might be something there.

Don't have any of their albums and won't be buying them either. To me, they're a typical "these days" kind of band - nothing too impressive and I'm too staid and lazy to put any effort into hating them. Or caring about them at all, for that matter. And part of this reasoning is because of what Glenn says too.

Just saying it's a business/consumer type thing, and this kind of band is what you get. Well, if you don't search out something you like better for yourself.

I've seen the FOBs (now there's an acronym for ya! ) on TV a couple times. I don't have cable or anything like that, and must have ADHD - just from looking at the wear on my remote - so I'll watch most any kind of band on any show just because the late night alternatives on broadcast TV are multiple infomercials, or Oprah repeats. That said, I saw the FOBs on Leno (once, maybe) and defintely on Carson Daley's show. Two shows I can't stand for the most part, but I'm awake and there's nothing else on, so...

While Fall Out Boy don't do it for me personally, I can't say I blame them for signing on with a major label and having sponsored tours. If their goal is to make tons of money, well, I'd like that too. If their goal is to get their music heard by as many people as possible, mission accomplished. Plus, if it's inspiring kids to pick up instruments and play, or even just to get out and listen to more bands, then that's great as far as I'm concerned.

In the meantime, when they come on the radio, I shrug and pop in a CD to listen to Wolfmother, Death From Above 1979, the new Muse album, Bang Camaro, maybe some Cold War Kids ... huh, you know, all those bands' bass players play Ricks. Interesting.

It's also interesting that today's bands who are hugely popular are often regarded as musically inferior -- and here I'm not pointing any fingers, as this is an opinion I've heard widely expressed. It seems a bit backwards to me that a band can't be good if lots of people like them, but might be if only a few people like them. (Glenn, I know this sounds like I'm picking on your post, and I really don't intend it that way. I agree with your assessments of the people running the big labels.)

I've come to accept that my musical tastes are different from most people's. Sometimes my preferred music is objectively more sophisticated (say, Zappa, or Zorn), but not always. However, it's also an odd phenomenon that many of the bands that were hugely successful before, say, the mid-70s are still considered to be quality bands. Nobody rags on the Beatles, the Who, or Zeppelin for being inferior musicians or songwriters.

When did that shift happen? Was it a shift in mass musical tastes or in the way the music industry is run?

I'd like to think that rather than shifts, there are lines drawn in music by certain bands which change everything. Nothing is the same after these people started releasing their tunes

Chuck Berry - created the guitar "alphabet"

The Beatles - Tunemasters or you might say the original singer/songwriters

Jimi Hendrix/Led Zeppelin(around the same time) - Took Berry's "alphabet" and made it an "encyclopedia"

The Ramones - showed you don't have to be a virtuoso to make music that moves people

Nirvana - Say goodbye to hair bands

I'm sure many will disagree with my assessments, but that's cool.Not sure who the line is for the current day groups.

As far as the music industry, that was changed by the internet like everything else. Music style also changed the business because the bands don't have the staying power(Beatles,Stones,Who etc) or the musician gods (Page,Hendrix etc) of old.

Since they can't fill arenas anymore, they put together tours with multiple acts kinda like in the 50's plus the festivals like Warped and Ozzfest.

So I guess I'm in the minority here because I like the change, and enjoy these new bands like Fallout Boy and Panic at the Disco who sing about real life in their terms, rather than the usual love song(although I do believe there'll never be enough love songs).

PS - The most amazing thing I see happening is all the kids wearing classic rock t-shirts, and listening to the tunes. If there's anything better than listening to Led Zeppelin III or Back in Black, it's listening with your 10 year old son.

Marc, I hear you about your PS. I'm starting my 2 month old on the good old stuff now, and for some reason, he mellows out whenever I sing some Zeppelin to him. Not just the quiet stuff; he seems to appreciate my versions of Rock and Roll and Stairway (complete with guitar solos) too. He's the easiest audience I've ever had.

I do like a lot of bands that are active now, just not these particular bands. I'm also not sure that there aren't new acts who could be as big as the old arena rockers, because I think there are a lot more commercially viable acts now competing for the same pool of entertainment dollars. I mean, I can't see Nirvana or Pearl Jam playing many arenas, for example.

Music is very important for young children. Studies have shown that children raised on music rather than computers are brighter. The theory? The music makes their brain waves develop.

Well, there's that, plus it helps them grow up to be awesome.

Marc,

That's a really good explanation you posted about the condensed history of Rock and Roll. I feel pretty much the same way as you do - music is *for* people, *by* people. I've never paid much attention to critics, musical "snobs" or anyone that should tell me what I should or shouldn't like. The bottom line is, if music (no matter what type) communicates something to you, then it's doing it's job, no matter how complex or simple it is. Often times, I think people get caught up in the "math" of music, and that's their qualifier for how sophisticated or complex it is. You shouldn't have to apologize or feel guilty for liking something that's new.

I also feel the same way about music education - I started at age 5, and I've never stopped. In my mind, it's a constant reminder that something can be improved, which spills over into other parts of my life. For any child, I think it's an extremely useful and powerful skill.

Thanks Charlie...


I do also feel though that many of the better musicians tend to enjoy the more obscure music. Even when you ask top popular musicians, they usual mention a couple of labelmates, or tourmates, then a few bands you never heard of.

There are many bands which are not for the masses that I prefer. I just don't close my mind to a band because they are on top of the charts.

Something else comes to mind. There are so many acts out there now, how can any one person keep track of more than just a few? Every once in a while, I flip through CDBaby's website and find groups or individuals I've never heard on the radio, or on the internet. But there they are. Somebody knows about 'em and buys their recordings.

JimK

That's a good point Jim - and taking it a step further, there's a lot of really good stuff floating around on (believe it or not) MySpace.

Yeah, Charlie, I listen to every band that wants to add me. Cool stuff, and free too!