The Pretty Reckless

[moreblack]

Sure, but luckly she has good sources of inspiration too.

[OmarBradley]

Sure, but luckly she has good sources of inspiration too.

[Zeppelin]

If you ain't trying, why do it at all?

Rockers not trying, is what allowed grunge and alternative to take off, which drove a good bit of the mainstream away, and allowed pop and hip hop to bury it. Hasn't recovered since aside from a few well established bands.

Because it's not trying hard with music. It's trying hard with image. Having an iconic image is one thing, and it works when it's pulled off quite naturally (ie. Mercury), but you still have to have the ability behind the image. Unfortunately, this band has neither. The image is phony, the music is bland and uninspired, and there are much better artists, even in the mainstream, that don't need a frontwoman baring herself at every turn. Not to mention the countless female artists in folk/bluegrass/pop/rock circles that actually have the talent behind a more genuine image.

Besides, what is Taylor doing differently from mainstream pop and hip hop artists who continue to show more and more skin? Mainstream rock may be buried by these genres, but she's essentially imitating the artists who are burying the genre in the first place. It's an endless cycle of mediocrity.

[moreblack]

And if it weren't working, they'd stop doing it.

If people didn't buy the image and the music's no good, they'll have bombed on their first album, and they'll have bombed on this one when it comes out.

[sweetness]

And if it weren't working, they'd stop doing it.

If people didn't buy the image and the music's no good, they'll have bombed on their first album, and they'll have bombed on this one when it comes out.

Come on man, I know you're way smarter than that. You could easily say the same thing about One Direction and Justin Bieber. The Pretty Reckless is the same formula dressed up as a rock band.

I'm really not one to hate on things purely for being mainstream, christ, my favorite band is Guns N' Roses and I actually buy Slash's solo albums. I love fun pop/rock music. But this isn't just mainstream, it's blatantly fabricated for the intent to make money, and it works because there is absolutely no way it couldn't. It's the definiteion of "safe music"; hot blonde singer who shows skin + generic "edgy" post-grunge guitar riffs (which has dominated modern rock radio for over a decade) = $$$. I don't think it gets any safer than that.

If you actually genuinely enjoy the music, well thats great. I don't mean to come off as insulting. But man, I just can't get into it, theres nothing stimulating about this band to me at all. This does not embody what appeals to me about rock n roll, but frankly neither do any of the other newish mainstream rock bands.

[jmapelian]

If you ain't trying, why do it at all?

Rockers not trying, is what allowed grunge and alternative to take off, which drove a good bit of the mainstream away, and allowed pop and hip hop to bury it. Hasn't recovered since aside from a few well established bands.

Because it's not trying hard with music. It's trying hard with image. Having an iconic image is one thing, and it works when it's pulled off quite naturally (ie. Mercury), but you still have to have the ability behind the image. Unfortunately, this band has neither. The image is phony, the music is bland and uninspired, and there are much better artists, even in the mainstream, that don't need a frontwoman baring herself at every turn. Not to mention the countless female artists in folk/bluegrass/pop/rock circles that actually have the talent behind a more genuine image.

Besides, what is Taylor doing differently from mainstream pop and hip hop artists who continue to show more and more skin? Mainstream rock may be buried by these genres, but she's essentially imitating the artists who are burying the genre in the first place. It's an endless cycle of mediocrity.

you seem to be way more caught up in image than anything; and are assuming others are just as much as you do; cause like I said, I heard and enjoyed their music before I know anything about the band, Taylor Momsen, or anything about their image

[jmapelian]

And if it weren't working, they'd stop doing it.

If people didn't buy the image and the music's no good, they'll have bombed on their first album, and they'll have bombed on this one when it comes out.

Come on man, I know you're way smarter than that. You could easily say the same thing about One Direction and Justin Bieber. The Pretty Reckless is the same formula dressed up as a rock band.

I'm really not one to hate on things purely for being mainstream, christ, my favorite band is Guns N' Roses and I actually buy Slash's solo albums. I love fun pop/rock music. But this isn't just mainstream, it's blatantly fabricated for the intent to make money, and it works because there is absolutely no way it couldn't. It's the definiteion of "safe music"; hot blonde singer who shows skin + generic "edgy" post-grunge guitar riffs (which has dominated modern rock radio for over a decade) = $$$. I don't think it gets any safer than that.

If you actually genuinely enjoy the music, well thats great. I don't mean to come off as insulting. But man, I just can't get into it, theres nothing stimulating about this band to me at all. This does not embody what appeals to me about rock n roll, but frankly neither do any of the other newish mainstream rock bands.

Dude, the way you talk about rock and mainstream you make it sound like rock music's as big as hip-hop, pop, or country and is dominating the charts........if this chick were in it only for the money she could have kept making $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year easily as an actress......

[moreblack]

If you actually genuinely enjoy the music, well thats great. I don't mean to come off as insulting. But man, I just can't get into it, theres nothing stimulating about this band to me at all. This does not embody what appeals to me about rock n roll, but frankly neither do any of the other newish mainstream rock bands.

I can appreciate that, and I'm not being confrontational about stuff because I know how subjective music is. I think the band knew all the time that the image and marketing approach they've taken would alienate some old-school listeners. Maybe that's not the target market.

But honestly they're doing something right, because I don't pay attention to too much to newer bands, but they caught my ear before I knew who was in the band or what anyone looked like.

Dude, the way you talk about rock and mainstream you make it sound like rock music's as big as hip-hop, pop, or country and is dominating the charts........if this chick were in it only for the money she could have kept making $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year easily as an actress......

Or picked a way more profitable music genre.

Edited March 3, 2014 by moreblack

[OmarBradley]

And if it weren't working, they'd stop doing it.

If people didn't buy the image and the music's no good, they'll have bombed on their first album, and they'll have bombed on this one when it comes out.

Come on man, I know you're way smarter than that. You could easily say the same thing about One Direction and Justin Bieber. The Pretty Reckless is the same formula dressed up as a rock band.

I'm really not one to hate on things purely for being mainstream, christ, my favorite band is Guns N' Roses and I actually buy Slash's solo albums. I love fun pop/rock music. But this isn't just mainstream, it's blatantly fabricated for the intent to make money, and it works because there is absolutely no way it couldn't. It's the definiteion of "safe music"; hot blonde singer who shows skin + generic "edgy" post-grunge guitar riffs (which has dominated modern rock radio for over a decade) = $$$. I don't think it gets any safer than that.

If you actually genuinely enjoy the music, well thats great. I don't mean to come off as insulting. But man, I just can't get into it, theres nothing stimulating about this band to me at all. This does not embody what appeals to me about rock n roll, but frankly neither do any of the other newish mainstream rock bands.

Dude, the way you talk about rock and mainstream you make it sound like rock music's as big as hip-hop, pop, or country and is dominating the charts........if this chick were in it only for the money she could have kept making $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year easily as an actress......

No one's saying she's only in it for the money. We're saying she exploits her image, which in turn likely directly increases the profits she makes.

[Black Sabbath]

And if it weren't working, they'd stop doing it.

If people didn't buy the image and the music's no good, they'll have bombed on their first album, and they'll have bombed on this one when it comes out.

Come on man, I know you're way smarter than that. You could easily say the same thing about One Direction and Justin Bieber. The Pretty Reckless is the same formula dressed up as a rock band.

I'm really not one to hate on things purely for being mainstream, christ, my favorite band is Guns N' Roses and I actually buy Slash's solo albums. I love fun pop/rock music. But this isn't just mainstream, it's blatantly fabricated for the intent to make money, and it works because there is absolutely no way it couldn't. It's the definiteion of "safe music"; hot blonde singer who shows skin + generic "edgy" post-grunge guitar riffs (which has dominated modern rock radio for over a decade) = $$$. I don't think it gets any safer than that.

If you actually genuinely enjoy the music, well thats great. I don't mean to come off as insulting. But man, I just can't get into it, theres nothing stimulating about this band to me at all. This does not embody what appeals to me about rock n roll, but frankly neither do any of the other newish mainstream rock bands.

Dude, the way you talk about rock and mainstream you make it sound like rock music's as big as hip-hop, pop, or country and is dominating the charts........if this chick were in it only for the money she could have kept making $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year easily as an actress......

No one's saying she's only in it for the money. We're saying she exploits her image, which in turn likely directly increases the profits she makes.

Well duh! Sex sells, man

She's hot as shit, why not flaunt it if you don't have a problem with it? Of course it'll probably inflate sales for the music and shows, but I think she's pretty focused on the music as a whole and not just her "sexy" image or whatever.

[sweetness]

Dude, the way you talk about rock and mainstream you make it sound like rock music's as big as hip-hop, pop, or country and is dominating the charts........if this chick were in it only for the money she could have kept making $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year easily as an actress......

I'm not attacking this girl's career choice or anything, just the artistic integrity of her band. There's definitely still a good market for hard rock music, it's not what it was 20 years ago, but plenty of new bands can tour arenas and festivals and make a good living doing so, ESPECIALLY if they can put a hot young half naked female singer in front of the stage.

If this band fucking ruled, if they were writing really good catchy songs that didn't sound so painfully derivative, she could be performing with her bare tits out and I wouldn't have anything bad to say about the band. They just aren't exciting to me though and it really feels like the focal point is Taylor's taped nipples, and that's kinda fucked up man. Not saying they should be out there transcending genres or reinventing the wheel or anything, just like... write some good rock songs!

Just my opinion though, as somebody who really loves rock music.

Edited March 3, 2014 by sweetness

[moreblack]

For sure they're not for everybody. It's a very polarizing band, due to various reasons, which in itself is not a bad thing. But I notice that's the story with most modern rock bands. People really like them or really hate them, and there's decent numbers in both camps. A7X, Black Veil Brides, Nickleback, Kings Of Leon, QOTSA, Muse etc... All meet with almost as many haters as they have fans.

It's not like back in the day when we ALL loved Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Crue, Van Halen and GNR.

[OmarBradley]

Well duh! Sex sells, man

She's hot as shit, why not flaunt it if you don't have a problem with it? Of course it'll probably inflate sales for the music and shows, but I think she's pretty focused on the music as a whole and not just her "sexy" image or whatever.

Honestly, I think she's pretty, don't think she's "hot as shit." My mentality regarding music is traditional (at least when talking about image), make your music about your music, not your image. A combination of the two can work sometimes, but like sweetness said.... they're not really doing anything terribly interesting or original musically, it looks way more image than it does music. As a musician who strives to maintain musical integrity and originality (sweetness is as well), seeing someone like Taylor or 1D or <insert pop fad here> is a bit offensive to us. Not everyone has to be Bach, but art should say something, usually something relevant, I'm not getting that from any of Taylor's music.

Someone said earlier in this post, it's fine to like them, and I agree, I won't fault anyone for liking them. But I also won't let them be equated with the countless musicians across the world (currently and historically) who have attempted to make a living off of their art by musical means rather than gimmicks and tits.

EDIT: There's also the notion of having to work to be successful in the music industry. I'm not saying Taylor doesn't work hard now to expand her success. But acquiring original success by yourself is incredibly difficult, and I doubt that's how she did it. Think of it like Donald Trump... yes he has expanded his fathers fortune by many millions of dollars... but that's a lot easier to do when you're already starting out with $100 million, as opposed to $1000.

Edited March 3, 2014 by OmarBradley

[moreblack]

But I also won't let them be equated with the countless musicians across the world (currently and historically) who have attempted to make a living off of their art by musical means rather than gimmicks and tits.

That's not for anyone to "let". Time will tell.

[jmapelian]

And if it weren't working, they'd stop doing it.

If people didn't buy the image and the music's no good, they'll have bombed on their first album, and they'll have bombed on this one when it comes out.

Come on man, I know you're way smarter than that. You could easily say the same thing about One Direction and Justin Bieber. The Pretty Reckless is the same formula dressed up as a rock band.

I'm really not one to hate on things purely for being mainstream, christ, my favorite band is Guns N' Roses and I actually buy Slash's solo albums. I love fun pop/rock music. But this isn't just mainstream, it's blatantly fabricated for the intent to make money, and it works because there is absolutely no way it couldn't. It's the definiteion of "safe music"; hot blonde singer who shows skin + generic "edgy" post-grunge guitar riffs (which has dominated modern rock radio for over a decade) = $$$. I don't think it gets any safer than that.

If you actually genuinely enjoy the music, well thats great. I don't mean to come off as insulting. But man, I just can't get into it, theres nothing stimulating about this band to me at all. This does not embody what appeals to me about rock n roll, but frankly neither do any of the other newish mainstream rock bands.

Dude, the way you talk about rock and mainstream you make it sound like rock music's as big as hip-hop, pop, or country and is dominating the charts........if this chick were in it only for the money she could have kept making $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year easily as an actress......

No one's saying she's only in it for the money. We're saying she exploits her image, which in turn likely directly increases the profits she makes.

what do you expect - she's young, she's hot, and where in America - what the fuck do you want, for her to wear a burqa? It's a rock band, not a church choir - how many rock bands have sold an image -- people got to be fucking kidding me

[jmapelian]

Well duh! Sex sells, man

She's hot as shit, why not flaunt it if you don't have a problem with it? Of course it'll probably inflate sales for the music and shows, but I think she's pretty focused on the music as a whole and not just her "sexy" image or whatever.

Honestly, I think she's pretty, don't think she's "hot as shit." My mentality regarding music is traditional (at least when talking about image), make your music about your music, not your image. A combination of the two can work sometimes, but like sweetness said.... they're not really doing anything terribly interesting or original musically, it looks way more image than it does music. As a musician who strives to maintain musical integrity and originality (sweetness is as well), seeing someone like Taylor or 1D or <insert pop fad here> is a bit offensive to us. Not everyone has to be Bach, but art should say something, usually something relevant, I'm not getting that from any of Taylor's music.

Someone said earlier in this post, it's fine to like them, and I agree, I won't fault anyone for liking them. But I also won't let them be equated with the countless musicians across the world (currently and historically) who have attempted to make a living off of their art by musical means rather than gimmicks and tits.

EDIT: There's also the notion of having to work to be successful in the music industry. I'm not saying Taylor doesn't work hard now to expand her success. But acquiring original success by yourself is incredibly difficult, and I doubt that's how she did it. Think of it like Donald Trump... yes he has expanded his fathers fortune by many millions of dollars... but that's a lot easier to do when you're already starting out with $100 million, as opposed to $1000.

"I also won't let them be equated with the countless musicians across the world (currently and historically) who have attempted to make a living off of their art by musical means rather than gimmicks " --- are you referring to current Guns N Roses

[moreblack]

In the end, anybody who's notoriously visual in music, probably has to struggle twice as hard to be recognized for their music. It's such a double-edged sword.

It's like, ok you got our attention, now prove yourself.

[OmarBradley]

"I also won't let them be equated with the countless musicians across the world (currently and historically) who have attempted to make a living off of their art by musical means rather than gimmicks " --- are you referring to current Guns N Roses

No, I think I addressed your concern earlier in this thread:

this is the same thing axl did w GnR - make it all about him but w/out being a hot blonde chick

"and some musicians who were undoubtedly inorganically tapped for the job." --yeah, who the fuck does that sound like, BBF and DJ??

Can't tell if you're trying to antagonize me or not - but I pretty much agree with you. I make it no secret here that I don't recognize Axl's band as the legitimate Guns N' Roses.

Unless you are connecting my use of the word "gimmicks" with nuGNR, in which case I still wasn't referring to them, but I could see it being applied.

[Zeppelin]

And if it weren't working, they'd stop doing it.

If people didn't buy the image and the music's no good, they'll have bombed on their first album, and they'll have bombed on this one when it comes out.

Come on man, I know you're way smarter than that. You could easily say the same thing about One Direction and Justin Bieber. The Pretty Reckless is the same formula dressed up as a rock band.

I'm really not one to hate on things purely for being mainstream, christ, my favorite band is Guns N' Roses and I actually buy Slash's solo albums. I love fun pop/rock music. But this isn't just mainstream, it's blatantly fabricated for the intent to make money, and it works because there is absolutely no way it couldn't. It's the definiteion of "safe music"; hot blonde singer who shows skin + generic "edgy" post-grunge guitar riffs (which has dominated modern rock radio for over a decade) = $$$. I don't think it gets any safer than that.

If you actually genuinely enjoy the music, well thats great. I don't mean to come off as insulting. But man, I just can't get into it, theres nothing stimulating about this band to me at all. This does not embody what appeals to me about rock n roll, but frankly neither do any of the other newish mainstream rock bands.

Dude, the way you talk about rock and mainstream you make it sound like rock music's as big as hip-hop, pop, or country and is dominating the charts........if this chick were in it only for the money she could have kept making $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year easily as an actress......

No one's saying she's only in it for the money. We're saying she exploits her image, which in turn likely directly increases the profits she makes.

what do you expect - she's young, she's hot, and where in America - what the fuck do you want, for her to wear a burqa? It's a rock band, not a church choir - how many rock bands have sold an image -- people got to be fucking kidding me

Plenty of artists sell image, but they sell talent right along with it. Guns N' Roses had a dangerous image but they had the talent and music to back it up. Bowie sold an image, but again, had the talent. This band doesn't. It's night and day.

If you like this band, then that's fine. I'm not trying to look down on anyone for liking them so I should get that out of the way. But it's like having a woman or man fuck the supervisor to get promoted. It escapes all integrity, and it's clear as day. A plethora of artists call attention to their images, but have had the talent to back it up. Queen, Elton John, Bowie, Michael Jackson, Guns N' Roses, etc. Image isn't just about sex. A lot of rock and metal bands sell attitude images. Some sell pretty boy images. But just like anything in life, superficiality has to have something under it. I feel this band has nothing underneath the tits and nudity, so it's not really justified. Yeah, nice body and all, but that's where it stops for them, IMO. If you like their songs, then power to ya. But for me, there's nothing to cling onto here.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Zeppelin

[Iron MikeyJ]

It's not like back in the day when we ALL loved Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Crue, Van Halen and GNR.

Dude, nobody ever LOVED Bon Jovi.

[jmapelian]

And if it weren't working, they'd stop doing it.

If people didn't buy the image and the music's no good, they'll have bombed on their first album, and they'll have bombed on this one when it comes out.

Come on man, I know you're way smarter than that. You could easily say the same thing about One Direction and Justin Bieber. The Pretty Reckless is the same formula dressed up as a rock band.

I'm really not one to hate on things purely for being mainstream, christ, my favorite band is Guns N' Roses and I actually buy Slash's solo albums. I love fun pop/rock music. But this isn't just mainstream, it's blatantly fabricated for the intent to make money, and it works because there is absolutely no way it couldn't. It's the definiteion of "safe music"; hot blonde singer who shows skin + generic "edgy" post-grunge guitar riffs (which has dominated modern rock radio for over a decade) = $$$. I don't think it gets any safer than that.

If you actually genuinely enjoy the music, well thats great. I don't mean to come off as insulting. But man, I just can't get into it, theres nothing stimulating about this band to me at all. This does not embody what appeals to me about rock n roll, but frankly neither do any of the other newish mainstream rock bands.

Dude, the way you talk about rock and mainstream you make it sound like rock music's as big as hip-hop, pop, or country and is dominating the charts........if this chick were in it only for the money she could have kept making $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year easily as an actress......

No one's saying she's only in it for the money. We're saying she exploits her image, which in turn likely directly increases the profits she makes.

what do you expect - she's young, she's hot, and where in America - what the fuck do you want, for her to wear a burqa? It's a rock band, not a church choir - how many rock bands have sold an image -- people got to be fucking kidding me

Plenty of artists sell image, but they sell talent right along with it. Guns N' Roses had a dangerous image but they had the talent and music to back it up. Bowie sold an image, but again, had the talent. This band doesn't. It's night and day.

If you like this band, then that's fine. I'm not trying to look down on anyone for liking them so I should get that out of the way. But it's like having a woman or man fuck the supervisor to get promoted. It escapes all integrity, and it's clear as day. A plethora of artists call attention to their images, but have had the talent to back it up. Queen, Elton John, Bowie, Michael Jackson, Guns N' Roses, etc. Image isn't just about sex. A lot of rock and metal bands sell attitude images. Some sell pretty boy images. But just like anything in life, superficiality has to have something under it. I feel this band has nothing underneath the tits and nudity, so it's not really justified. Yeah, nice body and all, but that's where it stops for them, IMO. If you like their songs, then power to ya. But for me, there's nothing to cling onto here.

Dude, calm down with the comparisons! The band hasexactly one full length album out and is about to release a 2nd! I don't think anyone ever compared her to Queen, Elton John, Bowie, Michael Jackson, Guns N' Roses, etc except for you - nobody put them in that company

[moreblack]

Like I said, that's for time to decide. If the music's doesn't sell, they'll go away. If it finds an audience, then long may they continue to release more.

[Scumcat Esq.]

So... the album has leaked.

[moreblack]

[jmapelian]

So... the album has leaked.

I can wait till next week and spring for the 10-15$ it'll cost