I figured out a way to innovate in Hard Rock, but I desperately need your input

[zabrak999]

I'm looking at Guns N Roses, thinking "were they the last classic Hard Rock band?" They sounded different and ahead of the game, by being a mainstream band that injected raw credibility with groovable rhythms and loud guitars.

However, Queens of the Stone Age seem to be the last classic Hard Rock group. Their attitude was raw, while still providing groovy rock with loud guitars. Again, didn't sound like any other hard rock group, and was forward thinking.

So I'm trying to innovate in Hard Rock again, and after a night of research, I came up with this:

Thick, fuzzy/warm guitars, with dance-punk rhythms and a relatable attitude and message. In other words, it'll rock hard and have balls to it, but the rhythms will be groove centered with an upbeat, high tempo. the reason why we haven't had a classic hard rock band since queens of the stone age, is because no new hard rock band since them created a new groove, it's all been retread.

My new idea for Hard Rock would be LCD Soundystem meets Queens of the Stone Age, but with traditional choruses and what have you in the vein of GnR I need your input bros. Really, all I'm missing is how the lead singer will sound like. What in part separated GnR and QotSA from their peers were their distinctive singers, and their singing.

[Johnny Drama]

Shit can't be high tempo and have groove.

[ZoSoRose]

Like the "dancy" parts in Shacklers and OMG?

I often think of stuff like that, its cool

[Facekicker]

You need a goat OP

[Chewbacca]

Nah. Qotsa is more alternative rock.

[zabrak999]

Shit can't be high tempo and have groove.

have you never heard of mr brownstone?

Nah. Qotsa is more alternative rock.

hmm eh their older work definitely wasn't. Songs for the deaf was thoroughly hard rock.

It sounds 'different' only because it doesn't sound generic, in the way that velvet revolver or slash's solo work sounds generic. Not that generic is bad, just not terribly memorable

Chinese Democracy was definitely forward thinking (aside from the lame title track), which is fine, but not really what I'd be looking for.

[zabrak999]

so to reiterate:

There's been plenty of hard rock bands in the past decade, but nearly all of them aren't memorable because it's same ol' same ol' with a few variations here and there.

Why not take the balls of queens of the stone age, but apply it to a new groove that hasn't been explored in hard rock yet, with GnR style songwriting, choruses, etc

But yeah...Trying to find what the singer would sound like would be an entirely new challenge

Edited April 9, 2014 by zabrak999

[Johnny Drama]

Mr. Brownstone is not high tempo.

The only way you can examine a "new groove" is by using different time signatures.

I'm sure it's all been done so as to paraphrase George Harrison.

[OmarBradley]

I'm looking at Guns N Roses, thinking "were they the last classic Hard Rock band?" They sounded different and ahead of the game, by being a mainstream band that injected raw credibility with groovable rhythms and loud guitars.

However, Queens of the Stone Age seem to be the last classic Hard Rock group. Their attitude was raw, while still providing groovy rock with loud guitars. Again, didn't sound like any other hard rock group, and was forward thinking.

So I'm trying to innovate in Hard Rock again, and after a night of research, I came up with this:

Thick, fuzzy/warm guitars, with dance-punk rhythms and a relatable attitude and message. In other words, it'll rock hard and have balls to it, but the rhythms will be groove centered with an upbeat, high tempo. the reason why we haven't had a classic hard rock band since queens of the stone age, is because no new hard rock band since them created a new groove, it's all been retread.

My new idea for Hard Rock would be LCD Soundystem meets Queens of the Stone Age, but with traditional choruses and what have you in the vein of GnR I need your input bros. Really, all I'm missing is how the lead singer will sound like. What in part separated GnR and QotSA from their peers were their distinctive singers, and their singing.

What?

I mean, I agree that in terms of defining hard rock, there aren't many better bands to look to besides GNR - maybe that second Snakepit album too. But the rest of your post I really disagree with. I'm not familiar with all of QoTSA's stuff, but what I've heard has not been hard rock - I'll check out their earlier stuff.

Hard rock (or any music style for that matter) doesn't get "innovated" after a few nights of internet research. I'm doubtful that even one person could be responsible for something like you are suggesting. I'm actually not really sure what you mean by "innovate." There is a lack of hard rock (a la GNR) occuring in the music world now, I agree. But I don't think the answer is taking a few bands/sounds, and throwing them in a blender and hoping the end product is some sort of modern representation of hard rock. As unfortunate as it is, there's no easy/single answer for revitalizing hard rock - trust me, I'm probably one of, if not the most, ardent supporter of hard rock here, but methodically going about trying to come up with some formula to hopefully solve the issue makes me skeptical (I'm being more generous than I want to by using that word). Are you saying hard rock needs to be changed so that people will listen to it again? If that's the case, it ceases to be hard rock in the respect we are talking about it in. I try to find new music often, and I really haven't found any genuinely new (first release in 2000 or after) hard rock artists in a long long time. Steel Panther is hard rock, but they're older guys. In terms of younger guys, I haven't seen many. Slash has done a good job of finding them - Monster Truck, Hillbilly Herald, etc.. As much as some people would hate to admit, the bands who (in my opinion at least) are currently best performing/writing hard rock music would be Tesla, Buckcherry, Slash, and the others I've mentioned in this post (SP, MT, HH). Most other rock releases have a large element of pop, grunge, alternative, or punk infused with them.

Guess I went off on a tangent here, but it should affirm how seriously I do take this issue zabrak, and how much time I have genuinely dedicated to pondering these concepts.

Edited April 10, 2014 by OmarBradley

[Iron MikeyJ]

I'm looking at Guns N Roses, thinking "were they the last classic Hard Rock band?" They sounded different and ahead of the game, by being a mainstream band that injected raw credibility with groovable rhythms and loud guitars.

However, Queens of the Stone Age seem to be the last classic Hard Rock group. Their attitude was raw, while still providing groovy rock with loud guitars. Again, didn't sound like any other hard rock group, and was forward thinking.

So I'm trying to innovate in Hard Rock again, and after a night of research, I came up with this:

Thick, fuzzy/warm guitars, with dance-punk rhythms and a relatable attitude and message. In other words, it'll rock hard and have balls to it, but the rhythms will be groove centered with an upbeat, high tempo. the reason why we haven't had a classic hard rock band since queens of the stone age, is because no new hard rock band since them created a new groove, it's all been retread.

My new idea for Hard Rock would be LCD Soundystem meets Queens of the Stone Age, but with traditional choruses and what have you in the vein of GnR I need your input bros. Really, all I'm missing is how the lead singer will sound like. What in part separated GnR and QotSA from their peers were their distinctive singers, and their singing.

What?

I mean, I agree that in terms of defining hard rock, there aren't many better bands to look to besides GNR - maybe that second Snakepit album too. But the rest of your post I really disagree with. I'm not familiar with all of QoTSA's stuff, but what I've heard has not been hard rock - I'll check out their earlier stuff.

Hard rock (or any music style for that matter) doesn't get "innovated" after a few nights of internet research. I'm doubtful that even one person could be responsible for something like you are suggesting. I'm actually not really sure what you mean by "innovate." There is a lack of hard rock (a la GNR) occuring in the music world now, I agree. But I don't think the answer is taking a few bands/sounds, and throwing them in a blender and hoping the end product is some sort of modern representation of hard rock. As unfortunate as it is, there's no easy/single answer for revitalizing hard rock - trust me, I'm probably one of, if not the most, ardent supporter of hard rock here, but methodically going about trying to come up with some formula to hopefully solve the issue makes me skeptical (I'm being more generous than I want to by using that word). Are you saying hard rock needs to be changed so that people will listen to it again? If that's the case, it ceases to be hard rock in the respect we are talking about it in. I try to find new music often, and I really haven't found any genuinely new (first release in 2000 or after) hard rock artists in a long long time. Steel Panther is hard rock, but they're older guys. In terms of younger guys, I haven't seen many. Slash has done a good job of finding them - Monster Truck, Hillbilly Herald, etc.. As much as some people would hate to admit, the bands who (in my opinion at least) are currently best performing/writing hard rock music would be Tesla, Buckcherry, Slash, and the others I've mentioned in this post (SP, MT, HH). Most other rock releases have a large element of pop, grunge, alternative, or punk infused with them.

Guess I went off on a tangent here, but it should affirm how seriously I do take this issue zabrak, and how much time I have genuinely dedicated to pondering these concepts.

Preech!!!

I also share this opinion. I read this thread earlier and have been thinking about how I wanted to answer this. The best thing i can say is that it has to be real or from your heart/soul. You can't just say "we are going to sound like guns n roses." It doesn't work that way, or at least it won't come off as authentic if you try to hard to emulate some one else. It's great to have influences, but you MUST find your own voice. Do you think gnr sat down and said "let's put zeppelin, queen, and the sex pistols in a blender and we will be awesome." Perhaps those influences showed in their music, but it happened by gnr being themselves. Be yourself.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Mike420

[gunsfanoldie]

Totally agree Mike and Omar. The sheer fact of you saying "I've researched this stuff" already nullifies everything you're gonna say. As a musician (which I'm not) you have to FEEL the music, and when you're doing stuff just to achieve a sound then you are no better than One Direction or all those other horrible bands. Obviously influences matter, but you have to have their own style that just works. Maybe its coincidental that since GNR there really hasn't been a band in the new era thats as good. Its sad that Slash is STILL the best at giving hard rock music these days. Most of the new bands like Halestorm and others are overrated and don't have the same feel. I find it sad that I think my favorite "new" band is Foo Fighters but they are the only ones that release consistently great albums. There was a great band called Silvertide that released one of the best albums of all time then never anything again. Another band Parlor Mob released an amazing debut then got terrible. Bands today can't seem to remain consistent anymore.

[zabrak999]

I'm looking at Guns N Roses, thinking "were they the last classic Hard Rock band?" They sounded different and ahead of the game, by being a mainstream band that injected raw credibility with groovable rhythms and loud guitars.

However, Queens of the Stone Age seem to be the last classic Hard Rock group. Their attitude was raw, while still providing groovy rock with loud guitars. Again, didn't sound like any other hard rock group, and was forward thinking.

So I'm trying to innovate in Hard Rock again, and after a night of research, I came up with this:

Thick, fuzzy/warm guitars, with dance-punk rhythms and a relatable attitude and message. In other words, it'll rock hard and have balls to it, but the rhythms will be groove centered with an upbeat, high tempo. the reason why we haven't had a classic hard rock band since queens of the stone age, is because no new hard rock band since them created a new groove, it's all been retread.

My new idea for Hard Rock would be LCD Soundystem meets Queens of the Stone Age, but with traditional choruses and what have you in the vein of GnR I need your input bros. Really, all I'm missing is how the lead singer will sound like. What in part separated GnR and QotSA from their peers were their distinctive singers, and their singing.

What?

I mean, I agree that in terms of defining hard rock, there aren't many better bands to look to besides GNR - maybe that second Snakepit album too. But the rest of your post I really disagree with. I'm not familiar with all of QoTSA's stuff, but what I've heard has not been hard rock - I'll check out their earlier stuff.

Hard rock (or any music style for that matter) doesn't get "innovated" after a few nights of internet research. I'm doubtful that even one person could be responsible for something like you are suggesting. I'm actually not really sure what you mean by "innovate." There is a lack of hard rock (a la GNR) occuring in the music world now, I agree. But I don't think the answer is taking a few bands/sounds, and throwing them in a blender and hoping the end product is some sort of modern representation of hard rock. As unfortunate as it is, there's no easy/single answer for revitalizing hard rock - trust me, I'm probably one of, if not the most, ardent supporter of hard rock here, but methodically going about trying to come up with some formula to hopefully solve the issue makes me skeptical (I'm being more generous than I want to by using that word). Are you saying hard rock needs to be changed so that people will listen to it again? If that's the case, it ceases to be hard rock in the respect we are talking about it in. I try to find new music often, and I really haven't found any genuinely new (first release in 2000 or after) hard rock artists in a long long time. Steel Panther is hard rock, but they're older guys. In terms of younger guys, I haven't seen many. Slash has done a good job of finding them - Monster Truck, Hillbilly Herald, etc.. As much as some people would hate to admit, the bands who (in my opinion at least) are currently best performing/writing hard rock music would be Tesla, Buckcherry, Slash, and the others I've mentioned in this post (SP, MT, HH). Most other rock releases have a large element of pop, grunge, alternative, or punk infused with them.

Guess I went off on a tangent here, but it should affirm how seriously I do take this issue zabrak, and how much time I have genuinely dedicated to pondering these concepts.

Right,

so basically, there's plenty of modern hard rock artists, but they're either embarrassing buttrock artists, or just pretty good Hard Rock. Like you listen to it, and you'd think that it's good, but not anything that'll you be passionate about it 10 years from now

except for queens of the stone age, that is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_for_the_Deaf#Release_and_reception

widely regarded as one the best albums of the 2000s, it's without a doubt the best Hard Rock album of the 2000s, by the best Hard Rock band of the 2000s.

They managed that, because they did a new groove in hard rock.

Again

look at GnR and their peers in the 80s, and it's worlds a part. Look at QuoSA and all the lame buttrock bands int he 2000s, it's the same identical story. Hell, you even had members leave QuoSA, and their lead guy is somewhat polarizing.

ANYWAY,

I figure to be the next band that sounds like you're from the future, it'd be 21st century indie dance punk in regards to its grooves, but it'll be hard rocking, with singable choruses and all of that, to give it familiarity

it's 21st century Hard Rock, Hard Rock that should have been done 13 years ago

[gunsfanoldie]

But if it has an indie dance punk vibe then its not gonna be hard rock. You have to be able to do something like GNR, where it was just hard rock but their own version of hard rock. And it has to come naturally. If you PLAN to do something in the vein of touching all genres, 1. it probably won't succeed, and 2. then its not gonna be hard rock. Its gonna be this weird subgenre that also happens to touch on hard rock.

Honestly, I'm not a big Queens of the Stone Age fan. I know that album because its the one Dave Grohl played on and fine maybe its good. But they never totally broke through with it. It did well but people don't talk about them like they do GNR. Its still a niche band. I don't think anyone credits them as being some turning point. They're good, I'll give you that, but they aren't a game changer like you make them out to be.

It seems like YOU'RE passionate about Queens but thats about it. You're right when you tell Omar that there's nothing that you'll be passionate about in 10 years even though its stuff you accept today. But thats exactly what Omar is saying. He's saying the best stuff is older bands that are still hanging on, and new ones that are good but haven't quite proven themselves. Its sad that there hasn't been a band to really be passionate about and one that will really make an impact that you remember it 10 years from now, but the fact of the matter is you haven't found the secret and both of your posts reek of actually trying to please the masses the same way all the other crap bands are doing these days.

[zabrak999]

Totally agree Mike and Omar. The sheer fact of you saying "I've researched this stuff" already nullifies everything you're gonna say. As a musician (which I'm not) you have to FEEL the music, and when you're doing stuff just to achieve a sound then you are no better than One Direction or all those other horrible bands. Obviously influences matter, but you have to have their own style that just works. Maybe its coincidental that since GNR there really hasn't been a band in the new era thats as good. Its sad that Slash is STILL the best at giving hard rock music these days. Most of the new bands like Halestorm and others are overrated and don't have the same feel. I find it sad that I think my favorite "new" band is Foo Fighters but they are the only ones that release consistently great albums. There was a great band called Silvertide that released one of the best albums of all time then never anything again. Another band Parlor Mob released an amazing debut then got terrible. Bands today can't seem to remain consistent anymore.

well in regards to bands putting out material

look it's pretty much...well, I'd say in the 2000s it was like the 1980s

there was fantastic music underground, but mainstream was just pure garbage in terms of Rock, 95% of it anyway

Indie Rock in the 2010s is actually popular and does get played on the radio though, so I wouldn't say that popular rock music is bad so far this decade, unless you're not into that however.

Anyway in regards to HARD ROCK, it's true that there aren't too many good hard rock bands. I mean they exist but they're lesser known, but I'd say that even with those good hard rock bands, they still haven't been as groundbreaking as what QuoSA did with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_for_the_Deaf#Release_and_reception

We still haven't had a Hard Rock band really stir the scene on the impact of that, or what GnR did with Appetite for Destruction.

I mean I think what Slash did with Myles Kennedy was great, but they were still working on what's been done.

I have to say though, Chinese Democracy.......I don't know, I'm still torn on that album in regards to its place in Hard Rock to this day

I think it was a great album, but...It was a little all over the place. You know that's fine in the same way that the Use Your Illusion albums were fine, but it didn't have that character that Appetite did, you know. If they stuck with a general sound for the album, it likely could have been a landmark Hard Rock album.

ANYWAY TO BRING IT BACK TO MY IDEA:

It's been proven that to be amazing, you need to take Hard Rock on work with a new sound, and also be genuinely amazing in terms of songwriting. I think if done right, my band idea could do just that

[gunsfanoldie]

I like a solid amount of Chinese Democracy and no it is not a hard rock album. Which makes sense, thats not what Axl wanted. Thats why everyone left. Its not the same as Illusions because those albums are still hard rock. They have the musicianship that hard rock falls under and thats because Slash and Duff and Izzy play hard rock. It just starts to sound stupid when you say that but its true. There's stuff thats hard rock and then there's stuff that isn't.

I know and am sick of hearing the good music is underground. Yeah, I get that it is, but when its really good it would make an impact. You'd hear about it here or something. And all you hear about here are Halestorm, Rival Sons, the Cindy Lou Who band. Its not like 5 people are hearing these great bands and not telling anyone. Popular rock music IS bad these days. It tries to hard to be old and modern at the same time and it doesn't work. It just sounds generic.

No one has stirred the pot and maybe that can't be done anymore. Maybe the internet has made it too hard for these guys to make enough of an impact. I mean, people consider the Killers and Kings Of Leon to be "mainstream rock" these days and those guys suck! You're right in your assertionship of adding a new take on the hard rock sound and needing to be great at songwriting, but it seems like you're trying to boil it down into a science which can't be done. You've gotta have talent, and maybe you do, but the fact is its very slim you'll change things. And from what you've been saying, it still sounds like you're trying too hard to create a new spin while still sticking to the old that I think it'll be a disaster. I think if there truly was a band that could do that these days, they hopefully wouldn't able to pinpoint exactly what that is and they wouldn't get it from internet research. It would be natural.

And I'll say one more thing then I'm going to sleep: CONSISTENCY! That is what no one seems to have these days and thats what people need. These bands can make great debuts then they have no follow up. They can't maintain and its sad that 20 year old in the 60s and 70s could do this year in and year out and not one band can make two great back to back albums anymore. Like I said, I'm not a musician, but come on 23 year olds! Is there nothing to write about anymore?! No one truly has enough passion anymore to stay consistent.

[wasted]

Who are Blues Pills?

[Iron MikeyJ]

Ok here is the bottom line, if you want to be a hard rock band you MUST have strong roots in the blues. Look at all the great hard rock bands; zeppelin, gnr, ac/dc, aerosmith, van halen, etc. what is the common denominator? The BLUES. I am not familiar enough with queens of the stoneage to know if they are heavily blues influenced or not, but that's besides the point. My point is you need to understand how blues music works. You need to know about I, IV, V chord changes. You need to know how to play in key; E, A, B, G are the main one's, but you should be able to play in ANY key. You need to MASTER the penatonic scale, basically you need a very good understanding of music, and finally you need to find band mates that share these opinions (which is some times the hardest part.)

I am a lead guitar player in a blues/hard rock band, so I understand where you are coming from. It does seem like a lost musical form at times. And people do love it when it's done right, but it takes A LOT of work. You can not just get on the internet and say "I have figured out how to make hard rock popular again." Well no shit shirlock, give me a young Axl, young Jimmy Page, young John Paul Jones, young John Bonham, and whomever else and it would be THE BEST BAND IN THE WORLD. But that's not how it works now is it? We can't have those guys, you gotta find new guys. But before you do that, you need to learn and understand music. Learn how to play. First you will suck, but eventually you will get better, find someone to jam with, etc.But always keep this in mind....

It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll.

[zabrak999]

Just to reiterate one final time (in a more concise manner)

The reason why we haven't had a classic hard rock band since queens of the stone age, is because no new hard rock band since them created a new groove, it's all been retread into familiar, generic territory

So I'm trying to innovate where QotSA left off, and after a night of research, I came up with this: Thick, fuzzy/warm guitars, with dance-punk rhythms and a relatable attitude and message. In other words, it'll rock hard and have balls to it, but the (dance-punk) groove-centered rhythms, and singable choruses and all of that, to give it familiarity.

It's proper 21st century Hard Rock: LCD Soundystem meets Queens of the Stone Age, but with traditional choruses and what have you in the vein of GnR. That's not say to say that bands haven't tried this (think Death From Above 1979 etc), but they didn't sound anything like what I'm thinking of, which is more singable and melodic, but with those modern grooves.

[Sixes]

lol blues

[DR DOOM]

Just put a Black Sabbath album on backwards and copy that.

[OmarBradley]

Just to reiterate one final time (in a more concise manner)

The reason why we haven't had a classic hard rock band since queens of the stone age, is because no new hard rock band since them created a new groove, it's all been retread into familiar, generic territory

So I'm trying to innovate where QotSA left off, and after a night of research, I came up with this: Thick, fuzzy/warm guitars, with dance-punk rhythms and a relatable attitude and message. In other words, it'll rock hard and have balls to it, but the (dance-punk) groove-centered rhythms, and singable choruses and all of that, to give it familiarity.

It's proper 21st century Hard Rock: LCD Soundystem meets Queens of the Stone Age, but with traditional choruses and what have you in the vein of GnR. That's not say to say that bands haven't tried this (think Death From Above 1979 etc), but they didn't sound anything like what I'm thinking of, which is more singable and melodic, but with those modern grooves.

You're still not getting it. Reread some of our posts, or cease your "reiteration" of this flawed logic.

[Iron MikeyJ]

lol blues

I fail to see the humor. Do you deny that hard rock music is a desendant of the blues? You can literally draw a line from Robert Johnson to cream/zeppelin/hendrix, who then influenced bands like aerosmith and ac/dc, who then influenced gnr.

[gunsfanoldie]

Agreed about the Blues comment. That does seem fundamental. Hell, Slash, Richie Blackmore and all those guys have these extended Blues solos at their live shows. I don't see whats funny about that.

[Jakey Styley]

So, are you going to start a band or what?

[Sixes]

lol extended blues solos

lol blues

lol crap 70's hard rock

lol boring same old same old same old same old

lol aerosmith

lol awful music for awful people