Jump to content

Last full album you listened to?


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, action said:

yeah I guess It's come to something when someone who refuses to go past the 90s lectures someone who refuses to go past the 50s :lol:.

so yeah, compared to you, I guess you could call me a modernist :lol: 

 

See therein lies the issue, I’m way past the 90s, I could go on at length about 50 Cent, Eminem, hip hop in general pre and post 90s, Grime, Garage etc etc etc but who’d listen on a forum full of metallers? :lol:  I could talk about Sleaford Mods or Mike Skinner or Tempa T or Wiley but someone around here would have to know who they are first :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Black Sabbath - Black Sabbath  Black Sabbath - Paranoid Black Sabbath - Master of Reality Black Sabbath - Vol 4 Black Sabbath - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath Black Sabbath - Sabotage

Let It Bleed by The Rolling Stones.

Posted Images

29 minutes ago, action said:

they are an absolute phenomenon, almost identifiying them with a whole nation. I see "the toppers" I see dutch attitude, partying, laughing, having a good time. it's one of the most purest examples of music directly stemming from a base culture, it basically advertises itself. 

Also, this is not what I associate with the Dutch, the south perhaps who have a Burgundian background (like the Belgians) and who are more known for celebrating and enjoying life with food, drink, etc., but the rest of the country comes from a Calvinist background which doesn't really gel with ''partying, laughing, having a good time'' as you see it. Not that it's so black or white anymore nowadays, but that's not how I would associate them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EvanG said:

Also, this is not what I associate with the Dutch, the south perhaps who have a Burgundian background (like the Belgians) and who are more known for celebrating and enjoying life with food, drink, etc., but the rest of the country comes from a Calvinist background which doesn't really gel with ''partying, laughing, having a good time'' as you see it. Not that it's so black or white anymore nowadays, but that's not how I would associate them.

weren't the calvinists kind of the cool guys though? they could shag birds and drink a lot, whereas the catholics (to this day) need to be all goody-good

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, action said:

not as good as freddie, son

 

It's not really a competition though. How do you rate that shit anyway? Freddie Mercury, James Brown, Jim Morrison, Robbie Williams... all great at what they do/did.

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

By the time it made it as a regular in stadiums it was all over.  

It's over? Ask U2, Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC, Metallica, Guns N' Roses, even fucking Bon Jovi... I think they beg to differ.

Edited by PatrickS77
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, action said:

weren't the calvinists kind of the cool guys though? they could shag birds and drink a lot, whereas the catholics (to this day) need to be all goody-good

I believe it is the other way around, the Calvinists were about hard work and no play and living modestly while the Burgundians were all about embracing life with all its pleasures. Protestants are more conservative than Catholics in that regard. Carnival is a good example, in the south it's larger than life, people live for it, while in the rest of the country they barely even celebrate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's over? Ask U2, Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC, Metallica, Guns N' Roses, even fucking Bon Jovi... I think they beg to differ.

The groups you named are perfect examples of why it was over.  The Stones I give a pass to due to personal taste but really and truly, what was left of rock n roll by the time The Stones were doing stadiums in the 80s?  it was done.  AC/DC, as good as a great many of their songs are, were like a revivalist nostalgia act.  Same with Guns, Metallica, U2 and Springsteen were just pants.  At that point it was just about corporate sponsorship and maximizing earnings as these 'artists' rapidly approached middle age and realised that they hadn't made half the money that they could have and were looking to the future about how they were gonna keep themselves in the manner to which they'd become accustomed.  And thats fine, I ain't against anyone earning a few bob.  But it ain't rock n roll, at least not in the sense of a fertile forward moving genre with some legs to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

The groups you named are perfect examples of why it was over.  The Stones I give a pass to due to personal taste but really and truly, what was left of rock n roll by the time The Stones were doing stadiums in the 80s?  it was done.  AC/DC, as good as a great many of their songs are, were like a revivalist nostalgia act.  Same with Guns, Metallica, U2 and Springsteen were just pants.  At that point it was just about corporate sponsorship and maximizing earnings as these 'artists' rapidly approached middle age and realised that they hadn't made half the money that they could have and were looking to the future about how they were gonna keep themselves in the manner to which they'd become accustomed.  And thats fine, I ain't against anyone earning a few bob.  But it ain't rock n roll, at least not in the sense of a fertile forward moving genre with some legs to it.

But those are still here, going on and going strong for the most part, so it's not over. It may only be over (after they retire), because bands tend not to get that big anymore. And there is just something magical about that stadium of 50,000 people singing the same song. A show starting in daylight, going into twilight and ending in the night. That is an atmosphere an arena or club can never match. And all 3 situations are rock n roll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

But it ain't rock n roll, at least not in the sense of a fertile forward moving genre with some legs to it.

Bands like Pearl Jam and Foo Fighters are stadium acts, what would you call them? If it's not rock n roll. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PatrickS77 said:

But those are still here, going on and going strong for the most part, so it's not over. It may only be over (after they retire), because bands tend not to get that big anymore. And there is just something magical about that stadium of 50,000 people singing the same song. A show starting in daylight, going into twilight and ending in the night. That is an atmosphere an arena or club can never match. And all 3 situations are rock n roll.

I think the rock festival was a good idea, initially.  Its kinda what the idea of stadium shows kinda grew on the back of?  But it was like a communal concern y'know, big free concerts, various stages where you could sorta wander from one to the other.  I mean its not my sort of thing but there's something to it.  But even those ended up exercises in corporate sponsorship.  And I agree there is something magical about such communal gatherings. 

And its rock n roll inasmuch as they are playing that old music, I don't mean to say that they are playing Trad Jazz, I'm just saying that, to my mind, when a genre has run its course and its no longer that thing that it used to be but rather other people doing some sort of facsimillie of something that once was, add to which the various commercialism at play, from merchandizing to sponsorship, it then, to my mind, lacks some of the essence/soul of the original thing, which was about style and subversion etc etc

3 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Bands like Pearl Jam and Foo Fighters are stadium acts, what would you call them? If it's not rock n roll. 

Dreadful? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Dreadful:lol:

Yeah, I expected that because I know you don't like them, but to me that's rock n roll and there's nothing ''corporate sponsorship and maximizing earnings'' about that. I mean, Pearl Jam spent a good deal of the 90's fighting Ticketmaster in court regarding ticket prices. I think you have a very different definition of rock n roll than most people!

Edited by EvanG
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Yeah, I expected that because I know you don't like them, but to me that's rock n roll and there's nothing ''corporate sponsorship and maximizing earnings'' about that. I mean, Pearl Jam spent a good deal of the 90's fighting Ticketmaster in court regarding ticket prices. I think you have a very different definition of rock n roll than most people!

There's a few more examples of groups that shunned the commercial aspect somewhat but then lack the musical aspect in terms of, y'know, contributing to it as a growing forward moving genre.  I don't think its arguable that rock n roll music is dead, has been for a long while now.  In fact even hip hop is kinda at where rock n roll was in the 80s when stadium rock came to prominence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

There's a few more examples of groups that shunned the commercial aspect somewhat but then lack the musical aspect in terms of, y'know, contributing to it as a growing forward moving genre.  I don't think its arguable that rock n roll music is dead, has been for a long while now.  In fact even hip hop is kinda at where rock n roll was in the 80s when stadium rock came to prominence. 

Ok, I get what you're saying, but to me a band doesn't have to evolve a genre to still be considered rock n roll. A band like the Foo Fighters have been doing pretty much the same thing since their first record and there's nothing new to their sound nor have they helped evolve the rock genre at all, but that doesn't mean that they're not rock n roll anymore... but I guess you have a different definition of the term, and that's ok too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Ok, I get what you're saying, but to me a band doesn't have to evolve a genre to still be considered rock n roll. A band like the Foo Fighters have been doing pretty much the same thing since their first record and there's nothing new to their sound nor have they helped evolve the rock genre at all, but that doesn't mean that they're not rock n roll anymore... but I guess you have a different definition of the term, and that's ok too.

Yeah, as I say, I'm not saying they don't play rock n roll music, or a 2020 take on it, I meant it in a difference sense:

Quote

And its rock n roll inasmuch as they are playing that old music, I don't mean to say that they are playing Trad Jazz, I'm just saying that, to my mind, when a genre has run its course and its no longer that thing that it used to be but rather other people doing some sort of facsimillie of something that once was, add to which the various commercialism at play, from merchandizing to sponsorship, it then, to my mind, lacks some of the essence/soul of the original thing

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...