Where has rock gone?

[Dream]

Well then, could you explain which of White's pedals or amps make him sound rubbish when he switches them out? Or how it is that he still manages to sound great when he's playing an acoustic guitar or an old piano? 'Cause you're talking like he's got an Awesome Pedal, and you sound like you're trying to sell Jack White Brand plugin settings. Like maybe a Jack White Brand Record Scratch Button?

If you're Stevie Ray Vaughn, your solos sound great cause you're frickin SRV. If you're jack white, your solos sound good, not because of your ability to play, but your ability to mess with knobs.

Maybe you'd be on to something here if he regularly sat in front of his pedal board actually playing with the knobs, Ed O'Brien style. But he doesn't. He just turns on his kit and plays the music. The music comes out great, and that's the end of it.

I mean, I'm sure he's using a Big Muff or something similar and probably a whammy pedal, but that's nothing unusual or excessive.

As I understand it he uses both those items exactly. And yeah, I don't understand this either. He really isn't an effects based player, so I can't see why anyone would object to his playing on those grounds.

[Midnight]

Ball and Biscuit is a song that doesn't suffer from effects wankery and is a song I quite like.

Or how it is that he still manages to sound great when he's playing an acoustic guitar or an old piano?

Upon further thought, I think a fundamental opinion-based disagreement here is that I don't think he sounds particularly great on an acoustic.

He really isn't an effects based player,

From this wikipedia article:
"Musical equipment and sound:
Jack White uses numerous effects to create his live sound."
...a custom Gretsch Anniversary Jr. with two cutaways, a built-in retractable microphone, and a theremin next to the Bigsby.
...In concert with an MXR Micro-Amp and custom Electro-Harmonix Big Muff Distortion/Sustainer, White can produce a very distinctive sound.
...the Polyphonic Octave Generator (POG)
He also has three Zvex Tremolo Probes, that are hand painted black.

And what about this video, aptly titled: Jack White Is A God.

Starts out with an octaver, probably the whammy pedal an octave down. Then he disengages the whammy pedal and uses a slide and a POG, a trem probe, and probably the custom distortion. Then... sounds like he's using the whammy pedal on top of all that. While the actual playing is pretty average, in my opinion.
Now, that opinion is obviously not yours, and I am willing to move past that.

I'm a fan of Tom Morello, look at the second solo @ 5:55. Not even the record scratch stuff. He's using effects, a whammy pedal and a delay, but he also playyyys awesome. The harmonics are pure gold.
I don't need to put videos of Hendrix, but he's pretty much the Cronus of the guitar pantheon--father of em all. Yes, there are very distinctive songs where uses a wah, but even on songs like Little Wing... psheeww. Guy's good.


I just think that a lot of people hear weird sounds from Jack White and go "aw he must be a god" when I don't think that's true. He sounds cool, I'll give you that, but he wouldn't AT ALL be considered godly if not for his battery of effects.

[TheAmazingRando]

I've lost a lot of interest in the White Stripes' more recent output, mainly due to his change of focus towards crazy, weird sounds. Most of Icky Thump just kind of annoys me. It's his stripped down, raw bluesy stuff that makes me appreciate him as a guitarist, and I like that he's been bringing that back with The Dead Weather. Instinct Blues is another good example of that, on an album that I otherwise didn't much care for. And it has nothing to do with the effects he's using. Maybe a lot of people respect him for stupid reasons, I don't know, but for me, it's the fact that he can take simple riffs and fill them with emotion and personality, which is really the essence of blues and something that's difficult to do convincingly.

I mean, listen to the main passages in a classic like Maggot Brain. A lot of it isn't really that difficult to play, but I would consider Eddie Hazel a guitar god for that song alone (and, taking the rest of his output into consideration, without a doubt), even just the main theme, because of the sheer amount of emotion he manages to put into his playing. An amateur could play the same notes and not get the same emotional connection, because it's the little, almost intangible things about dynamics and phrasing that take it from a mildly enjoyable jam to something mind-blowing. The guitar is a very expressive instrument, and Jack White, even if he lacks the sheer technical skill of a lot of other contemporary guitarists, seems one of the best well known contemporary examples of that sort of expressiveness.

[SirMustapha]

I've come to realise that I really don't care about whether rock has "gone" or not. There are so many other kinds of music to check out, that for me rock could just go away completely and I wouldn't mind. I get worried with backwards mentality, because it generally suggests that changes shouldn't happen. I think they should. Rock music has a massive legacy, and I can live with that. Who cares if people aren't making good rock music anymore? We've got the Stooges' Fun House already.

[Midnight]

I've come to realise that I really don't care about whether rock has "gone" or not. There are so many other kinds of music to check out, that for me rock could just go away completely and I wouldn't mind. I get worried with backwards mentality, because it generally suggests that changes shouldn't happen. I think they should. Rock music has a massive legacy, and I can live with that. Who cares if people aren't making good rock music anymore? We've got the Stooges' Fun House already.

In the end, this is correct. It's about evolution, not stagnation or stifling. All art movements have been revolutions against previous art movements, trying to break out of the boxes.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Classic/traditional rock didn't die out, it evolved into a bunch of different styles.
There's a lot of noise-rock groups that are much louder/more distorted/guitarier than anything from the 60s/70s , and the entire drone genre is basically Black Sabbath to the 10th.
Music isn't dead, it's just gone underground.

[Dream]

Music isn't dead, it's just gone underground.

No, it hasn't.

[Midnight]

Music isn't dead, it's just gone underground.

No, it hasn't.

Yeah what are you talking about? I feel like we named plenty of 'mainstream' things that are good. In fact, music that's on any sort of label at all means it has gone through some form of quality control.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Music isn't dead, it's just gone underground.

No, it hasn't.

I'm not talking about fake alternative or some nebulous "not on the charts", I mean actually underground. Observe:

Noise-rock group The Paper Chase kicking ass and taking names: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfq1Kl6PQrg
Early Modest Mouse before they were popular, being epic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MKyBBiKlQg
Experimental rock group Sleepytime Gorilla Museum successfully melding thrash metal, nihilism, and weirdness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksutNW3HFT8
Classic 70s avant-garde collective The Residents, who are still active to this day, being creepy and awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krmowThBYUk
Seminal 90s indie guitar band Slint, showing an ear for dynamics and general coolness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29MBGwzEhMc
Neo-psychedelic group MGMT, showing all-around coolness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlExzSQW9aw
Mike Patton's math-rock group Tomahawk, displaying how cool their bassist is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt856_nRxQk

None of these guys are traditionally "rock", but you can't deny that at least some of them are pretty great.
Also, there are some actually good pop/rap/R&B musicians-your mileage WILL vary, but I actually like Lady Gaga, even though I hate 99% of contemporary pop music.

[Dream]

So, you point out that you definitely, 100% don't mean "not popular or charting", but "actually underground". Then you cite for this: Tomahawk.

I'm just throwing this out there, but you have no idea what underground means. At all. In fact, showing a Tomahawk TV spot proves the opposite of your point very well, in that it's excellent music that isn't underground at all, but that tours internationally and gets TV spots with four cameras and a live studio audience. So, good music hasn't gone underground. You're wrong.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Rule of thumb: if you're on MySpace and have hundreds of bazillions of subscribers, you're not underground. I mean, feck, it's not as if the Modest Mouse backcatalogue doesn't get the occasional listen to (hence why it can be found on YouTube).

[Jesse]

Also, how the fuck are Slint even close to underground? Sure, when they released Spiderland it was an underground hit, but then it became critically acclaimed, sold over 50,000 copies and good morning, captain was even used in a film.

[theGoldenCalf;]

And also, experimental and avant-garde artists (and you've mentioned a couple) don't go underground at any specific point of time, they belong there by definition. That's the comfort zone for artists who's work will only appeal to a very specific, off-mainstream consumer and will be largely dismissed as uninteresting rubbish, at least at the time it is made. It's not like throbbing gristle, tangerine dream, amon duul and the likes were substantially popular in the good old days, and their contemporary counterparts are being pushed beneath the carpet by corporate fatcats. That's just the way things work.

[Dream]

That's the comfort zone for artists who's work will only appeal to a very specific, off-mainstream consumer and will be largely dismissed as uninteresting rubbish, at least at the time it is made. It's not like throbbing gristle, tangerine dream, amon duul and the likes were substantially popular in the good old days,

But, all three of those groups were famous in their heydays, signed to big labels and occasionally charting. Underground and "signed to Mute records" are fairly mutually exclusive, unless Mute are secretly in the habit of signing acts no-one's ever heard of and then not releasing or promoting them. Again, underground doesn't mean "anything not P. Diddy-popular". In the eighties, Throbbing Gristle were distributed in the United States and in the seventies, Tangerine Dream were distributed in the United Kingdom. That's not underground.

[theGoldenCalf;]

Maybe I didn't choose the perfect examples for that. But still, all of those groups started out as pioneering artists aimed at a certain underground crowd that goes for innovative avant-garde stuff. They were good and eventually popular enough to merit wider scale international distribution and major label contracts further along the way, and broke out of their underground status. It's not like TG thought 'well no one wants to listen to us and labels won't sign us up so we'll go record in a deserted factory and play for free to whoever comes along'. Their natural starting point was as an underground act. Things picked up from there, so basically what I was saying still holds.

This still happens today, but all examples I can think of are in Electronic music - Monolake, Boards of Canada (hugely successful), add n to (x), dev/null, Whitehouse, etc. - as I'm not very up to date with rock (Maybe animal collective? I don't know). Experimental stuff start off underground, sometimes achieving wider acclaim and success, and this is nothing new. It isn't like they're being pushed into an underground scene against their will.

[|Erasmus|]

I'm just going to post this link here: http://emusician.com/interviews/in_the_mix/in_the_mix_new_is_old/

I tend to agree with the article, but I agree too much with that man. But I think he's right.
The pop genre which is driven by producing hit singles which can slot nicely into radio countdowns and on MTV and the like (and all music that tries to go mainstream these days which copy it) might suck, but the internet means that it is so easy for anyone to record and distribute music means that there is soo much more stuff out there than at any time in history. And you are bound to like some of it.

[Midnight]

modest mouse is super fucking popular..

[sje46]

Why? Why can't there be actually decent rock nowadays?

The eighties happened.

Maybe that's not fair of me, though. I feel as though I'm locked in in one era of music. Maybe it's because I'm attracted to the romance of it, of that magical era full of optimism, experimenting, and non-seriousness that characterizes the 60s. Which isn't to say I didn't love the pessimistic and deadly serious songs of that time either. But it all fits together in one mythology that I love. In 63 the most experimental pop music you got was surf music. Seven years later you had the world's largest outdoor concert, musicians publicly annoucning LSD use (and writing songs about it), and bands like Velvet Underground and Pink Floyd making as much as a cacophony as possible and it actually sounding kinda cool. Led Zeppelin came out in 68! It was a time where pop music became an art form.

But the top ten of the late 60s weren't filled by the Stones, the Who, the Beatles, Jefferson Airplane, the Doors, etc. The billboard charts were crap. Really. http://www.chairborneranger.com/top100/top100-1969.htm

You'll probably recognize most of the top ten, and I like a lot of ten, but it's a lot more different than you'd expect. Sugar Sugar was number one? This was number ten? I actually listened to this entire list the other day, trying to find good music. Some songs I loved. Most I hated. Motown and crap. American Idol fluff.

I suspect that in 40 years, a lot of the indie bands that I haven't been paying attention to may be viewed as geniuses the same way the Stones and Pink Floyd are.

But me, personally...I just don't like modern music. Probably partly from prejudice, and partly because there seems to be a kind of emptiness to it. Which you first hear coming in through the vocoders in Mr Blue Sky and see it in the androgynous style of glam rock. Maybe rock didn't finish what it had to say, but I wasn't particularly interested in what it had to say.

Hell, I'm just pulling out some well known names from the top of my head. Also, why the fuck bring up the Beatles? They weren't rock, never even came close. In fact, they're responsible for the boy bandy shit we see plastered everywhere nowadays. Because of The Beatles we have to put up with JLS.

Not even close? Helter Skelter, I Want You (She's So Heavy), the Abbey Road medley, Back in the USSR, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Yer Blues, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey, Revolution (not 1), Dig a Pony, I Got a Feeling, One after 909, Get Back, Taxman, Tomorrow Never Knows, Sgt Peppers (and the reprise). All those were rock songs. Especially if you consider what rock was in the 60s. We didn't have death metal then, and I feel like what was considered rock in the 60s is viewed as really tame now because of how hard music became after. But 60s rock evolved from 50s rock and roll, and in 1969, Get Back may not have been the hardest song around, but it was almost definitely considered the same general genre (namely, "rock") as the Who and the Stones.

Also, because of the Beatles we have to put up with Radiohead, Nirvana, and ...wait, basically every rock band from the 70s on.

[Dream]

Also, because of the Beatles Elvis we have to put up with Radiohead, Nirvana, and ...wait, basically every rock band from the 70s on.

Also, because of the Beatles The Velvet Underground we have to put up with Radiohead, Nirvana, and ...wait, basically every rock band from the 70s on.

Also, because of the Beatles Roy Orbison we have to put up with Radiohead, Nirvana, and ...wait, basically every rock band from the 70s on.

Also, because of the Beatles Link Wray we have to put up with Radiohead, Nirvana, and ...wait, basically every rock band from the 70s on.

Also, because of the Beatles I could go on and on and on and on we have to put up with Radiohead, Nirvana, and ...wait, basically every rock band from the 70s on.

A lot of bands cite a lot of early rock bands as their most important formative influence. The Beatles were very important in terms of image and form, as well as changing the expectations of fans seeking authenticity in their music. But they're not responsible for everything you don't like about rock music. They're not that important.

[sje46]

ut they're not responsible for everything you don't like about rock music.

Huh? I'm not suggesting they were. In fact, I think that they catalyzed the best era in music.

My point basically was to point out how ridiculous it is to blame them for boy bands, because they were probably as influential to them as they were to pretty much every rock and pop group after them. Kurt Cobain, for example, was a huge Beatles fan. Elvis and VU probably were too. I'm not denying that.

But they weren't as good as the Beatles.

[ProZac]

My point basically was to point out how ridiculous it is to blame them for boy bands, because they were probably as influential to them as they were to pretty much every rock and pop group after them. Kurt Cobain, for example, was a huge Beatles fan. Elvis and VU probably were too. I'm not denying that.

But they weren't as good as the Beatles.

I think you might need to check your timeline there if you're trying to say Elvis was influenced by The Beatles when he started up. He was already well established when The Beatles were just getting started. If I misread that, then ignore me.

[SirMustapha]

Kurt Cobain, for example, was a huge Beatles fan. Elvis and VU probably were [huge Beatles fans] too. I'm not denying that.

I think you might need to check your timeline there if you're trying to say Elvis was influenced by The Beatles when he started up.

Tiny difference there.

[sje46]

My point basically was to point out how ridiculous it is to blame them for boy bands, because they were probably as influential to them as they were to pretty much every rock and pop group after them. Kurt Cobain, for example, was a huge Beatles fan. Elvis and VU probably were too. I'm not denying that.

But they weren't as good as the Beatles.

I think you might need to check your timeline there if you're trying to say Elvis was influenced by The Beatles when he started up. He was already well established when The Beatles were just getting started. If I misread that, then ignore me.

Yeah, I know. Elvis started in the 50s, Beatles in the 60s. I misspoke...I meant that the Beatles inspired and influenced a bunch of bands...as did Elvis and the Velvet Underground.

[Zanmanoodle]

The Beatles influenced almost EVERYBODY, from crappy boy bands to some of the best rock bands in the history of music.

[sje46]

The Beatles influenced almost EVERYBODY, from crappy boy bands to some of the best rock bands in the history of music.

All I was saying.

[Jesse]

The Beatles influenced almost EVERYBODY, from crappy boy bands to some of the best rock bands in the history of music.

They're not that important.

[Midnight]

The Beatles influenced almost EVERYBODY, from crappy boy bands to some of the best rock bands in the history of music.

They're not that important.

Well, dream says they're not important in regards to "everything you hate about rock music."
They're still (probably) the most important band in popular (and unpopular) music today.

[Jesse]

I still completely disagree. I think they get treated like if they hadn't happened music would never have become anything like it is today and that's rubbish, there's been plenty of influential bands along the way and if it wasn't the Beatles then someone else would have done it. I'm fine with people liking them, but every discussion of them seems to end up with tongues in their arses about how they were some kind of musical visionary gods and I hate it to the point where I can no longer enjoy their music.

[Dream]

It's exactly the kind of narrowmindedness that I was so pissed about at the start of this thread. Just because the Beatles are important for the kind of music one person likes, doesn't mean they're important full stop. What I mean is:

They're still (probably) the most important band in popular (and unpopular) music today.

That's your definition of popular music. Not mine. For instance, if you're including electronic and hip hop in your definition of popular music (and you're clearly not), Kraftwerk are more influential and important that The Beatles, and arguably are actually unreplaceable in the canon, unlike the Beatles. For other inclusions, like funk or disco, James Brown or Giorgio Moroder are more important than the Beatles. These are areas where the Beatles simply didn't register at all, or if they did, it was as just another rock band.

Popular music is not synonymous with traditionally formatted rock bands playing rock music to rock audiences.

[sje46]

I still completely disagree. I think they get treated like if they hadn't happened music would never have become anything like it is today and that's rubbish, there's been plenty of influential bands along the way and if it wasn't the Beatles then someone else would have done it. I'm fine with people liking them, but every discussion of them seems to end up with tongues in their arses about how they were some kind of musical visionary gods and I hate it to the point where I can no longer enjoy their music.

If Einstein hadn't invented the Theory of Special Relativity, someone else, eventually, would have. Doesn't make Einstein any less of a genius, or any less praiseworthy.

[Jesse]

But this is exactly like people sticking their tongue up Einstein's arse without any mention of the physicists before and after him. Like without him there wouldn't be physics.

[sje46]

But this is exactly like people sticking their tongue up Einstein's arse without any mention of the physicists before and after him. Like without him there wouldn't be physics.

Except no one does that. This is a strawman. I have never met anyone think that Einstein invented Physics. They may think that he was the most influential physicist (which he very well may be, I don't know), but that's an opinion.

Just because someone thinks that the Beatles are the most influential band doesn't mean they're denying that any other bands were influential too. It just seems like you hate them because everyone else loves them, and you don't. Oh, and because some bands suck, the band that inspired them sucks too. Yeah.

[Midnight]

It's exactly the kind of narrowmindedness that I was so pissed about at the start of this thread. Just because the Beatles are important for the kind of music one person likes, doesn't mean they're important full stop. What I mean is:

They're still (probably) the most important band in popular (and unpopular) music today.

That's your definition of popular music. Not mine. For instance, if you're including electronic and hip hop in your definition of popular music (and you're clearly not), Kraftwerk are more influential and important that The Beatles, and arguably are actually unreplaceable in the canon, unlike the Beatles. For other inclusions, like funk or disco, James Brown or Giorgio Moroder are more important than the Beatles. These are areas where the Beatles simply didn't register at all, or if they did, it was as just another rock band.

Popular music is not synonymous with traditionally formatted rock bands playing rock music to rock audiences.

First, okay. Any rock band or poppy group, if that satisfies you. I mean popular music in the sense of 'pop' not in the "you like thrash metal? you like metallica" (or, for that matter "you like electronic music? you like kraftwerk" sense. If you want to go across ALL genres of 'popular' music, nobody's influential except maybe Bach for the whole 12-tone scale thing.
Secondly, I will bet you that if you get a random sample of like, ten thousand bands, famous and not, more will list the beatles as an influence than kraftwerk (unless there's a disproportionately high percentage of electronic groups compared to others, I suppose). I have a feeling that if you pull a thousand names at random from itunes or allmusic, the beatles will pop up more than anyone else.

here's been plenty of influential bands along the way and if it wasn't the Beatles then someone else would have done it.

By that logic, any contribution to music any band made could have been done by someone else. They're no less of geniuses for what they did. Fact is, calculus would still exist without Newton, but that doesn't mean he wasn't stupendously brilliant for figuring it out.

Guys, look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatle ... ar_culture That's a ~7000 word article, minus all the headers and stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... he_Beatles this article is friggin alphabetized cause it's so goddamn huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk% ... ar_culture "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" Oh. In fact, if you wikipedia "influence on popular culture" that beatles article comes up first. and then the beatles themselves come up fourth--in front of egypt, the vietnam war, clint eastwood, and popular culture itself. If you wikipedia the term "popular culture" the beatles are like, #21, and then next musician is composer Edvard Greig at #95 or so, and right by kangaroo emblems and lucifer.
The beatles have sold more albums in America than anyone else. Their songs have been #1 on the charts more than any other band. They are, by the numbers, the most popular band of all time--and the more people that hear you, the more people are influenced by you. Creating music is a synthesis of all the music you've heard; that's why you can get computers to create Bach chorales just by listening to a lot of Bach chorales. The most-heard band is going to have the widest-spread influence.

[Pez Dispens3r]

It just seems like you hate them because everyone else loves them, and you don't.

Speaking of strawmen...

The popularity and influence of The Beatles is, of course, undeniable. But you, sje, implied that without their musical stylings we could not, today, enjoy Nirvana or Radiohead. The Beatles emerged at a time when recent technological, cultural, and economic shifts allowed for such a superband to exist: recordings were replacing live performance as the dominant means of enjoying music, microphones and electronic instruments were becoming sophisticated enough to allow 'rock' to exist, and teenagers and youths were being granted unprecedented access to expendable income, significantly changing the market for the music industry. The Beatles were positioned in exactly the right position to capitalize on this situation, and three of them were skilled artists, but the dynamic music industry of today did not hinge on their success. Radiohead, Nirvana, et al. were talented, had other influences which were just as significant, and capitalized on similar timings to be propelled to success. Over-stating their dependence on The Beatles is arrogant stupidity.

[Dream]

(unless there's a disproportionately high percentage of electronic groups compared to others, I suppose).

Which there probably would be if you sampled in Detroit or Berlin or Bristol. Your assumption that there is something "normal" about being an "x" piece rock band with guitar-bass-drums lineup, and that if lineups other than that show up it's "disproportionate" is a problem.

Guys, look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatle ... ar_culture That's a ~7000 word article, minus all the headers and stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ar ... he_Beatles this article is friggin alphabetized cause it's so goddamn huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk% ... ar_culture "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" Oh.

This as a perfect example of what Jesse is pissed about. The Beatles are influential, but they are one among many very influential artists. They get several articles detailing their influenced artists, and no one else does. Why is that? Because so many people lose their shit the moment the Beatles are mentioned, and talk them up far beyond their worth, which should be high enough to satisfy anyone without inflation.

[Midnight]

One: You're narrowing it down to geographical biases which favor your argument. My argument is across the board, from allmusic or the itunes store or some other database with a ton of genres from a ton of locations.

Two: If everyone loses their shit about them, isn't that like a fuckin' huge signal pointing out how popular they are?
There ARE plenty of influential artists. Nearly every artist, in their way, is influential. There are artists that are wayy more influential on certain genres than the beatles are (kraftwerk being our working example for electro. slayer being the big'un for thrash metal. Yes for prog rock, etc) I'm not saying other artists aren't important. I'm just trinna point out that the beatles top the list of MOST influential bands across all genres, and I find any argument that says they aren't influential in the whole world-o-music is laughable.

[Jesse]

No-one has said the Beatles aren't influential, in fact when they were first brought up I simply made a joke about them being responsible for JLS. Y'know, 'cause it's funny. My complaint has never been that they're popular, or influential. It's that people lose their shit over them like they're the Messiah of Music and nobody else ever fucking mattered. In fact, Pez covered it so well, that I really don't feel the need to discuss this anymore. If you aren't going to listen then there really isn't any point.

[Dream]

One: You're narrowing it down to geographical biases which favor your argument. My argument is across the board, from allmusic or the itunes store or some other database with a ton of genres from a ton of locations.

Perhaps you've never been in a city before? Kids aren't body-popping to Oasis. Thousands don't gather in some disused warehouse to dance all night to Coldplay. "Across the board" indie rock is faaaaaar from the biggest music scene, as long as you're prepared to look beyond your own arena. You seem bafflingly resistant to the idea that other music than mainstream rock is massively popular. I was once in a crowd that broke down a fire exit to get into a Chemical Brothers gig at a festival, because Orbital ran over so no-one got from one to the other in time to get in. On the main stage just then? The fucking Cure. I don't think too many people in that crowd were worrying about missing Robert Smith. (Except me, I wish I'd gone there instead.)

Two: If everyone loses their shit about them, isn't that like a fuckin' huge signal pointing out how popular they are?

No, it isn't.

[SecondTalon]

50 million screaming fans are never wrong? 50 million people are fucking morons.

Also, for the record, if I've heard of them, they're not underground. Now, I'm not saying that I've heard of every single band that doesn't qualify as being Underground. I'm also not saying that every band I know isn't underground. I'm sure I know quite a few underground bands, but I sure as hell wouldn't mention them here since you'd.. basically need to be in the Kentucky area to be aware they exist or see them or hear them play, so for the great majority of you, they're irrelevant.

But what I am saying is that if a group has made it big enough to ping on my radar - they're not underground.

[Midnight]

"Across the board" indie rock is faaaaaar from the biggest music scene,

Y'know, I realize I said they were really influential with indie rock at the very start of this thread, but now I'm looking for the place where I equated 'across the board, like a random sample from itunes or allmusic' with 'across the board--you know, interpol, death cab for cutie, MGMT...'

I understand that you, jesse, are saying they aren't the only thing that matters in music. That's definitely true. But I get irritated when people get so put off by hype that they think no hype is deserved at all. I don't agree (and am bothered) when people say OK Computer was the best album of all time. I don't think it's worth the massive hype, but it's worth some, cause it's a damn good album. The beatles aren't the alpha and omega of popular music but they were fucking important.


My point can be summed up like this: The Chemical Brothers? "Setting Sun" is "Tomorrow Never Knows". It's practically a cover. They've influenced groups outside their own genre pretty significantly. DJ Toast said, as another example: “In fairness The Beatles did pioneer studio techniques without which hip hop wouldn’t have been possible, in terms of sampling and looping.” etc etc. They were important musically (not as much as bach and his well-tempered clavier), lyrically (not as much as Dylan and his politically charged masterpieces), and were one of the most groundbreaking when it came to recording technology (not like Les Paul and his invention of multitracked recording, among other things), they did a lot of genre-crossing stuff (but not genre-creating the way Black Sabbath did), but even though they weren't the MOST important in any one of those things, being up there on all of those lists is durned astounding, and they're worthy of much of their praise.

but who cares about underground bands like the beatles anyways.