Originally Posted by greedrex

WM and ATL sounded pretty avant garde to me.

Fair enough

Some songs on ATL, yes. On occasions they did. Overall they did not.

[ni'k]

i edited the first post before i saw yr post by the way.

i don't think any of their 90's records were great. i think there are some superficially cool moves, but only in the form of a delve into their newly contextualised past influences.

[gmku]

Extravaganza stadium shows featuring a gigantic inflatable cock that rises from the stage floor.

[ni'k]

neither of those records say anything new. all sy have is history, they will never say anything new again

Originally Posted by ni'k

i edited the first post before i saw yr post by the way.

i don't think any of their 90's records were great. i think there are some superficially cool moves, but only in the form of a delve into their newly contextualised past influences.

I think that in their 90's etc incarnation they made a point that they are a rock band more than anything (some interviews would prove this etc). Ever since I've bought 'Goo' for the first time I've been reminded of other bands, as well as Sonic Youth themselves. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's a cool thing.

Originally Posted by gmku

Extravaganza stadium shows featuring a gigantic inflatable cock that rises from the stage floor.

????

I will accept that rock music's aggression has gone for many years, though. Its cultural relevance has been relevant for as long as it was ok to feel of it as relevant. Since most music's importance is only relative, rather than imposed by itself, it's only natural that it suffers the down's more than the up's.

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

I will accept that rock music's aggression has gone for many years, though. Its cultural relevance has been relevant for as long as it was ok to feel of it as relevant. Since most music's importance is only relative, rather than imposed by itself, it's only natural that it suffers the down's more than the up's.

its relevance has been relevant for as long as it was ok to feel it was relevant?

maybe the truth is that it isn't relevant now. at least not for guys like you or me. but we desperately want it to be out of nostalgia and a near lifelong emotional investment that we still havent got the full payoff from (and never will).

i hate the fact i still read this fucking board so much and waste so much time sitting eating smoking listening to music and barely being able to notice it then chided myself for not paying enough attention. it just feels like bad junk that makes me stupid most of the time. i know there is so much more better stuff i should be doing and reading and that music seems to just keep me in my place most of the time.

[gmku]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

????

OK, how can you critique the present state of music if you don't even know its past? A central part of the Rolling Stones' Tour of the Americas show in 1975 was the erection during certain numbers like Starfucker of a gigantic cock on the stage. Mick Jagger sometime rode it.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by wellcharge

i'm completely bored of rocking out, rock based music has by far the widest shit to good ratio. i think it's probably about 10000000 shit to 10 good

maybe you should try a different kind of "rock based music"

might I recommend

 

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by gmku

OK, how can you critique the present state of music if you don't even know its past? A central part of the Rolling Stones' Tour of the Americas show in 1975 was the erection during certain numbers like Starfucker of a gigantic cock on the stage. Mick Jagger sometime rode it.

yeah that's definitely a necessary piece of knowledge for any critique of rock music.

[gmku]

I would think so. Fucking elitists.

[ni'k]

its hardly elitist to think the rolling stones are shit.

haha

[gmku]

You poor kids, you're very smart. But you have no soul. Or sense of humor.

[ni'k]

the rolling stones are the proof that there is no soul left in rock music.

[gmku]

Well, the Rolling Stones are no longer a band, and haven't been since 1975 or so, so what are you talking about?

[ni'k]

no longer a band? do they not still tour and make albums?

[gmku]

No. Not the same band. As is pretty common with critics of the band, you're equating the current configuration with what they were in the past. Just because some old farts don't know when to give up the ghost doesn't mean that they were not great in their day.

My point about the cock on stage is that a lot of playfulness and creativity seems to have disappeared from what I hear in today's music. It's become Sooooo intellectual and precious that it's no longer rock and roll. I guess if you don't like rock and roll, that's a different story, then, but for God's sake, why does it all have to be so serious.