serial Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 1979 was the best year for music. Period.The 80s had some remarkably BAD music-especially the shi+ that charted. Agreed that thd 90s and 00s aren't much better, but Billboard charts aren't really an indicator of good music.
GusS Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 How old were you in 79?It was an amazing year for music. 154, the b-52s, singles going steady, entertainment! etc are some of my all time favorites.But how does any year compete against Revolver, Pet Sounds, Blonde on Blonde, Aftermath (UK version is my favorite stones record), Freak Out!, Black Monk Time and the Psychedelic Sounds Of The 13th Floor Elevators? Ridiculous year
tombo Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I'm not connecting with the cynicism here. Dave Grohl rocks...period. I didn't like the last FF album as much as previous ones, but the songs I liked, I really liked. His speech rang true, and like Brooks alluded to: Anybody that wears a Slayer T-shirt at the Grammys gets automatic cred in my book (and I hate Slayer...now, an Iron Maiden t-shirt would have made it even better).Here's the real story though. Bruce Springsteen, Joe Walsh, Dave Grohl, Rusty Anderson, and Brian Ray on stage JAMMING WITH PAUL MCCARTNEY?!?!?!?!?! Did you see the look on Springsteen and Walsh's faces? These guys have more than their share of "cred" and they looked like kids at a Beatles concert. Dave Grohl was having a blast and I can bet that this had to be up there with one of his greatest life moments ever. C'mon...jamming on stage in front of a gajillion people WITH PAUL MCCARTNEY?!?!?!?!? BTW: Rusty Anderson kicks ass and Brian Ray does too (look him up, he was hired to play both guitar and bass for Paul). Lastly, kudos to Abe Laboriel Jr. Cool tribute to Ringo, and one of the best drummers around.http://youtu.be/JhR4zDOa8Zc
hamerhead Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Did you see the look on Springsteen and Walsh's faces? Didn't watch the show, but saw the video. Those guys are loving every minute. That's awesome.
RichRS6 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Well, duh. No matter who ya are or what century you're in, the music made when you were 18 was the best, your parents' music was boring, and your kids' music is noise.LOL. Spot on !
BadgerDave Posted February 16, 2012 Author Posted February 16, 2012 I think I've heard about three Foo Fighters songs and thought they were all solid, well written and produced. I'll argue with anyone that Nirvana was one of the most important bands of their era and had a major impact on the direction of popular music. For me, that's sufficient "cred" to take Dave Grohl seriously. After all, he's just an an entertainer.I think a few are reading way more into his comments than he intended. I interpreted his statements as a direct and (personally) much appreciated "ENOUGH!" to the Disney employees and American Idol producers who are eliminating every drop of spirit, soul. and talent from widely distributed popular music. Any record exec's niece or nephew can have a hit record with ass implants and autotune.Give me Dave Grohl singing into a $50K Neuman and ProTools any day. As long as I don't have to hear that mechanical Autotune glissando.You know who has cred? Niel Young, Hank III, Steve McQueen and MC Chris.
jwhitcomb3 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 As far as favorite years for music, I'd have trouble deciding between 1972 and 1973 (I was 9 and 10). It's not so much that the music was particularly enduring, it was that you could turn on the radio and hear ANYTHING...all on one station. Rock (progressive, hard rock, pop rock, power pop, etc.), soul, folk, funk, country, blues, jazz fusion, novelty...it was wide open. DJs could spin what they liked, and rock hadn't divided itself into camps. Nobody freaked out if an album was all over the place. Instramentals were hit singles. Foreign language songs were hit singles. Heck, the Lord's Prayer was even a hit song! Some of it was great, and some of it sucked, but it certainly wasn't pigeonholed the way it is today. Musicians could be ugly, awkward, from any walk of life, young, old, and it would still get played. Some of the lyrics from that period are so crazy and goofy and gloriously dumb, and it didn't seem to matter.
sonic1974 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Well, duh. No matter who ya are or what century you're in, the music made when you were 18 was the best, your parents' music was boring, and your kids' music is noise.LOL. Spot on !Totally agree with this.
Mindseyes Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 This is gonna be my favorite year for music because after the Dr releases me from my back surgery Im gonna get in the van and go play my ass off for anyone who will listen, and thats what makes for great music to me!Cred is a funny term, why does someone need it to make music?
jwhitcomb3 Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Cred is a funny term, why does someone need it to make music?Nobody needs it to make music. Some think musicians need to have it before they will listen. Some think the whole notion is silly.
sirDaniel Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 stupid as this sounds, Grohl reminds me of me...or at least me younger.My daughter and I went to see the last Foo tour and it was a total moment for both of us. I'm a fanboi.
FrankieIII Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 ....And as for that other band called Nirvana that he was in.... Even a bigger YAWN!!! Never got that and never will. "Nevermind" was a very appropriate name for that album because I never did...
cmatthes Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 "Cred" is what people who need to feel self-important about being a musician/music fan require in their idols. Of course, by the simple virtue of the fact that these people idolize other musicians/entertainers kind of reduces their "cred", but that's another story.It's just anti-hype.People need to move on - everybody has an opinion as to what is good music, who is a good/great musician, and what is cool. Guess what? Everybody is right...to themselves only.Listen to what you like, dig who you dig, and stop trying to convince everybody else that your opinion should be theirs.It shouldn't - you don't determine what's cool.Don't like it? Listen to the shit that moves you and avoid the other stuff.I personally liked Grohl's comment and took it for what it was/is. I appreciate people who cultivate their unique individual talents, and who do it with musical/compositional talent, not like the computer-generated video game-style fake out Autotune BS. That's MY opinion. Doesn't make the stuff I don't like bad just because I think it sucks.
zenmindbeginner Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 First of all, CMatthes posted something that I didn't get to read while I was composing my post. My post isn't by any means a response to his, in fact, it is quite parallel.Credibility is realArtistry is real.Credibility and artistry are ideals, you strive for these.It's akin to the quest to achieve quality.Some people have a problem with even the conception of these ideas and are better at other things. Nobody can be good at everything.There is also a great deal of perceptional differences between many people in this thread.Some perceive Grohl as being genuine and others do not.Many factors can make a person not "get" Grohl, Nirvana and grunge music in general.Many people do not "get" jazz or classical music and most do not "get" anything that is avante garde.What if I were to play Schoenberg, Cage or Ornette Coleman for many of you? Most would hate it but I can genuinely attest to their value and quality as musical and artistic forms. There is no logical academic argument that Ornette Coleman and Arnold Schoenberg do not have the highest level of musical and artistic credibility as well. Most of you would still not "get it".It's called musical appreciation... give it a try folks, you'll thank me later.
SteveB Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I've come to the conclusion that sometimes we just admire musicians and musicianship more than music. Hazard of being a musician. I posted a bit of a rant at TGP about that, but basically we might find a lot of music more enjoyable if we'd quit measuring it up to some artificial standard we think all music should hold up to. We let our brains get in the way sometimes, and that includes worrying about if Dave Grohl has "cred" before you decide if his music is enjoyable to you or not.
earachemyeye Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Personally I think everyone here on this board that I've had the chance to rock out with has more cred than Grohl. Why? Don't even have to answer that. Moving on.
Mindseyes Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I've come to the conclusion that sometimes we just admire musicians and musicianship more than music. Hazard of being a musician. I posted a bit of a rant at TGP about that, but basically we might find a lot of music more enjoyable if we'd quit measuring it up to some artificial standard we think all music should hold up to. We let our brains get in the way sometimes, and that includes worrying about if Dave Grohl has "cred" before you decide if his music is enjoyable to you or not.THIS^^^^^^^^^^^Thanks Steve for putting to words what couldn't
MCChris Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 The "microphone/tape machine" statement aside, for me it boils down to Grohl lambasting the state of music today, and in the same speech not forgetting to thank Sony/BMG, an entity that's largely responsible for it. It's not unlike Michael Moore making a movie about how evil Nike is, yet constantly appearing in U of M or Michigan State garb, schools whose athletic programs are sponsored/funded by huge shoe companies. I can't decide if it's subtle hypocrisy or simple cluelessness.
Cary Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 My daughter and I went to see the last Foo tour and it was a total moment for both of us. Jesus, don't tell MCChris - He'll go apeshit I really like Foo Fighters (so does my 12 year old son). I think they're one of the best bands out there. Nirvana on the other hand, sucked, IMHO. Liked Teen Spirit; but the rest of their stuff bordered on unlistenable. I keep telling myself I should give Nirvana another chance, maybe I missed some deep, hidden meaning, but I fear it will turn out much the same as when I gave "Van Halen III" another chance. That is, badly. Very badly. Like maybe that 45 minutes would have been better spent getting that prostate exam my doctor has been trying to talk me into. As for cred, Dave Grohl has more than a lot of "artists" out there. Bruce Springsteen, for example - another billionaire running around acting like he's the reincarnation of Arlo Gutherie; that he "understands" the trials of the working man because, hey, just last week he ran out of the good caviar and when he went to run and get some more he couldn't find the keys to the Bentley and had to take his Mercedes. Doesn't mean I don't occasionally listen to Thunder Road or No Surrender, just means I don't have any misguided illusions that it's anything other than good rock and roll. And that's OKAY. It's not about "cred", unless you're maybe trying to gain some "cred" yourself, by listening to the "right" music. Like Chris astutely pointed out, listen to what you like and who gives a shit what others think? (That said, I loved "Jump", and I'm really digging "Tattoo" - so fuck y'all )
MCChris Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Grohl clarifies:"Oh, what a night we had last Sunday at the 54th Annual Grammy Awards. The glitz! The Glamour! SEACREST! Where do I begin?? Chillin' with Lil' Wayne...meeting Cyndi Lauper's adorable mother...the complimentary blinking Coldplay bracelet.....much too much to recap. It's really is still a bit of a blur. But, if there's one thing that I remember VERY clearly, it was accepting the Grammy for Best Rock Performance...and then saying this:"To me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of music is what's important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning to do your craft, that's the most important thing for people to do... It's not about being perfect, it's not about sounding absolutely correct, it's not about what goes on in a computer. It's about what goes on in here [your heart] and what goes on in here [your head]."Not the Gettysburg Address, but hey......I'm a drummer, remember?Well, me and my big mouth. Never has a 33 second acceptance rant evoked such caps-lock postboard rage as my lil' ode to analog recording has. OK....maybe Kanye has me on this one, but....Imma let you finish....just wanted to clarify something...I love music. I love ALL kinds of music. From Kyuss to Kraftwerk, Pinetop Perkins to Prodigy, Dead Kennedys to Deadmau5.....I love music. Electronic or acoustic, it doesn't matter to me. The simple act of creating music is a beautiful gift that ALL human beings are blessed with. And the diversity of one musician's personality to the next is what makes music so exciting and.....human. That's exactly what I was referring to. The "human element". That thing that happens when a song speeds up slightly, or a vocal goes a little sharp. That thing that makes people sound like PEOPLE. Somewhere along the line those things became "bad" things, and with the great advances in digital recording technology over the years they became easily "fixed". The end result? I my humble opinion.....a lot of music that sounds perfect, but lacks personality. The one thing that makes music so exciting in the first place.And, unfortunately, some of these great advances have taken the focus off of the actual craft of performance. Look, I am not Yngwie Malmsteen. I am not John Bonham. Hell...I'm not even Josh Groban, for that matter. But I try really fucking hard so that I don't have to rely on anything but my hands and my heart to play a song. I do the best that I possibly can within my limitations, and accept that it sounds like me. Because that's what I think is most important. It should be real, right? Everybody wants something real.I don't know how to do what Skrillex does (though I fucking love it) but I do know that the reason he is so loved is because he sounds like Skrillex, and that's badass. We have a different process and a different set of tools, but the "craft" is equally as important, I'm sure. I mean.....if it were that easy, anyone could do it, right? (See what I did there?)So, don't give me two Crown Royals and then ask me to make a speech at your wedding, because I might just bust into the advantages of recording to 2 inch tape. Now, I think I have to go scream at some kids to get off my lawn. Stay frosty. Davemau5"
earachemyeye Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Whew, thought I was gonna have to hate him for the rest of my life. Glad that's over. Now.. what are those f'ing kids doing on MY lawn. Ma ma ma ma moooving on.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.