Just General non band specific Music Chat Thread !

[Elite]

There is nothing new in the blues and playing minor pentatonic licks over a 60bpm 6/8 twelve-bar-shuffle is about the most tedious music there is.

imo of course.

The first part of your post (‘there is nothing new in blues’) probably isn’t exactly true, but the second half definitely doesn’t follow up on the first part. That would be tedious for sure, but that’s not what blues is.

[ReaperKK]

Yea, SRV is a league of his own. I am jelly of Bill for being able to see him, since even though I'm also not a huge of that solo for 10 hours over the same riff, SRV seems like he would've been amazing to see in person.

Here's the thing:  I'm not a fan AT ALL of that solo for 10 hours either. That's the beauty of SRV; he was so solid, and so completely blurred the lines between "lead" and "rhythm" that it was sort of apples and oranges.

In addition to everything you just said, I'd like to add that SRV is a criminally underated vocalist (IMO)—one of my favorite tracks by him is "Life by the Drop," which is an acoustic number that doesn't feature a single second of electric 'shreddin.'  He just nails the vocal on that song, and given the subject matter, you can feel the emotion in his voice.

That is one of my favorite SRV songs.

[hefdaddy42]

I like people who can play.  I don't care which tradition they play in, whether it's the blues, traditional rock, metal, bluegrass, country, prog, jazz, whatever.  A good player is a good player.

I get not preferring a particular genre, of course; people have different tastes.  But a great player is a great player, in any genre.

I also think it's a mistake to think of the rhythm section in a blues band, or a band backing up a vocalist, as being subpar musicians.  Those guys don't get those gigs without being good players, regardless of whether you see it in that setting or not.  And they do it because they are professional musicians, and it's a gig that pays.  It's not that hard to figure out.

[Kotowboy]

Speaking of Neil Peart...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNMXBo__SpU 

[Stadler]

I like people who can play.  I don't care which tradition they play in, whether it's the blues, traditional rock, metal, bluegrass, country, prog, jazz, whatever.  A good player is a good player.

I get not preferring a particular genre, of course; people have different tastes.  But a great player is a great player, in any genre.

I also think it's a mistake to think of the rhythm section in a blues band, or a band backing up a vocalist, as being subpar musicians.  Those guys don't get those gigs without being good players, regardless of whether you see it in that setting or not.  And they do it because they are professional musicians, and it's a gig that pays.  It's not that hard to figure out.

I never got the sense that Tommy Shannon and Chris Layton (Double Trouble) were there for the paycheck.  They were there to support and promote Stevie, and they were able to go wherever Stevie wanted to go on a particular night or on a particular song. 

[hefdaddy42]

I like people who can play.  I don't care which tradition they play in, whether it's the blues, traditional rock, metal, bluegrass, country, prog, jazz, whatever.  A good player is a good player.

I get not preferring a particular genre, of course; people have different tastes.  But a great player is a great player, in any genre.

I also think it's a mistake to think of the rhythm section in a blues band, or a band backing up a vocalist, as being subpar musicians.  Those guys don't get those gigs without being good players, regardless of whether you see it in that setting or not.  And they do it because they are professional musicians, and it's a gig that pays.  It's not that hard to figure out.

I never got the sense that Tommy Shannon and Chris Layton (Double Trouble) were there for the paycheck.  They were there to support and promote Stevie, and they were able to go wherever Stevie wanted to go on a particular night or on a particular song.

I didn't mean to imply that Shannon or Layton were just punching a clock.  Double Trouble was a really good band in support of SRV; they were the right guys for the right guy, so to speak.

But if they WERE just punching a clock, that would be fine also, since they are professional musicians.

[Kotowboy]

Do you ever wonder why those bands exist where they've given themselves a name that 100% GUARANTEES they'll never be successful and will find it hard to find gigs?

Like - you spend years learning your instrument - you decide to start a band - you find 3 or 4 other guys in your area. You find a rehearsal space and jam once a week or

whatever - and you have to pay to hire it. You slowly build up a set of maybe 8 songs and 2 covers for a gig - then you name the band something like

" SHITCUNTS " and find it almost impossible to get bookings . Is it just for notoriety ? You spend all that time and money and guarantee you'll never get it back ?

Is it just for shiz and goggles and you've zero intention of getting a following or gigs and it's just something to do at weekends ?

[Stadler]

I've actually thought about that as well.  There's a really fine line between that - Anal C*** always comes to mind here - and something that is SO targeted and commercial that you almost don't have credibility right out of the gate (can't think of one at the moment). 


There's something to be said about certain bands that, in their infancy (let's forget for a second where they ended up) that were so earnest and naked and raw in their desire to connect with their audience that you could literally feel it. You could FEEL you were a part of something special in the moment.   U2 comes to mind, as does Springsteen, Kiss, Twisted Sister (who probably skirted the line that I mentioned above the most).   I'm only naming bands that had a sort of cult-ish following up here in the Northeast (there are probably others where you live).   But each of those bands had legendary shows/tours in this area that, today, you have 10,000 people claiming to have been in that 750 seat club for the show.    Springsteen at the Stone Pony, Kiss at the Diplomat (or at Coventry), Twisted out on Long Island, U2 at the show in Boston that was broadcast on the radio...

[DoctorAction]

The chances of getting much of a following as a band are really low. If you have a really offensive name are the chances of getting a cult following better than the standard chances of recognition? Dunno. Interesting question.

Harking back to a previous point on here, I watched the Earth Shot Awards on TV and Ed Sheeran did a number. Fantastic live vocal performance. Really professional.

[DTA]

I don't know why but I'm obsessed with this live performance of Cyndi Lauper's Time After Time from 1984.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G7SEL4zwy8&ab_channel=GeorgeJetson

I'm a huge 80's pop fan and this just hits everything cheesy and ridiculous I love about that era. The guitarist on this was also on Alice Cooper's Trash album. I'm jealous of anyone who was a teen/adult in the early 80's.

[Kotowboy]

That reminds me of those 80s tracks where they've obviously just made a backing track and it's x:xx length.

Then someone like Cyndi has to come in and just sing over it - but all the lyrics are done so they just vamp at the end for ages 

" Yeah...Girls...We wanna...yeah...Have Fun....Yeah....Fun....Fun...yeah ... *checks watch*...just wanna just wanns just wanna "

 

[Stadler]

I don't know why but I'm obsessed with this live performance of Cyndi Lauper's Time After Time from 1984.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G7SEL4zwy8&ab_channel=GeorgeJetson

I'm a huge 80's pop fan and this just hits everything cheesy and ridiculous I love about that era. The guitarist on this was also on Alice Cooper's Trash album. I'm jealous of anyone who was a teen/adult in the early 80's.

Yo!   

I'd love others to comment, but it was a weird time. A lot of what happened then was absolutely ridiculous, but it made perfect sense as well, all at the same time. 

[Kwyjibo]

I hold the 80s in high regard, because I spent all my teenage years in the 80s  and the roots for my musical journey were planted there, among many other things.

A lot of what happened then was absolutely ridiculous, but it made perfect sense as well, all at the same time. 

Yes, although there was also a lot of ridiculousness that didn't make sense.

[Elite]

That reminds me of those 80s tracks where they've obviously just made a backing track and it's x:xx length.

Then someone like Cyndi has to come in and just sing over it - but all the lyrics are done so they just vamp at the end for ages 

" Yeah...Girls...We wanna...yeah...Have Fun....Yeah....Fun....Fun...yeah ... *checks watch*...just wanna just wanns just wanna "

 

That's a pretty bad example, since 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun' is actually a cover song. Bet you didn't know that!

[LithoJazzoSphere]

For way longer than I'm willing to admit I thought that "Venus" was a Bananarama original, one of my favorite 80s groups.  But then I found out that the tradition of Dutch sirens went back even further than I realized.  Now I have two different approaches to the song. 

I'm a 90s kid, and it seemed in high school that most 80s music was really passe by then, but I always enjoyed many elements of it.  Did and still like a lot of the guitar solos, the ubiquitous saxophone, the gated snares, and some of the keyboard sounds.  Some of them didn't date well, but a lot of modern synthwave manages to select the sorts of sounds that still work well while evoking nostalgia for a period when some of us weren't alive, or were, but were too young to appreciate it. 

[DoctorAction]

I got into music in the 80s. The first album buy a band I ever bought was the first Go West album.

I still love the period and look for its influence in music all the time. I think it was a fantastic time for music. There was drama and sincerity in the pop. The brash keyboards. The exuberance. Synth-based stuff exploded. Hard rock. Metal, thrash metal. Rap (not a big fan but, you know).

We laugh at the clothes and hair now but there a real DIY vibe about that. Folk were making or modifying their outfits. They weren't just trying to impress by wearing expensive slick labels.

Discovering Chvrches and The Night Flight Orchestra about 5 years ago amplified my love of the era even more. And finding that Survivor album I gushed over in the soft rock thread was like someone giving me something tailor made for me from a time machine.

I really don't love everything from it but it's my favourite era by far. Everything since has been duller and less colourful.

[Kotowboy]

That reminds me of those 80s tracks where they've obviously just made a backing track and it's x:xx length.

Then someone like Cyndi has to come in and just sing over it - but all the lyrics are done so they just vamp at the end for ages 

" Yeah...Girls...We wanna...yeah...Have Fun....Yeah....Fun....Fun...yeah ... *checks watch*...just wanna just wanns just wanna "

 

That's a pretty bad example, since 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun' is actually a cover song. Bet you didn't know that!

Doesn't mean the arrangement has to be the same.

[Elite]

It's not the same. You'd hear it right away if you actually listened to it.

[Kotowboy]

Whatever... My point was that it's one of those 80s dance tracks where the backing track just loops and they just vamp at the end.

[Stadler]

The hair.   The problem was always the hair.   Banarama, mentioned here:  three beautiful women, with bad hair for a decent part of their career. 

[Kotowboy]

The 80s had a lot of really bad everything.

[TAC]

The 80's ruled!

Class of '86 representin'!

[King Postwhore]

The 80s had a lot of really bad everything.

Nah.  It was a fun Era.

[wolfking]

I wish I was born 10 years earlier so I grew up in the 80's.

[Zantera]

The 80s always get a bad rep but for my own personal enjoyment I think the 80s had some amazing music. Many of my favorite bands either had their peak or got their start in the 80s and rode that wave into the 90s. I guess if you're a diehard 70s guy and some of your favorite bands from that time either died or declined in the 80s it might leave a sour taste in your mouth but I feel like sonically the 80s introduced a lot of cool new ideas in music.

[Kotowboy]

The 80s had the best sci fi.

Back To The Future
The Wrath Of Khan
Flight Of The Navigator
Innerspace

Films just don't have that feel anymore. Now everything has to be super epic with a huge battle at the end.

[Kotowboy]

ACDC 's Back In Black was released almost a year to the day after Highway To Hell. Meaning that Bon Scott died- and they found a replacement and recorded and released a follow up album all in under

1 year . Back in the day when bands released 1 album a year and at worst an album every 2 years.

Nowadays all your favourite bands seem to take 3 years MINIMUM.

[DTA]

I always felt like back then writing/recording/touring was all one giant continuum.

Like Rush toured for their debut, wrote Fly By Night on the road, banged Fly By Night out in the studio in a week, went right back on tour, wrote Caress of Steel on the road, etc. Now when a band releases an album, it must be preceded by months of promotion, singles, and interviews with the tour usually not scheduled until months after an album's release. The tour then somehow takes a year even though there's only like 50 dates and then the band needs a year off for whatever reason to "recharge".

[Kotowboy]

Then you get bands like Therapy? or Trivium who still put out quality work every 2 years.

[Stadler]

I always felt like back then writing/recording/touring was all one giant continuum.

Like Rush toured for their debut, wrote Fly By Night on the road, banged Fly By Night out in the studio in a week, went right back on tour, wrote Caress of Steel on the road, etc. Now when a band releases an album, it must be preceded by months of promotion, singles, and interviews with the tour usually not scheduled until months after an album's release. The tour then somehow takes a year even though there's only like 50 dates and then the band needs a year off for whatever reason to "recharge".

Granted, they were about 35 minutes long (whereas new albums tend to be longer) but there are countless bands - Kiss, Rush - that were doing TWO albums a year.   

Kiss - Feb '74
Hotter Than Hell - Oct. '74
Dressed To Kill - March '75
Alive! - Sep. '75 (on my BIRTHDAY!  YA, Boy!)
Destroyer - Mar. '76
Rock and Roll Over - Nov. '76
Love Gun - Jun. '77
Alive II - Nov. '77

Rush - Mar. '74
Fly By Night - Feb. '75
Caress Of Steel - Sep. '75
2112 - Apr. '76
All The World - Sep. '76


Kiss in particular were road dogs, and put out records in between. Kiss got "stuck" in California on tour and went in and recorded Hotter Than Hell in like a week.   Zeppelin did the same thing with Zep II; wherever they were on tour, Page would go in and work on the song of the day.

Don't get me wrong, there's a TON of great music today and it's worthy, but the process IS different.  I wonder what bands like Metallica and Maiden (today's Maiden) and what not would sound like if their albums were cut in a three week period in between tours.   

[TAC]

Well, back then, the album was the product. Now the tour is the product.

[hefdaddy42]

The 80s had a lot of really bad everything.

Yep.  Just like every decade.

[Cool Chris]

Well, back then, the album was the product. Now the tour is the product.

I never thought of it that simply. But I am also not a concert guy. I'd just as soon bands never tour if it meant they could release more material.

[DTA]

I always felt like back then writing/recording/touring was all one giant continuum.

Like Rush toured for their debut, wrote Fly By Night on the road, banged Fly By Night out in the studio in a week, went right back on tour, wrote Caress of Steel on the road, etc. Now when a band releases an album, it must be preceded by months of promotion, singles, and interviews with the tour usually not scheduled until months after an album's release. The tour then somehow takes a year even though there's only like 50 dates and then the band needs a year off for whatever reason to "recharge".

Granted, they were about 35 minutes long (whereas new albums tend to be longer) but there are countless bands - Kiss, Rush - that were doing TWO albums a year.   

Kiss - Feb '74
Hotter Than Hell - Oct. '74
Dressed To Kill - March '75
Alive! - Sep. '75 (on my BIRTHDAY!  YA, Boy!)
Destroyer - Mar. '76
Rock and Roll Over - Nov. '76
Love Gun - Jun. '77
Alive II - Nov. '77

Rush - Mar. '74
Fly By Night - Feb. '75
Caress Of Steel - Sep. '75
2112 - Apr. '76
All The World - Sep. '76


Kiss in particular were road dogs, and put out records in between. Kiss got "stuck" in California on tour and went in and recorded Hotter Than Hell in like a week.   Zeppelin did the same thing with Zep II; wherever they were on tour, Page would go in and work on the song of the day.

Don't get me wrong, there's a TON of great music today and it's worthy, but the process IS different.  I wonder what bands like Metallica and Maiden (today's Maiden) and what not would sound like if their albums were cut in a three week period in between tours.   

Yeah those bands in the 70's went nuts with productivity. Kiss and Rush are the ones I know best, and even Yes had albums come out year after year until 75, though their music was way more complex. I would argue that the early Rush and Kiss albums had some material that felt "filler-ish" and it wasn't until they spaced albums out that the quality became more consistent. I think Kiss released an album every year until '86 but the ones from 79-85 feel much more substantial to me than the ones from 74-77.

[ReaperKK]

The 80s had a lot of really bad everything.

Yep.  Just like every decade.

The 80s had a lot of really bad everything.

I would've agreed with you 10 years ago but over time I've come to really appreciate 80's music.