curious. name a current mainstream artist you like-someone who's released new music within the past five to seven years.
I just bought that CD Chris Daughtry made.
So do you only like "rock" that is played on the radio? If you don't want to think outside of the mainstream box, you're missing out on good music.
I've listened to what some here deem "good music". It explains why it's NOT played on the radio. So I am turned off by it. I don't like the way it's played, how the lyrics are delivered, etc. I remember going to a U2 concert back in 2001 and some band I never heard of up till then called PJ Harvey played before U2 did. I wanted to slit my wrists. It was horrible music.
Happy in that bubble?? Variety is the spice of life. Because you've heard one or two things you don't like you rule out entire genres of music?
Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I've heard enough to know I don't like it. It ranks up there with Hip Hop and Rap. I hate all three.
i'm sorry what? i could understand hating rap, but hip hop? its like modified soul or motown.
i don't like most of this stuff either, but radio stations rarely ever play good music.
By the way, U2 started out as a punk cover band. They started out only knowing 3 chords and only played songs by The Clash. They orignally got signed onto a label by faking a song by The Clash as their own. Then were like, oh wow, guess we better learn our instruments better and start writing our own songs. I heard this in a U2 radio interview a few years ago. So, just ironic that you condemn punk music on a whole 'cause that's U2's roots oddly enough. heh. I mean U2 might even of asked PJ Harvey to open for them. Bands on tours will often personally get the bands they're fans of, to open for them. Not always the record labels arranging it, or the tour booker. I mean, I don't know in case if U2 asked PJ Harvey to open for them on tour... but I wouldn't rule it out. I often find openers for bands that I go to see in concert to be awesome. At the Radiohead 2001 tour, a band called Beta Band opened - I had never heard of them before that show, and today they're one of my favourites.
I could care less what U2 used to play. They don't play that now, nor are they known for playing punk in their almost 30 years of making the music we know. If you like PJ Harvey that's your taste. I hated everything they played that night. It was an hour of horror for me. Music should have harmony, and I didn't feel that with their style. If that's how the Indy style is, then I will probably dislike whatever bands you tell me about. I will be more than happy to find clips of all these groups and listen to them. I'm siding with the reality that I probably won't like them. If I do, I'll let you know. But I could probably go to a local pub and listen to a band that's of the same calibre. So what's so special about it then? In summation, notta.
As it's been explained one Indie band does not equal another Indie band. Indie does not have a specific style to it. It just means really that they have cult following and are more "DIY" (Do it Yourself) than larger scaled bands. In my mind, all bands at least start out as Indie... that's only logical. Then some of them go on to get larger than life, some stay as Indie. I mean, there's indie bands that play classic style progressive rock. And, this isn't an argument about U2 or PJ Harvey (but while we're on the subject PJ Harvey is on Island records owned by Universal Music Group - a major label. PJ Harvey does have that "Indie attitude" however) or indie music... isn't an argument about anything. And bands in bars unfortunately usually tend to be cover bands... so look there to stretch your image of music. hehe.
Yeah I can read Wikipedia too. Most of those bands though play a different style from mainstream, which is why major record labels don't sign them. The general public wouldn't like them. So just call me John Q. Public...
I was selecting relevant excerpts from the Wiki to make it easier and a quick read for ya. But, Mainstream doesn't have a style either bruv so I don't know what you mean. Nirvana was once an obscure noise punk band that no one outside Seattle knew of, and thought they hit it big at 200/300,000 record sales which is unarguably crazy big to an indie band. Then word spread, word spread, word spread, word spread, and boom, million of fans, and commercial radio play. I wouldn't doubt they had just as many fans as The Beatles. Many times it's not that a major label won't sign them... some bands actually turn down a label that they don't care to be on. Or, maybe surprisingly enough will sign to an "indie type" label which happens to be a subsidiary of a larger major label. Like the Warner Brothers label has a sub label called Slash, and many other major labels own smaller labels as well. Non major music tends to be more raw, less post production, and you gotta respect a musician for his or her raw talent. If a band isn't widely and commercially known, it doesn't automatically mean they're talentless. I don't need to further defend any proof tho.. I've already watered down this subject too much, and I'm not even offended anyway, so I think I'm done speaking in this thread other than continue to post upcoming concerts. heh
Mainstream means it is popular. If someone has that kind of popular sound, they're going to land a major label. Maybe some bands need to make a couple of albums before they get to that point. My point is, the ones that never get to that, never have that catchy sound or beat that the general populace likes, which is why they would stay independent. The ones that choose to stay Indie are silly, because the big bucks are with the major labels.
actually they started out as a "christian" rock band.
I heard that too. ...actually remember hearing it from you on eZabel previously. Tho, At some point they were basically a group played songs by The Clash according to one radio interview.. what they claimed on air anyway, and seems to be a silly thing to lie about. Whether before the so called "Christian" phase or after... I couldn't say. In that particular interview they didn't mention that phase of their career, so didn't know anything about that... but I don't deny it as part of their career. I don't know... Maybe they've done both the "Christian" thing and the cover band thing. I could very well see the "Christian" thing coming from U2. Especially since their Irish. I mean, certain songs they did after being signed on label had "religousness" as themes or at least a mention intertwined somewhere across they're lyrics. So makes sense if they started as a full-on religous rock band.
yeah they'll say they started knowing music from the clash and would practice but they were a christian rock band. they broke up at one point cause adam clayton wanted to live the "wayward" life so bono pulled him back in and since they were growing up their music evolved. and most of their music now has double meaning...mostly their older stuff, like with ot with out you...thats about religion not being able to live w/the religions of today but still not being able to live w/o it in your life.
*U2 is one of my fav bands
is Chris Daughtry some kind of punk singer or something, because i've never heard of him
:P
i actually had no idea who he was, so i googled him. an American Idol guy?
you should listen to some of JP's Mixes. Ask him for a copy. Some good stuff
Yes, he's an Idoler. I was impressed by him when I heard him on Idol.
I suppose I'll ask him. If you don't see me anymore, it's because I drowned myself in my toilet after listening to it.
thanks for the plug ian :)
dan ill give you some mixes if you want them. i try to make them appealing to others' listening tastes. there will probably be some familiar stuff on there (coldplay, bruce springsteen, etc) and then ill mix in some great songs from bands not as well known from many "rock" genres (spoon, the wrens, something corporate).
you may like it. maybe not.