Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Music Discussion' started by sharedEQ, Feb 11, 2019.
I don't know.
They are not sold as a tribute act. They just won a grammy.
I think there's two ways to do retro. One is the Mark Ronson kind. When he produced Amy Winehouse, it was a clear retro sound with a just as clear modern twist, things in the lyrics and beats that made you 100% certain that it was a current artist. Similarly people like Bruno Mars, James Blake, Ariana Grande etc. and the whole Synthwave scene to name just an iceberg tip are using retro tropes to create something current, the "borrowing" is highlighted and clearly intentional but simply recreating old music is not the end goal for them. Every big band in the aforementioned Myspace boom, from Paramore, My Chemical Romance, Avenged Sevenfold and on and on obviously stood steadily on decades old rock clichés, but they expanded upon it in unique ways because that's kind of what most artists strive to do and most young music listeners (overall) want. It's certainly what LedZep, Jimi, Sabbath, Aerosmith etc. etc. did.
Greta Van Fleet on the other hand, are like Bonamassa. It's about conservation, keeping the "old ways" alive, doing it the true way except in a time when all the sociopolitical, technological and cultural circumstances that made that music visceral and relevant back then, have gone To me that's a huge intentional difference compared to simply thinking retro is cool, as you put it. I don't mind artists like that doing their thing, but when they become "the" thing, I think it shows that the genre is on it's last legs as far as cultural significance goes. When fans come to see your band only because the "real" band you based your sound on isn't touring anymore, you are essentially a tribute act.
So in that way, there's been a shift in attitude in the rock world for the last 10 years. At least that's what I've observed.
I don't disagree with any of what you said. I have no problem with either approach though.
That last part I think is the whole point for me in a nutshell. If they WERE actually a Zep cover band, nobody would pay them a second notice, it'd be background music at a dive bar and they'd probably be stuck in those kinds of gigs forever, because overall their sound is mediocre, and wholly uninteresting. They're mostly a marvel of marketing. Also Bonamassa is probably the most over-rated thing in all of guitardom. His originals SUUUUUCCKKK, his playing is tired AF...but boy can he sell a lot of garbage to 40+ crowd.
I mean... yes? Pop culture always reflects societies views in some way. That's not new by any stretch.
I haven't actually listened to any of GVF, but unless it's literally the same songs, or samples from them, it's a bit of a stretch to call it theft. If we're gonna go down that road, there are whole genres or subgenres built on sampling though. So much in music could be called "theft" that's much more egregious than this.
You seem to have a really strange view of people. A celebrity IS a "normal" that just happens to be known of by a lot of people. They aren't a higher class of being or something.
"Wonder of marketing" is the nicest way to put it. I generally dislike Pitchfork, but their review of their album is really accurate.
They used to have "star quality", something that separated them from normal, typical people. Either they were better looking, more charismatic, unique, or highly talented. GVF does not check any of these boxes. I'm more inclined to believe that their uncle is a studio exec.
I'm torn on them.
I mean... yeah, they are a blantant copy cat and even Robert Plant got mad because they don't acknowledge Zep and the the frontman said he is influenced by 70's Aerosmith, that's a joke right?
I have two points that I would like to make (pro and con)
1. Pro - Cool to see kids today playing guitar and making rock music, they can be a good gateway drug for other rock music, it's always good to have allies.
2. Con - I fucking hate the notion that rock and metal are nostalgia styles and, at least here in Brazil, rock is treated all the time as a museum piece of music... and I fucking hate it. Rock fans are uneducated, they don't know how to search for new stuff and are happy with the old classics. I mean, fuck off, I like classic stuff, but I need new stuff in my veins every year. I never get tired of listening to new music.
So yeah, I'm not against their existence, but they aren't anything special.
These are all just code for "they used marketing". They are normal people who have been presented in a particular way.
Its different. Fat girls on cover of Sports Illustrated. There is now a market for everyday mundane BS people.
I figured she was a pop singer
I mean, you don't see the irony here? The biggest flack GVF gets is supposedly sounding like Led Zeppelin, but the fucking bedroom kid isn't exactly separating himself from anything either. Just another high mid tone, overly processed, and thinks they're otherworldly just because they have a guitar section named after some obscure scientific theory or some shit.
True. I would argue that bedroom djent isn't really in the category of music; its more like a video game. Like a video game, the point is to get a higher score, cram more notes, get more views. The value is in knowing that there are other people who are doing the exact same thing.
I think bedroom djent has legs because it's the lowest common denominator. Everyone who plays guitar has a bedroom. And everyone buys and owns gear. With Djent, you really don't need a bass player. And with drum loops you don't need a drummer. Basically you don't need any friends, so there is absolutely the lowest barrier to entry.
Nah, even if you look at the history of rock music, there are a handful of people that were over-the-top celebrities, but a lot of music was made by "normal" looking dudes and that was part of what sold it. For every Elvis/Elton John there were ten guys with bad haircuts and band t-shirts wearing raggedy jeans and just rocking.
Audio engineering, programming drums, actually writing arrangements isn't exactly child's play. If they were bedroom punk bands, this might hold water. I'd say about 90% of the people who hate on "bedroom djenters" probably couldn't actually play the shit.
You're right. I can't play that shit. Here's the thing though, I've been playing for 16 years and I've never expressed a desire to play that shit so it stands to reason that I don't want to listen to that shit either, especially when there's nothing innovative being done with it. In that little bubble of djent or progressive or whatever the fuck you want to call it, Tesseract and Skyharbor are the two best things to come out of it. Once Ola and Merrow showed everyone how it was done on the Internet, that was all she wrote.
It's okay, sometimes I get a production technique/guitar tone confused as a genre, too.
I'm not saying it doesn't take talent. Video games take talent too.
What I said is that its the lowest common denominator. All you need is a bedroom and some gear, you dont need a drummer, a bass player, or network with local musicians.
Video games are like music in that they require practice. But most games there are only a few different things you can do, and the level at which you can be creative has already been decided, unless you're gonna start programming your own games.
After spending the better part of the last 20 years playing with other musicians in various projects....my next thing will involve only myself, lol. Wasn't it Zappa who said he preferred computers to musicians because they don't argue, they don't dictate any artistic "vision", and they don't make mistakes.