D
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
No, it is still just an opinion of an opinion.
If I say 2 + 2 = 4 that has verifiable objectivity to it. If you say "I would prefer if 2+2=5" that is a subjective opinion. It is factually incorrect, but a preference can't be "wrong" even if it is asinine.
A person can correctly or incorrectly say if song A is more musically complex than song B. You might have to split hairs over "complexity" but that is something you can drill down on. My opinion that "classic rock" isn't as good as modern rock because of its simplicity can't be factually right or wrong in any universal or authoritative way. It is completely personal, subjective, and based on my life's context.
Not if it picks up and streams a lot. There is revenue to be made from streaming. You just have to own your masters.
And Lady Gaga tickets in December are $750 for general admission to the floor, $340+ for nosebleed. There's few bigger acts today. I don't need to do the math right here to know that's skyrocketed beyond normal inflation.
P.S. The Elvis ticket you mentioned is in section DD. I'm not sure where in the arena that is, but unless it's nosebleed it's not a good comparison, as the Eagles tickets you mentioned starting at $62 each absolutely are. Floor sections at the United Center for The Eagles on October 15th range from $400 to $200.
Rival Sons, The Struts, Gretta Van Fleet, hell, even the Foo Fighters, Zakk Wylde... Theyr'e out there, and each generation has their own. I'm thrilled that there's a new generation coming up to fill the vaceted spots some of our fallen bretheren have left in their passing. Rock aint dead
Times change. It's been 38 years since the end of the 1970s. Go look at what musical performers were like in 1932, 38 years before 1970. For that matter consider what American society was like in those periods. We're not all wearing bell bottoms, platform shoes and polyester leisure suits any more, are we?
This kind of thing is a bit epistemology I like to harp on. I would say that "objective" and "subjective" don't refer to things but to the way we know things. Your statement is correct that a subjective statement can't be proven to be right or wrong; but that's not the same as saying that it can't be right or wrong. A subjective statement is a claim whose truth can only be known subjectively, for instance intuitively. For instance, it may well be true that the Beatles were a better band than the Rolling Stones, or that Bach was a greater composer than Beethoven. But there's no objective way to prove such statements.
I think that You, Me and a lot of people on Talkbass are just old. We have a nostalgic view of how things used to be. Nowadays, kids do their own thing and we just don't relate to them. The same way our folks did not get the Beatles, Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, etc...
I couldn't care less one way or another. I find the idea of "rock gods" pretty repulsive anyway. They can put on a great show, be super talented good people, but gods? That's silliness. Besides, all the fans of 60's rock thought the exact same thing about 70's rock musicians.
"We ain't no legend, ain't no 'cause
We're just livin' for today"
"We ain't no legend, ain't no 'cause
We're just livin' for today"
QUOTE: "I would disagree with setting an end date to the Age of Idols in 1977. I mean, come on, the 80s had Billy Idol! Seriously, though, I think acts like U2 and Van Halen still carried the sense of "rock idols" that had existed earlier. As an 80s teen, me and my friends certainly looked at them that way. And 80s artists were, if anything, MORE obsessed with incorporating new influences - reggae, African music, and for that matter the 80s guitar shredders were rediscovering classical music and going back to Bach for ideas in a way that had been foreign to rock and roll until then. @tb4sbp above set the Age of Idols as 50s to 90s, and I think that's accurate; I would argue Kurt Cobain was the Last New Rock Idol."
Yes, artists in the 80s and 90s certainly did incorporate new colors into the rock palate. But the palate itself already existed by then as a thing, having been created by a fusion of multiple musical influences in the years roughly 1962-77.
Yes, artists in the 80s and 90s certainly did incorporate new colors into the rock palate. But the palate itself already existed by then as a thing, having been created by a fusion of multiple musical influences in the years roughly 1962-77.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
No, you're wrong. And your opinion of my opinion is wrong. You seem to be just wrong through and through, in my opinion. And contributing in the neighbourhood of zero to this thread.
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
It isn't dead, but it's stagnating. Greta Van Fleet are a great example - a very talented bunch of musicians but with more than a hint of a certain band from the 60s/70s?
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
It's a phrase that means whatever you want it to. For me, Phil Lynott, Janis Joplin, Alex Harvey, Jimi Hendrix etc define the term. For you I imagine something different, although I don't really care.
Yeah, but THAT band from the 60's & 70's blatently ripped off so many established blues artists to the point of their entire first album being a bunch of covers in disguise, so your point is moot. I get it, they're doing the Zep thing. Thats really not what matters, what does matter is they're young, they play guitar based rock, and are influencing a new generation who may or may not be as interested in a 50 year old band their grandparents liked
Or to Gene Simmons, who I'm sure many women could report just as repugnant behavior from. (I'm speculating, based on interviews he's given over the years.)
Latest posts
-
-
Double Bass Finally got to play a real Double Bass this weekend- Latest: GretschWretch
-
-
-
