In the 70s we had rock gods...

[Deleted member 165050]

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

Well THAT band did indeed lift a Whole Lotta Stuff from other artists, but they didn't set out to ape a single artist. Plagiarism and mimicry aren't the same. And they did at least go on to produce some great original material and push the genre into new areas. I don't see the point in new bands just reinventing the past. Not that it hasn't been done countless times before of course...

 

[Tom Gallo]

Threads like these are, uh, entertaining. It's natural for someone to miss things from when they were younger. For us old farts, the musicians we admired when we were young(er) are starting to die off, have stopped touring and in some cases, aren't involved in music at all. There's nothing wrong with people wanting to relive a part of their youth. It doesn't hurt anyone. It's still rock to them, even if you don't think it is.

It is also equally natural for younger people to develop their own tastes that are distinct from their parent's tastes. There's no reason for older people to look down their noses at this. Whether you like the music or not, their choices are equally valid. The idea that "kids these days" don't know "good" music is not only ridiculous, it's insulting. That said, everyone who scoffs at those old folks and their admiration for geriatric rockers are going to react the same way when some younger person does the say to your heros.

Threads like these are almost always pissing contests. A little extra respect goes a long way.

 

[mellowinman]

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.

Phil Lynott? Rock god? Not even close.

Rock gods were:

Jimi
Clapton
Page
Plant
Daltrey
Elvis
Prince
Bowie
Keith Richards
Mick
Lennon
McCartney
Harrison
Ringo
Springsteen
Stevie Wonder
Marvin Gaye
Santana
Van Halen
Freddie Mercury
Bob Marley
Michael Jackson

That's it. That's the whole list. There is not ONE more rock god.*


*statement deliberately over the top to make people angry

 

[socialleper]

In your opinion. Which, by the way, is wrong.

See my response to this.

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

I've heard so many people yammering about this band but never heard any of their stuff until I saw them on a Late Night show.
Doing the Zep thing is putting it lightly. I'd say they are a tribute band that is a hairs breadth away from copyright infringement.
They also look like some high school kids auditioning for a community theater production of Hair. F that. If people want retro rock, I can name a dozen bands that can smoke these clowns.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Phil Lynott? Rock god? Not even close.

Rock gods were:

Jimi
Clapton
Page
Plant
Daltrey
Elvis
Prince
Bowie
Keith Richards
Mick
Lennon
McCartney
Harrison
Ringo
Springsteen
Stevie Wonder
Marvin Gaye
Santana
Van Halen
Freddie Mercury
Bob Marley
Michael Jackson

That's it. That's the whole list. There is not ONE more rock god.*


*statement deliberately over the top to make people angry

That's quite specific I still think Phil should be in... and Lemmy... more grrrls needed as well.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I'd argue that Plant and Page were truly gods of Rock. I saw them in the 90's touring as Page and Plant, never been to a concert before or since that made an audience that bugnuts ecstatic with glee. When they played When the Levee Breaks it was like boulders tumbling off Olympus, now THAT was heavy metal. I keep waiting for something new to equal or surpass them, no sign of it yet. Ok, Old Fart status now confirmed, I'll bow out gracefully.

 

[mellowinman]

That's quite specific I still think Phil should be in... and Lemmy... more grrls needed as well.

Those would be rock goddesses.

Tina
Ann & Nancy
Janis
Grace
the other Tina
Linda
Whitney
Joni
Pat...

It's much harder to be a rock goddess, as the format is mostly misogynistic.

 

[socialleper]

Threads like these are, uh, entertaining. It's natural for someone to miss things from when they were younger. For us old farts, the musicians we admired when we were young(er) are starting to die off, have stopped touring and in some cases, aren't involved in music at all. There's nothing wrong with people wanting to relive a part of their youth. It doesn't hurt anyone. It's still rock to them, even if you don't think it is.

It is also equally natural for younger people to develop their own tastes that are distinct from their parent's tastes. There's no reason for older people to look down their noses at this. Whether you like the music or not, their choices are equally valid. The idea that "kids these days" don't know "good" music is not only ridiculous, it's insulting. That said, everyone who scoffs at those old folks and their admiration for geriatric rockers are going to react the same way when some younger person does the say to your heros.

Threads like these are almost always pissing contests. A little extra respect goes a long way.

If we wanted to inject any sort of fairness into this, we have no proof that the OP is "old." I didn't see an age in their profile or mention of an age in the posts. For all we know it could be some teen that just saw an ad for the upcoming Queen bio pic and messed their shorts.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Those would be rock goddesses.

Tina
Ann & Nancy
Janis
Grace
the other Tina
Linda
Whitney
Joni
Pat...

It's much harder to be a rock goddess, as the format is mostly misogynistic.

Very true. My list would have Wendy O Williams.

 

[mellowinman]

Very true. My list would have Wendy O Williams.

I have a list that has Wendy, but it's not about music.*


*joke

 

[socialleper]

There are no gods, your premise is false.
/close thread.

 

[P-oddz]

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.

So... by your own admission.... you just stated that the criteria with which you hold up these people as "rock god" status, has no real definable meaning (because it can mean whatever I want it to) and have consequently created an entire TROLL thread (something you called someone else out on being earlier), and ultimately dismissed any feedback or authentic questions (defying your own "adding nothing to the thread" comment above).

I had to Google Alex Harvey. Proof he's not a rock god.
(Since the definition is clearly a bunch of horse pucky anyway)

 

[tb4sbp]

I read in some guitar mag that by the end of the 80's and as the Grunge style was really on the rise that rock in general was becoming too technical and too difficult for the average musician to try and play. I think to some degree that is correct. I like a good challenge when playing a cover song but does the non-musician listener like to hear complex music?

There is a reason non-musicians know who Eddie Van Halen is and not Yngwie Malmsteen.

We see this in a lot of different music where it gets overloaded and the competition drives it beyond what a song really needs. So I think the 80's and 90's might have had better musicians then the previous decades. But better playing does not necessarily equal better songs.

Players like Joe Satriani, Steve Via, Cliff Burton, Victor Wooten and many more were all from the 80's. These are some of the best players ever.

But the price to promote a bands in the 60's and 70's was far less than in the 80's and 90's or today. Bands of the 60/70's would get a record deal and an advance of $40,000.00 (if lucky) and start touring being opening acts for larger already successful artists. Now that number can reach $3,000,000.00 and investors want a return on that not a maybe.

There are still ways to make it but it is getting harder and harder. No more gambling on a talented artist(s) by major record labels, just guaranteed success.

I am going to stop here as I am just ranting all over again
Good topic, thanks to all that have posted
A very good read by all

Thanks and Bass On

 

[Deleted member 165050]

If we wanted to inject any sort of fairness into this, we have no proof that the OP is "old." I didn't see an age in their profile or mention of an age in the posts. For all we know it could be some teen that just saw an ad for the upcoming Queen bio pic and messed their shorts.

You can safely assume I was a teenager in the 70s.

 

[EricMordus]

See my response to this.

I've heard so many people yammering about this band but never heard any of their stuff until I saw them on a Late Night show.
Doing the Zep thing is putting it lightly. I'd say they are a tribute band that is a hairs breadth away from copyright infringement.
They also look like some high school kids auditioning for a community theater production of Hair. F that. If people want retro rock, I can name a dozen bands that can smoke these clowns.

I'm NOT saying the;re original, and I'm NOT dissagreeing with what everyone is saying. What I AM saying is the important thing is they've created a buzz in a genre that (lets be honest) right now really has NO buzz. The important thing is they ARE generating interest (be it positive OR negative) and rip off or not (and I DO agree they are) they are reaching an almost untapped market who probibly dont really care about Zep at all, while also gaining interest from the old farts like us as well. Their shows are sold out and you have to give them props for that.

Anyone remember Kingdom Come? They opened Van Halens Monstors Of Rock tour, and when I saw the show in NJ I clearly remember them being boo'd, I even saw the drummer (GOOD drummer btw who is still active and was drumming for The Scorpions until recently) dodge a sneaker... someone gave up their own SNEAKER to throw at them,. This is NOT happening with GFV at least

 

[Deleted member 165050]

So... by your own admission.... you just stated that the criteria with which you hold up these people as "rock god" status, has no real definable meaning (because it can mean whatever I want it to) and have consequently created an entire TROLL thread (something you called someone else out on being earlier), and ultimately dismissed any feedback or authentic questions (defying your own "adding nothing to the thread" comment above).

I had to Google Alex Harvey. Proof he's not a rock god.
(Since the definition is clearly a bunch of horse pucky anyway)

Why are you bothering to reply if that's what you think? There have been some interesting, informative and well presented responses. It's not a new subject, but then what is?

And please re-read my definition- the term is subjective. So Alex is in.

 

[socialleper]

I'm NOT saying the;re original, and I'm NOT dissagreeing with what everyone is saying. What I AM saying is the important thing is they've created a buzz in a genre that (lets be honest) right now really has NO buzz. The important thing is they ARE generating interest (be it positive OR negative) and rip off or not (and I DO agree they are) they are reaching an almost untapped market who probibly dont really care about Zep at all, while also gaining interest from the old farts like us as well. Their shows are sold out and you have to give them props for that.

Anyone remember Kingdom Come? They opened Van Halens Monstors Of Rock tour, and when I saw the show in NJ I clearly remember them being boo'd, I even saw the drummer (GOOD drummer btw who is still active and was drumming for The Scorpions until recently) dodge a sneaker... someone gave up their own SNEAKER to throw at them,. This is NOT happening with GFV at least

And Ghost is acting as a gateway band for metal by ripping off Blue Oyster cult. I know that rock always needs these sort of stepping stones. I didn't have a negative reaction to GVF other than the stupid name and the laughable outfits.
If anything bothers me it is that they are pandering to this over-the-shoulder pining US culture is doing these days. Everything seems stuck or looking backwards. Art has always been about moving forward. That is the sign of a healthy, growing culture. If it starts cannibalizing its past, that means it has stagnated. Cultures that don't constantly move forward are slowly dying.

 

[2010P]

I blame all the soy.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

If anything bothers me it is that they are pandering to this over-the-shoulder pining US culture is doing these days. Everything seems stuck or looking backwards. Art has always been about moving forward. That is the sign of a healthy, growing culture. If it starts cannibalizing its past, that means it has stagnated. Cultures that don't constantly move forward are slowly dying.

Were I more eloquent, this is what I would have said.

 

[mellowinman]

And Ghost is acting as a gateway band for metal by ripping off Blue Oyster cult. I know that rock always needs these sort of stepping stones. I didn't have a negative reaction to GVF other than the stupid name and the laughable outfits.
If anything bothers me it is that they are pandering to this over-the-shoulder pining US culture is doing these days. Everything seems stuck or looking backwards. Art has always been about moving forward. That is the sign of a healthy, growing culture. If it starts cannibalizing its past, that means it has stagnated. Cultures that don't constantly move forward are slowly dying.

I hesitate to make an all enveloping statement like "Rock is Dead," but it does seem to have been dying for a very long time. There has to be something new. People don't understand that when Rock and Roll first came out, it actually killed off other forms of popular music. The reason that doesn't happen now is that what is replacing rock is very diverse. Country. Hip Hop. Electronica. All of these could have been Rock's replacement, but they appeal to different people, and have their feet in rock anyway.