::rap Thread::

[Jaboldinho]

Umm, those are from the same album.

 

[yoyo913]

Whoops, changed it.

Works with most songs.

 

[Jaboldinho]

Soundwise, not even close to the same.

 

[Sepak]

Metallica to me is 90 % noisy bullcrap and 10 % absolute bliss with songs that really talk to me.

Their first five albums are masterpieces.

 

[Zlatan]

Dude, if you tell me this...


Sounds the same as this...


Then you're either tone deaf or really stupid or both.

Now show me a similar creative progression in the career of AC/DC...
Or wait shall I do it for you?

Rock or Bust (2014):


Highway to hell (1980):


Same intro, same musical concept, same guitar pattern, same lyical theme... do you want me to go on? Hey, I'll admit I'm really fond of Highway to Hell but I do think from a creative point of view AC/DC have brought nothing to rock music at all. Hard rock legends, my ass. You can't be that on basis of one or two songs that sound the same but appeal to some sort of manliness, which is why it keeps on selling.

 

[Filipower]

I still fail to understand why their music sucks. By your p.o.v if you like them, you really love all their work since it's very similar. You've also failed to explain why going through a "creative development" is the right thing.

 

[Filipower]

You can't go on for thirthy years using the same musical and lyrical concept and then claim the right to be hailed as 'rock legends'.

Why? I mean I know you've just explained why you think not, but why can't they be rock legends for having the longevity and consistency of sound? Isn't being able to maintain that also commendable? "Creative development" for "creative development"'s sake surely isn't a safe bet for success nor quality.

It are bands like AC/DC that give rock as a music genre a bad name for being musically and lyrically uncreative and insusceptible to change.

Where are you getting this? I get the general feeling that AC/DC are hailed for their kickass manly sound, I don't think they were going for creative legends nor have I seen anyone criticizing them for rock music's problems.

 

[Filipower]

I get the feeling I'm coming off a bit Xifio-y, haha, not my objective at all I don't even have a strong opinion on AC/DC one way or the other, it's just interesting to me that we were talking about Eminem (towards whom I do have more of a bias) and him being shit now compared to before, and now we're discussing the fact that if a band DOESN'T "change" it's shit.

 

[Zlatan]

I don't know about you, but I get bored pretty easily when each song sounds the same. Just because a song sounds similar doesn't mean I like it just as much, on the contrary. In so much I don't have anything against AC/DC so much because even deciding not to change at all can be a creative choice (not one I would take or admire, but that's a different argument), but I do criticize those that claim them to be 'rock legends' or a band of large influence. Plain and simply, they're not.

With creative development I mean basically the essence of being a musician (or even a creative artist in general), which is constantly looking for ways to expand your art, absorbing influences from people and the social/cultural environment around you. AC/DC has never done any of this, have never contributed anything creatively thus I feel they don't deserve the title 'rock legends' at all. Again, all they basically did was copy a musical and lyrical concept that was conceived by other bands (like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath etc.) in the years before them and than go on to fill up twenty albums with that. That's not being creative, that's just recycling something (which for the most part isn't even your own creative idea) for the sake of money if you ask me. And that not only annoys me, it also bores me to death. I like music that keeps on questioning itself on a creative level and through that process of creative development keeps sounding fresh and new, while still remaining a clear and distinctive identity at its core. Guess it's purely personal after all...

 

[Filipower]

Right, I get your point, and obviously this will always be a subjective thing, and I respect the fact that you look for that creative side. But don't get too tangled on that concept of "rock legends" or too upset about it. Like Xaviesta on the whole Ronald/Messi thing, you're getting caught up in other people's, the old "they", opinions and labels and stuff. Who the fuck cares if other people call them "rock legends", that sure isn't the band's fault and even if people call them that you also have to respect the fact that they call them that based on factors that are important to them, perhaps they love their sound and their style or whatever.

 

[Zlatan]

Ah well, I guess you're right. I respect whatever music people like. I just sort of wanted to make sure the people knew what they were liking and how I feel about that. I just really got a grudge against 80s hard rock bands, I guess, because I feel they contributed nothing to the genre and if anything just gave it a bad name on an intellectual level. AC/DC to me is one of the most prime examples of this. That's why.

Anyway, let's just go back to discussing how Eminem sucks nowadays... :P

 

[Mandieta6]

Most bands that change their sound change it for the worse.

 

[Zlatan]

The ones with true creative potential change for the better, for they keep a core value of their art rooted within themselves and just instictively know which influences to add to that inner talent. Therefore always remaining a core character in their music, making their identity recognizable and distinguishable to the listener.

The ones with weaker creative potential don't have that core value (call it character or personality) and thus end up becoming something not true to themselves. Usually they don't change naturally from within but from without under the influence of receding sales or popularity and such.

 

[Mandieta6]

Sounds like bullshit.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Blink 182 was pop punk royalty for a reason. They made great songs that were catchy as hell. They turned into a shitty emo band singing "miss you miss youuuuu" and now no one buys any of their music.

AC/DC was hard rock royalty, but instead of turning shitty they're just kicking the same ass that they started kicking 35 years ago. No one wants to hear a classic rock band play anything from the new album anyway. At least if you stick with the same formula you might get a new hit every once in a while and your fans will still like you.

 

[Alex]

Blink 182 was pop punk royalty for a reason. They made great songs that were catchy as hell. They turned into a shitty emo band singing "miss you miss youuuuu" and now no one buys any of their music.

AC/DC was hard rock royalty, but instead of turning shitty they're just kicking the same ass that they started kicking 35 years ago. No one wants to hear a classic rock band play anything from the new album anyway. At least if you stick with the same formula you might get a new hit every once in a while and your fans will still like you.

Spot on.

And comparing AC/DC 35 years ago to now is irrelevant....they're a long way from their peak, I don't think anyone necessarily thinks their newer stuff is great, but it doesn't take away from how awesome their 70s and 80s stuff...

Also, finding one song by a band today, that's similar to a song from 35 years ago doesn't mean it's ALL the same...it means that song is...conversely showing different music from now and then doesn't mean that it's ALL different.

 

[Zlatan]

Spot on.

And comparing AC/DC 35 years ago to now is irrelevant....they're a long way from their peak, I don't think anyone necessarily thinks their newer stuff is great, but it doesn't take away from how awesome their 70s and 80s stuff...

Also, finding one song by a band today, that's similar to a song from 35 years ago doesn't mean it's ALL the same...it means that song is...conversely showing different music from now and then doesn't mean that it's ALL different.

Alright, go ahead then. Show me two songs by AC/DC that sound radically different from one another. Don’t worry, I’ll wait…

Blink 182 was pop punk royalty for a reason. They made great songs that were catchy as hell. They turned into a shitty emo band singing "miss you miss youuuuu" and now no one buys any of their music.

AC/DC was hard rock royalty, but instead of turning shitty they're just kicking the same ass that they started kicking 35 years ago. No one wants to hear a classic rock band play anything from the new album anyway. At least if you stick with the same formula you might get a new hit every once in a while and your fans will still like you.

You make it sound like sticking to the formula is a good thing. I think it's not. That's where our difference lies. 'Sticking to the formula' is a frightened conservative commercial tactic designed to preserve sales and popularity. Music would never have gotten anywhere if all artists thought like that, because this way of thinking works contrary to the natural progression of creativity. Sticking to the formula has nothing to do with making music as it allows for artists to become lazy and not feel the need to push themselves to a higher creative level. I feel pushing boundaries, constantly challenging yourself and what you do is the true essence of being a musician, an artist or even a human being. It’s called being bold, being confident about your own creative power, taking a chance. When you cease to do all that, like AC/DC, you become commercial puppets. The way they’ve approached music throughout their entire career is the anti-thesis of being creative. I don’t like music that’s not creative. You apparently do.

I feel like I'm repeating myself. Let's go back on thread. Here's a great young female Belgian rapper I think y'all like:

 

[Mus]

People listen to music because they like it, not because of the creative process the Artist has gone through

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Artists rarely evolve in a creative and tolerable way, it is usually new bands that are influenced by some aspect of the older band that "has gotten music where it is". Usually older bands who try to do something different do it very poorly because it is not genuine, or they just do something really shitty (like Blink as an example).

But you are making an assumption that music has actually evolved to its current state, meaning that it is currently the best it has ever been. Is that really true?

 

[Alex]

Artists rarely evolve in a creative and tolerable way, it is usually new bands that are influenced by some aspect of the older band that "has gotten music where it is". Usually older bands who try to do something different do it very poorly because it is not genuine, or they just do something really shitty (like Blink as an example).

But you are making an assumption that music has actually evolved to its current state, meaning that it is currently the best it has ever been. Is that really true?

Nearly any big music fan would suggest that it certainly isn't true.

60s and 70s were WELL ahead of today's music. 80s rock (as opposed to the earlier Rock n Roll) was probably the lead era of that genre, and 90s I think is probably the best rap era...

Very good point Daniel.