Evolution Of Music Is Based On Influence

[Sunny Day Suicide]

I disagree. After a period with a lot of really bad ska bands like Sum 41, Blink 182, as well as those awful, AWFUL Boy Bands, I think music is taking a turn to sound GOOD again. Yes, there are still emo bands, but it's a trend; it won't last long when those kids grow up and realize that there are people worse off than they are. Your parents won't let you dress like you live on the streets?! Scandalous!

I think combinations of some genres are starting to influence other bands already. Take The Killers. They have some techno fused into their music (somewhat), and there are suddenly lots of other bands trying to imitate that sound. One band that I think does it very well is Mobile. Haven't heard of them? They're Canadian; check them out.

Another rock band that's sort of against this angry/emo stuff is The Trews. Again, Canadian band. Released an album in the States recently. Check them out. Their influences? No clue. But that doesn't mean that their music has to be as bad as the music they listened to.

Not all music is what I mean like I stated before (Pretty sure I have). Just most of them. Bands with no influence just seem to do it best or even close. Or like I said before, bands with a certain combination of influences to enhance their sound. Like Fighting Instinct.

Because if someone thinks that Manic Street Preachers are better than Clash, it pretty much voids your entire arguement about a band never bettering their influence.

But you didn't say that now did you? And someone is one person. And don't even think of saying then why am I arguing. I said many times I'm basing this off the point of views of the majority of all arounders. And besides opinions are opinions. It's alright if you don't agree. I'm jus trying to make it clear what I'm trying to say so there's no mix ups.

Because if your hypothesis doesn't work for the next generation, then why should it work for the previous generations?

You mean the other way around? If not then, how do you know it won't? And I don't mean music will suck forever. There's gonna be life to it once again but only by bands who extend their tastes.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Not all music is what I mean like I stated before (Pretty sure I have). Just most of them. Bands with no influence just seem to do it best or even close. Or like I said before, bands with a certain combination of influences to enhance their sound. Like Fighting Instinct.

Then why is it that bands like Greenday are so popular, if they're no good? Why are they influencing and inspiring more people than a band like Fighting Instinct?

[Sunny Day Suicide]

Gee, I dunno. Maybe because Greenday started in the late eighties and Fighting Instinct is new. And money, and fame doesn't mean anything. It's talent. New comers wouldn't know that. Why? 'Cause they don't how simple the stuff they play really is. Not just that but it's not all about how many fans you gain. Greenday could someday be bigger then The Beatles (Never gonna happen) but the majority will tell you Beatles are better.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Gee, I dunno. Maybe because Greenday started in the late eighties and Fighting Instinct is new.

The Kaiser Chiefs started in 1997, and aren't doing too badly for themselves.

Greenday's first breakthrough album wasn't until 1994, with Dookie. Their founding in the late eighties barely means anything.

And money, and fame doesn't mean anything. It's talent.

Greenday have sold over 25.8 million albums in the United States, and over 55.5 million records worldwide. Do you really think that all those people would buy them if they were terrible?

The Beatles (Never gonna happen) but the majority will tell you Beatles are better.

Yes, but then does Greenday's 55.5 million records count for nothing?

[jrgen]

This debate wouldn't even exist if all of you stopped limiting yourself to crap music.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

This debate wouldn't even exist if all of you stopped limiting yourself to crap music.

I have been owned.

[Sunny Day Suicide]

Gee, I dunno. Maybe because Greenday started in the late eighties and Fighting Instinct is new.

The Kaiser Chiefs started in 1997, and aren't doing too badly for themselves.

Greenday's first breakthrough album wasn't until 1994, with Dookie. Their founding in the late eighties barely means anything.

If you're still comparing to FI then I'm sure there still new. Like this year new.

Greenday have sold over 25.8 million albums in the United States, and over 55.5 million records worldwide. Do you really think that all those people would buy them if they were terrible?

No but a lot of people complain with such words as "sell outs" and others related. Yeah, I'm sure there are green day fans out there but some left after american idiot saying it was complete lame and some stayed claiming that album got them in to GD.

Yes, but then does Greenday's 55.5 million records count for nothing?

It's kind of hard to an artist compare 55.5 million to another who sold 1 billion. But to keep myself true to what I said before, that doesn't matter. It's just the majority will tell Beatles are better. Good point though.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

If you're still comparing to FI then I'm sure there still new. Like this year new.

If their new album is a breakthrough for them, then why not? It took Greenday five years to make it with Dookie, it might only take FI one.

No but a lot of people complain with such words as "sell outs" and others related. Yeah, I'm sure there are green day fans out there but some left after american idiot saying it was complete lame and some stayed claiming that album got them in to GD.

Sellout? What does being a sellout have to do with your music being bad?

When Bob Dylan "sold out" at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, by playing an electric guitar, people booed and jeered him, calling him "Judas". What he did doesn't make him a bad musician, does it?

[DK]

I disagree. After a period with a lot of really bad ska bands like Sum 41, Blink 182

Neither of those bands you mentioned are ska. Not even close.

I think combinations of some genres are starting to influence other bands already. Take The Killers. They have some techno fused into their music (somewhat), and there are suddenly lots of other bands trying to imitate that sound. One band that I think does it very well is Mobile. Haven't heard of them? They're Canadian; check them out.

Another rock band that's sort of against this angry/emo stuff is The Trews. Again, Canadian band. Released an album in the States recently. Check them out. Their influences? No clue. But that doesn't mean that their music has to be as bad as the music they listened to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf1xIViLofg

Been doing it for years. Better than the rest(Although the sound quality of this video sucks).

[Sunny Day Suicide]

If you're still comparing to FI then I'm sure there still new. Like this year new.

If their new album is a breakthrough for them, then why not? It took Greenday five years to make it with Dookie, it might only take FI one.

And how would you know that? I don't even know. Have you ever listened to FI? Even wikipedia doesn't have any info on them. Underground music can sometimes do you some good.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

And how would you know that? I don't even know. Have you ever listened to FI? Even wikipedia doesn't have any info on them.

I haven't listened to FI's music. I looked up their website. Why does this even matter anyway?

Underground music can sometimes do you some good.

And what's that supposed to mean?

[Sunny Day Suicide]

It matters 'cause your comparing a fanbase of a band whos been out for years and another who started.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

It matters 'cause your comparing a fanbase of a band whos been out for years and another who started.

Like I said, if FI's new album does for them what Dookie did for Greenday, then why can't they be as popular?

Underground music can sometimes do you some good.

You didn't answer my question. What did you mean by that?

[Sunny Day Suicide]

That has nothing to do with this thing. Sorry bout that. That's just my opinion. But one thing crosses my mind. How did we get from talking about one person says GD sucks and another says they dont when all I said was that going down this ladder will make a downfall soon? I never once said they sucked in my first post. In my personal opinion, I think they do but that wasn't part of the theory. In the theory I said that people who listen to bands like GD, hence the word like, will be going down the ladder. GD is down enough for having influences that were down aswell. So when people get influenced by GD they go lower. Not that GD sucks, it's the way I view this ladder thing. Remember though, not just my point. The majority.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

That has nothing to do with this thing. Sorry bout that. That's just my opinion. But one thing crosses my mind. How did we get from talking about one person says GD sucks and another says they dont when all I said was that going down this ladder will make a downfall soon? I never once said they sucked in my first post. In my personal opinion, I think they do but that wasn't part of the theory. In the theory I said that people who listen to bands like GD, hence the word like, will be going down the ladder. GD is down enough for having influences that were down aswell. So when people get influenced by GD they go lower. Not that GD sucks, it's the way I view this ladder thing. Remember though, not just my point. The majority.

Yeah, we have deviated slightly, haven't we?

Okay, back to the original debate about bands not bettering their influence. If the Beatles are the greatest band ever (and the majority will tell you that they are) then they have to be better than their influences, like Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly, and Little Richard. Which isn't possible if rock music folows this downward spiral that you described.