And again on the various topics at hand...
*McLaren*
Old is good, baby! That's where the real rock music is. In the 60's,70's and 80's, plus early 90's.
I would care to point out the use of "current" in the list, as nine times out of then I would prefer older music to the newer stuff. Simply put, there will never be bands better than the likes of Led Zepplin and The Doors in my book, but that may just be me. As a child who grew up with plenty of the old stuff around me, I have a strong appreciation for it, and when I am actually listening to the radio, I always go for the older rock. That said, just because it is old doesn't necessarily make it good (thats called nostalgia...), however most of the music that I prefer in the era (psychedelic rock, hard rock, southern rock) pretty much boils down to the afformentioned bands, plus greats like Hendrix, The Allman Brothers, Lynard Skynyard, and obviously the later folks like Van Halen (with Dave, not Sammy), Motley Crue, and even Whitesnake and RATT.
...Did I mention that I have a fairly wide liking to music (outside this rap crap today, however old-school rap is alright)...?
a6m5
Killers used to be good. With the first album, they were up-and-coming, so they weren't a huge hit, but the album was very good. If they aren't that popular now, I'd like to think it's because of the second album, that is nowhere near as good as the first. My kid brother who introduced me to the band would disagree with this. He has pretty broad taste in music and are into talented bands that are never heard on the radio and everything, but I think he's wrong. Killers had too much 80's sound, a lot like the Cure, so I was wondering where they would go, after their first album. As much as I liked the band, I just didn't think they were going to pull off anything special in their second effort.
On the topic of their second album (
Sam's Town), I think it generally depends on how much of a fan you are, and just how much you care for the slight change in their music. I would say that at first, I didn't give the second album much credit. But after listening through it quite a few times, I can really appreciate the majority of it. What it seems to be is a slight trade-off between Mr. Flowers and Mr. Keuning between the synth and the guitar, this album being a bit more guitar-heavy. Overall, I would agree that
Hot Fuss is the better album (I can't think of too many that have been that good in a while...), however I'm not saying that
Sam's Town isn't good at all. The good news is that the second album weeds-out the "fake" fans, and leaves the rest of us to enjoy their music on the whole by ourselves.
SlipZtrEM
How exactly are Panic! and Fall Out Boy two different things to you?
Well for one they sound completely different to me, and at least from my standpoint appear to appeal to a completely different set of people. If anything FOB appeals more to the younger, a bit more "poppy" rock kids while Panic! tends to lean more towards those looking for something a bit "different" all while maintaining a bit of the "poppyness" associated with modern rock music. I think comparing the two directly, you are likely to get people who separate, but most people are going to like both. I find that in most circumstances both bands are pretty "likeable" by most people, but I just don't find FOB all that appealing. I think it is the catchy words that piss me off, I don't know, as Panic! seems to have a bit more "woryness" to their music, added to that a bit of a showy act to how everything gets done.
And the Killers? Not that popular to begin with? What's unpopular about 6 million sales of Hot Fuss? And their new album has been widely regarded as a pilfering of older american rock (Springsteen seems to get named most). Not to mention they just piss everybody off because the lead singer is a self-centered little male diva.
I believe the best description of The Killers that I ever read stated that "The Killers are the Best British band ever to come from America." I'd agree, as they do have a bit of a European flavor to their music. However on the topic of Mr. Flowers, I'll admit that he is a bit self-centered, but I do commend him for his stated opinions on other artists. His criticisms of Green Day were well-founded, and although his accusations against Panic! were a bit unfounded, he had a bit of a point... The Killers did pave the way for a lot of this electronica/synth/rock/whatever fusion for the modern kiddies, but certainly the folks from The Cure could go around arguing that practically every modern rock band has stolen from them in some way...
The crowd is younger, but in a day and age where yes, MTV is the main reason for what's "in" and not, it's not neccessarily the band's fault who their audience is. I can tell you it was a lot older the first time I saw them...
MTV does continue to be the driving force behind most bands these days, and although I don't like it, thats business. In the end, someone has got to make money, and thats why we get catchy bands like FOB and Panic! who come around every once in a while. However, I often get the feeling that MTV does indeed hijack good bands, Panic! comes to mind recently, and thereby ruins them for the true fans. Unfortunate really, as we later see tickets that were once available at reasonable prices turn up for $112 at the Palace selling to 12-year-olds and their Mom.
...Then come bands that deserve little to no recognition at all (Red Jumpsuit Apparatus? Are you listening to me?), and thats what drives me absolutely crazy about MTV. The music often gets so stupid...
But the good news is that the kids who watch MTV have severely bad ADD, and they forget about some of these bands after a while. The Killers certainly have met the wrath of the MTV audience, and the same goes for MCR (to some extent). What I have noticed is that the lack of the MTV audience allows the bands to work for their fans, not the record companies and MTV, and thereby produce better music on the whole. The new Incubus album is a good sign of that, and in another way, partial MTV icon Beck has had plenty of success without the giant network behind him.
One other note while we are on the subject of MTV... What bad thing about all of this is that decidedly "pretty" bands get a lot of attention, and that sucks. Yes, I'll concede that Panic! is made up of those "pretty" folks in question, but this is yet another way that undeserving bands get in. Take a look at decidedly marginal Saosin (they're alright, I'm still a bit undecided), they are likely to have a bit of success because they are all "cute." If bands like Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and Van Halen were playing for all the little kiddies today, a good guess would be that they wouldn't be nearly as successful based on their looks alone.
That's the one reason I respect Panic!; they're honest. They received a lot of flak for not "paying their dues" and blowing up overnight because of Pete Wentz. But what is the reason most people form pop-friendly bands? They want to be known, they want to be big. Anyone else out there would've taken the offer. Selling out can just be a wise business decision .
I'd agree with you for the most part. I do fear for the future of the band based on what MTV wants to do, but it is how the business works. Their second album should be an interesting one... Will it piss-off the MTV kids and bring the true fans in closer, or will they produce another resounding hit like their first? To be honest, I enjoy them a lot, they are a great band. Sure, overexposure is bad, but even then, I wouldn't classify them as overly popular with everyone... Just a lot of people...
I don't like the new stuff much.
I don't know why I don't listen to them anymore. I thought it was because my taste in music changed, but maybe they are a lot closer to mediocrity.
