PaulEdwardWagemann

That doesnt mean that I cant strive to get rid of it. I mean if you were living in Nazi Germany would you just say, 'oh well, we live in a fascist world, its gonna happen..." or would you do something to undermine the effort?

Surely you can tell the difference between the corporate music industyr of 1963 and the corporate music industry of 1986. In 1963 there were maybe 3 tv stations--there was no cable tv. There were no entertainment conglomerates run by parent corporations. The Rock PR and marketign fields were infants. I mean coudl you imagine a hto new band out today telling the press, "Sure we take acid and smoke pot" or "Were bigger than Jesus right now"? I mean comparing the corporate msuic industry of 1963 to the corporate music industry of today is sorta like comparing Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth...

I'm not really into to top 10 lists, I mean ranking bands doesnt seem very productive to me. But I can tell you that very few of them would be a part of the Corporate music industry past the 1980s--which is when all the corporate buy outs and conglomeration got out of hand. When magazines, radio stations, record companies, cable tv stations, etc all started falling under the rule of parent companies. It was at this point that the corporate music industry really becaem the evil animal that it is today. What bothers me is that so called 'independent' msuic critics will rave on about some new band, but what they dont say is that that band is on the record label of the parent company that owns the magazine that this so-called 'independent' music critic is working for. Crap like that has made the corporate music industry loose all credibility in my eyes. In tonights prayer, I'll ask the lord to please kill me if I ever use 'meh' in a message board post in an attemtp to be flipant...

Right. There is very little comparison of the corporate music industry of 1964 to the one of today. The Bealtes didnt know what they were doing. They werent even 21 when Beatlemania started going wild. Plus they didnt have all of the examples of how the corporate music industry screwed over Rock musicians that artists of today have. Artists of today have no excuse for being ignorant of the evil of the corporate music industry.

imagine how much better the 80s would have been if Michael jackson had been assasinated instead of John Lennon...

I've been watching I love the 80s on VH1, and I don't rememeber the 80's being anything like how they say it was. I wonder why that is? Oh yea, because VH1 is retarded and thinks real life is just like how it was played on TV. http://generation-add.blogspot.com/2012/10/who-killed-classic-rock.html

anyone know any good songs I can play to celebrate satan's birth day? 6-606???

Don't they have thrift shops where you live?

Yeah, you have to buy the 8-track to do that...or copy it to casette.

All right thanks to those of you who answered the question honestly instead of acting like its a stupid question--like people on ohter boards do. Anywya heres some things that you might want to consider: ~Do you think that by being able to skip tracks, artist feel free to put shiddy tracks on their CDs that they wouldnt have done otherwise? ~As for the idea that CDs cna last for years and still soudn good while records cant--just let me say that if you treat a record with proper care it can jsut as long as a cd... ~good vinyl will always sound better because it is not limited to a max frequency of 22khz--like cds are. ~Last of all, let me ask about albums that were made before CDs were the norm--these were specifically made with the idea in mind that they woudl be played on record players not cd players...so doest converting them to CD take away something?

That's subjective. IMO vinyl sounds better. I do admit that you can put a cd in and not worry about turning it over midway through--but if I'm not mistaken, there were some record players that coudl do that automatically--weren't there? Another advantage is that you can play CDs in your car, but you cant do that with record albums (but you can with 8 tracks!)

How did CDs take over record albums? Was it an RIAA conspiracy?

what do you all think of neil youngs new album? Especially his song 'impeach the president'?

So are you saying that England would be different today if the Sex Pistols never existed? If so, then what specifically would have been different?

Couldn't have said it better meself...it's nice of you all to wish me a happy b-day (and it was very unexpected), but honestly I'm pretty much siding with BF on this one--its just another day. Just a couple days ago my wife got upset with me because I didnt do anything for her for mothers day (her first as a mother). She knows what a crock I think mothers day is, and I tried to explain to her I'd rather treat her nice and do unexpected nice things for her all the time instead of just celebrating one day a year in May because some corporate ash-holes want to sell candy, flowers and greeting cards...anyway, I'm sure this post hasnt done anythign to disprove to anyone I'm not a grumpy old fart (eventhough I'm not)...

Being a millionaire doesnt automatically make you shallow. But someone like madonna or Milli vanilli or WHam who spend thousands of dollars on wardrobe, hours in front of a mirror putting on makeup and wigs, have assistance who do everythign from peel their bananas to clean thier poodles toenails have no right to tell me that I should donate $100 to whatever their cause of the month is...

I've read that Rock Snob book too--its pretty good imo. A Rock Snob and a Rockists arent quite the same. A rockists is just someone who really loves Rock Music. A Rock Snob is someone who thinks its cool to know alot about Rock Music. And Rockism is something else entirely. To put it as simple as possible, Rockism is the process of seperating quality music from crappy music. Because the term was first coined in the early 80s, when Rock appeared to be on the downslide--at east in the Mainstream music Industry--its definiton is too often associated with the Rock music that the Rockists who were talking about Rockism at that time referenced the most; led zeppelin, the Bealtes, bob dylan, bruce springsteen, neil young, the clash, etc. Over the last 20 years however several new bands/new sounds have entered the grand Rock narrative; nirvana, smashign pumpkins, pearl jam, liz phair, pavement, the strokes, radiohead, etc. The thing about Rockism that gets some people's goat is that the standards for which quality is measured (according to Rockism)is founded on the hieght of the Rock era (roughly 1967 to 1976). These standards have changed over the past 20 years or so however. Kurt Cobain was one of the greatest harbingers of change in that time period. Cobain touted Grrlll Rock, he bashed homophobes, and he touted small unheard of Indie bands (Although others like Lennon had done some of these things prior to Cobain). Another major change over the last 20 years has been the decline of the protest song or the anti-government song. The reason for this may have to do with all the Farm AId/World Aid, etc stuff from the 80s that made these millionaire rock stars in wigs and makeup and limos who sung about the plight of the poor and weak look rather silly.

Look, I've pointed out several reasons why IMO the sex pistols killed off the initial punk rock movement. The fact of the matter is that after their fabricated brand of nonsense was taken to be the example of what punk is, the real punk bands (who avoided the limelight) were now burdoned with the SP dumbass stigma--and in effect it ruined these authentic punks bands chances at getting solid gigs or other support. But maybe it was inevitable. The good thing that came out of this was that since no punk bands could get a record label to produce them, they had to go DIY. Ofcourse the Sex Pistols never purposely set out to accomplish this, so I can't even give them credit for that. All I give them credit for is causing the demise of the initial punk rock movement and tainting a good thing with their bullcrappie!

Its a question... ...Still waiting for blind-fitter to explain to me how the Sex Pistols changed England...

First of all, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how the Sex Pistols changed England--and dont give me this ******* to go read England is Dreaming and it will explain it to me, because I've already read it, and it doesnt give a single example of how the Sex Pistols have changed England. Besides, don't you have a mind of your own? Cant you answer for yourself, without blindly repeating whatever the textbooks tell you to repeat? Second of all, what's wrong with revising and elaborating on my opinions of the Sex Pistols. WHy is it impossible that they did both? They ripped off NY punk AND they were political? The world is not always black and white friend. Stop arguing in absolutes and try to see some of the nuances, because that's reality.

The Ramones sounding like Disney? Paul Nelson's comment is retarded. The Ramones wer ethe ral deal--DeeDee picked up tricks on 53rd and 3rd then killed them, Johnny was basically a Nazi Fascist, and Joey was a 7 foot tall mongoloid pinhead...the sex pistols were just a bunch of whiney mamma's boys who were annoying--not entertaining at all...

Did you rip that post off from a Homer Simpson monologue?

I disagree with that entirely. I would say that the Sex Pistols Music sounds like it was invented by a bunch of snot-nosed brats with empty innerlives and therefore complain that everything is bore-ring. And exactly how do you see having a no-survivors, not-even-us mentality as being anything other than idiotic? They were just a bunch of spoiled juvenile who didnt get enough attention from mummy and daddy, so they were throwing a temper tantrum--not good entertainment in my book.