You’ve got awfully low standards for what constitutes “making people think.”
The music of the guy you posted above is simple, but it also has good vocals and … lyrics: things conspicuously absent from anything produced by RATM.
Another example is Johnny Cash. People don’t like him so much for the instrumentals, but for the lyrics and vocals. He had a good voice and could tell a story, “Shot a man in Reno just to watch him die…”
RATM, if anything, was a move to the mainstream for guys like Zack De La Rocha. It was about going commercial. How do I know? Well, listen to his first band: http://www.myspace.com/disemboweledputrefaction
It’s meets all the requirements you mentioned above (simplicity, roots), but wasn’t popular. Neither was Minor Threat, for that matter. But both bands rejected glam rock in the 80s.
RATM was the definition of mainstream in the 90s, which is essentially the same thing as saying they were the “glam rock” of the 90s.
You’ve got awfully low standards for what constitutes “making people think.”
The music of the guy you posted above is simple, but it also has good vocals and … lyrics: things conspicuously absent from anything produced by RATM.
Another example is Johnny Cash. People don’t like him so much for the instrumentals, but for the lyrics and vocals. He had a good voice and could tell a story, “Shot a man in Reno just to watch him die…”
RATM, if anything, was a move to the mainstream for guys like Zack De La Rocha. It was about going commercial. How do I know? Well, listen to his first band: http://www.myspace.com/disemboweledputrefaction
It’s meets all the requirements you mentioned above (simplicity, roots), but wasn’t popular. Neither was Minor Threat, for that matter. But both bands rejected glam rock in the 80s.
RATM was the definition of mainstream in the 90s, which is essentially the same thing as saying they were the “glam rock” of the 90s.
[/quote]
To say that RATM 'went commercial" is asinine. Were you even old enough to remember them in their heyday? The definition of mainstream in the 90’s? Give me a break. Rage is hardly some pop-oriented light rock band. They had commercial success (Grammy awards/nominations, two number one albums) because people liked what they heard and people liked what they heard because they were great musicians. It’s too subjective to say that their lyrics weren’t shit but that Johnny Cash’s were.
If meaningful lyrics are what makes music great, then I guess you’ve never heard of Miles Davis or John Coltrane. In fact, Davis’ most popular album and his most critically-acclaimed album (Kind of Blue, which is arguably the most influential album of any kind) came from a rejection of the complex, highly technical music of bebop. He went simple in order to allow for more freedom during each musician’s solo. If musical complexity and a high degree of difficulty is the final arbiter of great music, then everything since the days of Mozart, with few exceptions, is shit based on your logic.
And by the way, given that RATM had/has a message (regardless of what that message is) should be reason enough to forgive them for any perceived move toward a more mainstream audience. Playing in front of a couple hundred people on the Sunset Strip and selling 5,000 albums a year isn’t going to spread much of a message. Like Tom Morello said, no one rips Noam Chomsky for having his books sold at Borders since that’s the medium in which he can best spread what he has to say.
Some of the stuff RATM talks about is true and beautiful. And yes bands like that do make people actually think (ala you posting away here trying to prove the contrary) much more so than any of the shitty country music I’m guessing you’re into.
Personally I’m getting into more hip/hop, dance and party music since I’ve discovered that I can really get down on the 'floor. Not to say I’ve lost my passion for classic rock, ‘proper’ rap, the blues, jazz, Rick James and Christina Aguilera obviously.
You’ve got awfully low standards for what constitutes “making people think.”[/quote]
No, I haven’t. I quite clearly said “making people think”, not “making people blindly follow their political views”. There’s quite a distinction between the two.
An idea can serve as a catalyst for independent thought without impairing that person’s capacity to think for themselves…
[quote]
The music of the guy you posted above is simple, but it also has good vocals and … lyrics: things conspicuously absent from anything produced by RATM.[/quote]
And so we’re back to the lyrics again, which you automatically dislike because you disagree with RATM’s politics. Not exactly an objective view.
[quote]
Another example is Johnny Cash. People don’t like him so much for the instrumentals, but for the lyrics and vocals.[/quote]
Both Leadbelly and Cash frequently wrote songs containing less than five chords, which was one of the reasons you cited for not liking RATM besides the lyrics…how does that criticism suddenly not apply to Leadbelly and Cash? Don’t say that lyrics and a good voice compensate for it - I’ve covered that in my earlier posts, and I believe you said in reference to RATM’s songs, that “the quality sucks independently of the lyrics”.
So far you have yet to offer any proof of that other than your own opinion (saying de la Rocha’s previous band was so much better and claiming that RATM is the 90’s equivalent to glam rock is not proof)…
I’ve already said that I’m fine with you not liking RATM’s music. You just seem intent on getting everybody else to hate them as well.
Cash and Ledbelly could sing and communicate a story, so they were likable in that sense. There stuff was not musically complicated, but folksy and melodic. RATM can’t do anything. They’re only “good” in the sense that Howard Stern is “good:” they say a lot of provocative things that resonate with a certain, but large, class of losers that considers themselves marginalized by “the system.” In addition to that, the lyrics - for all their political bluster - are completely inauthentic from the viewpoint of the guy writing them. Some richie from an affluent part of Orange County who’s made millions through record sales is lecturing everyone about “the machine,” and “the system?”
Biggie Smalls could write lyrics, rhyme, find good beats and tell a story. His stories were embellished, but had quite a bit of authenticity. I don’t agree with most of his views, but consider his stuff “good.” He didn’t write preachy crap.
epic win.
i bought two copies.
i don’t care for bands political opinion - i listen to the music. the good thing about not having english as first language is that unless i actually focus on the lyrics, i don’t need to understand them - it’s just sounds.
and RATM - KITNO sounds fucking awesome. i don’t care the song is simple and the singer has no voice. the song is still fucking awesome.
this wasn’t about supporting ratm, or about not giving money to sony. it was about getting a cool song at #1. instead of a cover of song sang by a made up girl in a kids movie.
Cash and Ledbelly could sing and communicate a story, so they were likable in that sense. There stuff was not musically complicated, but folksy and melodic. RATM can’t do anything. They’re only “good” in the sense that Howard Stern is “good:” they say a lot of provocative things that resonate with a certain, but large, class of losers that considers themselves marginalized by “the system.” In addition to that, the lyrics - for all their political bluster - are completely inauthentic from the viewpoint of the guy writing them. Some richie from an affluent part of Orange County who’s made millions through record sales is lecturing everyone about “the machine,” and “the system?”
Biggie Smalls could write lyrics, rhyme, find good beats and tell a story. His stories were embellished, but had quite a bit of authenticity. I don’t agree with most of his views, but consider his stuff “good.” He didn’t write preachy crap.
[/quote]
You don’t know a fucking thing about de la Rocha or his upbringing. What, you read his wikipedia page and saw that he was raised in Irvine and you automatically assume his life was fucking roses? Come on. Do you also disregard the lyrical content of bands like the Rolling Stones? I’m sure it’s pretty hard to believe that Mick Jagger can’t get no satisfaction or girly action. You think Johnny Cash really shot a man in Reno or shot his woman down in a cocaine frenzy? RATM’s lyrics are more authentic than any bullshit “embellished” story that Cash or Biggie tell. Are inner-city blacks who live in gang-infested projects the only ones who are justified in feeling disenfranchised? Are affluent blacks not justified in feeling the same way at certain times? Get the fuck out of this thread man. You clearly have some deep-seeded hatred of RATM’s political leanings that is seriously affecting your judgment.
You said earlier that RATM doesn’t feature any sort of chord progressions. Miles Davis, arguably the greatest musician in any genre ever completely abandoned chords entirely by 1959. Is everything he made since then simplistic bullshit?
Cash and Ledbelly could sing and communicate a story, so they were likable in that sense.[/quote] That’s an extremely unfair comparison: del la Rocha is not a “singer” in the conventional sense. The closest thing he did to real vocals was on the Renegades album. He is a rapper first and foremost - how many rap artists are renowned for a pleasant voice? Pleasing vocal tone doesn’t really enter into it. I don’t particularly like Axl Rose’s voice (sometimes it’s like nails down a chalkboard to my ears), but I’m still a fan of Guns ‘n’ Roses. I think you’re deliberately missing the point here.
I agree that a front man needs that ability to connect and communicate a story, but you’re not in a position to fairly judge de la Rocha’s ability to do that: you don’t even like him or the story he’s trying to tell.
[quote]
There stuff was not musically complicated, but folksy and melodic.[/quote] So now music has to be “folksy and melodic” to be any good? Come on… [quote]RATM can’t do anything.[/quote]
That’s garbage - I’m waiting for you to tear into Morello for “mediocre” guitar playing… You’ve already accused the band of being poor musicians. I suggest you proceed with caution if you go down that road. Look, I get that you hate de la Rocha - in your view, all of the bands flaws seem to lead back to him: you’ve attacked his background, his ideals, and his vocals, but none of those support the idea that you’ve given the band a fair, unbiased shot…that becomes more obvious with every post you make.
[quote] They’re only “good” in the sense that Howard Stern is “good:” they say a lot of provocative things that resonate with a certain, but large, class of losers that considers themselves marginalized by “the system.” In addition to that, the lyrics - for all their political bluster - are completely inauthentic from the viewpoint of the guy writing them.
Some richie from an affluent part of Orange County who’s made millions through record sales is lecturing everyone about “the machine,” and “the system?”[/quote]
You must be unaware that Tom Morello originally planned to have a career in politics. He worked for a senator for a while after graduation, but after witnessing first hand that all the senator did was to canvass for donations, Morello handed in his resignation, so I think he’s got a pretty fair idea of what “the system” entails.
[quote]
Biggie Smalls could write lyrics, rhyme, find good beats and tell a story. His stories were embellished, but had quite a bit of authenticity. I don’t agree with most of his views, but consider his stuff “good.” He didn’t write preachy crap.[/quote]
Has it ever occurred to you that what you would consider bogus political concern was actually RATM trying to cover as wide a range of political issues as possible (essentially using each individual song to raise awareness for issues that they felt deserved the exposure)? I don’t think it has, because you seem to have a very myopic view of the band. How many RATM songs have you truly listened to?
Cash and Ledbelly could sing and communicate a story, so they were likable in that sense.[/quote] That’s an extremely unfair comparison: del la Rocha is not a “singer” in the conventional sense. The closest thing he did to real vocals was on the Renegades album. He is a rapper first and foremost - how many rap artists are renowned for a pleasant voice?
Pleasing vocal tone doesn’t really enter into it. I don’t particularly like Axl Rose’s voice (sometimes it’s like nails down a chalkboard to my ears), but I’m still a fan of Guns ‘n’ Roses. I think you’re deliberately missing the point here.
I agree that a front man needs that ability to connect and communicate a story, but you’re not in a position to fairly judge de la Rocha’s ability to do that: you don’t even like the story he’s trying to tell.
[quote]
There stuff was not musically complicated, but folksy and melodic.[/quote] So now music has to be “folksy and melodic” to be any good? Come on… [quote]RATM can’t do anything.[/quote]
That’s garbage - I’m waiting for you to tear into Morello for “mediocre” guitar playing… You’ve already accused the band of being poor musicians. I suggest you proceed with caution if you go down that road.
Look, I get that you hate de la Rocha - in your view, all of the bands flaws seem to lead back to him: you’ve attacked his background, his ideals, and his vocals, but none of those support the idea that you’ve given the band a fair, unbiased shot…that becomes more obvious with every post you make.
[quote] They’re only “good” in the sense that Howard Stern is “good:” they say a lot of provocative things that resonate with a certain, but large, class of losers that considers themselves marginalized by “the system.” In addition to that, the lyrics - for all their political bluster - are completely inauthentic from the viewpoint of the guy writing them.
Some richie from an affluent part of Orange County who’s made millions through record sales is lecturing everyone about “the machine,” and “the system?”[/quote]
You must be unaware that Tom Morello originally planned to have a career in politics. He worked for a senator for a while after graduation, but after witnessing first hand that all the senator did was to canvass for donations, Morello handed in his resignation, so I think he’s got a pretty fair idea of what “the system” entails.
Trying doesn’t matter to me, music does. Covering issues is a death knell for a band for me. I don’t care about issues. Most of these issues bands are very left leaning and it turns me off.
I also had two rage albums when I started to look for more hard music for training and was turned off by their silly ass political stances. What killed it was when they did a concert for that cop killer Mumia whatever Jamal.
And I refuse to give a band money when they work against my beliefs. I will not not give them a fair chance. It’s like asking me to give gun control, abortion, or higher taxes a fair chance.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
And I refuse to give a band money when they work against my beliefs. I will not not give them a fair chance. It’s like asking me to give gun control, abortion, or higher taxes a fair chance.[/quote]
[quote]tom63 wrote:
And I refuse to give a band money when they work against my beliefs. I will not not give them a fair chance. It’s like asking me to give gun control, abortion, or higher taxes a fair chance.[/quote]
So you don’t like the politics - I can live with that. I’m still waiting for a valid reason to explain why they are bad musicians. The subject matter of their songs doesn’t have any bearing on their musical ability.
I’m not going to be convinced that they aren’t worth listening to because you and others refuse to buy their albums out of principle.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Trying doesn’t matter to me, music does. Covering issues is a death knell for a band for me. I don’t care about issues. Most of these issues bands are very left leaning and it turns me off.[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your political views were probably fully-formed before you got your hands on a RATM album. That doesn’t make their message worthless: their music has undoubtedly turned people onto politics who otherwise would’ve had no interest in it. I can’t see how that can be interpreted as a ‘gimmick’ or ‘selling out’… it’s far more than most bands ever manage to achieve.
Besides, every band covers “issues” sooner or later, whether you realize it or not.
Cash and Ledbelly could sing and communicate a story, so they were likable in that sense.[/quote] That’s an extremely unfair comparison: del la Rocha is not a “singer” in the conventional sense. The closest thing he did to real vocals was on the Renegades album. He is a rapper first and foremost - how many rap artists are renowned for a pleasant voice?
[/quote]
Which is why he played guitar for Hard Stance and sang for Inside Out?
What does that have to do with anything? Like I said, I don’t agree with quite a bit of what’s said in the other stuff I like, but at least it strives for authenticity. I like Slayer and I’m a Christian. I don’t have to agree with their views as a band.
Pretending to stand outside the mainstream while standing in the middle of it is what I’d call inauthentic.
What is this “fair and unbiased” crap? Are you from Fox News now? Do you have no views of your own (political or otherwise) that give you a bias to your opinions? Your head is completely empty in that regard?
You’ve got awfully low standards here. First of all, the band is highly defined by its front man. But I’m not seeing much of a dichotomy between Morello and De La Rocha phoniness-wise. He graduated from freaking Harvard with a degree in poli sci. If he as an idea of what “the system” entails, it’s only because he is the very definition of it - another self-marginalized loser from a rather affluent upbringing:
Doesn’t he know Orwell wrote in criticism of guys like Guevara and Marx? Tom’s more equal than others, I guess.
Which is why he played guitar for Hard Stance and sang for Inside Out?[/quote]
What de la Rocha did in other bands has absolutely no bearing on what he did in RATM. I’m talking specifically about his work with a specific band during a specific period in time. I can’t believe I even have to point that out. Have you actually listened to him sing or play guitar before this thread, or did you look it up for extra ammunition?
[quote]
What does that have to do with anything?[/quote] It has everything to do with it. You said you can judge RATM’s music objectively when you can’t even disguise your disdain for their front man.
Don’t start being a prick by bringing my intelligence into question. You said that you’ve judged RATM’s music independently of their politics, yet you’re back to discussing politics again. It goes without saying that your opinions regarding the band’s activities are heavily biased and don’t require any further expansion thank you very much (you’ve even said that your views have a direct influence on your opinions).At the same time, you claim to be able to put all that aside and explain why their music “sucks independently of their politics”.
If you could, you’d have done it already, instead of dredging up even more political material and wagging your finger at my “low standards” as if I’m challenging your personal beliefs. Don’t presume to know anything about my “standards” when you don’t know a single thing about me, and don’t even attempt to use those same “low standards” as evidence that RATM’s music is mediocre. I know exactly what you’re trying to do, and it’s just flat-out desperate.
I’m not going to enter into a highbrow political chinwag with you just so you can side step a claim you made in the heat of the moment, but can’t back up. I didn’t ask you to qualify your political views. This is totally fucking futile. You seem hell bent on a full-blown political debate and I’m not gonna bite. PWI is that way ^. Catch you later.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Trying doesn’t matter to me, music does. Covering issues is a death knell for a band for me. I don’t care about issues. Most of these issues bands are very left leaning and it turns me off.[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your political views were probably fully-formed before you got your hands on a RATM album. That doesn’t make their message worthless: their music has undoubtedly turned people onto politics who otherwise would’ve had no interest in it. I can’t see how that can be interpreted as a ‘gimmick’ or ‘selling out’… it’s far more than most bands ever manage to achieve.
Besides, every band covers “issues” sooner or later, whether you realize it or not.
[/quote]
And I don’t care about their musicianship if I hate their issues that much. While many bands do, such as Springsteen, the more I like the band, the easier it is to ignore. I’m not going to sit there and say, wow these guys are so technically proficient if I think they’re a bunch of whiny punks that I can’t stand.
Of course you’re talking to a guy who always loved Springsteen and yelled shut up and play during his last show. I’m basically done with him and his silliness, but my 15 year old wanted to see him with dad.
And why he gets whiny about causes, I think he writes better songs IMO. I know it’s a different style, but I have the Who, Zeppelin, Clapton, Metallica, Devildriver, Cash and so many others that I don’t need to fool with these amateurs.
And I don’t care about their musicianship if I hate their issues that much. While many bands do, such as Springsteen, the more I like the band, the easier it is to ignore. I’m not going to sit there and say, wow these guys are so technically proficient if I think they’re a bunch of whiny punks that I can’t stand.
Of course you’re talking to a guy who always loved Springsteen and yelled shut up and play during his last show. I’m basically done with him and his silliness, but my 15 year old wanted to see him with dad.
And why he gets whiny about causes, I think he writes better songs IMO. I know it’s a different style, but I have the Who, Zeppelin, Clapton, Metallica, Devildriver, Cash and so many others that I don’t need to fool with these amateurs.[/quote]
Fair enough. But all the hatred for RATM is bewildering when you consider that they’ve beaten Cowell to number 1 in the U.K - he’s as commercial as they come, and I don’t see nearly as much criticism for him in this thread. It’s pretty ironic when even the most passionate haters of RATM should at least consider their chart victory as the lesser of two evils.
Cowell’s range of influence is far broader than it appears: he has a solid foothold in both U.S. television and the charts, and his marketing strategies are mind-blowingly cynical.
He claims to be some sort of music aficionado, but all he does is release inferior cover versions of songs that weren’t worth the effort of covering, or songs that are so well known that any cover is going to disappoint. Only recently has he allowed his artists to release original material.
Steve Brookstein, winner of the first series of The X-Factor, was blacklisted by Cowell because he demanded that his debut album to be made up of original material. Needless to say, his career ended before it began.
Look, make no mistake about it, Cowell does not care in any shape or form about music, he’s all about the money. And he’s doing a damn good job of making it.
Hell any artist that he signs(through X-Factor, American Idol or whatever) is contractually obligated to give him a decent share(20% IIRC) of ANY profits they make for at least two years after he’s signed them.
Rage hitting the number 1 spot was just a bit of a fuck you to Cowell letting him know that he doesn’t own the industry just yet.
I saw Rage in the summer of 2008 at the Oxegen music festival. Ho-Lee shit. I got into them when I was like 14 and they quickly became one of my favourite bands and I finally got to see them when I was 19. Right up the front against the barrier. It was fucking awesome.
