"Good music" and the shift from popularity to obscurity

[Dan]

There once was a time when a person, let's say between the ages of 15 and 30, was considered "cool" if they liked the most popular bands. The quality of a band was considered to be directly proportional to its popularity.



Today, it's considered "cool" to be into the most obscure bands and scenes. The quality of a band is now considered to be inversely proportional to its popularity. The more obscure, the more "authentic" the band and music.



At one time, if you wanted to listen to good music, all you had to do was turn on the radio to one of several FM rock stations. Now, common wisdom is that you have to seek it out, in small clubs, MySpace pages, obscure podcasts, and Austin, Texas. If it has airplay on any radio station that's not based at a college, they're sellouts that suck.

When, roughly, did this shift take place? Why do you think the rock scene transitioned from something that was shared by a large part of the population to a fragmented, insular and elitist scene -- or, really, thousands of scenes?

[mgk920]

I think that it started when the FCC relaxed the station ownership limitation rules, meaning that instead of some entity being able to own and control only a small handful of stations, we got the likes of Clear Channel and Cumulus owning hundreds, if not over a thousand stations and homogenized, nationally programmed and dullsville playlists that had little room for new local talent.



Mike

[illinoisplanner]

I think it's stupid. But if people want to pay $5-10 cover to see a crappy band, by all means, go ahead. All too often I see this happen, and then I'm like, "really?!? I just wasted my money on this?!? Any idiot could put on a show like this. Hell, I could do a better job." If an artist's talent, charisma, and popularity is so non-existent to the point where an average person such as myself could exceed them in all these categories, then what really is the point? If I wanted to see some schmo make music, I would have stayed at home and played guitar and sang in front of my mirror. And I think that's what's happening...everybody thinks they can start a band and does so, and so the real talent that may be out there gets lost in the vast abyss.

There used to be a time when artists were popular because they had real musical talent, originality, and charisma, and were able to pump out hook after hook, hit after hit. Those days seem to be gone though. There are a few recent artists out there who are very talented and charismatic and have managed to break big, but it's not like it used to be. There's no big great rock band to come out of the past 15 years that the masses just love. Sure, there have been some pop stars (Timberlake, Spears, Gaga, Fergie, etc.), but no Beatles, Who, Stones, Queen, Aerosmith, Metallica, etc. The biggest bands seem to be Creed and Nickelback, but it seems like nobody likes them and think they just ripped off grunge.

I remember seeing the film This is It in the theaters and realizing how much of a true musical talent and genius Michael Jackson was and realizing how that breed is slowly fading away. I then think of some of my personal favorites, Steven Tyler, Jon Bon Jovi, Eddie Van Halen, etc., and realizing how musically creative, talented, and charismatic these guys were/are and how there's been no one to come after them that can even hold a flame to these guys. Well, what does that mean for the future of rock music then?

[kalimotxo]

I then think of some of my personal favorites, Steven Tyler, Jon Bon Jovi, Eddie Van Halen, etc., and realizing how musically creative, talented, and charismatic these guys were/are and how there's been no one to come after them that can even hold a flame to these guys. Well, what does that mean for the future of rock music then?

Dude, do you honestly think 80s blowdryer rock was the apex of good music? No offense, but 99% of that shit is bubble gum pop with a distortion pedal and hammer-ons.

Dan, it seems to me that this trend is really an indicator of how powerful a force the internet has been in the democratization of music. I think the trend can be traced back to around the turn of the 21st century and has since accelerated quite a bit. Sites like Myspace and last.fm, MP3s, etc. have allowed bands to establish major fanbases in other cities and even countries without having to tour non-stop and live like peasants. Of course, many still do, but at least when they get there it's more likely that a handful of pimply teenagers have been to their Myspace page and know the words to a handful of their songs.

As someone who seeks out and cherishes new, innovative music, I think it's overall an awesome trend. Having said that, sucks to the hipsters that can't stand the fact that good bands will eventually get attention and would rather abandon their interests simply to favor something more obscure.

[illinoisplanner]

Dude, do you honestly think 80s blowdryer rock was the apex of good music? No offense, but 99% of that shit is bubble gum pop with a distortion pedal and hammer-ons.

No offense, but you're wrong and obviously have little knowledge or taste when it comes to music. Eddie Van Halen popularized the techniques of tapping and volume swells, Steven Tyler and Joe Perry created "Walk This Way" which is responsible for mainstream rap and hip-hop, Bon Jovi successfully fused hard rock & pop in the 1980s and hard rock & country in the 2000s, creating the only hard rock album to spawn five Top 10 pop hits and becoming the only hard rock band to top the country charts.

And I simply identified my favorites. Yes, I know there are other talented people from the 70s and 80s that are fading, but frankly, I happen to enjoy music produced by these talented individuals more.

[kalimotxo]

No offense, but you're wrong and obviously have little knowledge or taste when it comes to music. Eddie Van Halen popularized the techniques of tapping and volume swells, Steven Tyler and Joe Perry created "Walk This Way" which is responsible for mainstream rap and hip-hop, Bon Jovi successfully fused hard rock & pop in the 1980s and hard rock & country in the 2000s, creating the only hard rock album to spawn five Top 10 pop hits and becoming the only hard rock band to top the country charts.

And I simply identified my favorites. Yes, I know there are other talented people from the 70s and 80s that are fading, but frankly, I happen to enjoy music produced by these talented individuals more.

Sorry, "Walk This Way" was a song sampled and covered by Run DMC years after the original version was written; Tyler and Perry had nothing to do creatively with the fusion of the two genres. Even if the hip-hop version had been their idea, groups like Fishbone and Afrikaa Bambataa had been doing it for years before that version even came out. And yes, Eddie Van Halen was a fantastically proficient guitarist, but technical guitar solos do not equal innovative music. Bon Jovi somewhat successfully fused hard rock and pop years after bands like T Rex and Cheap Trick had already done it much better. Sorry man, you can question my musical taste but don't accuse me of having little knowledge of the subject.

I honestly think you are missing out on tons of really awesome music with your attitude that a $5 or $10 show automatically denotes a crappy band. While Bon Jovi spent 1985-present trying on new leather pants, Ian MacKaye and Fugazi were turning down million dollar record deals to play shows to people who cared more about music than prestige and popularity. In almost 20 years, they never charged more than $15 for a show. They actually pushed the bounds of the genre, and you're making claims about musical greatness based on national charts and high ticket prices.

[illinoisplanner]

Sorry, "Walk This Way" was a song sampled and covered by Run DMC years after the original version was written; Tyler and Perry had nothing to do creatively with the fusion of the two genres. Even if the hip-hop version had been their idea, groups like Fishbone and Afrikaa Bambataa had been doing it for years before that version even came out. And yes, Eddie Van Halen was a fantastically proficient guitarist, but technical guitar solos do not equal innovative music. Bon Jovi somewhat successfully fused hard rock and pop years after bands like T Rex and Cheap Trick had already done it much better. Sorry man, you can question my musical taste but don't accuse me of having little knowledge of the subject.

I honestly think you are missing out on tons of really awesome music with your attitude that a $5 or $10 show automatically denotes a crappy band. While Bon Jovi spent 1985-present trying on new leather pants, Ian MacKaye and Fugazi were turning down million dollar record deals to play shows to people who cared more about music than prestige and popularity. In almost 20 years, they never charged more than $15 for a show. They actually pushed the bounds of the genre, and you're making claims about musical greatness based on national charts and high ticket prices.

Sorry, you're wrong again.

Rap would have never gone mainstream had Run-DMC never covered that song. Had it never been written, it would have never been covered. Steven Tyler's knack for fast-paced lyrics and Joe Perry's incredible rhythm and soul paved the way for rap as we know it.

Technical guitar solos do equal innovative music. Songs like "Cathedral" and "Strung Out" had never been done before prior to Eddie Van Halen. As one of the band's songs says, "You Can't Get This Stuff No More".

And T. Rex and Cheap Trick did not do it better. Those bands were more pop anyways. Bon Jovi fused genres in a way that was immensely successful. They were more hard rock to begin with than those bands were, so their ability to pull off eight consecutive Top 10 hits from 1986 to 1989 was remarkable, and no hard rock band has equaled that success.

And of course, not all bands that charge $5-10 are bad. I have seen a handful of good ones, but most of the stuff out there is crap.

[WSU MUP Student]

I do agree with some of what IllinoisPlanner says: mainly Run-D.M.C. opening up mainstream hip hop and Bon Jovi being the most successful to fuse hard rock and pop. It's hard to argue against that. And this comes from a guy who absolutely loves Arfika Bambaataa (in fact, I have Planet Rock on vinyl and it hits the turntable quite frequently) and Bon Jovi contemporaries like Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Butthole Surfers, Meat Puppets, Big Black, and Dinosaur, Jr.

However, Run-D.M.C. was pretty successful before they sampled "Walk This Way". They may have exploded in 1986 with their Raising Hell album I think a lot of that success could be attributed to the Beastie Boys' License to Ill and the previous year's Radio from LL Cool J, both better than Raising Hell (but not Run-D.M.C.'s earlier work) and both, like Raising Hell, produced by Rick Rubin. Rubin worked hard to get his acts on national tours with the likes of Madonna and The Replacements where they could get exposed to audiences that might otherwise never have paid them any mind

As for Bon Jovi, they arrived on the heels of harder mainstream metal acts like Mötley Crüe and Kiss and brought with them slightly less glam, making them a lot more appealing to a wider audience. If you look at the sales numbers and tour revenues for Bon Jovi, Slippery When Wet, and New Jersey, I think you would be hard pressed to find a band that was more successful in the world of rock in the late 1980s and earlier 1990s (with possibly the exception of Guns N' Roses)

As for this statement:

And T. Rex and Cheap Trick did not do it better. Those bands were more pop anyways.

That's just laughable. I don't know anybody who would consider T. Rex "pop". Not only were they pretty darn heavy, they were probably one the most essential influences behind Bowie's glam-transformation, arena rock powerhouse Queen and art/punk movement bands like Television, Blondie, and Talking Heads. From 1971 through 1973 (Electric Warrior to Tanx), I don't know of a band who rocked harder while bringing their own style to the game (While the Rolling Stones put out some of their best work during that time, they were just a rehashing of American Blues and roots music. And Led Zeppelin? Is there a style they didn't rip off?). As for Cheap Trick, sure, the two songs that get played on classic rock stations over and over again may epitomize bubblegum pop, but they were definitely a lot heavier than people give them credit for.

I think that it started when the FCC relaxed the station ownership limitation rules, meaning that instead of some entity being able to own and control only a small handful of stations, we got the likes of Clear Channel and Cumulus owning hundreds, if not over a thousand stations and homogenized, nationally programmed and dullsville playlists that had little room for new local talent.

The homogenization of radio playlists is probably one of the worse things that happened to the music industry (unless of course you are collecting royalties from the Black Eyed Peas). Ticket Master and Live Nation taking over the concert ticketing industry has had roughly the same effect on the live scene as well. The fees that they require venues and artists to cough up (and then of course pass on to the concert goer) help nobody, make touring more expensive for smaller bands and attracting artists more expensive for smaller venues.

Radio homogenization and Ticket Master taking over the world, make it difficult for smaller, yet still talented, acts like the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Great Lake Swimmers, Guided by Voices, or the Pernice Brothers to break over from indie obscurity. Also, success is so subjective. Sufjan Stevens and Will Oldham may not have record sales that compare to the White Stripes or Jay Z. but they are both wildly influential and have written for, produced, recorded, worked with with many much more successful artists.

Would I rather pay $10 to go see a band like Built to Spill or $60 to go see a band like Aerosmith? I'd choose Built to Spill any day of the week. I think there are a lot of acts out there that may have given up trying to get massive radio airplay and are perfectly content to continue making great music and touring in smaller venues charging lower prices. In fact, I cannot remember the last time I paid more than $20 to go see a live music act, and I probably went to about 30 concerts last year and 50 the year before that! (And I'm not counting going to a bar that charges an $8 cover while some crappy Eagles cover band plays while I try to watch the ball game)

And Dan, if 25 years ago, you thought people listening to Poison, Metallica, Boston, and Journey were cool, then the kids listening to Black Flag, Big Star, Mission of Burma, Mudhoney, and Hüsker Dü were probably mocking you. In the words of Ben Folds, "There's always someone cooler than you!"

In the end, I think a lot of people tend to confuse good music with popular music. While they are not necessarily the same thing, they are not mutually exclusive either; they could probably be best expressed in the following way:

[stroskey]

As someone who spent years in a touring "indie" band I feel qualified to answer this question. What you are describing is the view from the "scene" crowd. However, if music like the Black Eyed Peas and Carrie Underwood wasn't popular they wouldn't be selling out arena concerts. The fact is groups (not bands) like this have music written for them that is designed for radio play and nothing more. How many times have you purchased a CD to hear a good song you heard on the radio only to find 11 other junk tracks? This is why iTunes has had immense popularity. The faster we can churn out radio-friendly tunes the better because people have short attention spans. With that being said, big-name and nameless artists both have junk and both have good tunes.

You see "scene" people all around because they are so loud about their tastes but if you go to a regular place you'll find normal people like normal music. As these kids turn 25-30-35 they no longer care about the fashion and the "scene" and start listening to stuff they like...because they just like it. With the exception of some club owners and a few select people, most 40 years old don't go seeking out random bands on the internet because it's not worth it anymore.

The internet has made it so easy for anyone with a 4 track recorder and a demo editing software to create and share music. When most radio stations are owned by a select few companies and the internet has thousands of unsigned bands of course you're going to see obscure as cool because you took the time to seek out and listen to these bands, It shows you care about the music, not about the production styles and marketing of it, and you want to see how real artists feel about their songs, not what a writer in Sweden (Max Martin anyone?) feels about a pop group.

[danthonyjr]

Bon Jovi? Seriously? They recorded one song, then figured out a way to re-record over and over and over again. Example: Sing the words of 'Born to Be My Baby' to the tune of 'We Weren't Born to Follow'. When I first heard the latter on radio, I wondered why the station was playing such an old song when it prides itself on being the 'voice of the 21st century'. Then I realized the lyrics were slightly different. Wow. Exact same chord progression. You'll find that same progression in at least 80 percent of their songs. They better watch out or they'll get Fogerty'd in court.

I support indie music and local music, whether it's my taste or not. These guys work hard and don't have auto tune, Clear Channel, and millions of dollars to market themselves.

I do like big rock music, too -- but typically from those who are able to reinvent themselves and their music -- not simply serve up the same thing over and again in new packaging.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

As someone who spent years in a touring "indie" band I feel qualified to answer this question. What you are describing is the view from the "scene" crowd. However, if music like the Black Eyed Peas and Carrie Underwood wasn't popular they wouldn't be selling out arena concerts. The fact is groups (not bands) like this have music written for them that is designed for radio play and nothing more. How many times have you purchased a CD to hear a good song you heard on the radio only to find 11 other junk tracks? This is why iTunes has had immense popularity. The faster we can churn out radio-friendly tunes the better because people have short attention spans. With that being said, big-name and nameless artists both have junk and both have good tunes.

You see "scene" people all around because they are so loud about their tastes but if you go to a regular place you'll find normal people like normal music. As these kids turn 25-30-35 they no longer care about the fashion and the "scene" and start listening to stuff they like...because they just like it. With the exception of some club owners and a few select people, most 40 years old don't go seeking out random bands on the internet because it's not worth it anymore.

The internet has made it so easy for anyone with a 4 track recorder and a demo editing software to create and share music. When most radio stations are owned by a select few companies and the internet has thousands of unsigned bands of course you're going to see obscure as cool because you took the time to seek out and listen to these bands, It shows you care about the music, not about the production styles and marketing of it, and you want to see how real artists feel about their songs, not what a writer in Sweden (Max Martin anyone?) feels about a pop group.

This post is right on. I am a 40 year old who DOES go seeking new music. I think there is a case that new bands not doing covers, usually do have a lot of misses when it comes to available tracts. However, every once in a while they nail one! This is the bueaty of the obscure.

DJ's fight each other tooth and nail to find this new stuff. They rarely let others know their method for finding new music. At least, not for the first few weeks of play for a tune. Having DJ'd and having organized DJ's, it was always very friendly competition to get those new artists 1 good tune before the others. DJ's synthasize the scene for those into that particular genre.

So what if an artist has one good tune at first. As with any other group, if they can keep it together and get 2-5 good tracts out over the next couple of years, they will probably develop a pretty good living after that.

American groups can be so weird about allowing the band members to do side projects. Euro group members do side projects to release their own creations without causing band friction all the time.

There were lots of groups that were good in the 80's. One hit wonders to super bands. Same with the 90's and in any decade. Clear channel be damned. If it gets homogenized on the radio, the internet won't (The end of times are coming Mgk 920 just argued FOR government regulation )

[kalimotxo]

Rap would have never gone mainstream had Run-DMC never covered that song. Had it never been written, it would have never been covered. Steven Tyler's knack for fast-paced lyrics and Joe Perry's incredible rhythm and soul paved the way for rap as we know it.

Wow, with that kind of infallible logic, I guess I can give up on trying to have an intelligent debate about music. Steven Tyler and Joe Perry are responsible for "rap as we know it"? Jesus, man... there's just so so much wrong with that assertion.

I'm trying to imagine a world in which American culture reached it's pinnacle during the era of Whitesnake and Ronald Reagan

[TexanOkie]

I'm trying to imagine a world in which American culture reached it's pinnacle during the era of Whitesnake and Ronald Reagan Nope, that would've been the era of Elvis, Coltrane, Sinatra's 2nd incarnation through the early Rat Pack years, and Eisenhower & JFK.

[illinoisplanner]

That's just laughable. I don't know anybody who would consider T. Rex "pop". Not only were they pretty darn heavy, they were probably one the most essential influences behind Bowie's glam-transformation, arena rock powerhouse Queen and art/punk movement bands like Television, Blondie, and Talking Heads. From 1971 through 1973 (Electric Warrior to Tanx), I don't know of a band who rocked harder while bringing their own style to the game (While the Rolling Stones put out some of their best work during that time, they were just a rehashing of American Blues and roots music. And Led Zeppelin? Is there a style they didn't rip off?). As for Cheap Trick, sure, the two songs that get played on classic rock stations over and over again may epitomize bubblegum pop, but they were definitely a lot heavier than people give them credit for.

Well, upon further review, both T. Rex and Bon Jovi are considered pop/rock artists according to Allmusic.com. However, it lists heavy metal as one of Bon Jovi's styles, while T. Rex is also mentioned as being folk-rock. At the end of the day, it appears to me that Bon Jovi is/was the heavier band. Sure, you may not hear it as well on the #1 hits you all are probably most familiar with, but a lot of their work was pretty heavy.

And yes, Cheap Trick made some pretty decent hard rock music. But like it's been said, Bon Jovi's success was unprecedented.

And Dan, if 25 years ago, you thought people listening to Poison, Metallica, Boston, and Journey were cool, then the kids listening to Black Flag, Big Star, Mission of Burma, Mudhoney, and Hüsker Dü were probably mocking you. In the words of Ben Folds, "There's always someone cooler than you!"

In the end, I think a lot of people tend to confuse good music with popular music. While they are not necessarily the same thing, they are not mutually exclusive either; they could probably be best expressed in the following way:

Well, everybody's certainly entitled to their own opinion. What's considered "cool" is all relative. And just because something's popular doesn't make it cool. In fact, a lot of the crap that's been popular the past 15 years has sucked IMO. And just because something's popular doesn't make it uncool or of inferior quality. There are a lot of bands out there that are/were popular that I think made great music. The Beatles are the bestselling band of all time and were also hugely influential and made great music. Aerosmith is the bestselling American rock band and was hugely influential and made great music as well...it seems like the list of artists that were influenced by the Rocks album is neverending. I love how people claim a band "sells out" when they finally achieve a #1 album or song. Why? Because they actually made a product that was so good that people appreciated it so much that they would go out and buy it?

Bon Jovi? Seriously? They recorded one song, then figured out a way to re-record over and over and over again. Example: Sing the words of 'Born to Be My Baby' to the tune of 'We Weren't Born to Follow'. When I first heard the latter on radio, I wondered why the station was playing such an old song when it prides itself on being the 'voice of the 21st century'. Then I realized the lyrics were slightly different. Wow. Exact same chord progression. You'll find that same progression in at least 80 percent of their songs. They better watch out or they'll get Fogerty'd in court.

I support indie music and local music, whether it's my taste or not. These guys work hard and don't have auto tune, Clear Channel, and millions of dollars to market themselves.

I do like big rock music, too -- but typically from those who are able to reinvent themselves and their music -- not simply serve up the same thing over and again in new packaging.

OK, so Bon Jovi had one song that sounds a little similar to another song they did. Big f'n deal. A lot of AC/DC songs sound the same...it's called developing your own sound. But Bon Jovi has always been a band to re-invent itself and employ different sounds. If you look at their other 100+ songs, you will find that there are vast differences. From the pop/AC of "Always" and "Bed of Roses" to the dark/depressing music on These Days to the power-pop/alt-rock of Crush to the country-flavored Lost Highway to their hard-rocking earlier material to the more mature, yet still hard rock of New Jersey, this band has a vast array of different musical styles and original songs.

Wow, with that kind of infallible logic, I guess I can give up on trying to have an intelligent debate about music. Steven Tyler and Joe Perry are responsible for "rap as we know it"? Jesus, man... there's just so so much wrong with that assertion.

I'm trying to imagine a world in which American culture reached it's pinnacle during the era of Whitesnake and Ronald Reagan

I know it's hard to admit the truth that rap music broke into the mainstream thanks to an Aerosmith song and that the band was ahead of their time, but if you want to live in denial, by all means go ahead.

I'll agree with TO that the 50s/early 60s was a pinnacle time in American culture, and will also say that the 80s/early 90s of Reagan/Bush and Michael Jackson/Madonna/Bruce Springsteen/Prince/Van Halen/Bon Jovi/Guns N' Roses/Def Leppard is right up there as another pinnacle time as well.

[mgk920]

I'm also wondering what effects all of these copyright 'takedowns' aimed at YouTube and the continuing (despite the labels' best efforts) heavy use of illegal underground file-sharing networks is having on this all.

With the YouTube takedowns and so forth, along with the absurdly long copyright protection time terms in today's world (some stuff from the late-1920s is STILL under copyright) and owners bottling up so much stuff, I really fear that much of what made popular culture what it was over the past few decades, including a LOT of good and iconic stuff, will be completely lost on our descendants.

Mike

[kalimotxo]

Well, upon further review, both T. Rex and Bon Jovi are considered pop/rock artists according to Allmusic.com. However, it lists heavy metal as one of Bon Jovi's styles, while T. Rex is also mentioned as being folk-rock. At the end of the day, it appears to me that Bon Jovi is/was the heavier band. Sure, you may not hear it as well on the #1 hits you all are probably most familiar with, but a lot of their work was pretty heavy.... I hate to participate in the derailment of this thread, but I have to drop some knowledge lest you continue making up musical history as you go along. T. Rex was a folk rock band in the late 60s that transitioned into more of a hard glam rock style in the 70s. I'd recommend that you actually listen to music instead of relying on AllMusic's genre characterizations for your arguments. Beside, the original point I was trying to make was that bands like T Rex and Cheap Trick, among many others, were fusing hard rock and pop music long before Bon Jovi came along and therefore I don't think Bon Jovi were doing anything particularly innovative. I certainly don't want to argue about who is "heavier" (FWIW, I don't think any of these bands are particularly heavy in the overall scheme of rock music) ...I know it's hard to admit the truth that rap music broke into the mainstream thanks to an Aerosmith song and that the band was ahead of their time, but if you want to live in denial, by all means go ahead. Again, just to dispute your musical revisionism... the Sugar Hill Gang had a rap hit 7 years before Aerosmith defied physics to create the rap genre by allowing someone to cover their song. If you want to go by your standard, the disco band Chic created mainstream rap because their guitar riff was sampled in "Rapper's Delight." Sorry man, but you're wrong. Brush up on your pop music history and I'd be pleased to debate you when you have some idea what you're talking about.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I'm also wondering what effects all of these copyright 'takedowns' aimed at YouTube and the continuing (despite the labels' best efforts) heavy use of illegal underground file-sharing networks is having on this all.
.....

The file-sharing networks are helping to spread music by genre and obscurity. The off label indie producers have even been known to post their own stuff on purpose to these sites. You can't get your voice heard any easier than by getting your stuff out there for free. If you are good enough, you make some change and even get to go on tour. It helps more than it hurts. Many bands I would never have paid good money to see if I had never heard them before, then I buy their crap.

Piracy goes down when the price becomes bearable to take a chance. Again, many of us would pay $20 bucks for 4 or 5 artists we could download online. $20 for one album? Waste of time.

[illinoisplanner]

I hate to participate in the derailment of this thread, but I have to drop some knowledge lest you continue making up musical history as you go along. T. Rex was a folk rock band in the late 60s that transitioned into more of a hard glam rock style in the 70s. I'd recommend that you actually listen to music instead of relying on AllMusic's genre characterizations for your arguments. Beside, the original point I was trying to make was that bands like T Rex and Cheap Trick, among many others, were fusing hard rock and pop music long before Bon Jovi came along and therefore I don't think Bon Jovi were doing anything particularly innovative. I certainly don't want to argue about who is "heavier" (FWIW, I don't think any of these bands are particularly heavy in the overall scheme of rock music) I've listened to Cheap Trick and T. Rex (hell, Cheap Trick was formed a half hour from me), but instead of this being me hearing one genre when listening to the music and you hearing another, I thought I'd bring in a reliable third party reference to prove my point. In case you didn't know, that's how things work in research. T. Rex and Cheap Trick may have been trying to fuse genres, but it didn't really work as well for them. It was mostly pop to begin with. Or hard rock-lite, if you will. Bon Jovi combined more extreme genres. Bon Jovi has actually been considered to be heavy metal (in the traditional sense, not in the Megadeth sense), while Cheap Trick and T. Rex never were. And also, T. Rex may have turned into a rock band after experiencing with folk rock, but they were still folk rock at some point, so points against them. I've listened and can tell that Bon Jovi obviously was heavier, and the sources say so. Their knack for combining hard rock/metal and pop was unmatched. Songs like "You Give Love a Bad Name", "Wanted Dead or Alive", "Lay Your Hands on Me", and "Bad Medicine" are certainly heavier than T. Rex's lone hit "Get it On" and were also more successful than that song, meaning they were also poppier. Again, just to dispute your musical revisionism... the Sugar Hill Gang had a rap hit 7 years before Aerosmith defied physics to create the rap genre by allowing someone to cover their song. If you want to go by your standard, the disco band Chic created mainstream rap because their guitar riff was sampled in "Rapper's Delight." Sorry man, but you're wrong. Brush up on your pop music history and I'd be pleased to debate you when you have some idea what you're talking about. Big deal. One-hit-wonders the Sugar Hill Gang had a Top 40 hit that did little to popularize rap music. And they just ripped off Chic and got sued for it. In fact, the Chic song was written in 1979, while "Walk This Way" was written in 1975. So, Aerosmith was paving the way long before that anyway. When Run-DMC covered "Walk This Way" in 1986, 95% of the groundwork had already been laid for them by Aerosmith 11 years prior. The hip-hop beats, the funky rhythm, the fast-paced vocals, the sexual lyrics...it was already there. And what Run-DMC and Aerosmith did was actually significant, since it was then that rap music took off and became a mainstream genre. I know plenty about music. And the truth is, it's all relative. Genres are fluid, definitions of success are relative. You think one thing, I think another. So I don't know why you insist on continuing this pissing match.

[Richmond Jake]

Can't we all just get along?
This is not a serious thread.

[kalimotxo]

Can't we all just get along? This is not a serious thread. That'd be ideal... unfortunately attributing the success of rap music to Aerosmith is an egregious error of fact, not opinion. This and most of the rest of his arguments just don't hold water (case in point... Chic never sued SHG), and I don't deal well with BS regardless of whether I'm talking about music, politics, or history. IllinoisPlanner and I will probably never agree on anything music-related or otherwise, so I'll just leave this thread forever before I stick something sharp in my ear.

[illinoisplanner]

That'd be ideal... unfortunately attributing the success of rap music to Aerosmith is an egregious error of fact, not opinion. This and most of the rest of his arguments just don't hold water (case in point... Chic never sued SHG), and I don't deal well with BS regardless of whether I'm talking about music, politics, or history. IllinoisPlanner and I will probably never agree on anything music-related or otherwise, so I'll just leave this thread forever before I stick something sharp in my ear. Oh, really. Well to prove you wrong: According to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p...ifpxq95ldhe~T1, "Most industry people figured rap for a short-lived trend, and though they were dead wrong, the Sugarhill Gang certainly didn't carry the torch." It wasn't until 1986 that someone carried the torch, when Run-DMC covered an Aerosmith song with very little effort since the song was so natural for rap. As for being sued, yes they were: http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=6304. "Sugar Hill Gang are best known for the 1979 hit `Rapper`s Delight`. The song samples Chic`s bassline in `Good Times`. Chic`s Nile Rodgers sued, won and now owns part of the song." As for Aerosmith's role in popularizing rap music and bringing it into the mainstream: According to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p...3:0xfqxzwrldhe, ""Walk This Way" has the curious and unique position of being a turning point in both hard rock and hip-hop. Sure, the song introduced metal riffs to the lexicon, but it also brought rap into the mainstream." "DJ Jam Master Jay scratched the Aerosmith record for a rhythmic foundation for the rhymes of Run and D.M.C."...which were actually the rhymes of Steven Tyler but sung by Run and DMC. "Also, since Tyler's rhymes didn't really follow a real melody, they're perfect for Run and D.M.C.'s breakneck, forceful delivery — they actually make the song sound more rhythmic. Listeners unfamiliar with the Aerosmith original could be forgiven for thinking that Run-D.M.C.'s version was the original because it sounds so natural." Sounds so natural...cause Aerosmith already did it 11 years prior.

[Whose Yur Planner]

FWIW rap is not singing per se. It is more related to poetry and spoken word.

[Seabishop]

Steven Tyler's a man?

Off topic a little but I find it interesting that the generation gap in music is disappearing. You would think with modern technology the opposite would happen. When my dad listened to Rolling Stones records his parents couldn't relate at all. When I was a kid my dad and I could both relate to 80's pop music. Now my 10 year old is happily downloading songs from my ipod. Parents in their 30's and 40's have grown up with all sorts of extreme music like gangster rap and metal, so it's hard to see your teenager's taste in music as shocking (although you want it to be age appropriate).

WSU's graphic sums it up. People who thing "good" music can't be popular are just musical ideologs. And of course what is "good" music is so subjective. It's actually OK to disagree with the critical consensus or the record charts.

[Mud Princess]

Off topic a little but I find it interesting that the generation gap in music is disappearing. You would think with modern technology the opposite would happen. When my dad listened to Rolling Stones records his parents couldn't relate at all. When I was a kid my dad and I could both relate to 80's pop music. Now my 10 year old is happily downloading songs from my ipod. Parents in their 30's and 40's have grown up with all sorts of extreme music like gangster rap and metal, so it's hard to see your teenager's taste in music as shocking (although you want it to be age appropriate).

I've noticed that, too, and I think it's great. I know people who attend concerts (and we're not talking "easy listening" here, folks) with their teenage kids, and no one bats an eye. I've met a couple of women in their 20s at shows, and while there is obviously a considerable age difference, we can talk intelligently about music and bands. I find it interesting that they like music from the '60s and '70s as much as current artists... it's not a big deal to like what we used to call folk-rock and also enjoy, say, the Flaming Lips or Interpol. Anything goes.

[stroskey]

In middle school in the mid 1990s people would have Beatles records, t-shirts, etc... Not because they liked the music but because to my age cohort the Beatles were cool because they were old. Those same people now like obscure bands which I find very ironic.