Are there really no good "bands" anymore?

I was talking to a coworker about Tom Petty, and this coworker (who is about 20 years older than me) said, "it's a shame that there aren't any good bands anymore". I said that that wasn't true, and he asked which bands currently putting out albums were good. I gave a few answers, but was curious as to how Sup Forums might respond to this.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dppDPXgGhnE
youtube.com/watch?v=vK_mnLSgm6M
youtube.com/watch?v=8F9MaFyeQGo
youtube.com/watch?v=xVtuwxeqBYM
youtube.com/watch?v=e4VA-b5ORxI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I wouldn't since people who make baseless broad statements such as those won't ever be convinced otherwise no matter what examples you give them.

People like this annoy me. There are great bands today but they refuse to listen to them because they're different.

I have trouble coming up with bands that I like that are 1 or 2 albums in.
There are plenty of codgers still going that I like though.
I think they will always be codgers from now on, because bands don't have the support to have a breakout debut, they have to do the long slog.

Your coworker sounds like a pretentious, nostalgic cunt. There are plenty of good "bands". Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 5 groups who continue to release consistently excellent and innovative music.

tom petty had no good albums. he was a singles man
your co-worker sounds like somebody who only listens to whats popular on the radio

you could probably introduce him to a bunch of shit from the 70/80s he would have probably thought would suck.

He probably meant that there are no populars bands (with genuine rockstar power) that the general public can name.

Notice how no bands have been posted yet?

>tom petty had no good albums
Not true, by the way

:^)
it's like this EVERY SINGLE TIME. "i know plenty of great bands!" and no one ever posts them. Plus even if they do, it's stuff like post punk, dream pop, indie rock or whatever, which don't have any innovation or any edge to them.

>which don't have any innovation or any edge to them.
what innovation and edge did tom petty have???????

not talking about that guy but the topic of "no good bands today" in general

>Plus even if they do, it's stuff like post punk, dream pop, indie rock or whatever, which don't have any innovation or any edge to them

Well maybe this is why people don't post bands. It always gets met with a stream of
>reddit
>pleb shit
>LMAO THEY SUCK THO
Its not really worth dealing with kids who can only communicate with meme arrows

thats always going to go down with what your individual taste is.
most of the innovation and edge is being made by solo artist these days not bands.

its because the internet ruined any ability for aritsts not on labels to make a living at performing music (meagerly) for 5-10 years honing their craft to reach real competence to form into the level of musicians/public entertainers that guys like Tom Petty reach

There are plenty of bands nowadays, but its true basically none of them gel into the kind of states of performance as the old big acts.

Ending net neutrality will see a resurgence of visual art/music because it will force people to buy stuff again instead of just stealing it as everybody does now through youtube, torrents, etc.

All the pro net neutrality shilling is spearheaded by mega-conglomerates like time warner, sony, et al on reddit and shit steering public opinion because having all that shit free allows them to crush start up competition and they still have their monopoly on avenues of media/marketing by owning TV, radio, publications, etc.

If start up musicians and people making film/tv type stuff could eek out 500 bucks a week doing that, there would be an incredibly flourishing of actual legitimate popular art.

Name 3

haha yeah what now fags xD
LLITERALLY NO BANMDS
NO HAY BANDA

Something else that has changed radically is common attitudes amongst citizens of the west. We are far more cunt-ish than in the past where everyone wants to feel special and have their own little tastes that no one else has so we can feel cool and unique. Our society is more and more fractured and narcissistic. This is a product of leftist politics where the never ending quest for equality and diversity has just made things more segregated and destroyed any sort of admiration of actual homogeneity. You can see this in areas of the country through political demographics in areas highly leftist will have zero people around you that like the same shit you like (the need to feel special...gazillion weird bands no one ever listens to in NYC that never go anywhere and are basically people larping as musicians) vs. places that are more right where the population still has coherence and you still have remnants of a core popular culture- this is the way it is in the south where country music is still kind of a uniting feature of the culture in the way big rock acts of the 70s, 80s, were for the rest of the country. The level of commitment to music is non-comparable between country and people larping as musicians in weird bands in NYC. One takes it extremely seriously and is professional, the other sees it as their 'art' (make me feel special).

>solo artists

That's actually what my coworker said, as rose tinted as his nostalgia glasses were. He said that he missed the feeling of collaboration that you got from a band that had been playing together for nearly a decade and fostering each other almost a decade.

And I found it hard to not mention bands that were off the off beaten path as examples.

One of the bands I decided to go with was Radiohead, mainly because of the consistent line up and that they're still putting stuff out

I will name some bands, can someone give me a criteria of what the band should have?

Further destroying music as a thing people are interested in is the way even established acts make money- because the internet has so completely destroyed the value of music, bands have to make their money in ticket sales for shows, which has destroyed going to concerts as a thing to do for anyone but the most adherent fans. In the 70s, 80s, you could go see the person that had the number 1 hit on the radio for 5 dollars. Now you have to pay 200 dollars to see any big name.

Your coworker kind of has a point.

I listen to lots of new bands, but there's none that have that X factor. There's no band that started in the last 10 years that really made me go "Wow these guys are great and I really want to see them live."

None of them know how to play their instruments anymore. When the most talented musician in your band is the drummer, that's always a bad sign.
I'm not saying to have shredding solos in every song, but it would be nice if the guitar players knew how to play more than basic chords.

I don't know. Maybe I'm growing out of rock.

There is always this argument in these types of threads that 'this is just the ways its always been'

I believe that is a cop out answer for what is going on. It's such an easy answer and so brainless.

We had a popular culture that started in mass communication with radio and it lasted until the internet.

There was a significant characteristic to the culture of the United States/West that was created by this era of radio into television.

The internet is a paradigm shift in communication and much more profound than either radio or television, to say things are 'its always been like this and this is just old people yelling at clouds' is a moronic statement.

There are huge changes in culture going on, much larger than anything civilization has seen since the invention of the printing press.

can you name me some bands that music like this. im tried of only playing josh homme's stuff
youtube.com/watch?v=dppDPXgGhnE
youtube.com/watch?v=vK_mnLSgm6M
youtube.com/watch?v=8F9MaFyeQGo

OP here. Like I said above, I named Radiohead to the coworker as a popular example. I think what the coworker had in mind was:
>consistent line up of musicians, plus or minus a member
>talented musicians who aren't just filler for the front man
That's pretty much it. I wanted to consider Muse, but feel like they have become Bellamy's vanity project and everything after Absolution or BHaR goes downhill

High on Fire, Electric Wizard, Kylesa
Basically metal for people who aren't into metal.

interesting point but I don't think individualism is necessarily a liberal problem. It's just the way things are because of the internet, where everyone has access to everything and anyone can make and publish anything, therefore creating infinite amount of communities and sub cultures. And that just kills all art

White Suns
Black Dice
Animal Collective
Fleet Foxes
Wolf Eyes
MGMT
Radiohead (though I feel like A Meme Shaped Poo is going to be their last)
Death Meme
Cults
Broadcast
Autechre(?)
Royksopp(?)

All of those bands are awful hipster trash.

These are exactly the kind of bands this guy is talking about when he says "There's no good bands anymore."

Sure, Radiohead and Fleet Foxes are good, but they are barely "rock" by the traditional definition.

All of these new bands are effeminate numale cucks who probably hold their coffee cups with two hands.

Protomartyr (dropped the AOTY of 2017 so far) ,King Gizzard is fucking great,Nothing but thieves are okay,Posture and the grizzly are great,Power Trip,Vektor are great Tame Impala (at least their 2nd album) is fantastic and fuck it I'll throw in Royal Blood even though they're generic,I kind of like them

you still see large popularity for singular acts in rural/conservative parts of the country that doesn't exist in liberal/cosmopolitan areas that you could count as a kind of core of their culture

IE juggalos, big and rich, brad paisley, country acts

you can call those bands shit but its besides the point

leftist areas have nothing like that, they are insular and based on exclusivity, conservative cultures are based on inclusivity and celebrating an established core identity that unifies people (in various ways like religion, music, etc)

Autechre are great too but they are barely a new band and neither are Radiohead

Nice! Finally bands, and a whole slew of them!

Rock doesn't have any balls anymore. That's why it's stagnating and dying.

It's not innovating anymore. It's not taking risks.
And all the guys who make it are raging betas who sing about how their girlfriend broke up with them and about how horrible their middle class life is.
Back in the day, rock bands were Chads who sung about how much pussy they were slaying every night and how hard they partied.
Rock has lost all of its testosterone based fury and is now essentially castrated.

Unless there is some major game changer where a new subgenre is invented that reinvigorates rock as a whole, then it will die. You are currently seeing its death throes.

Fucking this. Every single goddamn thread.

Half of these guys haven't been good in years. I'll give you like 3 of them but coincidentally they're not the answers Sup Forums would like to hear

>it's a "the list goes on and on..." episode.

thanks but these sound a bit too metal for me. can you recommend me something that doesnt have agressive vocals

>conservative cultures are based on inclusivity
Except for non-christian religions, gays, and brown people lmao

Dude, it's rock. It's supposed to have aggressive vocals.
Jesus Christ, grow a pair.

Ooo I like that criteria, though it does not describe Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Your examples are both correct. Muse fit before The Resistance album. I am also going to add popularity to the criteria. Here is what I can think of (I am not a fan of every band mentioned).

King Gizz
War on Drugs
Death Grips
Brand New
LCD Soundsystem
Tame Impala
The XX

this is why nobody bothers naming bands.
fags like u who will shit on anything lmao

>leftist areas have nothing like that
that just reminded me of this: youtube.com/watch?v=xVtuwxeqBYM
But yeah, you're right

the balls are in hip hop now! ...but the problems with hip hop are - it's 90% black people, it's barely music (just rhythm), and no one even bothers to make a good album anymore... soundcloud rappers have ruined everything

Thats a load of horseshit.

The edgy thing has been dead since the mid 60s yet rock acts were still big through the 90s.

Its true that masculinity in music has been neutered and its made this thing to be laughed at by (((critics))). You had mostly love songs back in the day though, but I guess they were much more masculine than stuff now.

Its the core component of rap music, too bad that shit is so awful and the idea of masculinity is so twisted in it.

White people (people who listen to rock) have low energy these days.

name some good bands then, pls

>He said that he missed the feeling of collaboration that you got from a band that had been playing together for nearly a decade and fostering each other almost a decade.
well thats because those bands had enough money to stay together. unlike today with every band being bumfuck poor that they have too get 2-3 jobs when they don't tour.

yeah, because those are tiny minorities within the larger group.

So you have conservatives that have large cohesive groups with actual sense community that has outliers that are not included in the group, vs. leftists who tried to include the outliers but the result is complete destruction of the entire community.

Its much better to have a community with a couple people outside it, than no community at all.

>it's a bunch of 18 yr olds get nostalgic about a time where they didn't live in and swear it was better because some old guy working a dead end job loathe about episode

don't you fucks get it. decades from now. kids will be talking about how fucking mcr and panic at the disco was the utopia of how good music was.
get over it.
every generation had a certain sound that dominated while others took a backseat.

Go listen to your newfag bullshit and gtfo with terms like numale and hipster. They've been rendered totally meaningless by people who toss them around aimless. I'm not the guy who posted this nor do I'm a fan of half the artists he named but you're a retard.

You're taste is probably consistent of chiptune memerap and beginner tier singer-songwriters.

>He said that he missed the feeling of collaboration that you got from a band that had been playing together for nearly a decade and fostering each other almost a decade.

so I take it he doesn't listen to jazz

you're talking about mainstream music, we're talking about big alternative music, which is lacking

Pleb. I think you most likely are not into more abstract music. Rock since the late 90s and early 20s has dropped off in progression but the progression has been on underground fronts that you probably don't have the ear for.

> we're talking about big alternative music, which is lacking
when has alternative music never been lacking?

OH, BUT HERE'S THE THING: YOU WON'T FUCKING NAME THEM BECAUSE YOU CAN'T

Death Grips, Idles, Street Sects.
Call it pleb tier garbage all you want. I'm sure that's the only reason you're interested.

>doesn't fit Tom Petty
Exactly. He brought up those things that he wanted from bands in conjunction with Tom Petty, but was definitely thinking more along the lines of Stones/Beatles/Aerosmith/Metallica/ACDC/etc., so the popularity criterion is definitely one that should've been added. Great list! Seems to fit the mold

???
edgy rockstars from 60s, heavy metal of 70s, thrash metal of 80s never really made top 40 but were still huge

here u go bud
youtube.com/watch?v=e4VA-b5ORxI
sorry if this new material for you

>the internet has so completely destroyed the value of music

only monetarily, which is a good thing

There are no prominent bands these days because of how versatile and powerful DAWs are. Singer+producer or singer/producer and you're set.

>edgy rockstars from 60s, heavy metal of 70s, thrash metal of 80s
like who????

Half of what you posted are one-man bands, might as well include NIN and Massive Attack lol

yes and that's with a computer. soon enough it will be easy to make music on the phone with DAWs. Now imagine that. Even worse and lazier soundcloud rap!

literally all of Sup Forumscore????????????

>literally all of Sup Forumscore????????????
i want names buddy

>effeminate numale cucks who probably hold their coffee cups with two hands.

this is the typical mentality of a classic rock fan that holds the genre back. everything has to be masculine and "edgy" (even though rock was never actually edgy relative to other genres) and aggressive and if it isn't then it isn't REAL rock.

rock will never evolve if all its fans share these beliefs, and thus it will continue to die a slow and painful death while other genres like hip-hop continue to innovate and expand.

No, strictly "classic rock", as it were.

Foo fighters getting 6/10 by fantbants put the nail in rocks coffin and The Killers 6/10 put the dirt over it...sad.

are you literally retarded
the who, david bowie, rolling stones, black sabbath, metallica, megadeth, iron maiden.........
or did you think that was top 40 music at the time?

I kinda agree with you two, even if I think the first guy's a bit of a nutjob. The western world (particularly the US) has a vision obsessed with the big stage. Everyone is desperately trying to blow up big and become a huge star. Fugazi has shown it doesn't need to be done to become a quite famous band, critically acclaimed that actually ends up on a profit. One place that keeps a more grassroots scene and has bands still appearing with all sorts of styles and even avoiding the "female bassist" phenomna is Japan, so it can be done in this day and age. Basically, rock has to leave big stage ambitions behind and focus on the small scene first.

>the who, david bowie, rolling stones, black sabbath, metallica, megadeth, iron maiden.........
or did you think that was top 40 music at the time?
are you baiting or what?
literally all of those bands had chart topping releases in their discog
holy shit this has to be bait.

Not all rock has to be an overdose of masculinity, but the complete lack of masculinity is in fact why rock is dying.

You can point fingers in other directions and make excuses about how the internet destroyed rock and all that nonsense, but the real reason why rock is dying, when you cut to the root of it, is simply that men these days are gigantic pussies and simply can't grasp the ethos of what rock is all about.

>hen you cut to the root of it, is simply that men these days are gigantic pussies and simply can't grasp the ethos of what rock is all about.
im sure you know all about what rock is about.
hows that album going bud?

Okay motherfucker I'll spoon feed you

Mount Eerie - Sauna
Women - Public Strain
Liars - Mess
The Fucking Champs - Greatest Hits
Gnod's last three albums
any good Deerhunter album
Sightings - Through the Panama
Any Dope Body album

I know you're kind of self conscious about your masculinity and you want it to reflect in your music but give anyone one of these a go.

Way to move the goalposts.
Deep down you know I'm right though.

Fucking this, the age of "le manly man rock >:c" is over and the sooner people face it, the sooner the genre can progress, this was bound to happen, if you look at rock music in the past, it's been escaping that protrait since the 80s

>Deep down you know I'm right though.
how are you right? when you can't even backup your own theory and make the music you claim to know so well?
everytime these threads pop up. we have some LARP like yourself who doesn't have an inch of talent but whines like he knows it all.

rock music is dead because any sane musician. doesn't want to be in a fucking band with 3-4 other idiots who aren't stable enough to keep it together to make an album let alone tour. without developing some fucking drug or girl problem.

this will be the last (You) you get from me because you're unbelievably retarded.
Bowie was edgy and rebellious, mainstream didn't like him. Black sabbath, Iron Maiden, Slayer etc were "Satanists". It was edgy and alternative because culture was much more conservative at the time. All that music was challenging and offending older people, IT WAS NOT MAINSTREAM. Mainstream shit was the same as it is now, cheesy pop songs about love

You are completely right, I knew someone would notice that.

>refuses to admit all that stuff was still backed by major labels who funded their "edgy" projects with tons of money for studio time and session writers

like i said all of them CHARTED HIGH ON THE CHARTS.

Plenty of influential rock music was made by people you'd describe as nu-males

yes and that's why it's shit now. there's no energy in it, just some fags singing about their feels

Enjoy watching rock die then. The only way to save it is to return to its roots and have it be fun again.

I'm not saying that all rock has to be brainless party rock, but if it doesn't at least have some semblance of masculinity at its core, it will die.

But you go ahead thinking that a guy whining about how he can't get laid over simple chords while wearing a Proud Feminist t-shirt is somehow going to give rock a second chance at life.

When was rock music about having a big dick? The true great bands were never about that, it's always been about sound. You're oversimplifying

Talking Heads, Radiohead, Fugazi, Velvet Underground, even the fucking Beatles were never about that

velvet underground was nothing but low energy fuckign rock music at its core

Let me know how Damn. is after you listen to it again this afternoon.

You're a plebian who hasn't actually listened to them I guarantee it. White Light White Heat lazy? Venus in Furs? Cmon baby I know it's only you're 6th month on mu, maybe you should actually listen to the music you talk about.

>Wanting music to be fun
>>>/Reddit/

Those bands were great because they wrote great songs, experimented often, actually knew how to play their instruments beyond basic chords, and had a more diverse range of subject matter than just ">tfw no gf."
Also, most importantly, their songs actually ROCKED.
The Beatles get shitted on for being a "boy band," but Paperback Writer rocks harder in 2 minutes than most new bands do in their careers.

I can't think of a single band within the last decade that applies to these points.
That's why they are all forgettable trash that will be forgotten in 5 years.

>wanting music to be about feels
>>>/Reddit/

>Sure, Radiohead and Fleet Foxes are good, but they are barely "rock" by the traditional definition.
HAHAHAHAHA

Explain how I'm wrong.

yeah pls tell me how you get pumped up for the gym listening to the gift
lmao

>>wanting music

ROCK ON DUDE
\m/_ (OwO) _\m/

Quality rebuttal.

Fleet Foxes
Jason Isbell & the 400 Unit
Lucero
Drive-By Truckers

you have shit taste so your opinion is wrong

90% of the people here are deoressed fags who listens to music for the feels
You're the one who doesn't belong

The age of the band is over, that's true. That doesn't mean there aren't great bands, but we're not in the 70's anymore.

Yeah man, my taste is shit because I don't like mediocre literal who bands like Black Dice and Wolf Eyes.

Tell me with a straight face that you think these bands will be remembered in 30 years, hell even 10.

Death Grips, LCD Soundsystem, War on Drugs, Iceage, The Drones, Mars Volta, new-era Swans, numerous metal bands, St. Vincent, numerous 2010 noise rock and post punk/hardcore bands

I'm not necessarily a fan of everything here but you can't say they're these aren't dynamic or progressive, that's just being unfair.