Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
At least according to Cryophonic.
YEAH!
Wait, what did I say?
Vector A
You said that it's all for the best, of course it is.
cryophonik
quote:
Originally posted by -FSP-
I would like to come on here and bash punk music too. Sorry, but I don't respect it. I also don't respect the message. I respect some post-punk, but punk music is responsible for teenagers and even adults who think they rebel when they actually reinforce the status quo by buying Green Day...
Aaaaagggghhhh!!!! :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip:
OK, deep breath. He's young and probably doesn't know any better. Breath....breathe.....breathe.....happy thoughts....
Green Day is not punk. That is all.
quote:
Originally posted by CalvP
I think there's a slight difference between the likes of Green Day, Offspring etc & bands like The Clash, The Ramones, Sex Pistols etc!
Thank you, Calvin, for knowing the difference between punk and guys like Green Day who are rebelling by earning fortunes. :rolleyes:
Now excuse me while I wash that foul Green Day stench away with some proper punk.
MSZ
-FSP-
I will accept that Green Day isn't punk, and I will acknowledge that I am trolling and don't know a thing about punk. I got people typing, so mission accomplished.
^^They shouldn't be associated with Green Day. I just know that people consider TG a part of post-punk, and I have no clue if that's part of the set of punk since I don't know a thing about it. I will acknowledge that TG deserves it's spot in musical canon.
Looney4Clooney
quote:
Originally posted by CalvP
I think there's a slight difference between the likes of Green Day, Offspring etc & bands like The Clash, The Ramones, Sex Pistols etc!
/\ Hell hearing that i'd rather try & write 10 edm tracks DJ's would support right now than try & emulate it.
The 'message' you're describing is a bastardization of the real genre & what it stood for at the time. Of course there was rubbish released too, but it certainly can't be described as a worthless period imo, far from it in fact.
i have to disagree, it was the original punk that was just awful. It never really was about the music. It was a social scene. The post punk so cal style ie lagwagon , strung out , nofx were great bands.
Beatflux
No.
mathieu
sure its too easy making a ty dance music jingle on your computer, but making good music is still hard imo. back then they used to do pretty tedious to have good results, we dont have to go through the that they did, but the whole tediousness of the process seemed to help creativity (i know it does in my case, i become most creative when i start endlessly editing or whatever and become super focused).
since nowadays everything is built to make you work faster you have to compensate for that loss of creativity, so its the same thing.
and they used to work in bunches, most of us work alone or sometimes collab with one person. personally i think working with other people boosts creativity, my most creative times making music are when im with my friends playing on a cheap ty casio keyboard and beatboxing, the music whe get out of it is unreal lol, when im in my room alone infront of my computer i dont get the same ''energy'' or whatever.
Looney4Clooney
they are famous for their social implications. They aren't good tunes.
Vector A
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
they are famous for their social implications. They aren't good tunes.
+1
I wish people would separate the political / social stances of musicians from the actual skill of the music.
People who use music as a channel for their urge to join some cool rebellious social movement are especially bad about this.
DJ RANN
A simple answer to the thread title, is YES.
I know some of us have touched on this before (Dave, Alanzo, Lolo, Eric J etc) but in the old days it used to require a lot of investment in terms of both equipment and time.
Now also factor in that you would probably have a pro engineer involved at some stage and that it would be mastered and pressed to vinyl (an expensive process) and you essentially had a quality filter.
Don't get me wrong, there were still some atrocious vinyl releases but neither artists or labels would spunk all their money, time and effort if the track was crap.
It also meant you had people who knew what they were really doing, both musically and technically, were the ones producing records.
Now all you need is a computer, a bunch of plugs and digital label to get a release out. None of these "filters" are in place anymore. It's never been easier to make a track or to get it out there.
Now combine this with the rise of "rockstar", jesus posing, fist pumping DJ culture (a' la guetta and SHM), and any twat with a PC thinks they will be the next big thing at wet republic.
This means the mass standard has dropped in terms of the quality of music. This doesn't mean that quality music is not being produced, it's just harder to find amongst a sea of disposable dross.
At least one positive thing out of the increased accessibility is that there is the potential for people who are talented to create something great with not much outlay, which previously was impossible.
