(no subject)
Well aside my last entry that was ruined, much to my disappointment and frustration -- it was the sort of writing that you couldn't reproduce a second time if you wanted to redo it.
I feel I've fallen into a musical rut. I am starting to get bored with my music collection, mammoth as it may be. I feel that 90% of all new bands nowadays suck, so there's little to drink at the water hole. I admit that from the singles I heard I was deeply disappointed in System of a Down, BUT I am willing to give their new album a chance mainly because they've been so good in the past.
But every band sounds the same, and not even because it's all been done. There are a million ways to play guitar and a million little twists you can put on different notes, yet every band is content to mimic the SAME style, the SAME riffs and the SAME drum patterns. Worse yet, the lead singers all seem to be one guy (or so you'd think if you didn't know better). The lyrics are really only good for soothing teenage angst, written by a man (or a woman) who desperately needed to fill up 3-4 mins of audio. OK, I get it. A lot of this garbage is to entertain the kids. Maybe it does. But doesn't ANYBODY write music for adults nowadays? It amazes me that children even like this shit.
Bands like Adema who have swapped singers create a lot of debate. Some say they like the swap, that the band needed to ditch the immature vocal style of the original guy and get a better one. They say it took the band in a better direction. Others say it's just not the same. Where do I stand on this one? I'm with those who've listened to the new stuff and say, "nah..." For better or for worse, regardless of what you may say about the old singer, THAT was Adema. This new guy is not as talented as everyone makes him out to be and the sound IS totally different than before - the thing is I just don't like it.
Perhaps that's why I've taken to Dave Matthews, because it is a totally different sound than anything else I've heard and it doesn't seem like a style that's been copied to death. It seems that bands that I like are not bands that the mainstream likes - perhaps there's something to be said about that. For example, of most of the new modern rock bands I think that Seether and Ra are among the best, yet most prefer Breaking Benjamin, Three Days Grace, and Hoobsastank. Don't get me wrong, each of these bands have good songs, BUT the key is what percent of their album is good? I'd say a solid 75% of Seether's is good, where as Breaking Benjamin's good songs are basically only their singles. I miss the old days of NIN or whoever else that I could listen to the album, track 1 till end, without touching the skip button once, and be happy. If Nate has heard anything in FLA to break this barrier of mediocrity, PLEASE do tell.
The winner of the "you had so much potential, especially with your vocal talents, yet wasted them on monotonous lyrics and boring themes" award is: Evanescence. Damn shame.
I feel I've fallen into a musical rut. I am starting to get bored with my music collection, mammoth as it may be. I feel that 90% of all new bands nowadays suck, so there's little to drink at the water hole. I admit that from the singles I heard I was deeply disappointed in System of a Down, BUT I am willing to give their new album a chance mainly because they've been so good in the past.
But every band sounds the same, and not even because it's all been done. There are a million ways to play guitar and a million little twists you can put on different notes, yet every band is content to mimic the SAME style, the SAME riffs and the SAME drum patterns. Worse yet, the lead singers all seem to be one guy (or so you'd think if you didn't know better). The lyrics are really only good for soothing teenage angst, written by a man (or a woman) who desperately needed to fill up 3-4 mins of audio. OK, I get it. A lot of this garbage is to entertain the kids. Maybe it does. But doesn't ANYBODY write music for adults nowadays? It amazes me that children even like this shit.
Bands like Adema who have swapped singers create a lot of debate. Some say they like the swap, that the band needed to ditch the immature vocal style of the original guy and get a better one. They say it took the band in a better direction. Others say it's just not the same. Where do I stand on this one? I'm with those who've listened to the new stuff and say, "nah..." For better or for worse, regardless of what you may say about the old singer, THAT was Adema. This new guy is not as talented as everyone makes him out to be and the sound IS totally different than before - the thing is I just don't like it.
Perhaps that's why I've taken to Dave Matthews, because it is a totally different sound than anything else I've heard and it doesn't seem like a style that's been copied to death. It seems that bands that I like are not bands that the mainstream likes - perhaps there's something to be said about that. For example, of most of the new modern rock bands I think that Seether and Ra are among the best, yet most prefer Breaking Benjamin, Three Days Grace, and Hoobsastank. Don't get me wrong, each of these bands have good songs, BUT the key is what percent of their album is good? I'd say a solid 75% of Seether's is good, where as Breaking Benjamin's good songs are basically only their singles. I miss the old days of NIN or whoever else that I could listen to the album, track 1 till end, without touching the skip button once, and be happy. If Nate has heard anything in FLA to break this barrier of mediocrity, PLEASE do tell.
The winner of the "you had so much potential, especially with your vocal talents, yet wasted them on monotonous lyrics and boring themes" award is: Evanescence. Damn shame.