You really do fail to see the underlying concepts at hand don't you?
Your first post:
...but i have gotten kinda fed up with the rock music which has been coming out of pretty much everywhere since 2000
Premise 1: ...music everywhere, since 2000.
Being a guitar player i really really hate the music from simple plan, good charlette, and what not, who mangage to dumb down the talent required to be a successful guitarist or musician
Premise 2: Music which is dumbed down, ala simplistic in nature, which reduces the talent required to be a 'successful' guitarist or musician.
Some of the contemporary stuff is ok, such as RHCP, wolfmother is alright too, but everything else gives me the shits.
Premise 3: There are bands, but they are few, which are ok. Emphasis on 'everything else gives me the shits'.
Am i the only one whose actually ended up going back to listening to the rock from the late 60's, and 70's, which were by far more complex, powerful and better quality that what is being created now?
Premise 4: Reversion to rock during the 60s, 70s, reasoning included that these were 'far more complex, powerful and better quality' as opposed to 'what is being created now'.
Im talking about bands such as Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix and what not, but not particularly the beetles.
Premise 5: Distinction between Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix and The Beatles. Reasoning given via 2nd post: 'I found that the beatels got a bit boring with some of there silly songs, but they had a fair few good ones.'
2nd Post:
Im in the school jazz band so my interests in music are very unique i guess, i really only appreciate songs which are really unique, complex in either theory or style.
Premise 6: Being in a school jazz band makes your tastes unique, and appreciation for songs which are really 'unique, complex in either theory or style.'
ill sum up my lists of why i dislike contemporary rock:
1. over over over use of repetition through bar chords (i.e riff only changes once in a song)
2. Singers cant help but complain over the radio ( Simple Plan "I'm sorry i cant b perfect")
3. Solo's written for a song which are constructed like a riff opposed to improvisation
4. Tendancy to move away from riffs and have a whole song with only chords
5. No band is unique anymore, sure they may have there own songs, but besides the singing the music all sounds the same.
Premise 7: Offers reasons for 'dislike' of contemporary rock.
- over use of repetition
- subject matter
- solo's being too 'rigid'
- chord patterns > riffs
- uniqueness is gone
songs with 2 sentence verses, a 2 sentence chorus, and repeats the first verse to finish the song. i think that they arent very creative if they do something like that.
Premise 8: Additional criteria, lack of sentences = lack of creativity.
From here on, things get interesting
I'll clarify the fact that i do, also have music likes which do not come from the 70's, and are not "technically proficient", if not, I could claim i must therefore hate ACDC and the Living end, because there music is not complex enough for a music snob for me to seek any enjoyment from, and i must disregard it all together. However in 2000 i went and saw them play live and i did enjoy it.
Admission that there are in fact musical likes which stem from non-technically proficient bands. (Probably a misunderstood point here, since the original quote was saying exactly what I had said).
One of my points i was trying to get at really was i can find more enjoyment in music, when there are aspects to it which might make it more interesting, i.e, knowing that Hendrix playes his D chord in and augmented way so he can improvise from chord fragments. i find it interesting on how he does it, so it adds to my liking of the songs which he does it in.
Musical technicality leading to musical enjoyment, given.
i hope i did not say that ALL rock music is getting dumbed down, if i did, id like to apologize and say that a high proportion of contemporary music, which gets a high proportion of radio air time is in MY opinion ( as every one believes in something different to someone else) getting dumbed down.
...but i have gotten kinda fed up with the rock music which has been coming out of pretty much everywhere since 2000
Premise 1: ...music everywhere, since 2000.
Being a guitar player i really really hate the music from simple plan, good charlette, and what not, who mangage to dumb down the talent required to be a successful guitarist or musician
Premise 2: Music which is dumbed down, ala simplistic in nature, which reduces the talent required to be a 'successful' guitarist or musician.
Given.
Now we come to the crux of the matter:
but again, in my opinion, i do not see many of the bands today, who do the same simple style creating the effect which CCR may have done.
Today, it is all just raw chords. the only band which i know does the same thing as what i have described is RHCP, in under the bridge and some others. again, i may not know of every example of this, but i know of very few.
i like this style of playing, as i believe it enhances the song, and it is more technicle, and requires more skill to master. because i like this style, im more prone to enjoy the music which encompasses it, which unfortunately does not include the contemporary music which i have heard from today.
So:
- Simple is ok, but no bands to your knowledge have done this.
- it is 'all' just raw chords, simple nature again.
- More technical stuff will be appreciated more, but the simple stuff, which can be ok, isnt present in contemporary music.
Conclusion: Technical skill therefore should be used as a medium for musical appreciation.
if my reasons are related to the technical aspects of some songs then so be it.
.
Now, I've been arguing that this is a flawed way of logic. It has nothing to do with individual tastes, perspectives and all that other crap.
You've surmised that a) the contemporary rock scene is overtly simplistic, b) low quality, c) does not hold up to older bands/releases.
Yes, calling you a musical elitist was meant as an insult. Why? Because as I stated, the logic is flawed. Technical appreciation is one thing, but to throw a blanket over and say that the contemporary music is all just simple 4 chord chuggers is a pretty big statement.
Then you throw in, the "back in the old days" argument, by saying things were better back then. Now you have said that the reasons for these are a) they were technically better b) more original c) better quality.
I retorted by asking what is wrong with simple songs, you answered nothing. So therefore, there is nothing wrong with simple songs, like the creedence clearwater revival. But what exactly made these songs better?
it all stems from minor pentatonic scales, and simple chords. yet it manages to produce a unique sound which i thoughroughly enjoy.
It manages to produce a unique sound. So here we have it.
The one remaining point, you want more 'unique' sounding music. See I would agree with you, that there are more things which need more uniqueness to them. But is it really that bad to sound like someone else? Especially since the early trend-setters basically laid the foundations for contemporary music, and some continue to do so. The Rolling Stones' unique sound has been replicated by many bands. Led Zeppelin's songs contained unique raw vocals and use of new effects, same as Jimi Hendrix.
But where were these artists getting their influence from? Probably country, through players such as Chet Atkins, big-bands like Duke Ellington, soloists like Chuck Berry.
So my point is, for contemporary music to 'give you the shits' is not a fault of contemporary music, but rather your own. As you and others have stated, commercial channels focus on a minute level of exposure. So go find something unique, music isn't just what's on the radio.
And to discount the Beatles as the driving force for most of the contemporary music world. For shame.
