The Next True Rockstar

[KhaoticKharma]

I think that bands like MCR, Panic!, FOB, and Evanescence (who arguably started the whole "dramatic and depressed" movement) are the Pink Floyds and Led Zeppelins of my generation- just as Backstreet Boys and NSYNC were for the generation before mine. We may find ourselves hating them in the future, but for right now, they are what's hot, what's winning awards and getting radio play.

The type of music they play reflects American youths on a whole- not willing to grow up and always complaining about things that they could change if they just got off their butts and stoped playing video games!

In the future, I think people my age will beat themselves up over not really getting into Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, and Franz Ferdinand.

 

[TheGlassAngel]

I really don't understand why MCR takes so much beating to their music. I mean, considerably, comparatively to the mainstream bands out there, they aren't bad at all. Their videos are quite artistic,the lyrics aren't worthless.....I mean....they're a pretty damn decent band.

 

[rollagasper]

The closes definition of a true "rock star" would probably be Pete Doherty. He embodies the talent, spontaneity, charm, and "bad"-ness of a rock star.
Yet i think time has changed and we can't ever get a "true great rockstar" like there were in the 60s and 70s, because the rock scene today is very different from before. Back then all the musicians were drug induced at some point, eveyone dated anyone and vice versa, and everything seemed new and exciting.
I mean, the only reason why the sex pistols received so much attention was because they were something NEW; if they came out today, people will realize they really don't have talent and won't listen to them. Or maybe that's just me. haha.

 

[rollagasper]

In the future, I think people my age will beat themselves up over not really getting into Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, and Franz Ferdinand.

I actually think these bands are quite mainstream, and i think the Arctic Monkeys are highly overated. Some magazine said their album was the best since the Beatles (or some similar great claim). But if you really pay attention and compare it with the great albums from the last 5 decades, you will realize they come no where close to the amazingness of some albums.


Another thought: Maybe our generation will not produce any legends. I mean, have we seen any composer as great as Beethoven, Mozart and the likes in the past century?

 

[rollagasper]

There is indeed nothing truly new in Rock, but I don't mind. I like old music, and I like that 'kind' of music done right. And the term 'catchy', I like catchy music, there is nothing wrong with it. To make an album full of good catchy songs is an accomplishment.
Rockstars like they were in the 60's, that is something that could never come back in that form, times just changed. Back then rock music was everything, now you have so many other things, and rock is often pushed in the 'indie'
scene. And when they start to have any commercial succes, they are sell-outs, and not 'cool' anymore. I really don't like that thought, I don't mind if the chards are full of 'indie' songs, I would like it.
I try to stay open to new music and new bands, I don't care if they are 'cool' or whatever, as long as I like the music.

Ah, that's exactly what i'm thinking! But it seems all the rock bands that get big aren't any good anyway so i don't care if they become "uncool".

 

[MulletProof]

I agree there must be some rebellion in order to be a rock star...rebellion and vanguard..which dont necessarily has to be taken as as something fashionable, exotic or whatever but more as the ability to digest your current time and problems, interpret them and voice your generation's complains/sentiments in some way.
That would be the reason why I dont really see Pete as a 'rock star' rather than as some comical, entertaining, though hardly transcendental act who's gathered the ashes of rebellion as my mom and co knew it...and needed it. I dont care so much for his talent, like strawberry said, if there's any, it's been completely overshadowed by his controversial persona and I suspect you need to feel attracted to the latter in order to have some enthusiasm and dig searching for what he allegedly does (music).

I'm so bad at predictions, especially music-related ones, but, just like I think January 20th 2007 is going to be rainy , I firmly believe that, sooner or later.... [and pete and the following bunch should've never been mentioned in the same post and thread, i know ]....people will catch up with the so-called new weird america 'movement'...and I already hate myself for saying it and even daring to call it that way, but I cant be arsed to name them all and what they do...and I love offending all the other fans.

wikipedia

The style described as New Weird America is mainly derived from folk and psychedelic groups from the 1960 and 1970, including American performers Holy Modal Rounders and English group Pentangle, but also finds inspiration from such disparate sources as heavy-metal, free jazz, electronic music, noise music, early- and mid-20th century American folk music and outsider music, played by technically naïve (and often socially estranged) musicians. Some NWA artists have even garnered criticism for projecting an image of mental instability, exploiting the purity and naïveté of outsider status.

...and when it hits massively, which i hope it's not too soon, i think they'll grab someone good-looking enough who portrays the 'idea' with some dignity..and is worshipped already...and his name, may or may not be..devendra banhart.

I'm getting torched tonight.

 

[MulletProof]

I think that bands like MCR, Panic!, FOB, and Evanescence (who arguably started the whole "dramatic and depressed" movement) are the Pink Floyds and Led Zeppelins of my generation- just as Backstreet Boys and NSYNC were for the generation before mine. We may find ourselves hating them in the future, but for right now, they are what's hot, what's winning awards and getting radio play.

The type of music they play reflects American youths on a whole- not willing to grow up and always complaining about things that they could change if they just got off their butts and stoped playing video games!

In the future, I think people my age will beat themselves up over not really getting into Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, and Franz Ferdinand.

are you seriously saying the backstreet boys were the pink floyd of the 90s?.
...so...what...is JoJo the Janis Joplin of this generation?!.
no offense but really...it'ss...off-topic... highly...and beyond...grotesque.

 

[kanita]

I think that bands like MCR, Panic!, FOB, and Evanescence (who arguably started the whole "dramatic and depressed" movement) are the Pink Floyds and Led Zeppelins of my generation- just as Backstreet Boys and NSYNC were for the generation before mine. We may find ourselves hating them in the future, but for right now, they are what's hot, what's winning awards and getting radio play.

The type of music they play reflects American youths on a whole- not willing to grow up and always complaining about things that they could change if they just got off their butts and stoped playing video games!

In the future, I think people my age will beat themselves up over not really getting into Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, and Franz Ferdinand.

I hardly think boybands were THE music of the generation before us, what about Nirvana and Radiohead (and so many more) I think more of those when I think teens in the 90's.

And I really don't think we will remember Panic! at the Disco, as one of the great bands of our time, that really won't last long.

 

[Whitelinen]

Agree with Mullet's and Ka-n-ita's posts...

I've never even heard a song by Panic! At the disco, MCR or FOB. I have heard Evanescence, but I categorize it next to JLo and Backstreet Boys. Only the package is different.

I don't think there are any "big" bands or singers like in the 90s (Nirvana, Radiohead etc).

 

[kanita]

Agree with Mullet's and Ka-n-ita's posts...

I've never even heard a song by Panic! At the disco, MCR or FOB. I have heard Evanescence, but I categorize it next to JLo and Backstreet Boys. Only the package is different.

I don't think there are any "big" bands or singers like in the 90s (Nirvana, Radiohead etc).

You misspelled my name

You are blessed you never heard PatD and MCR, my brother listens to that crap all the time, it is horrid.

 

[Twill Bill]

I've only heard one PATD song and nothing by MCR or FOB. I certainly don't think they will be remembered as the voice of this generation and they may not even be remembered 5 years from now.

It doesn't seem likely that anybody in the quality bands (in my opinion, anyway) at the moment will become huge rockstars. People are just too cynical - if a front man acts in the typical rockstar way (alcohol, drugs, sex, etc) they are considered to be a poser, but if not they are not noticed by the press. Plus, bands that get any success or hype are called sell-outs and fickle fans end up hating them.

 

[kanita]

I've only heard one PATD song and nothing by MCR or FOB. I certainly don't think they will be remembered as the voice of this generation and they may not even be remembered 5 years from now.

It doesn't seem likely that anybody in the quality bands (in my opinion, anyway) at the moment will become huge rockstars. People are just too cynical - if a front man acts in the typical rockstar way (alcohol, drugs, sex, etc) they are considered to be a poser, but if not they are not noticed by the press. Plus, bands that get any success or hype are called sell-outs and fickle fans end up hating them.

So true, that is the thing of today, 'people want to be 'indie' to be cool and original, so when a bands gets any succes they are sell-outs, and nobody wants them anymore. This only produces one day flys, it's a shame.

 

[iluvjeisa]

are you seriously saying the backstreet boys were the pink floyd of the 90s?.
...so...what...is JoJo the Janis Joplin of this generation?!.
no offense but really...it'ss...off-topic... highly...and beyond...grotesque.

hahaha, yeah, that is grotesque, really. I don't think they are...there are a few good 90s bands. HIM at any rate, not great anymore but 99-03 were their years.

And the notion that Evanescence would have started the dramatic and depressed movement. Well, not so much.

Last mainstream rock stars of any musical significance are definitely still Kurt and Axl, possibly Marilyn Manson. There have been some great stars after that, but probably since they haven't been American, they just haven't made it really big. Pete is the closest to a rock star that I see now....although he is kneeing around too much on stage and thus driving the relaxed rock star vibe one step too far (Live 8 anyone), he is charismatic, wondddderful voice...the music isn't quite iconic, though, not as far as I've heard. Still, the best around today, but not measuring up to comparison of some of the greatest. Arctic Monkeys are great, but only with the lights off so to speak, kinda like them Pixies.

Where are those sexy male rock sluts of the 60s through 80s when you need them - I think the world has just become soo homophobic that men aren't even supposed to draw any gazes towards them anymore...I don't know. How come Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Ian Curtis, Axl and Kurt were such deities and now there's nothing...at.....all. It's just so strange.

 

[KhaoticKharma]

I think that Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, et al are amazing bands are were quite popular at the beginning of the ninties... but they were just too polarizing. The rockers of the seventies appealed to just about everyone. Only grungy kids who wanted to look like Kate Moss were that into the grunge movement. A lot of people were disgusted by it, versus only a few people being disgusted by the pop stars of the late ninties/early 2000s. As much as people may want to deny it, they were listening to it.

Rolling Stone is arguably the biggest, most famous, and most respected magazine in Rock and Roll- and Britney Spears, NSYNC, and the Backstreet Boys all have covers.

You guys all think with minds groomed on tFs to be "cool" "hip" and "underground." Britney Spears may not have been the most talented person in the world, but she was, for a long time, the most famous. She was a rockstar in 1999-2001, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.


I think you're all focusing on this wrong. Talent is big part of being a MUSICIAN, but I'm talking about ROCKSTAR. You can have both (Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson), be just a musician (Regina Spektor, Arcade Fire) or just be a big ole rockstar.

 

[Twill Bill]

Britney Spears wasn't a rockstar, she was a popstar. There's definitely a difference. I think to be a rockstar you not only have to be famous, but you must have the respected music and talent as well. It isn't just that you're popular with teens and on a lot of magazine covers.

 

[iluvjeisa]

You guys all think with minds groomed on tFs to be "cool" "hip" and "underground." Britney Spears may not have been the most talented person in the world, but she was, for a long time, the most famous. She was a rockstar in 1999-2001, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I think you're all focusing on this wrong. Talent is big part of being a MUSICIAN, but I'm talking about ROCKSTAR. You can have both (Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson), be just a musician (Regina Spektor, Arcade Fire) or just be a big ole rockstar.

In order to be a ROCK STAR a person has to be both a ROCKER and a STAR. It's very rare these days, as previously mentioned. Britney, while I for one don't think she's talentless (most do, I don't) is not a rock star but a pop star.

 

[kanita]

Britney Spears wasn't a rockstar, she was a popstar. There's definitely a difference. I think to be a rockstar you not only have to be famous, but you must have the respected music and talent as well. It isn't just that you're popular with teens and on a lot of magazine covers.

Exactly!

Popstars are a very different thing, it is not just that most have no talent, it is the kind of music they make.
As someone who is not 'cool', 'hip' and 'underground' at all, I still disagree that Britney was the rockstar of the late 90's. She was an popstar, they had popstars in the 60's and 70's nobody called them rockstars.

 

[strawberry daiquiri]

I firmly believe that, sooner or later.... [and pete and the following bunch should've never been mentioned in the same post and thread, i know ]....people will catch up with the so-called new weird america 'movement'...and I already hate myself for saying it and even daring to call it that way, but I cant be arsed to name them all and what they do...and I love offending all the other fans.



...and when it hits massively, which i hope it's not too soon, i think they'll grab someone good-looking enough who portrays the 'idea' with some dignity..and is worshipped already...and his name, may or may not be..devendra banhart.

i agree, about the 'new weird' or 'strange folk'. On first hearing some of the people considered a part of this i was just delirious with pleasure... feeling i would get up earlier so i could just hear more. it was the first time in so long that i had an insatiable urge to just explore every song they'd ever made, and everyone they commended.

You guys all think with minds groomed on tFs to be "cool" "hip" and "underground."

Just like this remark, which i find insulting and defensive!... it frustrated me to read reviewers dismiss all fans as blind sheep wanting to be part of a new movement, since they couldn't possibly genuinely like what they were listening to (since the music was just so awful... to them )

And i agree with everyone above about Britney Spears. I think the problem with this discussion for me is that pop has long overtaken rock as the dominant scene. Rock was what used to be universal but now it's pop that's sold to every country at once. And there's so much money in it that it's become too formulated for many genuine musicians to get backing to break the mould. So if this reasoning makes James Blunt the next Bob Dylan that's fine by me

 

[kanita]

'pop' in the 60's was rock music, it was what was popular, today just about everything can be popular, because people like everything and nothing, and something, i don't know how it is all over the world, but here the people who buy the most cd's/singles/downloads are kids (6-16) (or there parents do it for them) or people over 40. In Holland the chards are filled with 'bands' that make music for kids, or whatever the flavour of the moment, right now it is My Chemical Romance and Ryhana. And the people over 40 buy all the music by Dutch artists (horrible)
The people between 18-28 are divided in so many categories that this group is no more the people who make the hits (like it used to be in 60's/70's)
(all ages are +/-)

And about James Blunt being the Bob Dylan of today No way.

 

[rollagasper]

the mere sight of james blunt and bob dylan in one sentence is somewhat sickening. haha.

and i also agree with Kan-i-ta when she said that today, a lot of mainstream chart topping bands have a major fan base in the preteen-early teen kids.
as people get older, tastes differ, people get more opinionated and take the time to seek out lesser known music, so the music preferences are more dispersed. This might be why it's so hard to find a "true rockstar" these days because true rockstars have to be popular but also appeal to a wide fanbase, not just young kids who listen to the radio incessantly and have no opinions of their own.