Do we still have enough IT to recognize IT?
Yeah......yeah, I do.
I had the ol' ipod on shuffle yesterday and "Mothers of the Disappeared" came on.....haven't heard it in ages.
In a few words: that song is an example of IT. Sure, an old song, but one I haven't heard in so long, and yet the goosebumps came.
That's an example of IT as far as I know, and I hear IT when it happens.
Now, many other newer songs also have IT, but I'm just saying, when IT happens, I know it.
IT happens. I hope IT happens again.
U2 definitely have it in them for sure. If any band is going to revolutionize rock and roll it will be U2. Rock and Roll in my opinion needs a big kick up the ass.
IThey aren't playing prog rock, art rock, post-rock
prog rock, art rock, post-rock or other innovative genres.
Here's the problem---people think stuff like this really is still revolutionary. Dude, it's not. So you added some new computer effect to your song. Big friggin' deal. People have now been doing that for well over a decade. As much as I like Radiohead, they're not really revolutionary anymore...at least In Rainbows wasn't. But it's not just them. So many of the bands and genres that became "cool" by being revolutionary simply aren't revolutionary anymore simply because of time and the fact that so many other people are doing the same thing.
It's like the idiot in high school who wants to be "different" and "unique" by being goth or coloring their hair purple. They become just about as "different" and "unique" as the fifteen other people in their class who are purple-haired goths.
Yes, there still is room for "innovation." But to claim that a well-established genre is the route for it, you're essentially negating yourself.
1. Clearly you don't listen to much interesting music.
2. To say an artist isn't revolutionary because people later try to do the same thing is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I'm sorry but it is.
3. I'm just saying that you usually have to work in a certain genre to really do anything revolutionary. It really helps.
Oh and Radiohead is not at all revolutionary.
1. Clearly you don't listen to much interesting music.
2. To say an artist isn't revolutionary because people later try to do the same thing is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I'm sorry but it is.
3. I'm just saying that you usually have to work in a certain genre to really do anything revolutionary. It really helps.
Oh and Radiohead is not at all revolutionary.
Queen was great, but never revolutionary.Queen is revolutionary !
michael jackson is revolutionary!
1. Clearly you don't listen to much interesting music.
2. To say an artist isn't revolutionary because people later try to do the same thing is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I'm sorry but it is.
3. I'm just saying that you usually have to work in a certain genre to really do anything revolutionary. It really helps.
Oh and Radiohead is not at all revolutionary.
Pray tell...what bands/artists do you consider "revolutionary"?