Do we need a new song for the Bengals?

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(03-25-2022, 09:37 AM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: Classic rock is only big on the radio to people who are old enough to have heard it when it was new rock.

Yes, modern music (including modern rock) will endure just the way music from every era endures.

(03-25-2022, 02:18 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: I hate to break this to you, but being born in 1982 makes you the target audience for dad rock. That's exactly the age range of the typical Guns N' Roses listener. Reach back one more decade as you have done and you're nearing Grandad Rock.

If you like those things, that's fine. But when people say anything in the vicinity of "old music good, new music bad", they might as well be dragging themselves to the graveyard. My first favorite bands were Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd when I was a teenager (born 1987) and had no consistent exposure to the breadth of the music world beyond what, you guessed it, my dad played in the car. While I still respect the influence bands like those had, I would be more than happy to live my entire life from this point forward without ever hearing the same tired classic rock radio shit that has been played on loops for 30-50 years. "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "Hotel California" make me want to break the nearest speaker.

I think The National, a very popular modern rock band, blows either LZ or PF out of the water. Not everyone will agree with that specific assertion, and that's okay. But good god people, the world still turns post-grunge.

Dude, stop it.

I became a fan of the Who when I was 12 (2001) and I am not part of any demographic that would classify as liking, "dad rock," whatever the **** that is. Same age as you, basically.

Yes, there is a lot of great music nowadays that will indeed endure, but there is also 50 billion times the amount of shovelmusic nowadays as well, hence the disdain for modern music of the past 20 years, when pop has become more-commercial and saturated than it ever was prior to the millennium.

And FFS (directed at everyone), there's no such thing as, "Classic Rock." Rock is Rock, period. Whether it is from 1965 or 2035, Rock is Rock. If you want to break it down into subgenres/offshoots like Alternative, Metal, etc., then it's one thing, but classical music/opera is still referred to as such nowadays, despite the vast majority of pieces having been written in the Renaissance and up to 1900. Rock as a genre hasn't changed in the past 50 years, but there have been subgenres and offshoots that have been created with the evolution of the genre.

Nothing, "classic," about it.

I agree with you that I have the same disdain for A SHIT-TON of music (including the two tracks you mentioned) and I would also go happily for the rest of my life, if I didn't hear any of them.

But like it or not, these are still GREAT tunes, overrated and overplayed as they may be. Every time I hear Zeppelin, I shut off any music and haven't listened to the radio since 2012 or so (all iPod).

[JaggedJimmyJay]

(03-25-2022, 02:27 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Yes, there is a lot of great music nowadays that will indeed endure, but there is also 50 billion times the amount of shovelmusic nowadays as well, hence the disdain for modern music of the past 20 years, when pop has become more-commercial and saturated than it ever was prior to the millennium.

Of course there's a ton of crap now. There's a ton of crap in every era. You don't hear the absolute mountains of crap that existed in the 1970s, because it doesn't get played anymore.

Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with pop music. "rock music good pop music bad" is just as silly as "old music good new music bad"

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-25-2022, 02:18 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: I hate to break this to you, but being born in 1982 makes you the target audience for dad rock. That's exactly the age range of the typical Guns N' Roses listener. Reach back one more decade as you have done and you're nearing Grandad Rock.

If you like those things, that's fine. But when people say anything in the vicinity of "old music good, new music bad", they might as well be dragging themselves to the graveyard. My first favorite bands were Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd when I was a teenager (born 1987) and had no consistent exposure to the breadth of the music world beyond what, you guessed it, my dad played in the car. While I still respect the influence bands like those had, I would be more than happy to live my entire life from this point forward without ever hearing the same tired classic rock radio shit that has been played on loops for 30-50 years. "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "Hotel California" make me want to break the nearest speaker.

I think The National, a very popular modern rock band, blows either LZ or PF out of the water. Not everyone will agree with that specific assertion, and that's okay. But good god people, the world still turns post-grunge.

If you like a bunch of noise made in a studio from beat boxes and people with no musicianship or vocal talent today is your day.

I love great guitar, drums, bass and singing without distortion.

Today they change their voices cause they suck or they over sing, it is terrible. At least pop music is terrible there are some great
bands out their like Black Top Mojo, Love and Death, Demon Hunter, Iron and Wine etc but you never hear this on the radio. You 
hear Katy Perry and frickin' Taylor Swift. This shit sucks ballz.

[Shake n Blake]

(03-25-2022, 02:31 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: Of course there's a ton of crap now. There's a ton of crap in every era. You don't hear the absolute mountains of crap that existed in the 1970s, because it doesn't get played anymore.

Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with pop music. "rock music good pop music bad" is just as silly as "old music good new music bad"

There's a difference been crap song ideas and just general crap.

Modern mainstream music (which, let's face it, is only rap and pop, and certainly not rock) is doo-doo for the following reasons:

1. Heavy reliance on auto-tune. I could go on for days about this, but let's just say it removes the soul from music. It also removes the need for this thing called "skill".

2. Modern rappers all (the vast majority) use the same flow and style.

3. Fewer "musicians" actually playing instruments or even writing their own music. At least those "Dad rockers" were not only playing instruments (a skill), they were also writing their own songs. Now most mainstream music was written by some guy in Nashville and given to someone with a pretty face.

Not that this hasn't always been a part of the music industry, but it's far more prevalent now. Probably because rock is dead, and that's one of the few genres where most mainstream bands wrote their own stuff.

4. Lack of diversity in popular genres. As I've already said, only a few genres can really be considered mainstream now. In the 90s, you had hard rock, rap, R&B, country, light alternative, experimental bands that fused everything from reggae to rap, ska/punk, pop, and folk music was even popular with Lilith Fair.

Every musician I know feels the same way about modern music. Yes, there is talent out there. There always will be...but the mainstream music scene overall just really fell off a cliff.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

(03-25-2022, 03:06 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: If you like a bunch of noise made in a studio from beat boxes and people with no musicianship or vocal talent today is your day.

I love great guitar, drums, bass and singing without distortion.

Today they change their voices cause they suck or they over sing, it is terrible. At least pop music is terrible there are some great
bands out their like Black Top Mojo, Love and Death, Demon Hunter, Iron and Wine etc but you never hear this on the radio. You 
hear Katy Perry and frickin' Taylor Swift. This shit sucks ballz.

I say this without the slightest hint of irony or humor:

If I had the choice to listen to Taylor Swift and Katy Perry all day versus, say, Stevie Ray Vaughan for example -- I am taking the former, and I don't hesitate.

Taste is subjective on every dimension. All of these generalizations about what modern music is are unfounded. I also consider, just as a flat philosophy, "technical skill" to be among the least important elements of quality music. Obsession with that breeds genres I consider to be utterly unlistenable (e.g., progressive rock) and degrades an [IMO] much more important factor: writing.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

(03-25-2022, 03:19 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Every musician I know feels the same way about modern music. Yes, there is talent out there. There always will be...but the mainstream music scene overall just really fell off a cliff.

How many of these musicians are active creators of modern music (that is, music that is not only made in the present but also reflects the subjective trends and styles of the present)? I would fully expect musicians from [insert any era here] to favor past music over current music, because there seems to be a terrible human bias ever-present that belittles cultural movements of NOW versus THEN. The bullet points you provided me are generalizations that just aren't true. They aren't. They're untrue. They apply to some musicians, and those musicians occupy the entire argument erroneously.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I wish I could find some 90 year old people who thought new rock music in 1973 was absolute garbage that didn't reflect the culture, musicianship, or class of the music of their time.

The younger people of today are going to be saying the same crap 40 years from now about whatever music is taking hold in 2062. I wish we'd just stop.

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2022, 07:16 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Katy Perry - ROAR.

I actually like that song.

But it should not be a Bengals figth song.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2022, 02:31 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: Of course there's a ton of crap now. There's a ton of crap in every era. You don't hear the absolute mountains of crap that existed in the 1970s, because it doesn't get played anymore.

This.

1970's radio was full of The Bee Gees, The Carpenters, Neil Sedaka, The Captain and Tennille, John Denver, etc.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(03-25-2022, 02:31 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: Of course there's a ton of crap now. There's a ton of crap in every era. You don't hear the absolute mountains of crap that existed in the 1970s, because it doesn't get played anymore.

Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with pop music. "rock music good pop music bad" is just as silly as "old music good new music bad"

I never said that; I said the mass-production/rehashing (which I should've written in those words, in my first post) and over-saturation, makes for a ton-more crap.

And yes, I've heard umpteenth amounts of crap from the 60s and 70s (nearly half of all content on Canadian radio stations has to be Canadian; our music scene has been ROUGH for a long time lol), I've consumed a ton of music from those 2 decades, more than any other era.

(03-25-2022, 03:35 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: I wish I could find some 90 year old people who thought new rock music in 1973 was absolute garbage that didn't reflect the culture, musicianship, or class of the music of their time.

The younger people of today are going to be saying the same crap 40 years from now about whatever music is taking hold in 2062. I wish we'd just stop.

As to your first quote, that has more to do with the shift in instrumentation and electronics, than in the 1800s/early 1900s; electric guitars, synthesisers, hell, even microphones, didn't exist back then and the only way you could listen to anything until the 1920s or so, was with a phonograph and finding media/purchasing them would only be for the super-rich/elite.

There was a clear evolution in the 50s with rock 'n roll and people then were curmudgeonly, simply because it was all NEW and different and people don't like new and different things.

Well Pop for the last 25+ years has been largely and *intentionally* formulaic (some rock bands are guilty of this too, like U2, post-Joshua Tree), with little evolution in sound, instrumentation or technology. The only thing that has really evolved are computers and their use in mainstream media, as you can create and manipulate with a simple program.

THIS IS STILL MAKING MUSIC, but it is seemingly done more for the commercialization (ie: to make a quick buck: the industry has always been commericialised)/notoriety, rather than because you were a young boy growing up in London in the 50s and you wanted to expand your artistry into music with a guitar, which was now affordable and no longer only available to the rich.

From classical/opera to rock 'n roll, there was a de-evolution of sorts, since creating music became more simple and mundane, but there still was an evolution when it came to what I mentioned above and barriers were being created/broken that never existed before. With modern pop, it is just stagnant; there isn't a true evolution for anything and the only thing that has improved from an instrumentation/technology POV, is that computer programs have become more user-friendly and efficient. That's it: there's no benchmark to set anymore, nor is there a barrier that can be reached/broken.

FTR, I wouldn't listen to ANY of the 3 you mentioned lol (SRV is one of the other formulaic artists, regardless of how talented he is with a guitar), as I'm sick of SRV and I don't like the other two.

I will say though, Katy Perry is NOT garbage; she is an incredibly-talented singer and knows/thrives in, her genre. Her being nice on the eyes doesn't hurt at all either.

Taylor Swift is a good marketer and seller of herself. If she was a high-class escort, she'd be tops. That's all I'm saying about her.

[Shake n Blake]

(03-25-2022, 03:33 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: How many of these musicians are active creators of modern music (that is, music that is not only made in the present but also reflects the subjective trends and styles of the present)? I would fully expect musicians from [insert any era here] to favor past music over current music, because there seems to be a terrible human bias ever-present that belittles cultural movements of NOW versus THEN. The bullet points you provided me are generalizations that just aren't true. They aren't. They're untrue. They apply to some musicians, and those musicians occupy the entire argument erroneously.

Most musicians and song writers I know do it for themselves. For the love of writing and the creative release. Not to follow the latest trends in modern culture. What a terrible box that would be to put yourself in.

Generally speaking, most musicians have open minds about change, and don't hate things simply because they're new. I've been old for awhile now. At least as far as being culturally in the thick of things. My time was the 90s.

Did I hate most pop music from the 2000s? No...because it wasn't autotuned garbage. Did I hate Ludacris even though I didn't grow up with him? No. He had skill and a unique flow, mixed with humor.

What I did hate was autotune. Even back then. Anyone who copied someone else's style. Even back then. Those things are far more prevalent now.

Why did you fail to address any of my points? You writing them off as simply untrue is kinda lazy. That is my personal experience, and I have a lot of it, as someone who played all around the Cincy area and met a ton of working musicians. Also a lot of time studying the industry.

Do you really think there are as many genres with mainstream popularity now compared to the 90s? Do you really think the modern mainstream music industry isn't overrun with labels who sign pretty faces and link them with songwriters who do all the work for them?

What about autotune and pro tools? Fruit loops? The vast majority of music being written and recorded on a PC rather than actual instruments? These are factual and valid points. You don't have to agree or care, but many people do, and it's not simply cUz tHeY oLd.

[impactplaya]

(03-23-2022, 12:31 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Saw Van Halen warm up for Black Sabbath on Ozzy Osbourne's farewell tour at Riverfront Coliseum. Van Halen had just come out and only had one album, which as incredible. Just saw Eddie's son Wolfgang a few months ago and he is not bad, especially for the price. 

Was also at the infamous Who concert at Riverfront Coliseum. Caught G N' R multiple times in the 80's as well but would not go now that they're old. 

it's surprising how Axl got so fat later though. The stage was huge with ramps all around and must have run at least 20 miles during shows while singing. Must have been fueled up on Mr Brownstone I reckon.  

If you want a new band that is incredible check out Rival Sons or Marcus King. Rival Sons are unbelievable live and still cheap. 

The Black Sabbath tour with Van Halen wasnt Ozzys farewell tour in 1978.
But it was a band plaqued by management stealing money from the band 
And drug and alcohol impairing the bands ability to make good records.
But after that tour, Ozzy was fired and replaced by Ronnie James Dio.
Ozzy didnt rejoin till 1996 I think

[BengalsRocker]

I just want to interject some thoughts into this music "debate".

The majority of youth think older music is meh or "Dad" music.

Perspective usually changes as that young person ages.

You can outgrow music that you once cherished or loved.

I know I have. There is some stuff I loved that couldn't care less if I listen to again.

That can happen from over-listening to it or your personality changes as you grow older.

Visually, it is kinda comical to see old guys banging their angry heads as rockers and rappers spitin' rhymes lookin' like somebodies Grandpappy.

Hey if people want to pay money to see that then more power to them.

Old rappers and rockers laughing all the way to the bank.

Artistry in popular music and film has stagnated for years. How can someone not hear or see that?

Can you find great hidden gems? Absolutely. There is talent but not served to the masses.

Funny how in the 80s I thought the decades before sucked.

Yet now many years later I realize from a different perspective that those were all relevant.

Just like people who say general statements about "80s music sucked" thinking it's all hair bands and Flock of Seagulls.

Blanket statements about eras, decades, whatever really don't serve well for valid opinions.

Especially when a band that might have started in one decade had great releases in another.

Anyway. Back to the topic.

Welcome To The Jungle's intro can stay. Unless someone somewhere can write some great new song that knocks it off...

[*Go Cards*]

(03-25-2022, 07:07 PM)impactplaya Wrote: The Black Sabbath tour with Van Halen wasnt Ozzys farewell tour in 1978.
But it was a band plaqued by management stealing money from the band 
And drug and alcohol impairing the bands ability to make good records.
But after that tour, Ozzy was fired and replaced by Ronnie James Dio.
Ozzy didnt rejoin till 1996 I think

It was definitely billed as the farewell tour for Ozzy at the time who came out of a coffin to start show. 

Caught Ronnie James Dio as well with Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow for a $1.02 even. 

Then several more times with Sabbath on their Black & Blue tours with Blue Oyster Cult with Dio. 

But really don't listen to Sabbath anymore. Still listen to lots of music from back then but many did not stand the test of time in my book, yet many did. 

Believe Sabbath probably did stand the test of time for many but not really my cup of tea anymore, yet used to wear out my Black Sabbath album by Black Sabbath back in the day. They went down hill from that point forward imo. 

[*Go Cards*]

Nowadays listen to some great new bands though

Blackberry Smoke, Raconteurs (Jack White), Rival Sons, Marcus King, Billy Strings, the Cold Stares, Cristone Kinfish Ingram, Georgia Thunderbolts, Whiskey Myers, Clutch, WVH, Five Finger Death Punch, Cadillac Three, Tyler Bryant, Early James, Gov't Mule, Tedischi Trucks Band,
Allman Betts Band, Tyler Chiders, Jason Isabell, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, now Blacktop Mojo (thanks to Nate) and a bunch of Americana bands as well.

Yet still throw on some oldies that still move me with Pink Floyd, John Prine, Levon Helm, Rolling Stones, Van Morrison, Skynyrd, Chili Peppers, Cab Calloway, Fogerty, Keith Whitley, Beatles, Zep, AC/DC, GNR, Elton John, and such

[BengalYankee]

Are we talking a theme song that will have both the majority of the fans in the stands and the Bengal players on the field "Jumping Around" or are we talking nostalgic songs that neither the fans nor the Bengal players excite???

[impactplaya]

(03-25-2022, 08:54 PM)Go Cards Wrote: It was definitely billed as the farewell tour for Ozzy at the time who came out of a coffin to start show. 

Caught Ronnie James Dio as well with Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow for a $1.02 even. 

Then several more times with Sabbath on their Black & Blue tours with Blue Oyster Cult with Dio. 

But really don't listen to Sabbath anymore. Still listen to lots of music from back then but many did not stand the test of time in my book, yet many did. 

Believe Sabbath probably did stand the test of time for many but not really my cup of tea anymore, yet used to wear out my Black Sabbath album by Black Sabbath back in the day. They went down hill from that point forward imo. 

With Black Sabbath I can still.listen to Vol 4. Master of Reality and I think Sabotage is the best
Album they did with Ozzy. Iommi invented new genres on that album alone.
Symptom of the Universe is the 1st song I ever learned to play.
But I.think Born Again is their best album......buuuut anybow....
Back.to the subject at hand 
Its hard to.find a rock sing with Tiger or Jungle in the title.
KISS did a song years back on 1993 Carnival of Souls album called "Jungle" 
Unless your a real fan of KISS, most have never heard it. 

[BengalsRocker]

(03-25-2022, 03:30 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: I say this without the slightest hint of irony or humor:

If I had the choice to listen to Taylor Swift and Katy Perry all day versus, say, Stevie Ray Vaughan for example -- I am taking the former, and I don't hesitate.

Taste is subjective on every dimension. All of these generalizations about what modern music is are unfounded. I also consider, just as a flat philosophy, "technical skill" to be among the least important elements of quality music. Obsession with that breeds genres I consider to be utterly unlistenable (e.g., progressive rock) and degrades an [IMO] much more important factor: writing.

I agree with all of this.

High technical skill is a nice tool to have to achieve some things, but can be quite cumbersome when it's the main focus.

The era we are currently in has reached the pinnacle of skill in my opinion but has also reached a low point in writing abilities.

There's a flood of child prodigies and now a competition of skills have left creativity as secondary factor.

Imperfections can be beautiful. 

Space in music is as important as a flurry of beats or notes.

A singer doesn't need amazing range to deliver a great melody or message.

Some of the simplest guitar riffs can impact and transcend time.

One of the most impressive things to me is a band/group/artist is one who can convey a broad range of topics, thoughts, and emotions.

Your opinion on Katy Perry/Taylor Swift to SRV is just that...  an opinion of your specific taste.

Nothing wrong with that.  Music is personal and what you like is what you like.  

SRV is one of those few players that rose above the Blues genre. 

He was not well received by traditional Blues players when he was coming up.

Too much rock aggression in his style.

Many wouldn't know that because his sound has been around 30+yrs and is considered norm now because all of those players influenced by him.

Eddie Van Halen falls into this as well because how much impact he had over time.  He was special.  No one like him when he arrived.

I used to not understand the obsession with Jimi Hendrix when I was younger.  Over time I realized he was special.  He influenced not only many musicians(SRV being one)but changed the approach to effects and amplifiers being made.  Just like EVH.

All of the above does matter.  Just maybe not to you.  

[*Go Cards*]

(03-26-2022, 09:41 AM)impactplaya Wrote: With Black Sabbath I can still.listen to Vol 4. Master of Reality and I think Sabotage is the best
Album they did with Ozzy. Iommi invented new genres on that album alone.
Symptom of the Universe is the 1st song I ever learned to play.
But I.think Born Again is their best album......buuuut anybow....
Back.to the subject at hand 
Its hard to.find a rock sing with Tiger or Jungle in the title.
KISS did a song years back on 1993 Carnival of Souls album called "Jungle" 
Unless your a real fan of KISS, most have never heard it. 

Agree that Welcome to the Jungle is the perfect song for Bengals. 

Also not a huge KISS fan but did see them live with AC/DC warming up while Bon Scott was still alive. We went for AC/DC but KISS was a surprisingly decent show live, believe it was 1977 at Freedom Hall. 

I still think Black Sabbath rocks and definitely stood the test of time, but just don't listen to much satanic music these days. Yet don't judge anybody who does, because they are killer 

[TecmoBengals]