Finch, quite possisbly the next best Rock group?

[talkingipods]

I have loaded Finch's only album (What It Is To Burn) and have to say this group is awesome! I love their song "Without You Here." Any rock freqs out there definitely check out Finch. For those who have heard Finch and agree with me, are there any other bands that are similar to Finch?

[theflyingbeagle]

try glassjaw or blink 182

[carlin]

Finch is not a great band at all, and they are not original. They are the continued evolution of MTV teeny bopper music. This pop music is shifting from light to hard in an effort to seem like they are tougher and more serious about making good music. Just because they cranked up the overdrive and reverb on their guitars, and because the vocalist screams into the microphone does not mean they are anything new. You want real rock bands nowadays, try Soundgarden(old), audioslave, nickelback,etc...

[talkingipods]

I would have to disagree with you. To me Finch brings life into rock. Don't get me wrong, I still like many other rock groups as well, but when I heard Finch for the first time, I had to get the whole album! One more question... How can you say they are leading from teeny bopper music??!?? It's rock...ROCK is a far cry from teeny bopper music. Especially Finch, maybe you are thinking of another group? :D

[carlin]

Finch is an MTV band. When you go to MTV.com or watch MTV they always mention Finch because it was their outlet to becoming known. I hate them because they are not good at all, and they are just teeny bopper music because they are there for the little mtv followers who want a change from justin and dont want good, actual rock, so they flock to finch. Its your opinion, but hopefully if you listen to as much music as i do, you will learn that there are real rock groups, and pop groups posing as rock. Hell, I started out obsessed with Linkin Park(sellouts, just another metallica)!!!

[Timmy Yak]

Sorry but Finch is NOT an MTV band. Finch got their break on Warped Tour. They only have one video that was played on MTV and it was only played like twice.

They are in no way teeny bopper music. They're hard rock and they'll always be that way.

Sorry but I don't think you listen to that much music. Obviously not as much as I do. You may disagree with what others are saying, but it doesn't mean you are right. Do some research.:)

If you want a teeny bopper band, try Simple Plan.

[carlin]

thats intersesting how they are sponsored by MTV to do that stupid university concert thing with some other idiotic teeny hip hop band. And dont tell me they are hard rock, they are not, and if you actually listened to actual hard rock, you might understand that.

[Jackonicko]

Oh for goodness sake boys! Please stop comparing pecker lengths. Whether the band you favour has 'sold out' by going on MTV, selling record etc. or not.

It's all pretty formulaic, unimaginative 'medal' whether you're talking Blink 181, Sum 40 1/2, Finch, Good Charlotte, or Nickelback, and even the Foo Fighters and the Chillis are pretty uninspiring, unless you're still 16 and don't know any better.

What all these ersatz and inferior Zep derivatives forget is that it should be (according to the great Keith Richards) Rock AND Roll, and too many of them forget the roll. Rock alone is just boring and monotonous noise. None of them hold a candle to the Stones, Zeppelin, Hendrix, the Clash, and (god help me) even Aerosmith or Guns'N'Roses, to say nothing of the Black Crowes, the Georgia Satellites, George Thorogood, etc.

[Timmy Yak]

Alright Jacko's back :) You're right that they don't hold a candle, but they will someday. These bands have a huge following, and not teeny boppers, but us older kids who can relate to the music and not like them cause John and Jane do.

@ carlin: I can see why you're a future NYPD. ;)
And yes I do listen to hard rock. I've been listening to music my whole life, all day, every day. So I know what i'm talking about when it comes to music. What do you consider hard rock? I think of bands like Snapcase, Millencolin, Glassjaw, Revis, Refused, Deftones, just to name a few. Do you even know who half these bands are? Probably not.

[talkingipods]

lol...look what I have started:rolleyes:

[jstn4102]

If you liek finch, and are lookng for something more original i can suggest these bands:
-Trapt (don't judge them by their hit single "headstrong" listen to their album)
-Maroon 5 (haven't heard a band like them in years)
-Taking Back Sunday
-Staind

Oh, and my mommy always said that if you don't have anything nice to say that it is best to keep it to yourself, 'cause you never know when you might #### off the wrong person and get ### r*ped and stepped on. :) So if you have any problems with the bands listed just note this : they are more successful than you.

[Jackonicko]

I'm always amazed by the degree to which 'popularity' is derided.

While there are genres of music where artists enjoy enormous popular appeal and huge sales without having any degree of talent that's discernible to me, generally speaking I do think that it's quite hard to fool 'John and Jane'.

The teeny-bop icons may be an exception to the rule, but most massively popular artists are massively popular because they are also very good. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Robbie Williams, Coldplay, etc. I don't necessarily like them, and there are plenty of undiscovered and less well known bands who I think produce better music. I can sympathise with the frustration you feel when your favourite artist goes unrecognised, and can identify with the feeling of self satisfaction at being part of a little group of like minded connoisseurs who do like and recognise the qualities of a particular artist who hasn't had massive popular acclaim.

But to dismiss popular music because of its popularity, and to value an artist for being inaccessible to the general public seems contrary and perhaps even a little infantile.


jstn 4102

For all you know I could be Mick Jagger. Certainly I could be at the top of my chosen profession. I might be a writer and might even have sold more books than Staind have sold CDs? I might be David Beckham (a multi-millionaire football star). So perhaps making assumptions about who is more successful than some third tier rock bands might be pointless.

[ToddW]

I think Jacko has a good point, I don't really like the state of music today, but I do try to be open, even the stuff they try to push on you by MTV. Lately I have been really going back to the old stuff. I think bashing someone for what they are listening to is wrong. Who cares what MTV/VH1/Much Music pushes on people, screw um. Listen to what you want!

Jacko, if your David Beckham, then I'm Brett Favre!

[Timmy Yak]

Well Jacko, most of us know you are a writer. Did you really sell more books than Staind sold cd's? If so then who the heck are you? I would like to know.

I understand that bands are popular because they are good, but some of those band or artists may not be good in somone else's eyes. But then that doesn't call for bashing that artist. ;)

ToddW: Oh yeah well then i'm Drew Bledsoe

jstn 4102: Jacko's right. For all you know I could be from a band that's just a little more successful than any of those. Or I could be a successful businessman.

[ToddW]

Timmy: Oh yeah, well then I'm the......oh nevermind I'm just glad footbal season starts soon!

If Jacko has sold more books then Staind has sold CD's then to quote AL Gore "I created the Internet!" :)

[jstn4102]

You are all missing my point here. I am not trying to assume anyting about anyone. I do not know if you are a blue collar construction worker or the vice president of Oracle Corporation. I simply wanted to state that while i know many of you don't like the way "today's" music sounds compared to that of the songs you loved from the past, that you should realize that it IS today's music and that there was a time when The Roling Stones fell under the same catagory that you put today's "teenie bopper" music in today. And if you do not like the music, or do not like what i am posting, why spend the time to argue with each other, when really we are all the same. We all live on the same earth and are all enslaved in the same bondage of which today's media and music have set us in today. we also all own an ipod! So maybe our tastes are not as different as you may think.

[Timmy Yak]

Sorry. We just like to debate every once in a while around here. We totally get what you are saying. It's just that we like to go off on tangents.

[Jackonicko]

Well I've written more than 30 books now, one of which sold 88,000 + (which is good in my highly specialised field, where print runs average 5-10,000!) so no, I probably haven't sold more than Staind, but .......

Back on topic (ish) the difference between many of the bands discussed here and bands like to Rolling Stones and Led Zep is that those bands attracted a wide fan base, including musically literate older folk. I'd be surprised if the 30+ demographic was remotely important to Staind, or Sum 41, or whoever....

I'd suggest that the difference in appeal is down to a difference in sheer quality and talent, controversial though that might be.

[Timmy Yak]

Well the funny thing is that I know at least a handful of 30+ that like these bands like Staind and Sum 41. On the other hand I know dozens of people who like Led Zep, Rolling Stones, etc. Myself being one of them. So you're right about it boiling down to talent.

[ToddW]

Jacko, congrads on the number of books sold. One thing we can all agree on is that the market that most if not all music nowadays is marketed and geared to is that of the 16-24 year old age group. This age group spends more money on music/movies/clothing/etc than most of the other demographics. Why else would MTV have TRL. It is not like MTV is playing headbangers ball at 2-4 in the afternoon to cater to the metal heads out there. In the US it is all about making money, yeah capitalism and all of that poonanny! That is one of the reasons a lot of great artists are on indie labels. The big dogs like Sony/BMG/Universal think that they cannot get MTV to play them and therefore make money off them. I liked it back in the day where the ugliest SOB alive Neil Young could still sell albums. Even in the first days of American Bandstand the immortal #### Clark was pushing the Beach Boys and others.

[reorx24]

hehe, poor d i c k clark got his name censored..... and immortal is right, the guy has been around forever!

comparing Led Zep back in their heyday to sum41 today simply makes my skin crawl. One of my biggest regrets (as if i could help it) is i was born in the wrong decade. My ipod is dominated by 60's and 70's artists, with a smattering 0f 90's. Back then, it was all about the music. Sex drugs and rock and roll....today its only about the money, tha bling bling, and getting your video on friggin TRL. If there was TRL back in Led Zep's day, Gonzo wouldve trashed the set and Robert Plant would be having massive orgies with all the screaming teenyboppers. Ah yes......

[Jackonicko]

Jstn

You say: ?I am not trying to assume anyting about anyone.?

You say: ?I do not know if you are a blue collar construction worker or the vice president of Oracle Corporation.?

But what began the argument was your statement that:

?if you have any problems with the bands listed just note this : they are more successful than you.?

Just pointing out an inconsistency, dude. No biggy.

[jstn4102]

well, what can a guy say to respond to something like that? I mean, you being a well-established author and with your 1,923 posts in this forum, i clearly have no chance, nor the desire to debate with you any further. And if you read my last post, I actually apologized for my first post which i admit that i was out of line. Though you may have felt smart when writing your last post, in my eyes, instead of making you appear more intelligent and mature, it only made you look like an as*hole. Now am I mad? no, not at all. I find it ammusing that such a successful, "mature" adult as yourself would atually spend your time (it seems like you have a little too much on your hands though) to actually debate with a 16-year old junior in high school.

[Timmy Yak]

Now boys don't start. Where's Cate? *looks for cate*

[Jackonicko]

I'm not arguing with you, I just pointed out why people might have "missed your point", and that the ill-tempered posts stemmed from a fairly hostile assumption about people's success or otherwise. Nor am I trying to look smart - still success is clearly buying me plenty of spare time, eh? (Now here's where I'd use a smiley, if I could be bothered...)

The arguments about new vs old music will rage for ever, of course, and certainly some dismissed the Beatles and the Stones in just the way that old fogeys now dismiss Staind et al, as you suggest. But there are huge differences, too. Nowadays, the type of rock bands we're talking about appeal to a generally narrower age range (with fewer mature supporters) and seem to be the spotty male schoolboy equivalent to Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. And while the Beatles and Stones had teenage fans, they also had large numbers of adult followers. I'm probably too old to appreciate these bands, but I do try to listen to new music with an open mind, and I can usually see some merit in music whether I like it or not. I have to say, however, that the quality of musicianship and songwriting displayed within this sub genre seems pretty amatuerish and risible.

[Bob]

I can vouch for Jackonicko's track record (excuse the puns) as I not only know of his line of books but I have two on my bookshelf.
And at least you don't have to worry about Copy Protection with books;)

One thing that we'll never agree on is musical taste - I have a wide ranging collection and there is some stuff I just cannot abide.
No doubt someone would look at my CD list (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/madpict/CD.html) or Vinyl stuff (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/madpict/LP.html) and roll their eyes.
But I enjoy it. And at the end of the day as long as it gives you pleasure does it matter what others may like?

[jstn4102]

And at the end of the day as long as it gives you pleasure does it matter what others may like?

Mad, i could not have said it better myself. And it is for that exact reason that a person cannot say that the music 20 years ago was better than music being produced today. This is because there is no standard or grading rubric to judge music. If you truly consider music a form of art, than you cannot make generalizations or assumptions of it. You cannot go to an art gallery and say that a mona lisa is clearly better than a picasso. And you cannot say that the Beatles are better than staind. You say that the quality of today's music seems to radiate an amateurish vibe to it. Well i cannot argue with that, considering that amateur artists produce amateur music. Bands like staind, blink-182, Brit Spears have not been in the limelight for that long. And you can clearly see nuances form in an artist's songs as time goes by. You must be thinking how today's generation listens to songs like "fat lip" and "party hard" when your generations had songs like hey jude, yesterday, and stairway to heaven. How could the world go from the Beatle's "let it be" to the limp bizkit's "break stuff". Well this goes back to the aritst's "coming of age". The music you speak of today is still evolving, still changing to the world around it. Look at the beatles for a perfect example. To hear the difference from the music they made straight out of liverpool, to the music they produced durring the twilight of there career is almost incomprhensible. This is why the corrupted youth (aka me) get so upset when adults, or anyone for that matter, judge the music. It's not made to be judged, but to be appreciated by those who understand.

[jstn4102]

can someone tell me how to put a picture in my signature please?

[Timmy Yak]

{img} url {/img} without the spaces and with using just regular []

[jstn4102]

hmm the image is coming out right lol

[Bob]

Originally posted by Jackonicko
<snip>..... And while the Beatles and Stones had teenage fans, they also had large numbers of adult followers.

Not my parents :D My older brothers tell stories of them trying to listen to The Beatles et al and getting nothing but "What is that dirge?" from our Mum & Dad!!

[Jackonicko]

It?s fashionable to claim that there is no such thing as good or bad art, and that it?s all just down to taste. So fashionable, in fact, that it has almost become the perceived wisdom. No-one wants to upset anyone else by criticising their taste, or by pointing out that ?yes, actually the emperor is as naked as a jay bird.?

I don?t entirely subscribe to this orthodoxy, though I do naturally recognise that terms like ?good? or ?high quality? or ?accomplished? can often be applied to music (or other art forms) which I find unbearable.

At the same time, some art (music, literature, painting, sculpture) is pretentious and silly, some is produced simply for affect, and some to cash in on popular taste and demand. There is such a thing as good and bad. There are relative standards. And while you might not be able to ?say that The Mona Lisa is clearly better than a Picasso? you can point out that it displays better draughtsmanship, and that in terms of classical representational portraiture, it is superior. This may be illustrated by the fact that anyone who looks at the Mona Lisa will think: ?That?s a good painting. Whoever painted that must have been technically adept.? While many who look at a Picasso will not understand what the artist was driving at, and will simply think: ?That?s crap! I could paint a more realistic face than that.?

(Thus, in our analogy, you might not be able to say simply that the ?Rolling Stones are better than Limp Biskit? but you could say that they displayed better musicianship, had a more sophisticated grasp of rhythm, harmony and melody, and, in terms of rock and roll music, were superior. But the bands we?re talking about aren?t Picasso, and this is a misleading analogy. Michaelangelo, Rembrandt, Turner, Constable, Van Gogh, Picasso, Dali, Pollack are all great artists, broadly on a par, albeit with very different styles.

A better comparison would be between (say) Rodin and Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin. Rodin?s ?Kiss? is a beautifully executed piece of sculpture which works artistically (it moves the onlooker) and which has been produced with superb technique and skill. Damien Hirst?s chain-sawed pickled cow may be interesting, and there may be an artistic statement lurking behind the shock tactics, but as a piece of art, it is not on the same level, is not as pleasant or as rewarding to look at and did not require the same level of artistic talent to produce.

And I do think that one can compare the Beatles, the Stones, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, the Stone Roses, even Green Day with Rodin and the great sculptors, while I think ther Blinks, Sums, Stainds et al compare with Emin or Hirst.

And in recent years, I do think that the quality of some popular music has declined. This may be because it?s more cynically and scientifically targeted to achieve sales and commercial success. It may be that the artists are less well grounded (Mick Jagger or Keith Richards could have gained degrees in the history and musicology of Chicago and Delta Blues!). It could even be that the desire to create great music, to ?be in a band?, etc. may have been overtaken by the simpler and more focused desire for fame, celebrity and money.

One gets the feeling that with the Beatles and the Stones, fame and money and success were welcome by-products of the two bands? drive to create great music, to perform, to hang with their mates, and to enjoy the sexual advantages of being in rock bands! One perhaps does not feel quite the same way about (say) Britney. The trouble is, that hard rock bands who may have ?Britney motives? have to appeal to a market which has been taught to despise materialism and the empty pursuit of success as an end in itself.

It?s not that we?re comparing the mature ?end product? of the Beatles (say) with the first scratchings of important new artists. The Beatles? talent and artistic importance was apparent long before they ?came of age? - even when they were playing Hamburg?s Star Club (and certainly by the time they released records like ?Love Me Do?, ?Please Please Me? and ?She Loves You?).

I think perhaps that the music we?re talking about may be akin to punk. There were some great punk artists, who produced some great music (I?d include the Clash, the Sex Pistols, the Buzzc ocks, and the Stranglers in that category) but alongside this there was also a tide of imitative, derivative, unimaginative rubbish whose creators had little discernable talent and who were driven by a desire for fame, pure and simple. It tended to appeal to the small boys who jumped on the Punk bandwagon just too late to experience the good stuff, by which time the great musicians had gone on to post-Punk bands.

You suggest that music ?is not made to be judged, but to be appreciated by those who understand?. I?d say in response that great music can be appreciated on one level even by those who don?t understand it, and certainly by those who don?t like it. I can appreciate jazz (though I dislike it intensely) and I can appreciate some of the more avante garde and disonant classical stuff, though I don?t like it. My mother, at 53, could appreciate the musical quality of ?Pretty Vacant? by the Sex Pistols, though she didn?t like it, and she always made me play Jimi?s ?Little Wing? again when she heard it. She even professed herself to be astonished by Voodoo Chile (?How can one man do that with a guitar?? she asked). And she?d have recognised songs like ?Hey Jude?, ?Yesterday?, and ?Stairway to Heaven? as being great music, as would most listeners, though her own tastes ran more to Val Doonican or Andy Williams.

I can listen to Sum 41 and Blink 182 and the rest, and sometimes they?ll even get my foot tapping. But it just sounds like amatuerish and highly derivative pap. Commercial, carefully manipulated to appeal to the target audience, but of little artistic or technical merit. And if I?m wrong, and it?s just that I?m an old fart like my Mum was, then where are today?s ?Hey Jude?, ?Yesterday?, and ?Stairway to Heaven? (and indeed the ?Pretty Vacant? and ?Little Wing?)? the tunes I?d recognise as great music even though I?m too old and too boring to understand the majority of it?

[Jackonicko]

jstn

I'd meant to respond seriously to your statement that you "find it amusing that such a successful, "mature" adult as yourself would atually spend your time (it seems like you have a little too much on your hands though) to actually debate with a 16-year old junior in high school."

While we disagree pretty fundamentally on this issue, and while we're participating in robust debate, why would I not want to talk to you because of your age? If you're mature enough to post on an adult discussion board presumably you want to be treated as a mature and intelligent young adult, and I have no problem with that. There's nothing wrong with being a 16 year old - many of that age have a great deal to say, and many of us oldies can learn from the youngsters who have not lost their enthusiasm and optimism, and who may bring fresh ideas and thinking to the table. Musical explorations would be kind of dull if it was just Madpict and I agreeing about Prog Rock.....

You may have to forgive me for sometimes making silly assumptions on the basis of your spelling, punctuation and grammar (when I was your age they did tend to indicate a person's level of intelligence, though if I remember to think about it I know that today they have much more to do with educational priorities and schooling and may have little to do with intelligence). But if I thought that you were stupid, I wouldn't bother discussing things with you.

Now let's get back to the argument!

[jstn4102]

While I disagree with some of your points, I can understand what you are trying to get across to me. I understand that there are certain degrees of quality within a certain music genre, which is why some bands stay around longer than others. You also bring up a point on how your mother can understand the music of your generation without having to enjoy it. Well is it possible that our generation has taken such a leap forward that today's music and media has become too different, too extreme that the previous generation cannot grasp on to it? Within the last 20 years music, and mankind for that matter has advanced faster than this earth has ever seen. Things thought impossible 5 years ago, seem almost obselete already today. And with today's technology, artists have to evolve with the world around it to stay on top. NO longer is it about just making music. All the audio CD's are now enhanced. You pop it into the computer and you see a music video. People buy Cd's because they saw a cool music video on MTV. And while this may disgust some of you, you have to understand that this cannot be stopped, and it will only grow. It was your generation who started it. Your led zepplin, the sex pistols, and even the beatles were all pioneers of music videos, which spawned the TRL which you all loathe so much. Even now, i am seeing the music evolve too fast for even me! I see these artist like T.A.T.U and MOby, and i don't understand how some kids can listen to it. Techo is starting to come into the spotlight and i dont understand it, jsut as you do not understand Korn and NOFX. The one thing i do understand, however, is that hating techno, emo, and trance music because i do not understand it, will only transform me into my father who I despise for his ignorant views on my own music. So when i ahve chidren, and i hear them listening to computerized, techo music, i wont say "how can you listen to that crap?" I'll just remember a time when I was part of a rebellious youth who didnt care what my father thought of my music. And you, being an author, should understand what i'm saying. Is it not true that authors of earlier generation produced "better" literature? While i enjoy reading Tom Clancy (lol) will my kids be reading his novels durring their Junior Year of High School? I don't think so. And i know that bringing up a debate on literature with you is going to be a mistake, but like i said, I'm an uncaring "fu*k the world" rebellious teenager who listens to music that frys the brain and corrupts the mind. So, when you look back at older novels such as "To Kill A Mocking Bird" and "The Painted House", can your generation compare? Is Tom Clancy's Net Force not the Brit Spears of books? Can Crighton's Time Crisis (which they are now making into a movie :) ) compare to Shaara's "The Killer Angels" ? I don't think it can. And I'm sorry I posted this all in one paragraph, and i'm sorry i didn't include a bibliography to this post. But maybe this is not my History Term paper and i don't really care if I write "liek" instead of "like" because you understand what i'm saying anyway.

Oh, and I know that you will respond to me with 7 indented paragraphs that will blow my mind. Well i can't wait to hear your response so i can respond back in the foolish, ignorant way most teens who havent seen the world out of a TV screen often do.

[ToddW]

Originally posted by reorx24
hehe, poor d i c k clark got his name censored..... and immortal is right, the guy has been around forever!

comparing Led Zep back in their heyday to sum41 today simply makes my skin crawl. One of my biggest regrets (as if i could help it) is i was born in the wrong decade. My ipod is dominated by 60's and 70's artists, with a smattering 0f 90's. Back then, it was all about the music. Sex drugs and rock and roll....today its only about the money, tha bling bling, and getting your video on friggin TRL. If there was TRL back in Led Zep's day, Gonzo wouldve trashed the set and Robert Plant would be having massive orgies with all the screaming teenyboppers. Ah yes......

You forgot about showing off your crib too :D

[ToddW]

I personally think we will inevitably end up like our parents. I for one find myself calling a lot of the music that teenagers listen to crap. I look wide spread across genres, to look for different types of music that might inspire me. The only conclusion I can come up with is that country music is crap! You see, but there I go again. I have become me parents. Instead of looking forward, I look to the past for music that is genuine and not manufactured. Most music represented by major labels are manufactured. A crude example is "The Dave Matthews Band" "Everyday". There was already an album coming out until the record company got wind of it and said it was crap. Then they brought in a producer who co-wrote 80-90 percent of each song. I thought a producer was suppose to bring out the hidden talent in an artist and not say, "Hey I've written ten songs that would be great." "Now, record them because the record company has you by the gonads." What I find myself doing more and more is searching vigorously for independent artists with independent minds. If only things were different and Carson Daly played professional golf!

[Jackonicko]

1) There's crap commercial pulp fiction today, as you infer. (The Britney Spears of fiction, as you say!). But there is great literature too, and your children will doubtless read some of it in Junior High. But it's always been the same, and to compare (say) Clancy and Harper Lee is mischievous, because you're comparing commercial paperback fiction with proper literature. The crap from the 30s, 40s and 50s has vanished and neither you nor I will have been exposed to much of it!

2) I can appreciate that Moby is talented. I quite like some Techno.

Your thought that the world in general, and music in particular, may have progressed so far, and so quickly, that it's gone beyond the understanding of older people is an interesting theory.

While music technology has undergone seismic changes, with the introduction of digital players and recording, and with the internet, this trend may not be representative of technology more generally (outside the IT industry).

Today's cars are much closer to cars of the 1950s than those cars were to cars only ten years older, while today's aircraft have much the same performance characteristics as the first jetliners. Technlogical advance was much more rapid in the second and third quarters of the century (thanks perhaps to the war and the space race) than it was in the first and last quarters. Your children probably won't even believe you when you tell them that in 1976-2003 it was possible to fly from New York to London in only three hours - because it won't be possible then, and I doubt whether their cars will be any faster than yours is today!

But technology has made enormous strides in some areas, as you suggest, which might tend to support your theory that such strides have been accompanied by massive change in music.

I'm not sure that it's true, however, since I don't think there has been anything like the seismic shift represented by the arrival of Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis in the 1950s, nor has change been as extreme as the change ushered in by the first guitar bands - Beatles/Stones etc. Music changed completely again following Punk, and in a way which it hasn't done since then. Rap and hip hop have certainly marked a big change, and one which has influenced mainstream rock and pop, but I'm not convinced that any mainstream acts (and I include the Blinks, Sums and Stainds in this) are doing anything terribly different to what pop, rock and metal bands were doing in the early 1980s.

This may be why some of the bands and artists from that time have enjoyed such longevity. It may also explain why one of my objections to the new hard rock bands is that they are stagnant and boring, and have made so little progress since Nirvana and Pearl Jam, nor even since Sabbath and Zeppelin, while lacking the musicianship of these greats.

Certainly Blink 182 don't do anything very different to the garage and punk bands I was watching at gigs in the late 1970s, and make much the same kind of noise. Certainly while some new music makes me think: "Crikey, that's poor, that's almost unlistenable" it's not because its new and unfamiliar. Whereas for my Mum (brought up in the 1920s and 1930s, and listening to Glenn Miller and the like as a young adult) the Sex Pistols were a huge and frightening leap - and yet still had sufficient musicality for her to appreciate.

As a matter of historical 'fact' I don't think I'd agree that Led Zep or the Beatles started the video boom. It's usually said that Queen, Pink Floyd and Godley and Creme started that whole thing.

Todd W,

Try: Ash, Beth Gibbons, the Coral, the Darkness, Gomez, Groove Armada, Johnny Marr, Kings of Leon, Kosheen, Sneaker Pimps, and the Thrills.

[jstn4102]

You are very right, today's technology is very similar to that of 20 years ago, as in a hardware type perspective. A good example of this would be our military's weapons. We are still using the same guns that were put to use durring vietnam! But when i said that over the last 20 years that technology had made great leaps forward, i was speaking in terms of networks and computers. One good example of this is downloaded music. Pirated software. What are your thoughts on this? Do you download music or are you against it? I personally download about 20-30 songs a day of kazaa. And while I know a lot of you are against this, I think that Napster unleashed something that is now impossible to stop. Being a PC user, I dont have access to the Apple Itunes Music store, which i am waiting to come out for windows by the end of this year. I do, however, still buy CD's. Even though i may have downloaded 5 songs off the album already, I'll still go to best buy and pick up the whole album. This is also one of the reasons that arists these days have to do so much more than just write music and sell albums. Also, in my first post in this forum, I mentioned that you should all check out a band called "Trapt" and that you should buy their CD because it is really good. I was wonderng if any of you did, and what are your thoughts on that. I also recomended a band called "maroon 5" which has its own unique flare that i think only a certain few will appreciate.

I have a few questions for jackonicko:

1. What kind of car do you drive.
2. What kind of Ipod do you own.
3. Do you have kids yourself.
4. What books ahve you written, I would like to check them out :)

[Bob]

Ah Maroon 5 - "Harder to Breathe"
"... that i think only a certain few will appreciate."

And where did I hear it? Bob Harris Show on BBC Radio 2, Saturday night.....

[jstn4102]

its cool how you know maroon 5, most people i talk to dont know who they even are! Do you own their album "songs about jane"?

[jstn4102]

songs I listen to :

Trapt | These walls; Echo; New Beginning

Maroon 5 | Harder to breathe

Rooney | Blueside; Popstars

AFI | This Celluoid Dream; Here is nowhere...

Thursday | Understanding in a Car Crash; The Dream

Check those songs out! tell me your thoughts on that.

[jstn4102]

oh, can you guys see the picture in my signature?

[esb9588]

I like "Harder to Breathe" and agree that it does sound different from most of the stuff on mainstream radio today. What does the rest of the album sound like?

[jstn4102]

The album is very good, some of the songs are jsut a tad bit more mellow, but i like it.

[Bob]

As I said above I heard "Harder to breathe" on a radio show I listen to every weekend - I tape it and listen in the car during the following week. Far better than the closed playlist commercial radio stations that swamp the airwaves.
I find I get a lot of my CD's (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/madpict/CD.html) after listening to Bob Harris (http://www.bobharris.org/pages/index.htm) - he plays a wide range of music, and has certainly reduced my wallet size on several occasions! :D
No doubt he will play more tracks from Maroon 5 in the coming weeks. Another band he has been playing is 54-40.

[Timmy Yak]

Did you mention 54-40, Bob? Wow I didn't think there were many people that knew of them.

[Jackonicko]

Answers:
1. What kind of car do you drive? Audi
2. What kind of Ipod do you own? 10 GB Mac scrollwheel pod and 5 GB pod
3. Do you have kids yourself? All too soon.....
4. What books have you written, I would like to check them out? Unfortunately my User name relates to one of my pseudonyms, and I would prefer not to publicly associate my real name with that pseudonym. If you're keen on airplanes I can PM you a list of books I've written, but you'll have to sign a confidentiality clause!

As a creative type, I obviously have strong feelings about copyright, and the protection of artist's rights. Someone sent me the following as a distillation of the law on copyright, which I think is fair enough:

"1) If you didn't create a written work, art, photograph, or music, or obtain distribution rights to it, you don't own it.

2) If you don't own it, you can't copy or distribute it.

3) The author or owner must explicitly relinquish rights for a work to be placed in the public domain.

4) Fair use allows copying of small portions of a work without the owner's permission, but only for criticism, education, and news reporting.

5) When in doubt, ask for permission to use a work."

I'm therefore in favour of the Apple Music Store (where the artist receives some payment for their intellectual property) and not in favour of Kazaa, which represents simple theft. The artist is receiving no payment for what is rightly his, and the scale of theft is huge, depriving the artist of hundreds of thousands of potential sales. I'm against copy protection on CDs, because I'm in favour of people being able to make archive copies of their music, compilation CDs, and to upload to their iPods and PCs. I'm also unconvinced that private copying (a CD for your kid brother, or a mate) does much real harm, and may even stimulate interest in music which may lead to greater sales, just as the humble cassette did. 'Home taping did not kill music, and nor will small scale CD copying'. If you've paid ?13 for a CD, I almost think you're entitled to do someone a copy, because you're paying about double what you should be! But putting up music for download by hundreds of people who won't pay for it has got to be wrong. I'm further discouraged from getting unduly legalistic about this type of copying because I think the record companies have asked for it by charging unreasonable and excessive prices for CDs for more than a decade.

That's the moral argument. I'm also against downloading for practical reasons, because I tend to like my MP3s at 192, and not 128.

It all sounds very harsh and judgemental but I've yet to hear a convincing moral defence for mass theft of the kind represented by downloading from Kazaa.

[jstn4102]

I don't disagree with you on the point of kazaa being a form of theft. There is no way to justify taking something without paying for it. That is why I am anticipating the itunes store so much and will start to use it when it comes to windows late this year.

Also, what kind of audi? My father owns a 1999 Quattro Audi A6 in Cahsmeir Grey. And my aunt drives an S4 sport Wagon.

And please PM me with a list of books, because I am very interested in airplanes and aerospace technology for that matter.

[Bob]

I did indeed Timmy.

54-40.

See, I mentioned them again :D

[ToddW]

Jacko,

Your stance on copyright is exactly IMHO how those laws should be interpreted. I think copyright protected CDs and all sorts of DRM is the wrong way to go about things. Personally speaking, inventors, musicians, writers, and others do not derserve to have there intellectual property distributed without the getting some sort of compensation. I know if it wasn't for my patent lawyer I would have gotten ripped off a lot lately. I pay per download service like iMS is great and it works. I know I would download via the service when it comes out for the windows platfrom. No mac comments please :)

[Pickledhales]

If the music industry wants to stop people using p2p software like Kazaa they need to lower prices, especially in the UK where it's often ?15.99 for an album, which is an extortionate price.

They also need to embrace the internet more than they have done, setup their own music sites where it can all be downloaded legally and easily. Most people i know only buy boooks from the net, and this could be the same for music if they get off their ars*s
and make it worthwhile for the consumer. Until iTunes is available on Windows people won't bother because sites are inadequate and clunky

[Pickledhales]

Oh, and if you look hard enough there are some great modern groups, take The Darkness for example, pomp rock is back, hallelujah!

[jstn4102]

actually, the music industry IS taking steps to discourage file sharing. Some record labels have put out "scrambled" files on the networks. When you download the song, all you hear is static. With enough computers, which the RIAA has, they were able to flood the network with bogus files and it ####es off a lot of p2p file users!

[jstn4102]

Wild Blueberry Coffee Cake - Recipe (can be gluten-free)

To the Native Indian tribes, the wild blueberry was not only a major component of their diet, but also their legends. They felt the tiny star-shape atop each berry was a sign, and therefore they held the berries in religious awe.
Simple Solution: During hard times it was believed that these "star berries" were sent by the Great Spirit to feed his hungry children.
"Star berries" are ranked number one in antioxidant activity compared with 40 other commercially available fruits and vegetables, according to recent USDA studies. What better excuse to make this wonderful wild blueberry coffee cake?

INGREDIENTS
Topping
1/4 cup all purpose flour (brown rice flour can be substituted to make this a gluten-free recipe)
1/3 cup brown sugar (or Sucanat) 1 tsp. cinnamon
1/4 cup butter
1/2 cup chopped nuts

Batter
3 cups flour (brown rice flour can be substituted)
1 cup sugar (or Sucanat)
4 tsp. baking powder
1 tsp. salt
3 eggs slightly beaten
1/2 cup sour cream
2/3 cup milk
1 1/4 tsp. vanilla
1/2 cup butter, melted
2 cups blueberries
8 oz. creamcheese

Method
In a mixing bowl combine flour, sugar, baking powder and salt; set aside. In another bowl combine slightly beaten eggs, sour cream, milk, vanilla and melted butter: add dry ingredients. Stir well to mix. Fold in blueberries and the cream cheese cut into 1/2 inch cubes. Spoon into a greased 9x13 inch pan. Spread topping evenly over the batter and bake at 350 F for 35 to 40 minutes or until coffee cake tests done.

[Jackonicko]

jstn mate

There are women and children on these fora, and others who may not be broad minded. I'd suggest that maybe this isn't appropriate.

Just friendly advice.

[Timmy Yak]

Yeah I agree with Jacko. I don't think that was appropriate.

[jstn4102]

woah the last post was almost a month ago! how this thread has died... Lets revive it. I'm now back in school as a junior and am about to go get my driver's licence. Whats up with you guys. Back to the arguement!

[Jackonicko]

Yes, your post (which you still haven't had the sense or decency to remove) was a month ago.

My original response was made six hours and 49 minutes later, and TY agreed with me one hour and five minutes after that.

26 AUGUST.

But now you're back, do the decent thing and remove the adolescent smut.

[Timmy Yak]

Leave it up to Bob to make a great fix to a post. :D

[jstn4102]

madpict- I see you have edited the content of my recipe. I just want to know one thing: where did you get this recipe? Could you give me the link to the site or if it came from a native american cookbook could you please give me the book title and author. I am also curious as to what native american tribe you were talking about. If i recall correctly, blue berries are most commonly found in the northern part of north america probably making it one of the iroqios tirbes.

Also I find this interesting because many recipes that we call "french" actually come from Native American tribes. Foods involving blueberries, corn etc were all introduced to the french by native american tribes. Not by the iroqois mind you since the french and the iroqois had hostile relations due to alliances the french had formed with rival tribes durring the fur trade in canada, before the french and indian war. This war, lost by both the french and the native americans was a great step, an in many ways a precurser, to that of our very own civil war. This french and indian war, which was also fought by the british, is interesting in the relation to these blue berries. You see, as soldiers hiked the rugged terrain of what is now canada, many found themselves eating wild berries, often blue berries, and eventually subjected themselves to what we call "soldiers berry sickness". This is caused by the consumption of too many berries, which are high in citrus acid, and it can lead to severe stomach problems such as ulcers.

Anyway, i would appreciate if you could post maybe some more recipes if you cant get me a hold of the site or the book.

[Bob]

Well, the recipe came from here (http://www.barharborjamcompany.com/cookbook.html) but I lifted it from this site (http://www.care2.com/channels/solutions/food/546) - and thanks for taking the editing of your rather risque recipe in such a good spirit!

BTW, I just luuuuuurve blueberries.........:D

[jstn4102]

who doesnt love bueberries...

[jstn4102]

ah, this thread has once again died.