Bob Ezrin says it all

The issues of Bob's competence and the value of his opinion of new music are two separate issues, and I don't think that one can fail to appreciate his competence no matter what their opinion of the particular acts he's worked with. But it doesn't lend his opinion more gravity, it just makes it more likely to be written up in Heavy Metal Monthly or whatever.

 

but but but but but guys, anything new, no matter how terrible, is automatically justified by the past!

 

Very good points and you kind of hit upon what I was going to point out: that the scope of the media is so wide these days, with multiple news sources, alternative blogs, and whatever else that it's just kind of over whelming and, perhaps, musicians tend to stay away from protest and social commentary angles because they're already so saturated in the media. In the old days, there were just a few sources and consciousness seemed to be needed to be raised. I don't think that's the case now. Like it or not, most young people are fairly informed on the issues of today as it's so in their face.

 

Baby boomers crapping on the music of subsequent generations is so 1980's...

 

There's lots of politically/socially conscious music these days. But it doesn't go mainstream. Content providers have learned their lesson. Is it out there? Sure. Will it circulate? Yes. But not on pop formats.

 

But does he speak genuine frontier gibberish?

 

I can fail to venerate his competence based on the projects he chose to produce. How could I help but question the competence of someone who helped create the problem he now complains about so vociferously? The music "going to hell in a bucket" riff he now plays is exactly the riff that ran through my head when hearing Alice Cooper in its time. As far as I'm concerned, Bob Ezrin is as bad as autotune.

 

Ha, those rose-colored history glasses.

For every great record in the 70s there were dozens of ****ty disco and "adult contemporary" albums. And the ****ty ones sold great.

The rock scene right now is freaking fantastic, easily the best since '92. It's just radio that sucks.

Maybe Pink Floyd and Alice Cooper and Kiss would like to explain why all their records in the last 25 years have been completely pathetic compared to their earlier output? That's a far bigger problem than "today's music".

Bob Ezrin:

 

Threads like this bring out the absolute worst elements of this forum.
The under-35 folks here for the most part will dismiss statements like Ezrin's because they feel he's old and "irrelevant" because they have to defend their generations' music and culture. Some will just post very defensive and often abrasive comments just to be contrarian.
Over-35 folks for the most part will agree with Ezrin's statements. As if they have a legacy to protect.

Contemporary music listeners, or young people, have an entirely different palette to draw upon as far as music goes. They look for, or recognize, elements that may not mean much to older listeners. And vice-versa.
In the 60s and 70s, and 80s-90s to a lesser extent, music was something that helped define you. There were less distractions competing for attention. Listeners looked for something way different than they do now. I'm not young, my values and experiences are not the same as two generations below me.
I get absolutely excited when I hear new music that appeals to me. I want to know what's going on. It's just harder to find. But i like looking for it. Certain elements of current music are hard for me to get into, but I keep looking. It's just a different kind of horizon.

 

I think you're letting your personal taste override your objectivity in this discussion. I'm sure that you have at least a couple of artists you appreciate from that period who are of similar musical value as Alice Cooper. I don't mean similar in style or substance, but of a similar level of musicianship and creativity.

 

They just don't have many ways or places to express their views except somewhat anonymously on the internet.

That brings up another point: in the old days, if you had an opinion, you had to put your name on it. Now, you can go by an alias.

 

I just remember coked out folk/soft rock artists like the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, James Taylor, Dan Fogelberg, and Jackson Brown really snuffed the life out of rock in the 70's. Disco and Prog Rock also contributed greatly (and were both extremely coked out). Maybe cocaine was the real culprit. Its kinda funny that a lot of younger bands are emulating that coked out 70's sound. I expect a rock explosion to come as soon as folke are sick of Mumford&Sons, Lumineers, Father Joun Misty, Iron&Wine, Jenny Lewis, Hozier, etc...

 

Make this a forum sticky and close the thread.

 

Like Captain Beefheart or Frank Zappa, his label-mates? Fact is, the more basic in "chops", the more blatant in 'message', the more I dislike the influence of 70s rock. I can see some good things he's done. But my acute dislike of Alice Cooper and Kiss kinda wipes that out.

 

The older generation is looking for ways to stay relevant in a changing, more diverse world. They want their generation's values to mean something, and they want it to have a legacy. That is why we are seeing an uptick in the "culture wars" on this forum and elsewhere. It's the aversion and resistance to change. It's not just about music, but everything.

I got excited when songs like "F*** You", "Blurred Lines", "Get Lucky", and "Uptown Funk" got popular because they show me that new music that sounds like the music from my era still matters, and that people still love it. Most of us love it when The Beatles continue to make a big splash with some hot new reissue. But, one thing I can't get with is bashing the music of another generation or culture in some pathetic attempt to legitimize my own musical preferences.

 

Au contraire! Sure, all that AM folk rock stuff was ubiquitous, but you also had Lou Reed, The Stooges, Sweet, and after '75, a whole parade of punk and new wave groups. There was Queen and Bowie as well. There was nothing snuffing the life out of 70's rock, there was always something interesting going on.

 

I'm almost fifty, I see at least 200 bands live every year, and I'm grossed out by how many people my age sound like my grandparents did in 1979.

Music is alive and well, as are grouchy old people with a very distorted view of history, sadly. 90-99% of everything was always crap.

 

But, it could.

Back in the so-called "good old days", the record label gate keepers had issues with the provocative music, and it still managed to make it to the top. So, what's different today? Nothing I can see except that fewer artists are recording socially relevant music.

Last year, some doctor made a great parody song and video about "Ebola" to the tune of The KInks' "Lola". But, that was parody. Where are the original songs? The last original song I heard came from the Russian band P***y Riot about the Eric Garner killing. Just how much exposure did the song actually get from being on just YouTube? And, if you didn't follow the lyrics and have prior knowledge of what the song is about, who would know the meaning of it?

 

I will say this much, as someone of the sorta-current, immediate pre-millenial generation...I've always been disappointed by how indie/quirky music so easily gave way to soft rock. The only good thing to come out of it was turning a bunch of kids born after 1979 (myself included) onto Steely Dan. Becker and Fagen are 100x snarkier and well-read than any insufferably groomed hipster of the 2010s.

Beyond that, as the generation that grew up when the Web became a way of life, we really dropped the ball with a lot of our music...at least a good bit of the stuff that ostensibly grew out of the DIY/alternative/indie mindset. A lot of it makes Fleetwood Mac sound like Van Halen.

 

So we at least agree that music today is less ambitious, vibrant, energetic, etc.. Or at least that's the unfortunate result of combining music with more distractions such as fiddling with your phone or looking on facebook.
And it should be noted that the need to listen to what's new is a taste in and of itself. It does not necessarily reflect on the quality of what one listens to. If someone loves hard rock and suggests you check out KISS, it says more about their personal taste than whether or not KISS is actually a good band. The process of industry-standard brickwalling does not go to support the thesis of an alive and kicking music scene.

 

True, but like todays music, you had to work to discover it...especially if you didn't like in NYC or LA Area. There was college radio, but I think that really grew up in the 80's.

 

Well, more to the point, if it was Beefheart Himself insisting that today's music just blows, I rather think you'd say, "Beefheart is a genius musically but he's off the rails on this subject", rather than treading him into the mud in toto. All of what you think Ezrin represents in regard to 70's rock isn't really relevant to his opinion on modern music, and I don't think anyone else saying the same thing would case you to pause and think, "Well, OK, maybe new music is all crap!"

 

Right. It just has a different timbre and and purpose.
The older I get, I'm becoming more tolerant and able to enjoy new music and art.

 

Bob Ezrin’s grousing is going to contribute nothing toward making anything cool happen in music.

This discussion reminds me why it’s so inspiring and therapeutic to spend time perusing the never-ending positivity of the Listening to on Vinyl thread, where every possible kind of music is celebrated, from the hoariest warhorses of classic rock to the wildest, freshest edges of new stuff in every genre — and why people over there refer to over here as “the dark side."

 

That article pretty much says it all. We will be left with CD's that will ultimately end up as coffee cup coasters, or worse yet"streaming" downloads of crap that will be eventually "deleted". Unfortunately, classic rock will have stopped at the early 1990's.