There will be an opening band on the last tour, and here's what we're looking at.....

[LedRush]

Another 90's overlook by One80srocker is the Beastie Boys.

 

Yes, they came to prominence with 86's Licence to Ill, but they really hit mainstream AND critical acceptance starting with Paula's Boutique and leading into Ill Communication. No rap group (and certainly no white rap artist outside of Eminem) besides PE, NWE, and Wu-Tang has been as critically and popularly successful. Certainly not the misshapen rap/rock chimeras of Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, and the other sludge of the late 90's/early 2000's.

 

Honorable mention: Rage

 

Beastie Boys sold were never bigger than they were in 1987. They sold almost as much of Ill as all their other records combined. And Paul's Boutique is an 80s record as well (and much more of a critical bit than a popular one).

 

And I listed Rage in my post :)

[coventry]

Another 90's overlook by One80srocker is the Beastie Boys.

 

Yes, they came to prominence with 86's Licence to Ill, but they really hit mainstream AND critical acceptance starting with Paula's Boutique and leading into Ill Communication. No rap group (and certainly no white rap artist outside of Eminem) besides PE, NWE, and Wu-Tang has been as critically and popularly successful. Certainly not the misshapen rap/rock chimeras of Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, and the other sludge of the late 90's/early 2000's.

 

Honorable mention: Rage

 

Beastie Boys sold were never bigger than they were in 1987. They sold almost as much of Ill as all their other records combined. And Paul's Boutique is an 80s record as well (and much more of a critical bit than a popular one).

 

And I listed Rage in my post :)

 

I completely disagree. Paul's Boutique WAS an 80's record (okay - late 1989), but that and Ill set them up for critical and mass approval that License only hinted at. Let's not start the whole "records sold" argument.....

[Shemp]

Back on topic, I'd like see a band like Steamhammer open for Rush. Not sure if they could still play but they had some great songs from their LP, Reflections. Edited November 5, 2013 by Shemp

[upstateNYfan]

I seriously doubt they'll be an opener. I think we'll see a little more historical or fun stuff on screen and a slightly shorter show.

[EagleMoon]

I seriously doubt they'll be an opener. I think we'll see a little more historical or fun stuff on screen and a slightly shorter show.

 

I could see them doing something like Welcome To My Nightmare. :)

Edited November 5, 2013 by EagleMoon

[one80Srocker]

I realize I am just an old fart and have been living under a large rock for 25 years or so but............. I really don't want to see an opening band. This is just a personal thing, but I wouldn't know the music and wouldn't probably care. Unless they have some band that was around in my "era", I have no interest in that any longer. I would rather just see and hear them as long as possible. Just my opinion as always :codger:

Everyone in this forum understands this sentiment. Seems like you're starting something new by joining TRF. So, you're still expanding your horizons. Do yourself a favor and check out foo fighters or smashing pumpkins...there's something there for you I promise.

 

As for The Foo Fighters and The Smashing Pumpkins, well, The Smashing Pumpkins SUCK!!!! Since when did they expand anyones horizons? Really?! I mean, that singer actually sings that way?! f**k that group! They are a perfect example of why the 90's was such shit.

 

I think you very adequately summed up why old people suck and don't know a damn thing about music. Extra irony points for making the same comments about Corgan's voice that people made about Geddy's, and criticizing the band's style the same way critics criticized Rush's.

 

I actually I very knowledgable about music. And if you wanna see how bad old people suck then come to Naples, Florida. For one thing, I don't have kids so that keeps me young. I look younger than my age and I carry a youthful demeanor. I like to have fun in life. But if you think you learned something musically inclined from what you got in the 90's then you may wanna take some advice from your elders. Yeah, grab your Trapper Keeper and go sit in the front of the classroom. I will share with you some of the good I was able to pluck from the 90's. There were quite a few good one-hit-wonders but unfortunately there weren't many bands/artists that could put out a CD that was good start to finish or at least close to it. Ok, we got the obvious, Stone Temple Pilots and Pearl Jam. And let me add that 1990, 91, and 92, as much as they are years in the 90's, they really were an extension of the 80's. Something went severely wrong in 93 and 94 and then before we knew it we were in some other conservative era of just strumming chords and mocking music. The 90's was like going through bad withdraw from the 80's and 70's and might as well include the 60's and 50's too. So-called rock music took steps backwards. It was reduced and condensed into such a simple form. But through all the mockery of what was supposed to be real and the "generation X" crap (and yeah I know I am considered a gen X too because I was born in the 70's but I wasn't part of that target market), I was able to find some music that was good. I don't want to include Rush or any existing bands that had already made their mark in a prior era. Only those who were new and part of the new sound of the 90's that would mark the era with what they had us listening to as part of the soundtrack of our lives during this flat and dull era. One band in particular that will take me time to get to know and I have quite a bit of respect for, for their unpredictableness, originality, and creativity as well as making music the art it should be, is Radiohead. Here's an underrated band that could have and should have been more popular on the airwaves instead of just playing "Creep" to death. Another great sound that came out in the 90's was the first Garbage CD, along with the b-sides. That CD is trippy and and very modern in its era and timeless for that matter. The songs are deep, the changes throughout the songs are unpredictable and complex in their originality, creativity, and composition. Live was another very good band with a great singer and many good songs (but I don't ever wanna hear "Lightning Crashes" again). Nirvana was the real deal. It really sucks we didn't get to hear what they could've done for the years to come. They were the original band that started the new sound of the 90's. But go through the bands of the 70's and 80's, heck just go through the year 1984 for that matter. There isn't a year in the 90's that could match up to 1984 even if you combine years in the 90's. Find us some guitar players in the 90's that match up to Richie Blackmore, Eddie Van Halen, Yngwie Malmsteen, Michael Schenker, Jimmy Page, Randy Rhoads, Steve Howe, etc., etc. Billy Corgan? Yeah ok!!! And as far as his voice and comparing to some irony about, "well that's what they said about Geddy too." Not the same. Geddy sings with his natural voice and it may not appeal to all. King Diamond's high pitch singing doesn't appeal to everyone either but neither are singing like a complete idiot like Billy Corgan does. Anyone of of us can do an impression of that guy's singing. And their songs do suck, I don't care what anyone thinks. The drums suck, the guitar sucks, the lyrics suck, and the singing totally sucks. There is no comparison with them and Rush. The Pumpkins dominate X stations, not rock stations. They are played within the comtext of bands just as low in the talent pool that you bought into in that era, Weezer, The Offspring, Green Day, Cake, that stupid "She Missed the Train To Mars" song and "Peaches", etc. Marylin Manson sucks too. But Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden, Live, can be played on the same channels as classic rock bands. Ozzfest saved us from the 90's. Black Sabbath reuniting was the best thing that came out of the downward spiral of the 90's. It's certainly not that I don't like new music becuase I do. Things got way better as soon as that terrible era/decade came to an end. But let's not forget that the 90's were very ghetto and dominated by rap as well. So were you musically inclined by all that rap and R&B stuff too? Do you like Keith Sweat? How about DMX? Is that your boy? Do you go chasing waterfalls? Here's an idea, go look at the top 40 in 1994 then look at the top 40 in 1984 and you can compare talent. Def Leppard "Pyromania" is what we liked in 1984 and if I recall correctly it didn't make #1 because of Michael Jackson's "Thriller." But while we were jammin' out to Pyromania in 1984, 10 years later you were kickin' it to TLC and Des'ree. I'll take Michael Jackson and Madonna over Des'ree, TLC, and Fiona Apple any day. We had Shout At The Devil, you had Dookie. That pretty much sums it up. And don't get me wrong, some of this alternative and grunge was ok at the time but when that's the best you have to offer then there's some people out there that got away with one. Music theory certainly wasn't a prerequisite for entry level "musicians" in the 90's. Even some of the cheesiest glam bands of the 80's still had some great guitar players. And just so you know, I never intend to knock someone for what they enjoy. I'll only state my opinion and can appreciate that another really enjoys their music. I have very strong opinions of what the 90's did to music however. And "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage...." and the stupid drum fills sucks. "Letttttt....let me outtttt..." sucks! I rank it up there with my all time most hated bands. But you're so smart, right? You know something about music, right? I mean there are so many 90's bands headlining and playing arenas and stadiums, right? There's nothing inspiring about this decade. Just listen to Metallica in the 80's then listen to Metallica in the 90's. 'nuf said. Beck, there's another one dominating X stations with annoying so-called songs. The Flaming Lips! Are they selling out arenas? How about Blur? "What happened to 2-Pac?" Who cares? In 2000 Iron Maiden and Bruce reunited, Motley Crue reunited with Vince Neil and Tommy Lee, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Godsmack, 3 Doors Down, POD, Halford and Priest soon reunited, Sevendust, music was getting fun to listen to again. There was a wave of hard rock bands coming out. The door to the 90's got closed real quick! But go to your I-Heart Radio and look up 105.9 The X from Pittsburgh. You'll love that station! Your welcome!

 

Paragraphs are your friend.

 

If you read my posts then you will know I prefer not to proofread. You and no one else here are no English professors nor are spelling bee champs or are any different than anyone else who doesn't practice this skill of writing for a living. If you need paragraphs to comprehend thought then don't complain, just find another site that's for the paragraph sensative people. I'm not apending the extra 15 minutes to provide you with a doctored up essay especially when we can't rely on computerized spell check anyway. Thanks for wasting everyone's time though with your best shot at making you look better by saying something so dumb as "your grammer wasn't perfect." Lick the left, pal. Most of this is done while I'm winding down. All that's important is that you get the point. Which you wouldn't be able to do with perfect compisition anyway because you aren't that smart. Feel free to make your own paragraphs.

[one80Srocker]

I realize I am just an old fart and have been living under a large rock for 25 years or so but............. I really don't want to see an opening band. This is just a personal thing, but I wouldn't know the music and wouldn't probably care. Unless they have some band that was around in my "era", I have no interest in that any longer. I would rather just see and hear them as long as possible. Just my opinion as always :codger:

Everyone in this forum understands this sentiment. Seems like you're starting something new by joining TRF. So, you're still expanding your horizons. Do yourself a favor and check out foo fighters or smashing pumpkins...there's something there for you I promise.

 

As for The Foo Fighters and The Smashing Pumpkins, well, The Smashing Pumpkins SUCK!!!! Since when did they expand anyones horizons? Really?! I mean, that singer actually sings that way?! f**k that group! They are a perfect example of why the 90's was such shit.

 

I think you very adequately summed up why old people suck and don't know a damn thing about music. Extra irony points for making the same comments about Corgan's voice that people made about Geddy's, and criticizing the band's style the same way critics criticized Rush's.

 

I actually I very knowledgable about music. And if you wanna see how bad old people suck then come to Naples, Florida. For one thing, I don't have kids so that keeps me young. I look younger than my age and I carry a youthful demeanor. I like to have fun in life. But if you think you learned something musically inclined from what you got in the 90's then you may wanna take some advice from your elders. Yeah, grab your Trapper Keeper and go sit in the front of the classroom. I will share with you some of the good I was able to pluck from the 90's. There were quite a few good one-hit-wonders but unfortunately there weren't many bands/artists that could put out a CD that was good start to finish or at least close to it. Ok, we got the obvious, Stone Temple Pilots and Pearl Jam. And let me add that 1990, 91, and 92, as much as they are years in the 90's, they really were an extension of the 80's. Something went severely wrong in 93 and 94 and then before we knew it we were in some other conservative era of just strumming chords and mocking music. The 90's was like going through bad withdraw from the 80's and 70's and might as well include the 60's and 50's too. So-called rock music took steps backwards. It was reduced and condensed into such a simple form. But through all the mockery of what was supposed to be real and the "generation X" crap (and yeah I know I am considered a gen X too because I was born in the 70's but I wasn't part of that target market), I was able to find some music that was good. I don't want to include Rush or any existing bands that had already made their mark in a prior era. Only those who were new and part of the new sound of the 90's that would mark the era with what they had us listening to as part of the soundtrack of our lives during this flat and dull era. One band in particular that will take me time to get to know and I have quite a bit of respect for, for their unpredictableness, originality, and creativity as well as making music the art it should be, is Radiohead. Here's an underrated band that could have and should have been more popular on the airwaves instead of just playing "Creep" to death. Another great sound that came out in the 90's was the first Garbage CD, along with the b-sides. That CD is trippy and and very modern in its era and timeless for that matter. The songs are deep, the changes throughout the songs are unpredictable and complex in their originality, creativity, and composition. Live was another very good band with a great singer and many good songs (but I don't ever wanna hear "Lightning Crashes" again). Nirvana was the real deal. It really sucks we didn't get to hear what they could've done for the years to come. They were the original band that started the new sound of the 90's. But go through the bands of the 70's and 80's, heck just go through the year 1984 for that matter. There isn't a year in the 90's that could match up to 1984 even if you combine years in the 90's. Find us some guitar players in the 90's that match up to Richie Blackmore, Eddie Van Halen, Yngwie Malmsteen, Michael Schenker, Jimmy Page, Randy Rhoads, Steve Howe, etc., etc. Billy Corgan? Yeah ok!!! And as far as his voice and comparing to some irony about, "well that's what they said about Geddy too." Not the same. Geddy sings with his natural voice and it may not appeal to all. King Diamond's high pitch singing doesn't appeal to everyone either but neither are singing like a complete idiot like Billy Corgan does. Anyone of of us can do an impression of that guy's singing. And their songs do suck, I don't care what anyone thinks. The drums suck, the guitar sucks, the lyrics suck, and the singing totally sucks. There is no comparison with them and Rush. The Pumpkins dominate X stations, not rock stations. They are played within the comtext of bands just as low in the talent pool that you bought into in that era, Weezer, The Offspring, Green Day, Cake, that stupid "She Missed the Train To Mars" song and "Peaches", etc. Marylin Manson sucks too. But Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden, Live, can be played on the same channels as classic rock bands. Ozzfest saved us from the 90's. Black Sabbath reuniting was the best thing that came out of the downward spiral of the 90's. It's certainly not that I don't like new music becuase I do. Things got way better as soon as that terrible era/decade came to an end. But let's not forget that the 90's were very ghetto and dominated by rap as well. So were you musically inclined by all that rap and R&B stuff too? Do you like Keith Sweat? How about DMX? Is that your boy? Do you go chasing waterfalls? Here's an idea, go look at the top 40 in 1994 then look at the top 40 in 1984 and you can compare talent. Def Leppard "Pyromania" is what we liked in 1984 and if I recall correctly it didn't make #1 because of Michael Jackson's "Thriller." But while we were jammin' out to Pyromania in 1984, 10 years later you were kickin' it to TLC and Des'ree. I'll take Michael Jackson and Madonna over Des'ree, TLC, and Fiona Apple any day. We had Shout At The Devil, you had Dookie. That pretty much sums it up. And don't get me wrong, some of this alternative and grunge was ok at the time but when that's the best you have to offer then there's some people out there that got away with one. Music theory certainly wasn't a prerequisite for entry level "musicians" in the 90's. Even some of the cheesiest glam bands of the 80's still had some great guitar players. And just so you know, I never intend to knock someone for what they enjoy. I'll only state my opinion and can appreciate that another really enjoys their music. I have very strong opinions of what the 90's did to music however. And "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage...." and the stupid drum fills sucks. "Letttttt....let me outtttt..." sucks! I rank it up there with my all time most hated bands. But you're so smart, right? You know something about music, right? I mean there are so many 90's bands headlining and playing arenas and stadiums, right? There's nothing inspiring about this decade. Just listen to Metallica in the 80's then listen to Metallica in the 90's. 'nuf said. Beck, there's another one dominating X stations with annoying so-called songs. The Flaming Lips! Are they selling out arenas? How about Blur? "What happened to 2-Pac?" Who cares? In 2000 Iron Maiden and Bruce reunited, Motley Crue reunited with Vince Neil and Tommy Lee, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Godsmack, 3 Doors Down, POD, Halford and Priest soon reunited, Sevendust, music was getting fun to listen to again. There was a wave of hard rock bands coming out. The door to the 90's got closed real quick! But go to your I-Heart Radio and look up 105.9 The X from Pittsburgh. You'll love that station! Your welcome!

 

Paragraphs are your friend.

 

You didn't slog through that? Here's a summary:

 

Although there were a few exceptions, he thinks 90's bands were composed of talentless hacks, and he still hates the Pumpkins with unrelenting fervor.

 

Oh. So he's still just as ignorant as before, and still can't write coherently. Got it.

 

My beef with the 80s was that the popular music was dance or pussified music. You still had great metal (and crappy hair bands) and great rock, but it was dominated by the cheese of the 80s. The 90s basically saved rock music, in my mind. It brought the guitar to the front and the radios were filled with hard rocking acts that actually knew what their instruments were for. Unfortunately, how we consume music has changed so dramatically and the landscape has reverted back to dance/pop since the mid-to-late 90s, we'll likely look back at the early 1990s as the last time that rock was king. I hope I'm wrong about that.

 

How did the 90's save rock? Where are your guitar solos? Rock wasn't king in the 90's, alternative and grunge was. Mainly it was rap. The Rock industry was dumbed down in the 90's but please provide us with your rulers of rock in the 90's and we can play battle of the bands.

[one80Srocker]

Another 90's overlook by One80srocker is the Beastie Boys.

 

Yes, they came to prominence with 86's Licence to Ill, but they really hit mainstream AND critical acceptance starting with Paula's Boutique and leading into Ill Communication. No rap group (and certainly no white rap artist outside of Eminem) besides PE, NWE, and Wu-Tang has been as critically and popularly successful. Certainly not the misshapen rap/rock chimeras of Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, and the other sludge of the late 90's/early 2000's.

 

Honorable mention: Rage

 

Beastie Boys sold were never bigger than they were in 1987. They sold almost as much of Ill as all their other records combined. And Paul's Boutique is an 80s record as well (and much more of a critical bit than a popular one).

 

And I listed Rage in my post :)

 

Finally someone is wise. Rage does get honorable mention as the style of guitar was again revolutionalized. Finally someone with their own style emerged. A sound that hadn't been original in quite some time. Rage was not that great, somewhat annoying actually. Yet they fkn jammed too!. They were actually not so versitile but they were consistent with the sound of that era. In an era where guitar took a back seat, Tom Morello reinvented the guitar with his own ideas. I rank him up there with many of those who were able to do so like Eddie Van Halen and Jimi Hendrix, in the aspect of being original and revolutionizing the instrument. In an era that was obviously not a place for a guitarist to show their stuff, Rage had a special guitarist that would open the door for revivng what the 90's killed. This era was so conservative, yet some of you think it actually was real Rock. But finally some of you were able to come up with one guitarist/sound the 90's did introduce. Sorry but Audioslave was a much bigger success. Hey 90's gay persons, when did Audioslave happen? Yeah, you lose again!

[one80Srocker]

I realize I am just an old fart and have been living under a large rock for 25 years or so but............. I really don't want to see an opening band. This is just a personal thing, but I wouldn't know the music and wouldn't probably care. Unless they have some band that was around in my "era", I have no interest in that any longer. I would rather just see and hear them as long as possible. Just my opinion as always :codger:

Everyone in this forum understands this sentiment. Seems like you're starting something new by joining TRF. So, you're still expanding your horizons. Do yourself a favor and check out foo fighters or smashing pumpkins...there's something there for you I promise.

 

 

Seeker, it has nothing to do with being an old fart or not. Opening acts tend to suck in general. Well, except back in the 70's/80's when both bands were worthy of being the headlining act. But opening acts for Rush are usually a drag. I remember having to sit through Mr Big opening for Rush on the Presto tour. Not only does Mr Big not really have good songs but it wasn't a match for Rush music. I'd rather see a band that has a new progressive sound. If there is to be an opening act for Rush again then I trust Rush's judgement on who they might select. We don't hear all the rock bands that come out of Canada. I'm sure there are some talented bands up there that would keep our interest and play a good show. But, it's like seeing opening bands for U2. The opening acts suck and when I go to a Rush show or a U2 show, I am there for their music only. Both these bands have achieved such status that they can get away with no opening acts. U2 still has opening acts. But I don;t want anything other than An Evening with Rush. Not to mention, it's a long time to be standing there, I don't care how young or old, when you're bored with the opening act it sucks standing there. Rush fans don't wanna hear anything other than Rush. Screw the opening act. As for The Foo Fighters and The Smashing Pumpkins, well, The Smashing Pumpkins SUCK!!!! Since when did they expand anyones horizons? Really?! I mean, that singer actually sings that way?! f**k that group! They are a perfect example of why the 90's was such shit. As for the Foos, good radio rock songs but not interesting. Boring actually. I'd be f*ckin' pissed if I had to sit through either of these bands. Well, I wouldn't be sitting because I'm usually very close to the stage. But I'd be out roaming the halls and making friends with all the Rush fans that feel the same way until the opening band finished. But if there is gonna be an opening act then my vote goes to April Wine or Zebra. Not that either of those two would happen but that's a much better match. Smashing Pumpkins, gimme a break. Maybe Filter can open up too or Nine Inch Nails. Maybe POTUSA or The Offspring could open. How about Paula Cole or Luscious Jackson? Maybe Cake or Bush. How about Weezer? I mean, if we're gonna have stupid f*ckin' 90's bands opening up then here's your Rush setlist,

 

Set 1: Test For Echo (in its entirety)

Set 2: Counterparts (in its entirety)

Encore: Roll The Bones (entire album in a medley)

 

Most Rush fans favorite era is the late 70's through the early 80's. So IF there was an opening act then it'd make sense to pair the band up with bands from that era. Or, introduce us to something we haven't heard of yet. But I hope they don't have an opening act.

 

As far as Primus, I've seen them a a couple times at the Ozfests. I just don't get their music. The songs aren't any good. Yeah the bass playing is wicked but the songs suck.

 

Seeker, if you got with the times then you'd be wearing you pants way below your waist, you ball cap sideways and the cap would have an oversized bill, don't forget your bling-bling and your wife-beater muscle shirt, and you'd talk like, "yo! yo! wha'dup dog? Y u dissin' me?" It doesn't matter when you were born. Good music is good music and stuff that sucks simply sucks. I hate country music but not the stuff from the 50's, 60's, and 70's. There were some very good songs then. Old Motown and Soul, it's not in my i-pod but it was good. If your family is telling you to get with the times then my guess is you need to update how you're listening to your music. Yeah, ditch the cassette player and portable disc player. You deserve better. Put all your songs in an i-pod. But I know kids half my age that love Pink Floyd and Led Zep and they are bummed that they didn't grow up with that music. They love when I introduce them to more stuff from the era before Cobain killed himself and took the industry down with him. If you don't understand the modern stuff, it's not because of age. Put it this way, Incubus is a very good band. They are very talented and have some very good songs. But they can't make a good album from start to finish. And something else to remember, and I don't know your age but I'm pretty sure we come from the same era, or pretty close at least. We are that generation that doesn't grow up in many ways. We still like Star Wars and still think the X-Wing Fighter is a cool ship and still wanna own one and fly one. We still like the Trans Am in the first Smokey and the Bandit and still wanna own one. We still go to rock concerts and still feel like a kid at these shows. We had alot of cool popculture growing up that other generations didn't have. It's a little different for you because you have a wife and kids. I have a cat, so I can be whatever age I want. But be yourself and enjoy what always made you happy. I don't hate the 90's beacause I was out of high school then. There were just horrible bands then. They didn't add anything new. There were some good albums and some new sounds but for the most part it was pathetic and so bad that it was offensive. And no ofense to Tombstone, I don't mean to attack anyone's taste in music, not everyone will agree with what I like, but those 90's bands really piss me off. And by the way, I totally noticed the Sad Wings of Destiny album cover you have pictured with your posts. That's one of the best metal albums ever and totally underrated. I love Deceiver! I'm not sure what all you like these days but I'll throw a couples bands your way. You may already be familiar but here goes. Trapt, check out the CD Someone in Control. They are a very good and underrated modern hard rock band. I see that you are a Yes fan. Did you like Asia? They reunited and did 3 more albums. Omega is the middle one and has some good songs on it. I'd say it's more than half good. The secong track, Through My Veins, and the third track, Holy War, are very good songs. Sevendust has a very good album, Animosity. I'm not too crazy about the first two tracks but it really takes off after that. Great percussion and unpredictable progressions. They have good songs on the next two albums after that but they also try to just make noise and buncha double bass and roaring. You may already know all this, if so, sorry. Just sounded like you hadn't heard anything new or recent in a while. I'm guessing you never heard this band before though, To Die For. They're from Finland I believe. A dark, gothic, talented metal band. Not sure the wife will like this band since you're a Priest fan you may like them. Their early stuff was good. Check out the songs, Little Deaths, Vale of Tears, and Loveless. Stupid-ass Smashing Pumkins! If you have ever seen the show South Park, well, picture Eric Cartman singing. That's what Smashing Pumpkins' Billy Corgan sounds like. Looks like too!

 

Rock on Seeker!

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Keep ya cockyogurt to yourself.

 

Got something to say?

[HomesickAlien]

I realize I am just an old fart and have been living under a large rock for 25 years or so but............. I really don't want to see an opening band. This is just a personal thing, but I wouldn't know the music and wouldn't probably care. Unless they have some band that was around in my "era", I have no interest in that any longer. I would rather just see and hear them as long as possible. Just my opinion as always :codger:

Everyone in this forum understands this sentiment. Seems like you're starting something new by joining TRF. So, you're still expanding your horizons. Do yourself a favor and check out foo fighters or smashing pumpkins...there's something there for you I promise.

 

As for The Foo Fighters and The Smashing Pumpkins, well, The Smashing Pumpkins SUCK!!!! Since when did they expand anyones horizons? Really?! I mean, that singer actually sings that way?! f**k that group! They are a perfect example of why the 90's was such shit.

 

I think you very adequately summed up why old people suck and don't know a damn thing about music. Extra irony points for making the same comments about Corgan's voice that people made about Geddy's, and criticizing the band's style the same way critics criticized Rush's.

 

I actually I very knowledgable about music. And if you wanna see how bad old people suck then come to Naples, Florida. For one thing, I don't have kids so that keeps me young. I look younger than my age and I carry a youthful demeanor. I like to have fun in life. But if you think you learned something musically inclined from what you got in the 90's then you may wanna take some advice from your elders. Yeah, grab your Trapper Keeper and go sit in the front of the classroom. I will share with you some of the good I was able to pluck from the 90's. There were quite a few good one-hit-wonders but unfortunately there weren't many bands/artists that could put out a CD that was good start to finish or at least close to it. Ok, we got the obvious, Stone Temple Pilots and Pearl Jam. And let me add that 1990, 91, and 92, as much as they are years in the 90's, they really were an extension of the 80's. Something went severely wrong in 93 and 94 and then before we knew it we were in some other conservative era of just strumming chords and mocking music. The 90's was like going through bad withdraw from the 80's and 70's and might as well include the 60's and 50's too. So-called rock music took steps backwards. It was reduced and condensed into such a simple form. But through all the mockery of what was supposed to be real and the "generation X" crap (and yeah I know I am considered a gen X too because I was born in the 70's but I wasn't part of that target market), I was able to find some music that was good. I don't want to include Rush or any existing bands that had already made their mark in a prior era. Only those who were new and part of the new sound of the 90's that would mark the era with what they had us listening to as part of the soundtrack of our lives during this flat and dull era. One band in particular that will take me time to get to know and I have quite a bit of respect for, for their unpredictableness, originality, and creativity as well as making music the art it should be, is Radiohead. Here's an underrated band that could have and should have been more popular on the airwaves instead of just playing "Creep" to death. Another great sound that came out in the 90's was the first Garbage CD, along with the b-sides. That CD is trippy and and very modern in its era and timeless for that matter. The songs are deep, the changes throughout the songs are unpredictable and complex in their originality, creativity, and composition. Live was another very good band with a great singer and many good songs (but I don't ever wanna hear "Lightning Crashes" again). Nirvana was the real deal. It really sucks we didn't get to hear what they could've done for the years to come. They were the original band that started the new sound of the 90's. But go through the bands of the 70's and 80's, heck just go through the year 1984 for that matter. There isn't a year in the 90's that could match up to 1984 even if you combine years in the 90's. Find us some guitar players in the 90's that match up to Richie Blackmore, Eddie Van Halen, Yngwie Malmsteen, Michael Schenker, Jimmy Page, Randy Rhoads, Steve Howe, etc., etc. Billy Corgan? Yeah ok!!! And as far as his voice and comparing to some irony about, "well that's what they said about Geddy too." Not the same. Geddy sings with his natural voice and it may not appeal to all. King Diamond's high pitch singing doesn't appeal to everyone either but neither are singing like a complete idiot like Billy Corgan does. Anyone of of us can do an impression of that guy's singing. And their songs do suck, I don't care what anyone thinks. The drums suck, the guitar sucks, the lyrics suck, and the singing totally sucks. There is no comparison with them and Rush. The Pumpkins dominate X stations, not rock stations. They are played within the comtext of bands just as low in the talent pool that you bought into in that era, Weezer, The Offspring, Green Day, Cake, that stupid "She Missed the Train To Mars" song and "Peaches", etc. Marylin Manson sucks too. But Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden, Live, can be played on the same channels as classic rock bands. Ozzfest saved us from the 90's. Black Sabbath reuniting was the best thing that came out of the downward spiral of the 90's. It's certainly not that I don't like new music becuase I do. Things got way better as soon as that terrible era/decade came to an end. But let's not forget that the 90's were very ghetto and dominated by rap as well. So were you musically inclined by all that rap and R&B stuff too? Do you like Keith Sweat? How about DMX? Is that your boy? Do you go chasing waterfalls? Here's an idea, go look at the top 40 in 1994 then look at the top 40 in 1984 and you can compare talent. Def Leppard "Pyromania" is what we liked in 1984 and if I recall correctly it didn't make #1 because of Michael Jackson's "Thriller." But while we were jammin' out to Pyromania in 1984, 10 years later you were kickin' it to TLC and Des'ree. I'll take Michael Jackson and Madonna over Des'ree, TLC, and Fiona Apple any day. We had Shout At The Devil, you had Dookie. That pretty much sums it up. And don't get me wrong, some of this alternative and grunge was ok at the time but when that's the best you have to offer then there's some people out there that got away with one. Music theory certainly wasn't a prerequisite for entry level "musicians" in the 90's. Even some of the cheesiest glam bands of the 80's still had some great guitar players. And just so you know, I never intend to knock someone for what they enjoy. I'll only state my opinion and can appreciate that another really enjoys their music. I have very strong opinions of what the 90's did to music however. And "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage...." and the stupid drum fills sucks. "Letttttt....let me outtttt..." sucks! I rank it up there with my all time most hated bands. But you're so smart, right? You know something about music, right? I mean there are so many 90's bands headlining and playing arenas and stadiums, right? There's nothing inspiring about this decade. Just listen to Metallica in the 80's then listen to Metallica in the 90's. 'nuf said. Beck, there's another one dominating X stations with annoying so-called songs. The Flaming Lips! Are they selling out arenas? How about Blur? "What happened to 2-Pac?" Who cares? In 2000 Iron Maiden and Bruce reunited, Motley Crue reunited with Vince Neil and Tommy Lee, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Godsmack, 3 Doors Down, POD, Halford and Priest soon reunited, Sevendust, music was getting fun to listen to again. There was a wave of hard rock bands coming out. The door to the 90's got closed real quick! But go to your I-Heart Radio and look up 105.9 The X from Pittsburgh. You'll love that station! Your welcome!

 

Paragraphs are your friend.

 

You didn't slog through that? Here's a summary:

 

Although there were a few exceptions, he thinks 90's bands were composed of talentless hacks, and he still hates the Pumpkins with unrelenting fervor.

 

Oh. So he's still just as ignorant as before, and still can't write coherently. Got it.

 

My beef with the 80s was that the popular music was dance or pussified music. You still had great metal (and crappy hair bands) and great rock, but it was dominated by the cheese of the 80s. The 90s basically saved rock music, in my mind. It brought the guitar to the front and the radios were filled with hard rocking acts that actually knew what their instruments were for. Unfortunately, how we consume music has changed so dramatically and the landscape has reverted back to dance/pop since the mid-to-late 90s, we'll likely look back at the early 1990s as the last time that rock was king. I hope I'm wrong about that.

 

How did the 90's save rock? Where are your guitar solos? Rock wasn't king in the 90's, alternative and grunge was. Mainly it was rap. The Rock industry was dumbed down in the 90's but please provide us with your rulers of rock in the 90's and we can play battle of the bands.

 

Note to self: Untick "Notify me when an idiot quotes my posts"

[one80Srocker]

I realize I am just an old fart and have been living under a large rock for 25 years or so but............. I really don't want to see an opening band. This is just a personal thing, but I wouldn't know the music and wouldn't probably care. Unless they have some band that was around in my "era", I have no interest in that any longer. I would rather just see and hear them as long as possible. Just my opinion as always :codger:

Everyone in this forum understands this sentiment. Seems like you're starting something new by joining TRF. So, you're still expanding your horizons. Do yourself a favor and check out foo fighters or smashing pumpkins...there's something there for you I promise.

 

As for The Foo Fighters and The Smashing Pumpkins, well, The Smashing Pumpkins SUCK!!!! Since when did they expand anyones horizons? Really?! I mean, that singer actually sings that way?! f**k that group! They are a perfect example of why the 90's was such shit.

 

I think you very adequately summed up why old people suck and don't know a damn thing about music. Extra irony points for making the same comments about Corgan's voice that people made about Geddy's, and criticizing the band's style the same way critics criticized Rush's.

 

I actually I very knowledgable about music. And if you wanna see how bad old people suck then come to Naples, Florida. For one thing, I don't have kids so that keeps me young. I look younger than my age and I carry a youthful demeanor. I like to have fun in life. But if you think you learned something musically inclined from what you got in the 90's then you may wanna take some advice from your elders. Yeah, grab your Trapper Keeper and go sit in the front of the classroom. I will share with you some of the good I was able to pluck from the 90's. There were quite a few good one-hit-wonders but unfortunately there weren't many bands/artists that could put out a CD that was good start to finish or at least close to it. Ok, we got the obvious, Stone Temple Pilots and Pearl Jam. And let me add that 1990, 91, and 92, as much as they are years in the 90's, they really were an extension of the 80's. Something went severely wrong in 93 and 94 and then before we knew it we were in some other conservative era of just strumming chords and mocking music. The 90's was like going through bad withdraw from the 80's and 70's and might as well include the 60's and 50's too. So-called rock music took steps backwards. It was reduced and condensed into such a simple form. But through all the mockery of what was supposed to be real and the "generation X" crap (and yeah I know I am considered a gen X too because I was born in the 70's but I wasn't part of that target market), I was able to find some music that was good. I don't want to include Rush or any existing bands that had already made their mark in a prior era. Only those who were new and part of the new sound of the 90's that would mark the era with what they had us listening to as part of the soundtrack of our lives during this flat and dull era. One band in particular that will take me time to get to know and I have quite a bit of respect for, for their unpredictableness, originality, and creativity as well as making music the art it should be, is Radiohead. Here's an underrated band that could have and should have been more popular on the airwaves instead of just playing "Creep" to death. Another great sound that came out in the 90's was the first Garbage CD, along with the b-sides. That CD is trippy and and very modern in its era and timeless for that matter. The songs are deep, the changes throughout the songs are unpredictable and complex in their originality, creativity, and composition. Live was another very good band with a great singer and many good songs (but I don't ever wanna hear "Lightning Crashes" again). Nirvana was the real deal. It really sucks we didn't get to hear what they could've done for the years to come. They were the original band that started the new sound of the 90's. But go through the bands of the 70's and 80's, heck just go through the year 1984 for that matter. There isn't a year in the 90's that could match up to 1984 even if you combine years in the 90's. Find us some guitar players in the 90's that match up to Richie Blackmore, Eddie Van Halen, Yngwie Malmsteen, Michael Schenker, Jimmy Page, Randy Rhoads, Steve Howe, etc., etc. Billy Corgan? Yeah ok!!! And as far as his voice and comparing to some irony about, "well that's what they said about Geddy too." Not the same. Geddy sings with his natural voice and it may not appeal to all. King Diamond's high pitch singing doesn't appeal to everyone either but neither are singing like a complete idiot like Billy Corgan does. Anyone of of us can do an impression of that guy's singing. And their songs do suck, I don't care what anyone thinks. The drums suck, the guitar sucks, the lyrics suck, and the singing totally sucks. There is no comparison with them and Rush. The Pumpkins dominate X stations, not rock stations. They are played within the comtext of bands just as low in the talent pool that you bought into in that era, Weezer, The Offspring, Green Day, Cake, that stupid "She Missed the Train To Mars" song and "Peaches", etc. Marylin Manson sucks too. But Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden, Live, can be played on the same channels as classic rock bands. Ozzfest saved us from the 90's. Black Sabbath reuniting was the best thing that came out of the downward spiral of the 90's. It's certainly not that I don't like new music becuase I do. Things got way better as soon as that terrible era/decade came to an end. But let's not forget that the 90's were very ghetto and dominated by rap as well. So were you musically inclined by all that rap and R&B stuff too? Do you like Keith Sweat? How about DMX? Is that your boy? Do you go chasing waterfalls? Here's an idea, go look at the top 40 in 1994 then look at the top 40 in 1984 and you can compare talent. Def Leppard "Pyromania" is what we liked in 1984 and if I recall correctly it didn't make #1 because of Michael Jackson's "Thriller." But while we were jammin' out to Pyromania in 1984, 10 years later you were kickin' it to TLC and Des'ree. I'll take Michael Jackson and Madonna over Des'ree, TLC, and Fiona Apple any day. We had Shout At The Devil, you had Dookie. That pretty much sums it up. And don't get me wrong, some of this alternative and grunge was ok at the time but when that's the best you have to offer then there's some people out there that got away with one. Music theory certainly wasn't a prerequisite for entry level "musicians" in the 90's. Even some of the cheesiest glam bands of the 80's still had some great guitar players. And just so you know, I never intend to knock someone for what they enjoy. I'll only state my opinion and can appreciate that another really enjoys their music. I have very strong opinions of what the 90's did to music however. And "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage...." and the stupid drum fills sucks. "Letttttt....let me outtttt..." sucks! I rank it up there with my all time most hated bands. But you're so smart, right? You know something about music, right? I mean there are so many 90's bands headlining and playing arenas and stadiums, right? There's nothing inspiring about this decade. Just listen to Metallica in the 80's then listen to Metallica in the 90's. 'nuf said. Beck, there's another one dominating X stations with annoying so-called songs. The Flaming Lips! Are they selling out arenas? How about Blur? "What happened to 2-Pac?" Who cares? In 2000 Iron Maiden and Bruce reunited, Motley Crue reunited with Vince Neil and Tommy Lee, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Godsmack, 3 Doors Down, POD, Halford and Priest soon reunited, Sevendust, music was getting fun to listen to again. There was a wave of hard rock bands coming out. The door to the 90's got closed real quick! But go to your I-Heart Radio and look up 105.9 The X from Pittsburgh. You'll love that station! Your welcome!

 

A few corrections and amendations:

 

1. "But if you think you learned something musically inclined from what you got in the 90's then you may wanna take some advice from your elders. Yeah, grab your Trapper Keeper and go sit in the front of the classroom."

 

Yes, TK's were relatively popular in the '90's until 1995, but they're associated with the 80's - specifically '82-89, daddy-o.

 

2. "One band in particular that will take me time to get to know and I have quite a bit of respect for, for their unpredictableness, originality, and creativity as well as making music the art it should be, is Radiohead. Here's an underrated band that could have and should have been more popular on the airwaves instead of just playing "Creep" to death."

 

Radiohead is far from underrated. And they were and are quite popular, selling out arenas (which I guess is an important criterion, as you pointed out later). And I doubt Thom Yorke would really care about airplay.

 

3. "Find us some guitar players in the 90's that match up to Richie Blackmore, Eddie Van Halen, Yngwie Malmsteen, Michael Schenker, Jimmy Page, Randy Rhoads, Steve Howe, etc., etc"

 

Seriously? Trey Anastasio, Dave Navarro, Eric Johnson, Tom Morello, John Frusciante, Kim Thayil. I think you missed the point that 90's guitar zeitgeist still used, as needed, 70's and 80's technical dick waving, but also used much broader brush-strokes.

 

4. "Billy Corgan? Yeah ok!!! And as far as his voice and comparing to some irony about, "well that's what they said about Geddy too." Not the same. Geddy sings with his natural voice and it may not appeal to all. King Diamond's high pitch singing doesn't appeal to everyone either but neither are singing like a complete idiot like Billy Corgan does. Anyone of of us can do an impression of that guy's singing. And their songs do suck, I don't care what anyone thinks. The drums suck, the guitar sucks, the lyrics suck, and the singing totally sucks. There is no comparison with them and Rush. The Pumpkins dominate X stations, not rock stations. They are played within the comtext of bands just as low in the talent pool that you bought into in that era, Weezer, The Offspring, Green Day, Cake, that stupid "She Missed the Train To Mars" song and "Peaches", etc"

 

This is so sadly vitriolic that is almost HAS to be clever parody. But it's not funny enough. Look, the Pumpkins aren't my favorite band by any means, but to deny their talent, musicianship, and influence on post-'95 rock is to remain hiding behind one's own fart-cloud.

 

6. "Marylin Manson sucks too. But Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden, Live, can be played on the same channels as classic rock band"

 

The fact that you put Live up there with Alice and Pearl Jam is a measure of how myopic some of your opinions are. IMNSHO, of course.

 

7. "But let's not forget that the 90's were very ghetto and dominated by rap as well. So were you musically inclined by all that rap and R&B stuff too? Do you like Keith Sweat? How about DMX? Is that your boy? Do you go chasing waterfalls?"

 

Wow. Racist much? Keith Sweat = rap? Erm. Yes, much of the '90's rap scene was obscured by the glorified belligerence of over-the-top acts like Ghetto Boys or Cypress Hill, but you're ignorant of the influence and artistry of Tupac, Nas, KRS-1, Notorious B.I.G, Mos Def, even latter-day Public Enemy - all of whom many contemporary rock acts cite as being influences and passions. And as far as the whole "chasing waterfalls" shit - TLC did more to advance female presences in a decidedly misogynistic genre than anyone since Janet Jackson or Salt-n-Pepa.

 

But to call a decade "very ghetto" is about as passive-aggressive bigoted as you can get. Shocker you live in Florida.

 

8. "Def Leppard "Pyromania" is what we liked in 1984 and if I recall correctly it didn't make #1 because of Michael Jackson's "Thriller." But while we were jammin' out to Pyromania in 1984, 10 years later you were kickin' it to TLC and Des'ree."

 

Um, Pyromania was released in early '83 and Thriller were released in late '82. The latter topped the charts until Synchronicity knocked it off, though Thriller still was the number one album in the US in '83 and '84. Still, get your years straight if you're going to be all music-y and shit.

 

9. "I mean there are so many 90's bands headlining and playing arenas and stadiums, right?"

 

Chili Peppers, Phish, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, U2, and a few others are still doing the above consistently. What you miss, though, is that the 90's really wasn't about arena rock any more. The '90's saw the birth of festivals, small venues (The 930 Club in DC, the Pageant in StL, the Continental Club in Austin, etc), and more niche acts that still could sell out venues across the country.

 

10. "Motley Crue reunited with Vince Neil and Tommy Lee, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Godsmack, 3 Doors Down, POD, Halford and Priest soon reunited, Sevendust, music was getting fun to listen to again"

 

Haha - you said Linkin Park...

 

11. "But go to your I-Heart Radio and look up 105.9 The X from Pittsburgh. You'll love that station! Your welcome!"

 

That's "You're". Please remember paragraphs and contractual apostrophes.

 

Oh it makes you look so smart correcting one's English. Believe me, you aren't worth it. Read my posts, I will not proofread. I know how to spell but it's quick thoughts and typing. There will be errors. If you can't get past it then that's your problem. If that's your best comeback then you're just proving you are a girl. So you like 105.9 The X? Figured you would. Again though, you aren't worth the research, I lived the years. If you could comprehend at all then you would pay attention to the details like when I say things like, "if I recall correctly." So it sounds you didn't live that era so you need to be educated. Just because the album was released on a date didn't mean it was instant success. You see, unlike your 90's bands, there were more than just one or two songs. But when you have 3 solid singles then it tends to prolong the album's activity at the top of the charts. What was still very strong in '84 seemed brand new even though the LP release was in "83 or "82. Yes, it does confuse dates when looking back into the soundtrack of life. But if you're looking for some leverage, well you won't get it with your 90's "shit." Glad you attempteed another approach, shows you're losing. But 1982, 83, and 84 had so many great songs, sounds, and bands that when one new sound was being born we were still enjoying the life of so many other great sounds that it took time for the new stuf to take over. If 90's music is your thing then good for you. Again thoug, if you read my posts closely then you will see I am not just someone knocking the music after my generation. You need to read. I can listen to music from centuries ago and find songs and sounds I like and appreciate. I like many bands from today and recent years. The crap you got in the 90's, well, sorry but you got ripped off. You were taken advatage of becuase you were young and naive. Hey, happens to us all. Not like I don't like some metal bands from the 80's that clearly got away with one. But I didn't get screwed like you did. Sorry, man. But I didn't listen to lyrics so much either. But don't get me wrong, I could take some of the 90's crap had it just been a genre of stuff that simply was a fill-in for actual good music. You didn't have bands like The Who, Fleetwood Mac, Led Lep, The Police, etc, splitting up and doing solo stuff like they did in the 80's. Sure it was a disappointment for the 70's fans but when I think of the 90's it's like in Star Wars Episode 3 and all the Jedis going into exile.

 

Got a treat for ya! A new paragraph! Woohooooo!!!!!! Yo're too negative. Radiohead would have gotten more attention in another era. That's the band that the 90's should have taken after. That's the group that took music to another level or another direction.

 

Yeah, Linkin Park. What's your question? They are clearly your Pearl Jam of the next decade. Gonna argue it? Can you deny their first two albums? Pretty solid stuff. Do I want to see them live? I'd like to hear them.

 

Of course the 90's weren't about arena rok anymore. Well, for one, the talent wasn't there. Festivals have been happening for a long time. Ever go to the midwest?

 

So you wanna talk about Florida? I can tell you some things about Florida. But feel free to read my posts. I'm from Pittsburgh, and I live in Naples, Florida. Naples is nice. But it's too rich. It has class but not many peoploe who know who Rush is. Well, except for one resident who actually plays for Rush. You take the good with the bad no matter where you live. But you should never call someone racist. Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. But again it just shows that you don't think for yourself. You show how stupid you are. "You're racist, you're dates are off, your spelling." FU

[Slack jaw gaze]

Finally someone is wise.

Do you realize that two posts prior you wall-of-texted this to the very same person?

 

"because you aren't that smart"