[Eddy Munny]

I love Oasis. It always baffled me that "Wonderwall" was their most famous song when I can easily name 20 or so that I like much better.

Another counterpoint to Madcap's assertion that the 90's was "angry" music would be Tiny Music: Songs from the Vatican Gift Shop, by Stone Temple Pilots. That's one of my favorite albums period. It's far from a depressing record, but it's not sunshine and butterflies either. The album has a very euphoric, almost psychedelic vibe to it. And no, I wasn't tripping when I listened to it.......it's creators probably were though. Beautiful album.......... check out the song "Adhesive Love" for proof.

[Kermit]

Was supposed to see STP with Megadeth on the Countdown tour. I think it was in 1993.

STP is another one of my newer era favorite rock bands.

[Eddy Munny]

Was supposed to see STP with Megadeth on the Countdown tour. I think it was in 1993.

STP is another one of my newer era favorite rock bands.

Cool.....I saw STP once, and then saw Scott Weiland fronting Velvet Revolver two other times.

[Kermit]

Cool.....I saw STP once, and then saw Scott Weiland fronting Velvet Revolver two other times.

The tour I was supposed to see got cancelled because Dave Mustaine was back on drugs. Go figure. I think STP continued the tour with another band.

[GiveMeaBJ]

Well it's really hard to say what direction to point you without knowing if you prefer hard rock/pop/blues/jam bands etc. or what kind of drugs you're currently taking, but if you haven't listened to these albums in their entirety I'd say it's a damn good place to start....


(If you like these I've recommended some follow up albums in parenthesis)



Pink Floyd......................Dark Side of the Moon (The Wall)
Led Zeppelin..................Zeppelin IV (Zeppelin III)
Rolling Stones................Exile on Main Street (Sticky Fingers)
The Who.......................Who's Next (Tommy)
Allman Brothers............Eat a Peach (At Filmore East)
Grateful Dead................Live Dead (American Beauty/Workingman's Dead)



By and large those bands pretty much encompass the whole of the blues/rock sound of the 60's/70's.



Now there are some bands that simply didn't put out great "albums" per se, but their "greatest hits" collections are ridiculous. As far as putting on a straight no nonsense rock record and just hitting play there's none better than Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Chronicle vol. I."




Now you've probably heard the best songs off most of these albums on the radio or in a movie (or god forbid a cellphone commercial) at some point I would think, so here's a couple that I think fly under the radar too often...(plus they're good to have around for the ladies)


Sam Cooke.......Portrait of a Legend
Van Morrison.....Moondance

awesome man. Thank you will be purchasing some of these 2m.

[Kermit]

This is probably my favorite song(Out of dozens that I love) from them.

[Eddy Munny]

This is probably my favorite song(Out of dozens that I love) from them.

You took the words right out of my mouth...... Although Tiny Music is my favorite STP album, this is my favorite STP song, released as the only new track on their greatest hits collection.

I always thought this would be the perfect soundtrack to a montage in some kind of CIA action flick, complete with chase scenes and explosions, where the central character is some dapper James Bond-ish type figure. That's the picture this song paints in my mind's eye.

[Justin3587]

The reason the 60s and 70s music is bliss to some people is for the simple fact that in those days you could pretty much get high wherever and just listen to music and zone out. No direct life correlation involved at all. Songs like ;

The wallflowers-one headlight. A penetrating classic but nobody knows that he's referring to a crystal meth addiction.

Goo goo dolls- black balloon. Referring to a friend who got hooked on heroin.

I urge you folks to read Duff Mckagans book. You will learn a lot about the industry and the people.

[The Madcap]

That's a really narrow minded take on the '90's. No period in time can be given that strict a label simply for convenience sake. Alternative music (and other '90's rock) was more than teen angst or depression. Every era had their "sad, sulky" moments......the 90's just did it at a higher volume, and with more distortion in the guitars. When John Lennon lamented "I'm a Loser" on Beatles for Sale or moped on about receiving "No Reply," is that not a universal feeling that transcends time and genres?

The Chili Peppers had plenty of fun, effervescent music.

Weezer's debut (Blue Album) showcases some of the catchiest, poppiest tunes I've ever heard. That album is impossible to listen to with a frown on your face.

Even Nirvana had their moments.....it's not like every song they wrote was "Lithium" (which is great btw). Take "Breed" for example.....the lyrics are pure nonsense but the melody and the meter suggest a band in a very playful mood. "Lounge Act" is another song that defies your claim with it's bouncy, danceable bassline.

Nobody would accuse No Doubt or Sublime of being purveyors of suicidal thoughts.

Just today I heard the song "Here and Now" by Letters to Cleo (a 90's band that I had forgotten all about) on the radio and was reminded of just how good that song was and it's definitely not a "bed-wetter's" anthem.

Oasis........insanely good band......lot of feel-good type music.

Dave Matthews Band was quirky and upbeat most of the time.

Smashing Pumpkins has a reputation for being "angry/sad" music but the emotions on MCIS run the gamut. But the sad songs have their place too. I mean it is an emotion that humans experience, is it not? Artists write music for human beings, not robots.

Lastly, it's funny you should mention Bon Jovi because 1992's Keep the Faith and 1995's These Days are really good albums from them that I hadn't even mentioned, further illustrating the diversity of the period. Yes, the nineties were heavy on the "alternative" music but even that sub-genre offers a wide array of possibilities.

You say this as if I wasn't there.




The two biggest songs of 1991 were Smells Like Teen Spirit/Jeremy. 'nuff said.

[Kermit]

You say this as if I wasn't there.




The two biggest songs of 1991 were Smells Like Teen Spirit/Jeremy. 'nuff said.

Enter Sandman was pretty big in 1991. November Rain was another one that was playing all of the time. Silent Lucidity as well.

I don't even think Jeremy released as a single until 1992.

[Kermit]

I think the most bad ass song in 1991 was Guns N Roses "You could be mine"

[Eddy Munny]

You say this as if I wasn't there.




The two biggest songs of 1991 were Smells Like Teen Spirit/Jeremy. 'nuff said.

No, actually that's not enough said. You mention two songs and then make an erroneous blanket statement about an entire half-decade based on nothing other than those two songs. So let me get this straight.......you can sum up a 5-year span in about 9 minutes of running time? Really weak rebuttal.

From what I can tell, '70's rock music was about gay rights and flaunting your rainbow. I know this because Elton John and Queen were really big back then. 'Nuff said.

[texhooper]

so brock landers really is gone, i guess...

[The Madcap]

Enter Sandman was pretty big in 1991. November Rain was another one that was playing all of the time. Silent Lucidity as well.

I don't even think Jeremy released as a single until 1992.

I think the most bad ass song in 1991 was Guns N Roses "You could be mine"

While I wholeheartedly believe that Metallica/GNR rocked the absolute shit out of Nirvana/Pearl Jam, even I cannot dismiss the cultural impact of Jeremy/Smells Like Teen Spirit. GNR was the biggest band in the world, but they were established/old hat. They were no longer the rough/rude/crude dudes that cut "One in a Million" or "Mr. Brownstone." Nirvana brought that with SMLTS. Pearl Jam brought it with Jeremy. They kickstarted the grunge era and it swept over the rest of the decade like a tidal wave. By the time it was over rock n roll was dead and there would never be another great rock band again.

[Eddy Munny]

so brock landers really is gone, i guess...

You mean because he'd otherwise be posting in this thread? I do remember his old avatar of Axl Rose in a Charlie Manson t-shirt circa '92.

[The Madcap]

So let me get this straight.......you can sum up a 5-year span in about 9 minutes of running time?

Not me, Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder.



And again, you keep talking as if I wasn't there. You cannot have a conversation about 90's rock without mentioning Smells Like Teen Spirit or Jeremy. They were the two most significant albums/songs of the two most important bands of the decade. If you left out Queen/Elton John from any top ten list of the best acts of the 70's most people wouldn't even notice. So thanks for proving my point.

[Eddy Munny]

While I wholeheartedly believe that Metallica/GNR rocked the absolute shit out of Nirvana/Pearl Jam, even I cannot dismiss the cultural impact of Jeremy/Smells Like Teen Spirit. GNR was the biggest band in the world, but they were established/old hat. They were no longer the rough/rude/crude dudes that cut "One in a Million" or "Mr. Brownstone." Nirvana brought that with SMLTS. Pearl Jam brought it with Jeremy. They kickstarted the grunge era and it swept over the rest of the decade like a tidal wave. By the time it was over rock n roll was dead and there would never be another great rock band again.

Nirvana didn't kill Guns N' Roses

Pearl Jam didn't kill Guns N' Roses

Grunge didn't kill Guns N' Roses

Guns N' Roses killed Guns N' Roses

[Kermit]

While I wholeheartedly believe that Metallica/GNR rocked the absolute shit out of Nirvana/Pearl Jam, even I cannot dismiss the cultural impact of Jeremy/Smells Like Teen Spirit. GNR was the biggest band in the world, but they were established/old hat. They were no longer the rough/rude/crude dudes that cut "One in a Million" or "Mr. Brownstone." Nirvana brought that with SMLTS. Pearl Jam brought it with Jeremy. They kickstarted the grunge era and it swept over the rest of the decade like a tidal wave. By the time it was over rock n roll was dead and there would never be another great rock band again.

I think what Dave Grohl has done since Nirvana is pretty special. If there is one Rock and Roll band out there since the grunge invasion began, I would have to give it to the Foo Fighters. Been going 20 years strong.

[The Madcap]

Nirvana didn't kill Guns N' Roses

Pearl Jam didn't kill Guns N' Roses

Grunge didn't kill Guns N' Roses

Guns N' Roses killed Guns N' Roses

All true. And yet has nothing to do with anything in that post.

[Eddy Munny]

Not me, Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder.



And again, you keep talking as if I wasn't there. You cannot have a conversation about 90's rock without mentioning Smells Like Teen Spirit or Jeremy. They were the two most significant albums/songs of the two most important bands of the decade. If you left out Queen/Elton John from any top ten list of the best acts of the 70's most people wouldn't even notice. So thanks for proving my point.

First of all, "Jeremy" sucks imo.........yes it was a popular song, but that doesn't mean I am legally obligated to like it, nor does it mean that it represents all the music of it's time.

You're losing sight of the original topic, which was the greatest five years in music/rock. You said that whole era was nothing but depressing music so I provided some counterexamples. You emphasize these two songs but what difference does that make? It's still two songs, and ONLY two songs, any way you slice it. I can access any other music from that period if I so choose, so who cares if these two songs happen to be "angry." There are plenty more available.

Are you saying you don't enjoy a single second of SLTS because you're the kinda guy who goes out looking for a good time? How does a song like SLTS cramp your style? To me, it's not a song of depression or angst as much as it is a release. It's unbridled, primal energy that has been harnessed and crafted into a song that struck a chord with an entire generation.......and you're somehow trying to spin this as a negative thing? Smh

[The Madcap]

I think what Dave Grohl has done since Nirvana is pretty special. If there is one Rock and Roll band out there since the grunge invasion began, I would have to give it to the Foo Fighters. Been going 20 years strong.

I have no reason to disagree. Question is, where would Foo Fighters stack up against these guys?



The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
The Rolling Stones
Pink Floyd
The Who
AC/DC
Van Halen
Elvis
Jimi Hendrix
Eric Clapton
Bob Dylan
Bob Marley
Bob Seger
CCR
The Eagles
The Beach Boys
Lynyrd Skynyrd
The Allman Brothers
The Grateful Dead
The Doors
Guns N Roses
Black Sabbath
Metallica
Steppenwolf
The Clash
The Band
Janis Joplin
Bruce Springsteen
Tom Petty
Aerosmith
Steve Miller Band
Queen
The Black Crowes
Bad Company
U2



In the last 20 years we haven't had one band get started that's as good as any of those. I rest my case.

[Kermit]

Well, the Foo Fighters didn't win 11 Grammy awards for being a sub-par band. Don't know how many bands that you listed there can claim that and one of those bands(AC/DC) is my all time favorite.

[Dutch]

I turned 14 in 1990. That's my shit.

But I have to vote for 1965-70. Even tho' I'm sick of hearing most of it.

[Kermit]

I honestly think that you could put Green Day in that class as well. Possibly even The Offspring.

[The Madcap]

First of all, "Jeremy" sucks imo.........yes it was a popular song, but that doesn't mean I am legally obligated to like it, nor does it mean that it represents all the music of it's time.

You're losing sight of the original topic, which was the greatest five years in music/rock. You said that whole era was nothing but depressing music so I provided some counterexamples. You emphasize these two songs but what difference does that make? It's still two songs, and ONLY two songs, any way you slice it. I can access any other music from that period if I so choose, so who cares if these two songs happen to be "angry." There are plenty more available.

Are you saying you don't enjoy a single second of SLTS because you're the kinda guy who goes out looking for a good time? How does a song like SLTS cramp your style? To me, it's not a song of depression or angst as much as it is a release. It's unbridled, primal energy that has been harnessed and crafted into a song that struck a chord with an entire generation.......and you're somehow trying to spin this as a negative thing? Smh

Let's get something clear, I was in 7th or 8th grade when Nirvana blew up. They were one of my favorite bands and I bought all their albums. And I wasn't the only one. If our middle school had an anthem, it was Smells Like Teen Spirit. But somewhere along the way I stopped feeling stupid and contagious. I guess you didn't.




What you fail to understand is that Nirvana's success effectively turned the rock genre from the most widespread and appreciated to the most niche. And it did this because Nirvana inadvertently provided an inspiring travel guide for how to become a wildly successful rock band without a talented lead guitarist or lyrics that appealed to a larger audience than whiny and discontented school children. Because of their success art school geeks all over America without the balls or the charisma to get any decent looking chicks to pay attention to them got the bright idea to drop out and start rock bands. Nevermind that most of them had little to no musical talent to begin with and generally spent more time playing video games than they ever did practicing an instrument, they wanted to be cool, they wanted to be popular, and they wanted to get laid too. But because their bands all pretty much sucked no label wanted to sign them, so they took all that bitter/pissed off energy Nirvana drudged up in them and used it to galvanize a populist movement to destroy the record labels. And thanks to the rise of the internet they were successful. Problem is anyone that actually knows how to pick a decent blues riff or thunder down on a drum kit like John Bonham generally doesn't know how to use a computer. Not that well anyway. But the art school geeks sure do. And this is why the best "rock" bands alive today are Arcade Fire and Radiohead.

[The Madcap]

Well, the Foo Fighters didn't win 11 Grammy awards for being a sub-par band. Don't know how many bands that you listed there can claim that and one of those bands(AC/DC) is my all time favorite.

No, they won 11 grammys for not having anyone to compete against but sub-par bands.




(and seriously, we're using the grammys as a measuring stick? How many penetrating categories can you win a grammy in now? 30? Back then they had about two, "white people music" and "black people music." So Foo Fighters has 11 grammys, pretty sure Zep has zero. You think Foo Fighters are better than Zep?)


Point remains, the 60's/70's/80's all gave us a bunch of bands that would get serious consideration for being some of the top ten greatest bands of all time, but the last 20 years haven't produced a single damned one. Rock is dead.

[The Madcap]

awesome man. Thank you will be purchasing some of these 2m.

Let me know how it goes. Depending on what you like/don't like out of that group I can better gauge what albums from that era might best fit your taste.

[ukgaz]

Huge Oasis fan. Was a growing teenager when they first came out

[cecil127]

OP not happy til EVERYONE agrees with him....lol. making friends is his specialty.

[cecil127]

I honestly think that you could put Green Day in that class as well. Possibly even The Offspring.

u only say that cause youre green, Kermy.....green day blows! wanna be punk...

[Eddy Munny]

What you fail to understand is that Nirvana's success effectively turned the rock genre from the most widespread and appreciated to the most niche. And it did this because Nirvana inadvertently provided an inspiring travel guide for how to become a wildly successful rock band without a talented lead guitarist or lyrics that appealed to a larger audience than whiny and discontented school children. Because of their success art school geeks all over America without the balls or the charisma to get any decent looking chicks to pay attention to them got the bright idea to drop out and start rock bands. Nevermind that most of them had little to no musical talent to begin with and generally spent more time playing video games than they ever did practicing an instrument, they wanted to be cool, they wanted to be popular, and they wanted to get laid too. But because their bands all pretty much sucked no label wanted to sign them, so they took all that bitter/pissed off energy Nirvana drudged up in them and used it to galvanize a populist movement to destroy the record labels. And thanks to the rise of the internet they were successful. Problem is anyone that actually knows how to pick a decent blues riff or thunder down on a drum kit like John Bonham generally doesn't know how to use a computer. Not that well anyway. But the art school geeks sure do. And this is why the best "rock" bands alive today are Arcade Fire and Radiohead.

Wow, I'm not even sure where to start with this post. This is some pretty twisted revisionist history if I've ever seen it. I figured you were just a couple more keystrokes away from blaming Nirvana for the disappearance of that Malaysian jetliner.

Gimme a break dude......... Cobain has been absent from this earth for 20 bleeding years now but he's somehow responsible for the current state of music. One fvkking guy with a guitar has been holding the music scene hostage for over 20 years now. LMAO. Hold a grudge much?

You say they turned the genre from the most "widespread and appreciated to the most niche." What was dominating the airwaves before Nirvana broke? A few good bands mixed in with a host of glam-trash such as Warrant, Nelson, Poison, Dokken, Cinderella, Great White etc. Is that what you mean by "widespread and appreciated?" ......More like "widespread laughing stocks." That whole decade of music has been largely reduced to cheeky trips down nostalgia lane and derisive punchlines. Those bands are more known for their outrageous fashion faux-pas, and cheesy histrionics than quality music output.

"Art school geeks" then led the new wave of rock huh? Wtf are you talking about? The epicenter of rock simply shifted from the pretensions and superficiality of the Sunset Strip in L.A., to the more working-class, grassroots, punk music vibe of Seattle.

"Most of them had little to no musical talent to begin with and generally spent more time playing video games than practicing an instrument." Right, so all these bands with no talent whatsoever just rose up out of the gutter of talentless hacks and single-handedly exterminated the previous generation of rock. LOL! I guess that says a lot about the bands that came before them doesn't it. I'm not even going to address the video game quip, that's just fvkking retarded and you know it.

"They wanted to be cool, they wanted to be popular, and they wanted to get laid." Nothing could be further from the truth. I mean everyone wants to get laid, but unlike Bret Michaels, it wasn't their sole reason for starting a band. Most bands from Seattle at the time couldn't have cared less about being cool or popular.....they were too busy just trying to secure their next gig or get a demo made. Nobody could have envisioned what eventually happened with the scene back then. Even Nirvana had modest goals....basically just make enough money to eat and put gas in the van. What unfolded was the masses flocked to them, not vice versa. There was obviously a gaping void in music at the turn of the decade (contrary to what you might believe), and the Nirvana's, Soundgarden's, and PJ's of the world filled it adequately.

This music industry today is what it is. Bands didn't destroy major record labels, alternative opportunities did (yes internet). But why wouldn't you circumvent the corporations, if it allowed you to promote and distribute your music while keeping more of the profits and retaining artistic freedom? That's just a good business decision. The times are a changin' man. Get with the program. Nirvana did not invent the internet.

It sounds to me like you just have this Amish state of mind where evolution is the handiwork of the devil himself. You probably just stumbled upon your old man's record collection as child and decided that that's the very definition of good ole rock n' roll, and left little to no wiggle room for any variance within those tight parameters. I don't understand why you carry this partisan attitude in regards to music as if you're lobbying on behalf of '70's rock to be voted into office. You can enjoy more than one kind of music.....u know this right?

You might as well blame Black Sabbath or The Beatles for the death of rock since they were a couple of the early influences of Kurt Cobain....... Ya know, that guy who you claim killed it? He got it from them. So basically it's the Beatles fault that Arcade Fire is popular today. Now go on about your Lennon/McCartney hate speech. The reality is that Nirvana didn't hold a gun to the collective heads of millions of rock music fans and force them to buy/enjoy their music. So if anybody is to blame, it's the culture of our country at the time, which fostered an environment which created an opportunity for a band like Nirvana to become a smash success.

Are you mad yet bro??? GRRRRR!!! That damned American suburbian culture of the late eighties/early nineties.......that was a toxic stew that ultimately got my precious Grand Funk Railroad thrown of the air... GRRRRR!!!

The world changes......people change, fashion changes, politics change, technology changes. Life is ever evolving. So why the hell would music be any different? Trust me, if Nirvana or Pearl Jam had never happened, somebody else would have been the torch bearers for the new generation. I promise you we wouldn't all still be listening to Def Leppard on cassette tapes.

I'm not even a huge Nirvana fan, but I do like them, and I don't hold them accountable for the death of music. You're just so eager to dismiss an entire era of great music because you refuse to be open to other forms of expression not heard on classic radio. I even provided an example of music from that period I think you'd actually enjoy (Blind Melon) but you refuse to even allow yourself to like it because it would violate your anti-'90's code of ethics. To me, that just sounds like the musical equivalent of racism.

[The Madcap]

You say they turned the genre from the most "widespread and appreciated to the most niche." What was dominating the airwaves before Nirvana broke? A few good bands mixed in with a host of glam-trash such as Warrant, Nelson, Poison, Dokken, Cinderella, Great White etc. Is that what you mean by "widespread and appreciated?"

No. What I meant is that the rock n roll genre was the most widespread and appreciated of all music genres. Today rap/hip-hop/teen pop/country are all far bigger than rock. This is due to the rock industry getting taken over by shitty art-geek indy bands who only appeal to "niche" audiences like hipsters and virgins. Guns N Roses was the last rock band to transcend the entire genre by being awesome enough to appeal to everyone's tastes. Just as Aerosmith, Zeppelin, the Stones, and the Beatles had done before them. It is very well true that if you like rock n roll you may like Nirvana, but if you don't like Led Zeppelin/the Stones/the Beatles/GNR you don't like rock n roll. End of story.



(also, the time frame which I was referring to about the art geeks taking over the music scene didn't happen but in the last 10 years, not the 90's. I apologize for not realizing sooner that you struggle with the concepts of basic math)




PS: I liked Blind Melon and my dad mainly listened to bluegrass/country and I pretty much hated all of it growing up. You can indeed enjoy more than one type of music, you can also mature enough to realize the bulk of 90's music is nothing but the over-medicated complaining of whiny middle class suburban white kids who'd had yet to face one serious problem in their entire damned lives. So yeah, I'll take the blue collar rock of the 70's over that childish sissy shit any day of the week.

[Eddy Munny]

(also, the time frame which I was referring to about the art geeks taking over the music scene didn't happen but in the last 10 years, not the 90's. I apologize for not realizing sooner that you struggle with the concepts of basic math)


90's music is nothing but the over-medicated complaining of whiny middle class suburban white kids who'd had yet to face one serious problem in their entire damned lives. So yeah, I'll take the blue collar rock of the 70's over that childish sissy shit any day of the week.

Don't be such a smartass......You were railing on and on about the sins of the '90's when you declared that "art-school" geeks took the scene over. At no point did you make it clear that you were referring to present day. Maybe you should apologize for being a butthurt music snob that can't let go of the past.

And this insistence upon the fact that Nirvana was music for "whiny/sissy over-medicated" kids is naïve to say the least. Who do you think you are, Michael fvkking Savage? The reason why Nirvana became so hugely successful is because they reached so many people, crossing multiple demographics. Rock guys liked them, metal guys liked them, punk guys liked them, alternative guys liked them etc. The numbers speak for themselves. Sissy kids alone can't push album sales to 30x platinum.

Sure, the genesis of the music may have had it's origins in the heart of a guy (Cobain) who struggled with anger and depression, but he shaped these emotions in a way that made it palatable to the masses, not just the angry/depressed/sissy cross section of America. If you walked into any frat party in the early '90's, there was a pretty damn good chance a Nirvana song or two (or three or four) would be blasting at full volume at some point in the revelry..... Hardly indicative of this glum, dismal picture you paint of Nirvana fans sitting around with a blade to their wrist.

Get over yourself. Music was bound to evolve one way or another as I've already stated countless times. If the music you enjoy so much was as great as you claim, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. It would have stood the test of time. The cream always rises to the top. There are bands that withstood the onslaught of the alternative wave and lived to tell about it. I don't see Bono or James Hetfield crying a river about how change caught them offguard and so forth. You still have those records you love so much, so enjoy them. Let the rest of us, who don't live in a time capsule, enjoy ours.

I'm not a fan of current music for the most part and I stated as much right from the top, but I don't think it serves any purpose to try and assign blame to any particular band....especially a band as good as Nirvana. The funny thing is, you're the one who sounds bitter about shit you have no control over, so maybe grunge is what you need in your life right now. I'd be a little angry too if all I listened to tired, old dinosaurs who provide the soundtrack for the annual Sturgis biker rally.

[Kermit]

I am currently listening to the Beavis and Butthead Experience Cd. Great stuff here.

[Jimmy Proffett]

Seems like the one point you guys agree on is that the latest rock music is all trash. Don't be quick to dismiss some of the newer stuff; there are some bands that are making good rock music. I really like Breaking Benjamin (prob my fav) but there's Avenged Sevenfold, My Chemical Romance, Queens of the Stone age, which just rock imo.... then there's groups like Muse & Coheed and Cambria which bring a little diversity with their music....

Madcap, did you like the group Jet when they were putting out stuff in the mid 2000's? I thought they were gonna spur a comeback of that classic rock kind of sound, but it just didn't happen. Too many artsy nerds these day imo