http://www.irenejackson.com/genres.html

interesting indeed... i used to say what i liked was "rock," and left it at that; i couldn't really classify what i liked about it, only that i tended to like the more "talented" versions of it like guns 'n' roses and creed, but that i also tended to like the heavier versions of this stuff, like um, alter bridge and 12 stones. this website kinda helps sort that out. and i agree w/the website; a lot of the stuff we pass as alternative rock these days(jars of clay) is more akin to indie than alternative rock. in fact, WHAT THE HELL IS ALTERNATIVE ROCK? it's probably one of the most vague terms ever given to music. some of the stuff i've heard on this genre ranges from all the way soft to all the way hard.

so basically, with that website in mind, i changed my profile yet again(i seem to spend more time changing my profile than updating my blog).

and yeah, the 70s was the golden age of rock. talent abound.

which brings me to another thought... perhaps the deterioration of rock has been linked to another culprit; the increasing emphasis upon rhythm, and deemphasis upon melody and harmony. well, harmony's more or less always been there. but it seems that we seem to take the rhythm more seriously now. you could say this is partially linked to R&B and hip-hop, two genres greatly associated with rhythm and not harmony and melody. people want something they can dance to or something. it's pretty damn hard to dance to 70s style rock. but anyways, just go listen to any punk song on the internet. it sounds like they're hacking the same 3 power chords over and over again, and singing/screaming some weird thing. no variation of melody. rock has never really been danceable to, but at the least, the modern stuff is a bit more danceable. granted, the 70s rock wasn't exactly nice on the ears when it came to the vocals(remember the good ol feminine vocals coming from a male's throat? since i still listen to this stuff, i most certainly do), but i'm referring to the guitar, the essential soul of rock. guys like eddie van halen, jimi hendrix, guns n roses, (my brother used to LOVE rush) used to go nuts on their axes, and you could tell it. nowadays, those type of guys are rare... because of what i've said; the overemphasis upon rhythm. (mark tremonti, i salute you)

of course, i can't tell people who love indie and alternative and pop to drop their preferences and go for the throwback, since maybe these artists aren't trying to go for that type of sound, but i dunno... i end up feeling like they aren't bringing out their talent fully in their songs... do i throw a 2nd yr violinist into an ochestra just cause that's the minimum time he needs (if there was such a requirement), so he can (supposedly) start making money as soon as possible? it feels something like that these days; bands simply forming cause they can make money at the earliest point in time, not because they have good abilities and are willing to flex it despite what the public wants. "hey! i've learned 3 power chords! let's form a band!" i guess what i'm trying to say is, don't bring down classical rock, and don't act like the modern stuff you listen to is the best thing ever. some of the stuff these days is good, but the overall picture is that it's a bit... lacking. because music companies are about making money, not about talent. why else are the purists saying "rock is dead?"