So yes, I'm back. Been a bit of a long break but what the hey, better late than never...
Anyway, as I've mentioned on here before, I do the occasional bit of music writing during my spare time and this is gonna be a music-based rant. Earlier this week, I went over to the "Classic Rock" website to vote for the musical legend that is Ginger Wildheart and his Pledge album project as Event of the Year.
What I ended up reading over there just depressed the hell out of me. I appreciate that "Classic Rock" is a magazine which caters to the more, shall we say, "mature" rock fan but looking at the awards nominations really just confirmed why I've become increasingly disillusioned with it of late.
Case in point - the Band of the Year award. Nominees - Black Sabbath (last decent album now over 40 years ago), Joe Bonamassa (erm, band?), Rush (just NO) and Guns 'n' Roses aka the Axl Rose Mobile Ego Show (achievements - a dismal comeback album three years ago and turning up late to a string of gigs this summer).
Don't get me wrong, I still think that "Appetite For Destruction" is a great album and I even like some of "Use Your Illusion" but there's no way that band should still be calling itself Guns 'n' Roses. "Chinese Democracy" would have been a decent attempt to move the G'n'R sound forward if they'd released it some time around 1998-99, as it is it just sounds even more dated than another hair metal album from them would've. And before anyone accuses me of picking on Axl, I could say exactly the same for Slash who I went to see live earlier this year and was disappointed by. I like the guy but the number of old G'n'R songs in the set at the expense of his decent new stuff was a real disappointment. Myles Kennedy is a decent singer but he can't scream those songs out the way Axl could (though having said that I'm off to see Slash again, ironically enough with Ginger Wildheart supporting, in October so who knows, maybe it'll be second time lucky). The saddest thing is that it's not even hugely convincing to say that if this group reunited then the old magic would come back as there's just a part of me that suspects it probably wouldn't due to the huge gap and the egos involved. Sad.
Anyway, I'm digressing. The truth is that there's at least three individuals/bands I can think of who've put decent albums out this year and are far more deserving to be in the "Band Of The Year" category than any of the current contenders - Van Halen, Alice Cooper and Bruce Springsteen (hey, if CR are gonna put Joe Bonamassa in there then Alice and Bruce are both fair game to be nominated). Even CR have admitted as such - all three of those albums are up for the "Album Of The Year" award (one of only two other categories I could find myself bothered enough to vote in) and fully deserve to be. It's just a pity that the effort they've put in when it comes to getting those albums out there has been ignored in favour of bands who've largely just been on the comeback tour merry-go-round for the last 12 months.
The part that really got on my nerves though was the "New Band Of The Year" award. I was decidedly annoyed about this last year when the bloody excellent Urban Voodoo Machine (a group who y'all should check out if you've not already) lost out to the Union (essentially Thunder with a different singer and therefore NOT a new band in this music fan's opinion) but it's nothing to the despair I found myself feeling on looking at the nominations this year, all of whom appear to be groups of thirtysomething blokes with beer guts (and yes, I know I may resemble that remark myself) playing dull trad rock or, even worse, the dreaded "recycled" groups like the Union (Chris Robinson from the Black Crowes' new band anyone?) which, as I've said before, do NOT count as new bands if you ask me.
This is the main reason why I've found myself getting increasingly exasperated with "Classic Rock" of late - every new band they champion seems to have come from a time warp straight out of 1975. Whether it's The Answer desperately ripping off Led Zeppelin (a band who are second only to the Beatles in the over-rated stakes imo), Airbourne sounding like a second division AC/DC (I'll give 'em their due, they're not bad at it but if you want to hear the TRUE spirit of Bon Scott these days then look up a band called Broken Teeth especially their "Guilty Pleasure" album), Saint Jude's attempts to be Fleetwood Mac or, most recently, Million Dollar Reload sounding like a poor man's Airbourne (and how bad does it have to get when you sound like a bad photocopy of a band who sounded like a photocopy in the first place), it's the musical equivalent of those people who dress up at weekends pretending to be medieval knights and it's just thoroughly depressing to see the youth of today showing such a total lack of imagination in their music.
There are exceptions I'll grant ya. I still think the Jim Jones Revue are feckin' brilliant - yes, they may have a retro outlook but in putting a huge dose of rocket fuel up the arse of '50s rock 'n' roll, they're leaving their own imprint on it, bringing it into the present day while keeping the spirit of the thing intact. Case in point number two, the Darkness - I'll admit I'm not the world's biggest fan but the sheer energy and passion they put into what they do at least shows they're in it for the right reasons, there's no lazy muso-ism there, just people who enjoy their music and love putting on a spectacle. Similarly, the new Bermondsey Joyriders album is a great example of how to take tried and tested blues rock and fire it up with a good dose of political polemic and punk attitude.
There's nothing wrong with liking '70s rock, of course there isn't. AC/DC are legends for a very good reason and groups like Sabbath, Led Zep, Deep Purple etc are beloved by millions around the globe for a good reason. But music's like a shark, it has to keep on moving and evolving or else it dies. That's why punk happened in the mid-'70s - people were sick of prog rock pomposity and ten minute Jimmy Page guitar solos. It was time to go the other way and try something different. And thank goodness we did because we got some damn good music out of it (contrary to what the Zep bores might tell you). And if you're one of those people still plodding around with your music like it's 1975 all over again then you're completely missing the point. You might as well just join a covers band, it'd be more honest. Every person who writes a song or joins the band should have something of themselves to add to it, something they want to say, a point that they want to make. And if you honestly don't then you're in the business for the wrong reason I'm afraid. And yes, it would be more honest of you to join a covers band if that's the case as well.
I mean, seriously, why would you want to pretend it was the late '70s/early '80s anyway? You'd be stuck with an out-of-touch Tory government dismantling the welfare state while the country's economy goes up shit creek. Oh, wait a second...
