Modern vs Classic: Rock Band DLC

[xxpigxx]

**Modern in this topic is ~1995-Present(2008)**

Here is my argument(s)

1.) The DLC ratio of Classic Rock vs Modern Rock is about 3:1

-You can read it here or on may other forums. You can even tell by using the unofficial DLC charts. The people want Modern Rock more than Classic Rock. Classic Rock is good. I enjoy listening to it, and playing it. Do not try and argue that point. I have downloaded plenty of Classic Rock, and I am extremely satisfied with it.
-You will argue that the song selection is just about equal for both eras.


That brings me to my next argument

2.) The song selection is about equal in quantity, but not in quality

-The numbers might be equal, but the two eras are not getting the same treatment. We are getting numerous songs that people know and enjoy from the Classic Rock side. But we get a smattering of Modern Rock songs that are nowhere near the popularity of the Classic Rock songs


Lets take a look, shall we?



While Classic Rock is getting Lynard Skynard, The Police, Boston, the Grateful Dead, Rush, and Black Sabbath. The 80's have Foreigner, Judas Priest, Metallica, Rush, and The Police. Modern Rock is Getting FreezePop, Jon Coulton, Count Zero, Bang Camaro, and the Mother Hips, etc.

Sure, there have been modern bands for DLC. What no one takes into account is that the Classic Rock bunch is getting alot of music that they know and can sing/play along to . . . songs they heard, and still hear on the radio and were/are mainstream. Meanwhile, the Modern Rock bunch is getting Indie/Garage/non-mainstream bands.

When you combine the 3:1 ratio with the fact that most of the modern songs that we have been getting getting come nowhere close to the quality of the classic songs . . . it does not make sense.

[Samuel346]

You are absolutely right my friend.

[mrpoopsy]

Thats because most modern rock sucks and classic rock is just that, classic.

[nasty89]

Thumbs down for mainstream music nowadays, it sucks, I couldn't be more blunt.

[Samuel346]

Thats because most modern rock sucks and classic rock is just that, classic.

I knew that crappy ass comment was coming from somewhere.

[patmac0014]

Thats because most modern rock sucks and classic rock is just that, classic.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that all modern rock sucks. I'd say the attitude is not that modern rock sucks, but perhaps they're hedging their bets on the stuff people, of all ages, have heard, at least on a periphial basis.

In other words, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

[an1m051ty]

Yea budday-
I agree completely I've said such on a few other threads. Whenever someone asks for more modern music, they are always assaulted with the whole - 'but there is" argument, where they break the music down by decades only and say - see, there's only three more classic than modern. But when people ask for modern rock they are certainly not asking for Mother Hips, Freezepop, etc. Smashing Pumpkins I'll agree with. I don't think thats old enough to not be modern.

But when people use the words mainstream modern together, opponents will say that all current music sucks.
EDIT:mrpoopsy just made my point as I was typing my response.
This isn't always the case, and it still should be represented.

[Rorschach1976]

Yeah you make a good point. And thank you very much for not just making another "Modern Rock sucks LOLZ" thread.

I wonder if there is an issue with licensing of newer songs? Perhaps modern bands are not as willing to sell the rights to their songs for fear of selling out? I don't know.. this is pure speculation.

There are some good ones though. Don't sell the likes of Soundgarden, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, RHCP, and The Pixies short, my friend!

[Rorschach1976]

Thats because most modern rock sucks and classic rock is just that, classic.

I should've known that in the time it took to write my post someone would make this thread deteriorate.

[ZortheConqueror]

I agree with you in a sense, but I also disagree with you in a sense.

While I understand what you're saying, there hasn't been a whole lot of mainstream, on the radio, music that has really been that good since the early 1980s. I would argue that the majority of <i>good</i> modern music (its good that you clarified a definition by the way) is, in fact, the indie/non-mainstream bands (though not necessarily the garage demographic). There aren't particularly many bands played on the radio these days that I'd be like "Oh yeah, definite must have".

I think I would like to add the aviso that if they're going to keep releasing these "indie" bands then maybe they should move away from the type that are already on the disc.