Join Pete Pardo & Martin Popoff for a discussion of bands who do the whole ‘retro’ thing.
💰Donate via Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/peterpardosseaoftranquility
👕Order your SoT merch: https://www.t8cloth.com/pages/sot
🖥 Visit our website: https://www.seaoftranquility.org/
source
Rock is now so old you can spend a lifetime exploring the past and still find stuff that's totally new to your ears. It's almost like you don't need the future anymore
My favorite part of this conversation starts right before the 41:00 mark. Music gets compared to the time of its heyday and how it fared vs its competition at the time. But also:
1. Pete's point about the free time we had in our youth is spot on. We do not have enough time to give these new albums a fair shake.
2. You cannot underestimate the mental frames of mind most of us had when we were kids. The world was our oyster! We had plenty of time to listen to music, chase girls/boys, play sports, work on our cars, etc. WE WERE HAPPIER! In our minds (well, most of us, not all), the music was better, the sitcoms were funnier, the girls/boys were better looking. As Pete said, we live in a disposable world and we have no free time. Even when we're not working, we're wasting time on social media. There is nothing but negativity in the news, on TV and on the internet, and that affects how we perceive things. It's impossible to give these albums a fair shake.
3. I think I myself tend to think of musicians as athletes, in that their best work is during their physical primes (age 20-30, maybe towards 40) so when I hear 60 year olds making music, I really have to be aware NOT to think that way and give the albums a fair chance. Rush's final album is an example of a great latter-day work for a band.
As far as the retro issue – I tend to be open-minded, but if a new band is too close to the band/genre they're copying, I might ignore them, though oddly, I do like Greta Van Fleet. They are, perhaps, the most extreme example. And as far as bands themselves go, I like when bands grow organically but I don't want them to start dipping into newer genres to stay relevant (though I understand some bands I love – Genesis, Yes, King Crimson – successfully did that over 40 years ago). Take the new Extreme song released this week. Sounds way too freaking modern for me, and nothing like the band Extreme except for the hyper-acrobatic (but totally irrelevant) guitar solo.
I agree with Pete 100%. New retro music in the genre enhances the original and keeps it from getting stale.
There is a difference between those bands that are just copying a band or a sound only and those whose creative impulses dive into a more retro sound. I think bands should be artists and make music they like and are driven to make whether it is retro or progressive or whatever. To me true progressive music is from bands that just make music they like to make and they make as true artists.
I might like or not like the music of all these bands. But those bands are artists. If a band is just copying Sabbaath or Led Zeppelin just to sell records then that is crap.
Gosh, when Mr Popoff and Mr Pardo talk, I listen and learn.
Some of my favorite retro sounding bands from the early "00s are Howlin' Rain, Black Mountain, Black Angels, and Astra. Whatever happened to Astra they had two great retro-Prog albums. They were like a more guitar driven Genesis crossed with Sabbath… I kind of lost track of them.
Adrian Vandenberg made the best retro Free/Bad Co album back in 1980. Should have been huge. https://youtu.be/fER67whdQtA
NWOTHM (New Wave of Traditional Heavy Metal) is a term I see being used a lot recently.
Keep in mind that if we listeners were at a different place in our lives “at the time” so were the members of the bands. Their lifestyles have changed as well. No way that won’t creep into the sound of their music.
I think the best stuff has been I do but I think that everyone copy’s what came before that’s called influenced but I think aftershock is motorheads best album and fanatic is hearts best album and Ann Wilson’s album is fanominal I think rival sons is the best band out in years and they borrow so much it’s a tough call but good music is just that good music and we do all hear things differently if anyone had said in 89 I be listening to rush or jethro tull I would lol but low and behold an online fantastic music show sea of tranquility convinced me to give it a go and I love it nothing on earth will ever beat Stevie nicks or the black crowes for me but there my safe place and best friends musically that I can always call on and I grew up on good musics comes in more than one shade of grey and we can all evolve and move to the right and left p.s Bella Lagosi best movie is the raven Cnut nothing beats abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein lol sorry had to pop that in great show Pete and Martin 🏴👍🏼🎸🍺
Fascinating discussion.
Anathema evolved from death and doom to progressive metal to all out pop music just amazing stuff
This is a great topic but I don't have a clear answer. On the one hand the idea of making the record you would like to listen to because your favorite bands are no longer able to make them seems fine to me. So I totally understand Pete's position as a listener. I love the Chesterfield Kings for example, and in fact I think this whole retro thing started in the early 80's with the garage and rockabilly revival. But the difference is that Greg Prevost and Brian Setzer were very charismatic guys. Not to mention Willy DeVille who was one of a kind.
I lived very closely the Scandinavian explosion of groups like The Hellacopters un the late 90's. In fact, with my band we played opening for them on the Payin' The Dues tour, since our manager was the one who promoted them in Spain. As we did with Backyard Babies etc ..
But then something happened that started to upset me. Suddenly, the T-shirt you were wearing or the influences you were mentioning in interviews were more important than the music you were actually making. So I started to distrust all cool looking bands with great influences…
There is something very dangerous about this kind of approach to playing rock music. It's turning it into something very academic. There are bands that it seems that if they don't have the amp that this or that band used for the recording of a certain album, they are not even able to play.
Mad respect to Martin. I will never tire of talking and writing about classic hard rock and metal. Grateful for his contributions to music writing. Inspires me to keep going. From Dartmouth Nova Scotia, thank you.
I think the retro thing is quite nice. I just can't stand the squeaky clean modern production style – it kills all my interest in three seconds flat. Sure, by approaching music this way I'll probably miss out on some (or a lot of) good stuff, but I can't do much about it. It makes my skin crawl. Finding modern bands with a vintage sound and matching production seems like the only way for me to enjoy "new" music. The exception might be new relases by classic bands I love, like Queensryche. These albums also sound too sanitized for my liking, but here I can at least (out of sheer interest and curiosity) focus enough on the music to eventually accept that the production is what it is.
I saw Alcoholica open for Cypress Hill and Limp Bizkit in 2000. They looked like and really sounded like 80s Metallica. Fun? to see a Metallica formation I had seen years before, but really, Alcoholica were only a Metallica that was in effect from at best just 13/14 prior years before [1987]. Wasn't this kinda early for this imitation/tribute band? I really didn't get their point. They play now, but is years later and in a form of a Metallica that truly doesn't not exist now. That makes sense.
There’s a huge retro death metal and thrash metal revival too starting like 15 years ago. Even with the album art that looks like the 80s/early90s
Another reason I have respect for great bands and musicians who never went with the trends like ac/dc, van Halen, Nugent, I still absolutely hate grunge and lousy bands like nirvana and the radio that killed music for many years.
Lots of different perspectives to consider with these questions.
An important thing though, I think: if young bands want to play music that is reminiscent of a sound that was born in the 1970s — all that means is that the sound is timeless. Great music should transcend its time and place, even if it can't help but remind you of that time and place, especially if you lived through it. I didn't — i was born in 1980 — so not so young anymore, and I do hope there will always be guys in their 20s who want to play rock 'n' roll, because there is a certain vibrancy to it when you're young and hungry. I also think the live aspect is important — I love rock shows, but hate going to arenas to see old bands — not the bands' fault, but if they're still doing this in their 60s or 70s, it's the only career they know and it's got to be worthwhile for them. I think that also ties in to why we like the early albums of these older bands, even if theyr'e not the most polished or confident or whatever.
But, if you're Lemmy or something, of course you'll think the latest album is better than the old stuff. From an artist's perspective, you kind of have no choice. If you don't believe deep in your heart that the album you just came out with is better than stuff you did 10, 20, 30 years ago, then you may as well quit, because then you're just making albums for the sake of making albums, and not because your passionate about creativity.
As far as retro bands or old bands returning to a retro sound, I try to keep an open mind. I either love, hate or am indifferent to them on a case by case basis. At the end of the day, it either connects with me or it doesn't.
Best show on YouTube
I think it's important to remember (and it may come up at some point during this video; I'm 14 minutes in and have enjoyed it but don't have time for 54) that the retro bands and sound wasn't always retro. At one time, it was current. And if the bands of the '70s and '80s were more interested in recreating the music and sound of the '30s and '40s rather than pushing forward with new, original music and sounds, where would music be today?
For me, the key to bands that incorporate retro bands/music/sound, they have to also bring something fresh to the table. A good example was Interpol was doing retro 'Joy Division' but it was modernized and brought enough originality to the table to make it different enough.
Also, Muse, especially early on, was like a weird mix of Queen meets Radiohead. Talk about two completely different eras to go 'retro' on.
It's like there needs to be a term (and probably there is one and I just don't know it) like "carrier band" that's not a cover band (though may play some covers of a band(s) that obviously inspired their sound) that's carrying on a certain sound. It's a little like a cover band, but not quite.
I say about my favorite album of 2022, Intruder of Reality by Chilean thrash metal act Insecurity, that they sound like they discovered a hidden new year in between 1986 and 1987.
I will also tell people Phase 3 by Riverdales if asked what I think the greatest Ramones album of all time is. ;P
I think what Pete & Martin were talking about toward the end rings true. Almost every new band I listen to these days, I find myself saying–oh that sounds a bit like <insert band here> or hey that passage reminds me a little of <insert another band here> in that passage. It seems to me the more references I hear (or at least think I hear) to other bands I enjoy, the more I am willing to give the bands a chance. It is a rarity to listen to any newer band and not hear something "retro". In fact I can't think of a band in the past 15 years or so that it hasn't happened. And often it's not a bad thing at all, as long as it isn't a blatant ripoff.
Great show and a topic needing a good discussion. I find myself in the PRO camp for the most part. If a band puts something out that's not original but still a great listen, then hey it's a great addition to the musical catalog and you get some musical enjoyment. Personally, I'm sick of hearing the same old songs over and over everywhere I go. Also, I do believe you can hear some newer things (arrangements, blends of genre, tones, etc.) from the younger bands if you listen enough. Musical styles die out in 2 or 3 years or so in a society's what's the next flavor, so I try to imagine what if they had stayed popular up to today. A fine line though to walk I though I know..
Too scared I could not run
I could not make a sound
Lights were flashing
My whole life passing
My feet were stuck to the ground
Too light to call it night
Too dark to call it day
Too scared to stay and fight
Too scared to run away
So scared I could not move
I could not make a sound
There were people running
People shouting
Flashes all around
Too scared to run
Too scared to run away
Too scared I could not think
My eyes could not scarcely see
My heart was racing
My legs were shaking
They would not carry me
Lights were flashing
My whole life passing
My heart, my heart
My heart was racing
My legs were shaking
Could not see, I could not see
For me , there can never be too many bands sounding like Black Sabbath. Their Ozzy era albums are ingrained in my brain and any time I hear any band doing Sabbath, I'm in.
As for Metallica, I agree with you Pete. They are unfortunately stuck in a ' they can't win for losing ' I do feel like their last 3 albums were released to appease those who want their early sound back.I'm probably one of the few who bought Kill'em All the week it was released and found it a game changer ( I was 16 at the time) and still love the Load albums. My disappointment came with St Anger where I feel like they were trying to do what other (nu?) metal bands were doing at the time.
This video has made me aware of so many great bands. Thank you.
So why are these bands not household names? Its more than just the music itself… for band to really make it, their music and persona and image needs to ride the crest of a zeitgeist. There are many great punk bands today but they dont culturally matter because there is no punk era today to shock us with.
Are we in a post zeitgeist age?
Technological limitations of the past actually counter intuitively, led to greater creativity as musicians challenged themselves to surmount those challenges resulting in magnificent music
Today, there are no tech limitations but without limits or challenges, there is no rock to whet the swords of innovation upon
Retro music has been around almost as long as rock music
The Stones etc- started as Blues retro bands
In the 70s there were the rock n roll revival bands
In the 80s there were all the bands who wanted to revival bands – whether they wanted to be the Stones like The Black Crowes etc or all the bands who sped AC/DC and Aerosmith
And so on
With the Pizza thrash movement etc
I've posted this before but I'm so glad to hear Martin champion the latter day albums from Motorhead. As much as I do really love the "classics" I was loving the new albums.
Good points Martin. As to why you'd want to be a band that sounds like an older band, well if you loved Sabbath, or Sabbath with Dio, you know they will never make more albums, so you pick up where they left off, keep it going. I mean the masses have no issue with bar band replacements continuing on as older bands (Molly Hatchet, Nazareth, Blackfoot etc etc) so it's welcome for new bands to do a retro sound, especially when that retro sound was great to begin with.
I’m a younger guy with an older soul for music. A lot of the classic bands I love like Foreigner were losing popularity by the time I was born. So if I find a band, like the Night Flight Orchestra that does that sound and does it well, I’ll defend them! Great conversation!
Great show guys as always.
It seems like Deep Purple is writing a new album, Simon McBride posted so on Instagram, so it will be interesting to hear how it will be with him – maybe more "classic" Deep Purple.
I remember laughig at Brian Jones's reply to a reporter who claimed their last five albums sounded the same. He said, "You're wrong…our last ten albums sounded the same."
When an artist says this is the best thing we ever done… It is just that the record company is telling them to promote or sell sell sell the new stuff. It is really just a matter of personal choice.
Pete.. just because a band isn't touring anymore… Doesn't make them less interesting or less valid… I still enjoy my Beatles and Led Zeppelin records and don't need to see a band that is inspired by their sound. Let the new bands come up with new original sounds.
More retro the better.
I ask myself is it nostalgia? Kings X latest album is great, Arthur Brown long long road is killer, the doom stoner metal is ok! How about all the super deluxe releases with loads of extras that weren't good enough to make the original cut, are they milking it to much? What is amazing is that we're still talking about these albums all these years later, the proof is in the pudding I guess.
Hi, Pete. I'm homeschooled and I've been diving into a lot of rock music this year. I love Black Sabbath, ACDC, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Queen, and many more. I love your videos and I've checked out several songs and albums that you've recommended including In Rock by Deep Purple, the first three Black Sabbath albums, and more. I haven't seen you talk about this, so what do you think of Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys? It's my second favourite album of all time, under Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon. Thank you for taking your time to make these videos and read this!🎸
Great point at 24 min Pete regarding Martin's comment about Swedish bands are just a Wiki version of older bands that they didn't see in person. It's not like Beatles/Stones/Kinks/Who were backpacking through the American south seeing blues artists first hand (at least at first — Stones made their pilgrimages a few years into their career).
Even when bands are perceived to push things forward, they are simply just switching to difference influences that might be slightly less old. Case in point, Radiohead's Kid A was very good, but it was still profoundly influenced by what was going on 6-7 years previously with electronic music and post-rock. All the most trendy, popular R&B, Trap and dance-pop considered the most contemporary music still has influences that can be traced back 30-50 years. Very little music is doing anything completely new, and that's okay — no one's gonna die cuz of it. Generally the conversation isn't about what's new, but what's fashionable.
When I started seeing live bands in the late 80s, many of them struggled to fill a 150 capacity bar, so I'm used to rock not being fashionable!
How about a show best album by a band which is there last album
I used to have a problem with newer bands. But now I think it's a good thing to have younger bands that resemble AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc. because the older bands aren't going to be around forever. It's good to explore younger bands that play music from the 70s/80s, so that we're not always relying on older bands for good music!
Pete's 100% right – the vast majority of people don't spend enough time with new music these days. Especially now that it is seemingly free for those who aren't obsessed with physical product to listen to things….
For me music is all about feelings and in some cases memories. If the music i listen to brings me good feelings or memories i like it. I want Saxon to sound like Saxon because it makes me feel good. i want Queensryche to sound like QR, not a shity grunge band, now they sounds like QR again and i dont mind that Geoff is gone and Todd is in.
The old great bands dont have monopoly on their way of writing music. I love when a band sounds like Black Sabbath as long as the songs are good. There are bands that write songs in the same spirit as the old bands but the sound is modern. Is that retro?
Why can't I find that particular Gypsyhawk disc online?
Really great discussion. I take each band on case by case judgement. Some good some bad, like always.
Love Winos stuff. New and old. (Solo, the Obsessed, St Vitus, Spirit Caravan…)
Love,
All Them Witches, King Woman, Goatsnake, Trouble, Acid King, Kyuss, Pentagram, Rival Sons.