Bands And Albums.

SEE LINK BELOW.......

http://www.indiecharts.com/

http://www.ourstage.com/

www.myspace.com/madside


more info next post..................................

No.

You guys sound good to me but the LZ was a standout in their time because what they did was heavy and different from what was pop.
I dont know if you guys are old enough to recall that much history, or the feel of music at that time. As I said I like your sound but it is very California usuall. I dont see it being a stand out like LZ was.

You have to break ground to be the next Zeppelin. I hear zero surprises. I also heard zero hooks after one listen to each song in your profile. Pretty generic. You really stuck your neck out there when you compare yourself to any legends. It's just asking for it. If you had come out saying "do we sound radio friendly or radio ready or contemporary?" I would have said yes. You have the sound but you need some hooks. Big league production. Jet and wolfmother, both have an edge of uniqueness while being retro, but even they are not breaking ground. The white stripes, qotsa they break a bit of ground. You guys remind me of maybe a little linkin park with a little papa roach. No classic elements to remind me of Zep though. Good luck, just reel in your attitude a bit.

The chances of any modern group becoming as popular as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd are vanishingly small. These mega-groups were ground-breaking because their songwriting was as good as their musicianship. Today there are lots of good players but very few good writers, and very little innovation.

Personally, I think we've pretty much hit critical mass as far as "musical innovation" goes...it's all been done before. While you may come up with a new sound or style (and I find that to be extremely rare, which is why we have so many copycat acts out there), there's only so much that's able to be said, lyrically. There's only so many combinations of notes, & they've all been done & done again. Different time signatures, various tempos, discordant sounds, spacey stuff, etc - it's all been done. There's only so much you can do with your effects before you lose the integrity of your music, or your ability to play it, live.

The next big "innovation" will most likely be either the return of musicians & singers to an overall eclectic mix of music (& that, too, has been done before by the greats), or music that is totally computer-generated (omg, I hope this never happens).

People are going to get tired of the same old same old, & I often see audiences, today, wowed more by versatility than a determination to stick to one style of music, no matter your virtuousity.

The big question comes up, then - can your style fit into more than one genre? If it can, you may be more able to adapt to the modern, more disciminating audience's needs, provided your material is strong enough.

I am not hearing that as I listen to your stuff, & your material doesn't really stand out, even in its own genre.

You asked, & we have answered.

Before I asked that question, I would generate some truly powerful material, myself, with memorable lines that don't sound overdone. And that, sir, is a real challenge.

Good luck.

You wannabe who?

LOL

Madside? Is that a new villain of Batman?

Try not to compare yourself with other acts as you may come away upset.

Madside,

Well first if you want to be a Led Zep, you might want to change the name to something else.

Dont mean to be harsh but your sound is generic to me and sounds like 1000s of bands all over youtube and myspace. I dont hear anything groundbreaking. I think the listening public has too many choices and too short of an attention span to create another ZEP.

I wish you luck with your music and who knows maybe you can sell 250 million records and become a radio icon and then send my review back and say "TOLD YOU SO" !

Personally, I think we've pretty much hit critical mass as far as "musical innovation" goes...it's all been done before.

When I was about 21 I heard a guy in his late thirties say that. The guy was a respected big leaguer here in Roanoke. All I could think when he said that was..... maybe you can't come up with something new. 10 years before he said that Metallica came up with their sound. It WAS groundbreaking. 3 years before he said that NWA came up with their sound. That too was definitely groundbreaking. Since he said that we have had Radiohead and Korn make fresh genres and break ground. More recently I think the white stripes and the queens of the stoneage have been innovative. I personally think there will always be ways to break ground. Madside hasn't broken ground, but there will always be ways to break ground.

Paul, I hope you're right.

Perhaps my creativity is stunted.

I'm anxiously awaiting the next great sound that is truly unique.

I disagree about Metallica, though. I'd heard thier sound before it was "thiers."

In fact, everything you listed HAD indeed been done before, just not necessarilly on the national level. And there is certainly nothing whatsoever I ever heard from Korn that I could possibly construe as being original or even unique, but I haven't heard it all, I'll grant you.

I mean, I liked Live, for thier unique vocalist. But their materil left a lot to be desired. It's like that for most of the acts I hear coming out. It's either a copy of an older style, or they have a new sound but lousy material.

Or perhaps I'm just being too critical...

By your definition Zeppelin had been done before. It's just the blues and rock after all. I think it's taking your influences and morphing them into a unique combination that makes you ground breaking.

WELL SAID PAUL!

Well, see. the problem there is that...yes...I'm gonna say it...I never really thought of LZ as being all that "innovative." I thought they were a way overhyped blues act that promoted sloppy guitar playing & great studio work to cover it up.

They were really just an overblown blues band.

Go ahead & slam away.

Never liked them much, though I'll admit that they had some material I could appreciate. I think I'm one of the few of my generation that never bought a single album or even a 45 of thiers, or wanted one.

I thought that early Genesis, Jethro Tull, Beatles, Stones, Brand X, Camel & Yes were innovative, in the way they used a wide variety of instruments in the rock genre that hadn't been done before, with interesting melodies & such, & in the way thier material all sounded so different, even from thier own previous songs. LZ couldn't do that, at least not "well." They had some good ideas, but lacked the tenacity to actually develop them. They were the ADHD band from thier era, who never finished anything in a polished fashion. They were hacks.

I've never considered any blues band to be "innovative" given the confines of thier genre, until they slipped out of it into jazz or something else. Once you limit yourself to the confines of "blues" you lose all ability to be "innovative" imo. Even as far as blues bands go, I preferred Steppenwolf to LZ, if only for the vocals. I can only take so much squeaking & shreaking before I wanna scream myself.

Yeah, I know...they tried to expand it all & played stuff that wasn't really blues. I'm just saying that they didn't do it all that well, & certainly not well enough for me to consider them "innovative" by any stretch of my imagination. I think of them as a group whose key player was a hack, whose singer was okay if you can take the screaching, with a great drummer & bass player, I'll grant you, that only made it big because ppl were easily impressed by the "new" approach to blues, which, in my humble opinion, is an overplayed, overhyped, done-to-death music form, & was even when they were doing it back in thier heyday.

Many ppl say that playing a guitar with a bow was innovative. I'd respond that it would have been, if he'd practiced on it & made it actually work, rather than just slapping together yet another sloppy thing to do onstage.

I never understood the popularity of that band. I've actually had ppl wanna hit me for my opinion, but it's stuck with me all these years, & I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I agree with everything you just said Philby. You really made a lot of great points there. We only differ on one point. I really liked LZ. Yes they had sloppy live guitars and hit or miss live vox. I just liked a lot of their songs. I liked their studio recordings.

Hey Paul, I liked some of thier stuff, too. I just wish someone else had done it, because I think it could have been done better.

LOL

I've never understood the popular acceptance of sloppy musicianship on recordings that I would never even consider to be a finished product, no matter how long it took me in the studio. Some of LZ's studio stuff was even sloppy. It never made sense to me.

When it takes 50+ takes to record a lead that you have to splice together to make work...well, that just sounds amateurish to me. I could never take them seriously as a "super group."

*I'm waiting for Cap'n Scott, Zip, JimmyD, sans, JW, Irmy, RM or any of the other regulars to pipe up on this, too*