PetPeeves Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I originally posted this question in another thread but I thought it more appropriate that it have it's own space. I saw Billy Bob Thorton on Bill Maher a while back and they were discussing what they considered to be "good" music. BB said he posed a question to a young person which was basically, "What band/musician has emerged in the last 25-30 years that people will still be listening to 50 years from now?" The girl named a few people, all from "his" day, Springsteen being one. His point was that there's not one single band/artist from the last 3 decades that will be remembered. I agree for the most part, today's music doesn't interest me too much, but I have to say that I really believe that there is a band that'll be listened to 50 years from now and that's Metallica. The music they made 25 years ago is still as relevant to me today as it was back then. EDIT- I realized I never posed the question ...lol. Do you agree/disagree and what artists do you think will still be listened to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilliangirl Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 U2 may be one of the few. Technically they started in late 1970's but they didn't really catch on with the larger public til the mid 1980's. They were a huge force in the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverside Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You forgot about Morris Day and the Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetPeeves Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 U2 may be one of the few. Technically they started in late 1970's but they didn't really catch on with the larger public til the mid 1980's. They were a huge force in the industry. Now that you mention U2, I remember that being one of her answers and him saying they were from "his" day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillybilly Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You forgot about Morris Day and the Time. Morris Day and the Muther***ing Time! Jungle Love....o-ee-o-ee-o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverside Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Morris Day and the Muther***ing Time! Jungle Love....o-ee-o-ee-o Fifteen bucks, little man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillybilly Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 put that ______ in my hand. great great film lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIANTRobOT420 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Easy E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 What about bands like Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Super Tramp, Yes, Boston, Kansas, Eagles, Boobie Brothers...etc? OK so these are some of the bands I grew up with. I think every decade will have it's stars with longevity but once the computers take over completely it will come to an end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Okay, pardon my cynicism, but I doubt seriously that many/any artists of the past 25-30 years are likely to be remembered in the sense that the 30s and 40s swing outfits and 50s jazz and 60s-70s rock bands will be remembered. No, this isn't just an old man grouching about lousy music from the young folks, either. The comment about the computers isn't quite right, either. There's just too big a marketplace and too broad and undefined a distribution network for the degree of "fame" that came during earlier musical eras. In fact, I'd put the big influence on "who's big and who ain't" from the swing era on the post WWII time period and even to early television. For example, the Larry Clinton orchestra had its share of "#1 hits," including stuff a lot of today's younger adults would recognize as well as us older folks. But who ever heard of 'em now? One might get some "political" discussion out of this, too, given some odd stuff going on in the music biz in the early days of rock. So... unless there's some change in "music distribution," I personally don't see how any current band or artist might have the "everybody listened to this in 2005" sort of status held by Elvis or the Beatles. It's kind of like any specific sort of "media play" even received by "news" nowadays. Through the 60s rock era, we had three, four it you include public, television networks in the US. The radio stations were... well, let's say they and major record companies had various sorts of agreements. Add a few things that went into movie houses and that was it. Now? Even if the incredibly talented and broadly regarded metaphorical 2009 band "Billy Brunswick and the Brunswick Battlers" are featured simultaneously on broadcast network television and every "rock" station in the US, they'll have a relatively small audience compared to what Elvis had. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHO Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I don't think many of todays bands will be listened to 30 years from now, but that has probably more to do with how music and other media is consumed and marketed these days rather than the quality of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAS44 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I'm with the people who said U2 above they're great. I may be misinterpreting what Dave said but I don't think that computers will "take over". Personally I think there will always be people who want to learn to play _____ on whatever instrument. Music will keep changing no matter what and there will always be people playing it (IMO). It evolves with the people. To me there's no substitute for soul in music Milod: well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Dom... I agree with your comment about people making music as opposed to computers - although I predict more "solo" artists or "duo-trio" performances with some sort of computer enhancement. I've seen a lot of that out here already. Although I'm cynical about current artists getting the kind of "legend" status as an earlier generation or two because of the business and "exposure" side of music, I especially agree that there may be a better shot for people to make a buck at music. The current tough economic times aren't as bad as in the 1930s, but one might note that the tough times of the 30s still found people getting through financial difficulties through places that served live music as well as cheap booze. (An aside - when the bands one sees on various sorts of "videos" are better dressed in a more classy sort of way, I'll wager that may well be an indication that better times are darned close. At least one could see that in the late 1930s.) My younger brother, by the way, is the computer music expert in several ways - but regardless, it is "his" music and "his" performance, and "his" keyboard and "his" messing with the recording setup. I see that more as him doing track-overs and his own engineering than the computer making the music. It's just a tool, an instrument. The person still is the defining signature of what makes "music." My prediction is, though, that professional musicians have to get smarter on the business side; that there will be increasing opportunity for small "low end" live performance but not the opportunity to be "IT" as were artists from 1930 or so up to around 1980... So greater cash flows will take business smarts as well as matching music style to the marketplace. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Forgot to mention them in the other thread but I think Green Day's song writing skills are exemplary! Those songs are well constructed with wonderful melodies, they will last like the folk songs from hundreds of years back. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Marshall Mathers. Look at the sales numbers. :-) Any band with a huge video presence, lotsa TV exposure, and common name recognition has an advantage from the start. The more people have seen them, the more people will recognize them in the future. Like U2, Madonna and Michael Jackson won't fade away anytime soon. Pop stars like Britney will always have a following because it's young people's music. Each new generation finds it and it gets a new boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Forgot to mention them in the other thread but I think Green Day's song writing skills are exemplary! Those songs are well constructed with wonderful melodies' date=' they will last like the folk songs from hundreds of years back. Matt[/quote'] +1 A lot of people think their music isn't great, but if you look at the lyrics and the songwriting, especially melodies, they are great Glad someone older than me realized it, hell, glad anyone other than me realized it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Marshall Mathers. Look at the sales numbers. :-) Any band with a huge video presence' date=' lotsa TV exposure, and common name recognition has an advantage from the start. The more people have seen them, the more people will recognize them in the future. Like U2, Madonna and Michael Jackson won't fade away anytime soon. Pop stars like Britney will always have a following because it's young people's music. Each new generation finds it and it gets a new boost.[/quote'] ha ha, Dave you are going to look down on me for this but I love Eminem!! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7slinger Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 There are many great artists this day, but most of them are underground. Like always, there are many artists who do not get the credit they deserve. I've always thought Accept, and Annihilator were WAY underrated. I don't know if they Will be remembered per say, but I think (off the top of my head) here are a few that Should be remembered: Devin Townsend Nevermore Guthrie Govan Apocalyptica (watch a video, "SOS" recommended) Really need to think about it before I list anymore, but those are the first that come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 you are going to look down on me for this but I love Eminem!! You're right.... :D/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The Record Industry will have to stop dictating what Popular Music is and start taking some risks or the turn of the century will be known as the "Stagnant Era". As long as they keep imitating themselves and resist reinventing themselves, Music will look and sound like 90's pop for the next few decades. We need more small record companies, and those companies need access to the "Airwaves", or in this case, Video Music Television. Radio and Television being owned by the record companies isn't helping expose real talent, so our Pages, Becks, and Claptons of today aren't getting any exposure in today's market, just Producers Kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 FirstMeasure hit it pretty well, I think. It ain't the artists. It's exposure and we're almost where we were in the 1950s again in terms of relative stagnation in the industry. I'm not saying Elvis and the Beatles weren't good, but I'm saying they got a helluva lot more exposure than anybody today who may or may not be as "good" or as "catchy." How much "new" have we seen in terms of guitar design that really has caught on other than various companies messing with relatively popular designs from over half a century ago. Stomp boxes? Heck, that's the closest we come to adding to guitar sound. As for playability? Not much. I like my Elixir strings, but... My guess is that there will be more local opportunities in the biz, and that musicians who wanna make money at it are going to have to do more "business" themselves at a very personal level. The Internet is great. I truly love the opportunities it offers. But it also means that people have to know what they're looking for. In contrast, in 1963 one had maybe four television networks, some few local "shows," and radio. A prediction again is that some of today's musicians will hit the kind of virtually "cult" status as the 1950s jazz guitarists, but not the kind of thing as the "biggies" of the 50s, 60s and perhaps 1970s. Again, I'm making more of a "social" comment than a musical one. A jazz guitarist - music prof I did a recent story on made a point that country is the new "rock" and that bluegrass is almost more jazz than jazz. It got me thinking about "standards" and improvisation within them and he has a point. You young guys, for example, are mentioning a lotta people I've never heard of. It's not because I'm "old," but because they're not really relevant to what I play (and if I play, it's gotta take time from listening), and that in order to hear a lotta that stuff, I've gotta look for it. That latter is my point especially: In today's world you've almost gotta go looking for specific artists while in the pre-cable tv and Internet era, you couldn't escape certain artists. "We" musicians have to, as a group, learn to cope with the change if we're going to make it much past a "local" or "area" following. I think we also must have a bit better head for business if we're going to make a living at it. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.