Who will take over after the old bands??

Discussion for other music & artists

Moderator: Mike

Postby theDingle » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:51 pm

In reconsidering this---

....the "old bands" were larger than life in their own time, and awhile later took on their mythic legendary status. Is this happening/has this at all happened? There's a slew of flavors of the month that have been mentioned, but they ain't gonna cut it, c'mon!

I'm a moderate Nirvana fan, but I'd have to say that they're respectable enough to be the "bigtime" we're talking about--I would consider Grohl's current efforts somewhat under that umbrella, by extension anyway. If Audioslave keeps up their standards, they might be a contender.

It does seem to me that Springsteen and post-Police Sting have somehow acquired this "elder statesmen" of rock status--in large part due to being Rollingstone mag darlings, but they never really cut that much ice with me. Artificially induced, I'd say. :x

Can anyone think of anyone else--bona fide ? :?
not shmingking of gin
User avatar
theDingle
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:32 pm
Location: USA

Postby chris » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:16 pm

after thoughtful consideration of your last post, sir dingle, i believe that rock (or music) mags, such as rolling stone, have always had a part in "creating" the next big star. its all marketing.

on television, during the weekends, all you hear is how this new up and coming football star is going to change the game. you hear about how the savey veteran, sure thing hall of famer, is going out on top in his last year. why? to create interest in veiwership. its all about the ratings.

same goes with music. who is going to buy a rolling stone mag to read about some lame ass band if no one is touting them. i recall hearing about this all girls band from britain that were so popular a few years ago. later that summer, they were on SNL. i thought, cool, i'll get to see what all this hype about the spice girls is about. i...watched...the...spice...girls...live on television. i was horrified at how bad they were. this is what everyone is talking about? its all hype.

seems to me there was a line in one of the clash's better songs (loved the clash, by the way) talking about "phoney beatlemania has bitten the dust" suggesting that they were nothing but a media creation. they were wrong, of course, but they put it out there for people to consider.

as far as who is going to take the batton from the old geisers...who knows? the music i listen to rarely gets radio airplay. as a middle aged white american (who, by the way, more resembles a lotto ball each passing day), new music isn't marketed to me. its being directed to/at teeny boppers and teenagers, who have mom and dad's disposable income to download tunes on their i-pod.

the industry has passed me by. and i'm fine with that. thats why i come here every now and then. to check out what people are saying about music that matters...to me.
I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.
User avatar
chris
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Chicago, U.S.A

Postby theDingle » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:21 pm

All well put, chris.

...and in addition, yes, "horrifying" tells the tale, lol :lol:
not shmingking of gin
User avatar
theDingle
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:32 pm
Location: USA

Postby maccastheman » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:54 pm

I was thinking about bands that define my generation the other day (my high school and college years). For me that is the years from 1990 to 1998. (Basically the '90s) I was really into R.E.M., U2, 10,000 Maniacs, Beck, Oasis, the Cranberries, Sheryl Crow, Blur, Ben Folds, the Beastie Boys, and Radiohead. (not to mention all of the classic rock artists that came before them, but that's a different story) Bands that were popular but not my cup of tea included Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, and most of the other grunge bands.
Looking back at those bands today, I'm getting a sense of what you mean about rock stars being larger than life in their own time. I think people like Michael Stipe, Kurt Cobain, Eddie Veddar, Beck, and a couple others did seem larger than life - to me at least. When you are young and impressionable that's when people seem the most mythic to you. I thought Michael Stipe was a very mystic figure with tons of knowledge hidden deep in those cryptic lyrics. I thought Eddie Vedder was the politically outspoken rock star of my generation, Kurt Cobain the distant loner, Beck and Ben Folds the eccentrics, Radiohead were alternative rock's stubborn survivors, U2 and the Beastie Boys were the bands your other brother or sister looked up to that you liked as well, etc.

They all seemed tied to the era and the issues that defined the era. All great bands are. When I think of R.E.M. I think of the anxiety during the height of the AIDS epidemic and the safe sex campaign. When I think of U2 I think about the information overload they ridiculed and mocked on their Zoo TV and PopMart Tours. When I think of Pearl Jam I think about Eddie Vedder's fight against Ticketmaster and corporate control over rock and roll. When I think about Kurt Cobain I think about his appearance on MTV Unplugged and how sad he looked. When I think about Sheryl Crow I think about the line "all I wanna do is have some fun" pretty much defining my later-day college years. When I think about Oasis and Beck I think about the end of the grunge era and the beginning of a new pop/rock era.

When you combine your own experiences and memories with the artists and characters that define the era, the legend begins to grow. I don't think people will ever look back at the '90s quite the same way they do the '60s, but they will look back. When they do and retro styles come into fashion as they inevitably will, these bands will seem legendary and their popularity will rise again. Whether or not that means they will fill stadiums or arenas is a different story, but I think their history will be preserved.

But let's face it - when the majority of the people think about Macca they think about him in the '60s. They don't think about Flaming Pie or even Tug of War. When people think about the Rolling Stones they think about the '60s and '70s. They are still selling out stadiums and arenas based on the work they did 30 to 40 years ago - not the work they are doing today. I would also argue that U2 are still selling out stadiums and arenas based on the work they did in the late '80s and early '90s. I think all of these groups still make good records and most of us on this forum go to hear the new material, but they are defined by the majority of the folks out there by the era they originally represented. If people out there still want to re-live the '90s 20 years from now, R.E.M. and Pearl Jam might still be able to sell out arenas.
And in the end...
User avatar
maccastheman
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:38 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

Postby Paperback Writer » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:31 am

I am not qualified to answer to this question-

because I am one of those persons CONVINCED that the 60's (and some early-mid 70's) music was revolutionary, of unsurpassed quality and made and inhabited by - incredible musicians and PEOPLE.

uh Chris, no hype, your BEARS are for real! :cheers
"Step on the gas and wipe that tear away,
One sweet dream came true today!"
User avatar
Paperback Writer
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:32 am
Location: San Francisco, CA.

Postby chris » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:48 pm

Paperback Writer wrote: Chris, no hype, your BEARS are for real! :cheers


not to veer off topic...but i have been trained to be cautiously optimistic. i have spent a lifetime of watching what i thought was a great team, only to have my hopes, aspirations, and heart get crushed in the meat grinder. yes, that would indeed suggest that i follow the baby bears over in that other (baseball) sport. time will tell, but i'll keep my bragging under wraps for a while.
I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.
User avatar
chris
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Chicago, U.S.A

Postby Steve-o » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:02 pm

Hey Chris...at least you have 1986!! You could be a long suffering Browns fan who has waited (and is still waiitng, BTW) for another shot and has had to endure getting "Modelled" and "Policy-ed" in the same decade, lol. Have faith..I agree...they look tough..and with a former Buckeye coach to boot! :lol:
How Come No One Older Than Me Ever Seems To Understand The Things I Wanna To Do?
User avatar
Steve-o
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 11:18 pm
Location: USA

Postby theDingle » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:49 pm

maccastheman wrote:...I don't think people will ever look back at the '90s quite the same way they do the '60s, but they will look back. When they do and retro styles come into fashion as they inevitably will, these bands will seem legendary and their popularity will rise again. Whether or not that means they will fill stadiums or arenas is a different story, but I think their history will be preserved.


Good points mtm. The magnitude and impact of an artist on fans of a given era can exist in a vacuum. A fanatic is a fanatic, they can't be reasoned with! :lol:

It's funny too how some artists vie for a comeback but barely make a ripple or end up bombing, can't even get arrested, but then try again later and end up clearing the decks.

As far as Macca goes though, he's differ'nt than all the rest for me, one of a kind. Yeah, him in the Beatles was a biggy, but I also like him tomorrow, I like him today. 8)
not shmingking of gin
User avatar
theDingle
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:32 pm
Location: USA

Postby Lazarus_2 » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:58 pm

A Bigger Bang is one of the Rolling Stones best records. I do not like waiting 8 years between RS records though...

If they could release records as good as this every 2-3 years, they truly would be the uncontested Best Rock n Roll Band On The Planet.

A Bigger Bang last year definetely put the Rolling Stones back on my music radar.
youtube.com/kinnarchimedes
User avatar
Lazarus_2
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby maccastheman » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:50 pm

I will be the first to tell you that the Rolling Stones, Macca, Lindsey Buckingham, Elton John, and so many others are still making great music today - some are making just as good if not better music than they made during the peak of their popularity- and I can't wait to see what most of them will do next. I just think the majority of the people that go see these artists in concert are going to hear their classic hits - hence the reason Macca plays so many darn Beatles songs at every one of his concerts.
I think it's unfortunate that more folks aren't digging the new stuff, but I just think it's the reality of the situation.
Think about the folks you work with - how many of them are music fanatics like us? None of my friends - much less my co-workers - really understand my music obsession. They listen to the hits, they know what the classics are, but that's about it. You have to draw in people like that to fill in stadiums.
And in the end...
User avatar
maccastheman
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:38 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR

PreviousNext

Return to Music - Other Artists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron