I was talking to my sis who lives in cali. We are into the same type of music, mostly classic rock. We were discussing our favorite bands.She asked me of some new good bands that would stay around for a long time. I didn't exactly understand at first and i said some newer bands like fall out boy, The bravery , etc.(on MSN messenger) and then she was like "no ill just call you" so she called and explained what she was asking. and she had a good point. People like Elvis,Clapton, Page, Hendrix etc. will be known forever but she said name one band thats kinda new that will always be remembered. Its true, newer bands seem to be just fads. I mean Led zeppelin and lynyrd skynyrd will be remembered forever, but i can remember when boy bands were cool, rap( ???) was cool(still is to some crazy people) and other fads like that. Right now the whole Emo punk and alt. New metal and stuff is cool to people but bands like that more than likely will just lose their popularity after a few years and a new breed of music will come, but seems to always go away. what do you think will be the next fad? Can you name a newer band that you think will be remembered(in a good way) like the classics are?
Im gonna get flamed and yelled at for this, but Nickleback will probably be around for a long time and well thought of the music buying public. They play simple straightforward rock and roll. Most of the genre specific bands dont have much staying power,
ummm.... It's kind of hard to say if a band has staying power until after the fact. It's easy to name bands from the 60's 70's 80's or even 90's that have been around awhile. It's kind of hard to name a band within the last ten years that has been around awhile because - well, they haven't been around long enough to make the statement yet...
I remember when bands like Rush had been around for only about 8 years. Hardly enough to say that they were long stays in the industry. Now, over 30 years after their first album. You can make the statement. Anyway, I think you get my point.
Quote from: lilblakdak on January 14, 2006, 06:05 PM
Most of the genre specific bands dont have much staying power,
think about what you just said. Metallica,Heavy metal.Ac Dc Hard rock. Led zeppelin Fathers of Metal. Most of the general rock-genre specific bands came from these bands. Name one rock band that isn't a specific genre.
Quote from: Drum4JC on January 14, 2006, 06:52 PM
ummm.... It's kind of hard to say if a band has staying power until after the fact.. It's kind of hard to name a band within the last ten years that has been around awhile because - well, they haven't been around long enough to make the statement yet...
I asked you to name some that you think will be remembered like the classics are. I ask that because of all the new genres that are emerging. Elvis practically created the general genre of rock and he is still popular.My point is that the new genres are going to have to do something to set themselves above the rest like the classics did if they want them to stick around.
Quote from: lilblakdak on January 14, 2006, 06:05 PM
but Nickleback will probably be around for a long time and well thought of the music buying public.
That is the only one I can think of too and I have watched many come and go.
Train might have some staying power.
I just did some research on the net. Nickleback is referred to but not limited to pop/rock and metal. I don't know about you but it sounds like a specific genre to me...
I'm going to go out on a limb here, I think Foo Fighters will be around for a while...they got pretty good stuff...I would LIKE to see Queens of the Stoneage fit that description....That guitarist/singer/writer is a freakin' genuis...if you think Sister and Go With the Flow is all there is to them....check out their B side stuff. Amazing band and a really great drummer. No two of their songs are the same..from pop to heavy metal and everything in between..
Quote from: Tae on January 14, 2006, 07:05 PM
I asked you to name some that you think will be remembered. . .
Quote from: Tae on January 14, 2006, 07:01 PM
think about what you just said. . .
Lighten up Francis.
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 14, 2006, 07:21 PM
Bands that should drawn and quartered
90 % of hardcore bands
95 % of modern deathrock
the rapture
Hootie.
and all the Blowfish.
This could spawn a separate thread.
did I miss something?....I know I put my sticks down here....somewhere...darn...it's like trying to remember where you parked after 8 hours at work...sheesh.
Quote from: Tae on January 14, 2006, 07:01 PM
Name one band that isn't a specific genre.
If you want to hear something really "fresh" pick up a The Bad Plus CD
That sound they make is something else...even when they do Iron Man,Dirty Little Secret, or Smells Like Teenspirit....it's jazz, yes, but with a REAL twist.
Quote from: DWdrmr on January 14, 2006, 07:37 PM
If you want to hear something really "fresh" pick up a The Bad Plus CD
That sound they make is something else...even when they do Iron Man,Dirty Little Secret, or Smells Like Teenspirit....it's jazz, yes, but with a REAL twist.
Agreed. Amazing drummer, that Dave King.
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 14, 2006, 07:38 PM
Well you kind of said it "its jazz" so its a genre with a twist.
No, I definitely said it was jazz...but I can't think of any group jazz or otherwise, who has "twisted" rock songs like that...I would have to suggest what they do pushes the envelope of the jazz genre to "something else" other than "jazz"...IMHO :)
EDIT: I remember the first time I heard "Big Eater"...about 8 bars in, I was like, I've never heard anything this fresh in the last 30 years...amazed me
Quote from: DWdrmr on January 14, 2006, 08:25 PM
No, I definitely said it was jazz...but I can't think of any group jazz or otherwise, who has "twisted" rock songs like that...I would have to suggest what they do pushes the envelope of the jazz genre to "something else" other than "jazz"...IMHO :)
IMHO they're out of the envelope, looking at it from the other side of the room.
actually, they don't call dirty little secret, dirty little secret...I forget what modern rock band put that out..but, it's the same melody line. I think they call it Silence is the Question :P
Now that I think about it....(I'm listening to These Are the Vistas,at the moment)...they might actually be making a new genre..
EDIT: Thanks for turning me on to these guys ,Dave...and yes, I bought their CDs...that filesharing thread opened my eyes. :)
Why does it matter what you call different kinds of music? Just listen to everything you can, and make your own mind up about whether you like it.
I like the Bad Plus. I don't like Hootie. But I like the Carpenters. And AC/DC. Oh, and that Coltrane guy - I liked him, too. But I'm not so wild about Keith Jarrett. And Geddy Lee turns me off.
But it's all music. I think if people spent more time listening and less time categorizing, the world would be a happier place.
Mr A..aka Mr. Doom, Mr T (as of late)...you're actually smiling on the last pic on Drummer World..what happened there?...somebody show you a drum you'd like to have, or what? slipping? I've never seen that before, altho, I've only been here since ,what Sept?....JK
Quote from: Mister Acrolite on January 14, 2006, 08:48 PM
Why does it matter what you call different kinds of music? Just listen to everything you can, and make your own mind up about whether you like it.
But it's all music. I think if people spent more time listening and less time categorizing, the world would be a happier place.
I have to agree 100%....Young guys at work are amazed at what I listen to, especially for my age. Anything and everything. I either like it or I don't....I might listen to symphony music and move on to hard rock or country. I'm not big a fan of rap, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate good talent. I refuse to put music in any special order or generation thing. Just yesterday I was amazed to find out that my 9 yr. old grandson loves Elvis. :o He was in my truck and said, "Turn that up, it's Elvis!" Completely blew me away! .... I'm with you Mr. A, I either like it or don't. The generations coming up are people. Even a 9 yr. old has tastes in music. Boy, was I glad to hear that.... 8)
Quote from: Tae on January 14, 2006, 07:01 PM
think about what you just said. Metallica,Heavy metal.Ac Dc Hard rock. Led zeppelin Fathers of Metal. Most of the general rock-genre specific bands came from these bands. Name one rock band that isn't a specific genre.
ACDC and Zeppelin both crossed between metal, rock and blues. Metallica has even toned themselves down to loose a little of the metal label and appeal to a more moderate audience. Aresmith has as many blues fans as they do metalheads and top 40 fans. Bands like Slipknot, and Mudvayne wont be remembered 10 years from now (unless they change) because they appeal to a very specific audience. Nickelback appeals to rockers, top 40's and even some of the older crowd. So yeah I thought about what I said.
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 14, 2006, 09:32 PM
I'm in total agreeance with Mr. A.
Quote from: Chip71 on January 14, 2006, 09:30 PM
I have to agree 100%....
I take it both of you saw the picture of Mr A recently? ;D
Quote from: Louis on January 14, 2006, 09:38 PM
I take it both of you saw the picture of Mr A recently? ;D
Yep, love that look....Thought I was in a biker bar. 8)
My take on the whole deal is that every era, every year brings its share of memorable bands. Led Zeppelin is remembered forever, but how many bands and fads from back then have disappeared? Who can say what will and won't be remembered? And what we as elitist musicians remember is very different from what the "general public" remembers (and let's face it: All musicians are elitist, and we believe that our opinions on music are more valid than non-musicians' opinions. It's not the case, but that's what we think), and the reasons for remembering are very different.
I'd say that Foo Fighters are at the moment the biggest rock band in the world, and their songs will stay around on classic hits shows and compilations for decades, just like Led Zeppelin, The Beatles and Queen have in the past. Nickelback definitely have the potential to stick around, I'd say, but they need a couple more years first. They're definitely a very tight bunch of musicians, with a sound that's recognisable and distinct, which is what seems to do the trick when it comes to achieving that elusive "classic" status.
I think Dave Matthews Band will be remembered for a very long time. I think Foo Fighters are very close to being remembered that way. I would love it if Queens of the Stone Age are, but I think they are a bit too eclectic to be adored by a very large group of people to really get that kind of following, which is a shame because they truly do cross alot of genres. Weezer is another band I think might make it for the long haul. Who knows, I'm still dealing with the fact that 80's hair bands are considered classic rock now. Everything is subjective.
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 15, 2006, 04:13 AM
Somone needs to tell nickelback grunge is dead
Yep, about as dead as jazz, prog rock and disco. They're selling albums by the millions, so I can't really see how the genre can be declared dead? Personally I don't see them as a grunge band, they're just a general heavy rock band.
Quote from: Mister Acrolite on January 14, 2006, 08:48 PM
Why does it matter what you call different kinds of music? Just listen to everything you can, and make your own mind up about whether you like it.
I also agree 100%. It was a happy day when I realised that I didn't have to like/dislike music based on its genre, and instead consider each band/album/song on its own individual merits. On the other hand - since then I've probably spent a hell of a lot on CDs....
QuoteCan you name a newer band that you think will be remembered(in a good way) like the classics are?
So, you're asking me to predict the future? If I could do that I'd be out winning the Lottery (multiple times). 8)
Apparently even the music industry ain't always so great at picking the new bands that will have staying power. Here is a list os the "best New Artist" Grammy awards handed out since they started that award:
2005 Maroon 5
2004 Evanescence
2003 Norah Jones
2002 Alicia Keys
2001 Shelby Lynne
2000 Christina Aguilera
1999 Lauryn Hill
1998 Paula Cole
1997 LeAnn Rimes
1996 Hootie & the Blowfish
1995 Sheryl Crow
1994 Toni Braxton
1993 Arrested Development
1992 Marc Cohn
1991 Mariah Carey
1990 Milli Vanilli (revoked)
1989 Tracy Chapman
1988 Jody Watley
1987 Bruce Hornsby & the Range
1986 Sade
1985 Cyndi Lauper
1984 Culture Club
1983 Men at Work
1982 Sheena Easton
1981 Christopher Cross
1980 Rickie Lee Jones
1979 A Taste of Honey
1978 Debby Boone
1977 Starland Vocal Band
1976 Natalie Cole
1975 Marvin Hamlisch
1974 Bette Midler
1973 America
1972 Carly Simon
1971 Carpenters
1970 Crosby, Stills & Nash
1969 Jose Feliciano
1968 Bobbie Gentry
1967 none
1966 Tom Jones
1965 The Beatles
1964 The Swingle Singers
1963 Robert Goulet
1962 Peter Nero
1961 Bob Newhart
1960 Bobby Darin
How many of you young youngsters out there have ever heard of The Swingle Singers? I didn't think so. :o
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 15, 2006, 05:26 AM
Nickel back is hanging onto the remains of grunge, can't hear much influence from any other genre. Guys voice makes me want nail gun myself in the face. I wouldn't say prog is dead theres a big scene of prog type metal coming around plus bands like Mars Volta. Disco is still hanging around with alot of bands like VHS or BETA, Fischerspooner etc and jazz...well it will never die.
You seem to have missed my point. Prog is very much alive indeed, as is jazz, disco and grunge. I don't get how you can classify a band as grunge, and then declare grunge as dead when said band sells millions of albums (as do many other bands playing similar music).
And yeah, I like them. Last album was a great rock album, and I think Chad Kroeger has a voice that couldn't be more fitting to their style of music.
Nickelback is kind of like AC/DC. All their songs are about either having sex, partying or being a rock star, and it seems to go down pretty well with the public. I'm not big on AC/DC, but Nickelback I enjoy.
Quote from: Jon E on January 15, 2006, 06:13 AM
So, you're asking me to predict the future? If I could do that I'd be out winning the Lottery (multiple times). 8)
Apparently even the music industry ain't always so great at picking the new bands that will have staying power. Here is a list os the "best New Artist" Grammy awards handed out since they started that award:
<list>
How many of you young youngsters out there have ever heard of The Swingle Singers? I didn't think so. :o
Great example of the point in question. No Led Zeppelin, no The Who, no Queen, no Metallica, no Rolling Stones... Most of those bands are gone and forgotten.
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 15, 2006, 04:13 AM
Somone needs to tell nickelback grunge is dead,
They're as much grunge as Slayer is easy listening. I hear alot more of grunge influence on the Emo bands out there. To me Nickleback is more along the lines of a Bon Jovi, VanHalen. You ask them thats what they're influenced by.
BTW according to an interview i saw Nickleback was one of Dimebag's favourite bands.
Quote from: Jon E on January 15, 2006, 06:13 AM
So, you're asking me to predict the future? If I could do that I'd be out winning the Lottery (multiple times). 8)
Apparently even the music industry ain't always so great at picking the new bands that will have staying power. Here is a list os the "best New Artist" Grammy..................
A Grammy is like a kiss of death for most careers. Look at Godsmack, they were getting lots of rotation, they were the next big thing, won the Grammy, Now you hardly ever hear of them.
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 14, 2006, 07:21 PM
Foo Fighters
Mars Volta
Nirvana (will live on)
The Roots
The Red Hot Chili Peppers
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in what i meant. When i said that I meant newer bands as in the past couple of years or so. And when I said fall out boy and emo punk and all that stuff i know is been around but it seems to be popular now and probly wont stay.
"But it's all music. I think if people spent more time listening and less time categorizing, the world would be a happier place."
Agreed, but its easier to find music when its catigorized. As in "whats a good metal band?"
Dave Matthews Band is a new band that will be remembered for a longggg time. They r excellent and constantly putting out a good music that actually requires talnet. I also like to see John Mayer Trio progress, some one had to bring back blues and im glad John Mayer took that step... and what a good deal with Steve Jordan on drums!!
It's impossible to tell who will stay and who will fade, so with that I think it's important to look at the latest possible wave of bands that have stayed around. It seems to me, that many of the early 90's grunge bands have staying power, or would still if they were still together. Pearl Jam is still around, I think Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana would still be popular had they all stayed together, they still get much radio play. I definitely don't see grunge as dead, I see it as what it is and always has been, Rock Music.
Clearly, talent has some, but not all to do with staying power. As talented as bands like Mars Volta are, the general public doesn't care about how good the musicianship is, they just want to hear consistantly good radio friendly music. A cult type following is also very important and another way to stay around for a long time, look at how dedicated Rush fans are(myself included), never heard an album I wouldn't buy. We at the Cafe, are a biased group as musicians and I think many of us look at this differently than the general non-musician public.
As for opinions on what current bands will be around, I agree with whoever said the Foo Fighters. I also think Incubus will be here for a while. Tool is another band that should stay around, especially when they keep their fans hanging on waiting for new music, they have a very loyal following. In the meantime, Tool fans are still happy listening to Lateralus over and over(I know I am)
Just my $.02
Quote from: Naigewron on January 15, 2006, 06:37 AM
Great example of the point in question. No Led Zeppelin, no The Who, no Queen, no Metallica, no Rolling Stones... Most of those bands are gone and forgotten.
If those bands are dead and gone, how come the Stones pack any performance they play? Sure don't seem dead to me....They're still selling, making money and lots of it. ::)
Quote from: Naigewron on January 15, 2006, 06:37 AM
Great example of the point in question. No Led Zeppelin, no The Who, no Queen, no Metallica, no Rolling Stones... Most of those bands are gone and forgotten.
Dead, are you kidding? those bands (except for the who) are known by most people at my school. dead is the wrong way to put it. Metallica, led zeppelin, and rolling stones are still as popular, if not more popular than they were then.
Ya my 18 year old son loves the Cars
Quote from: Ranman on January 15, 2006, 01:13 PM
Ya my 18 year old son loves the Cars
I work for Princeton University and have come to know many of the students here. You would not beleive how big 80's pop music is with this age group right now. I hear these kids listening to Bon Jovi, Journey, the Cars and many others of the like. Some of them work with me and put this stuff on in the office, most of it is older than them.
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 15, 2006, 01:13 PM
Sorry I guess I should be calling nickelback post grunge, one of the most uninventive bands of the last several years.
I think that it should be taken into consideration that all the classic rock was the first,
I get you dont like Nickelback and thats fine. But get the facts straight. Everything that came out after 1995 could be considered post grunge. Nickelback songs arent about how the world sucks and they want to kill themselves, they fully admit they want to be famous and make lots of money. They want to be decadent rockstars. Everything grunge was against. They are just a typical rock band.
Before they were classic rock, they were the underground then modern, and then corporate rock of their day. Thats how it works. Underground gets discovered, it becomes modern/maistream, then record companies start cloning it. The beatles (the biggest mainstream band of all time) were the nirvana of their day. Parents hated them, they were against anything the establishment said they should do musically, they drank, they smoked. Elvis was considered almost pornographic because of his dance. Whatch out the next generation is gonna think Slipknot is a lamo old mans band, that only your parents would listen to.
chefdoug, last i heard the Smashing Pumpkins were getting back together. I heard that... i think this past summer, so i would say unless they decided not to do it anymore, they will have a cd out sometime this year.
lilblakdak, about Slipknot. I don't know if i'd say they are an old man's group. It seems to me that most kids go through their slipknot stage. Most of their fans are kids are are trying to be "different." They are the MTV version of a rebel.
Ok, it's time to share my opinions on this topic.
Firstly, I'm on the anti-Nickleback party. I find their music unimaginative and boring, just very very generic heavy rock really.
Not that that's actually relevant to the topic.
Secondly, I think that there are some bands today that people will still listen to in years to come. The first that came to mind for me were Muse and Oasis, but there have been quite a lot suggested which I would agree with also. They have large fanbases who will continue to listen to their music should they break up, and if they carry on recording people will still be buying their records.
But as I see it, that's not what this topic is about. It's not about whether people carry on buying/listening to their music - it's about whether *new* generations start listening to it.
I know plenty of people who are under 20 and routinely listen to bands from the 60s and 70s (and from before/after then). In fact, probably the majority of people my age who listen to music regularly, listen to bands like Black Sabbath and Zeppelin. This is what I think makes the classic - not that people carry on listening to them - but that a new generation of music lovers have discovered and embraced them.
Will this happen in the future? Noone knows. But personally I am doubtful that it will - at least, not in the significant way that it has prior to now.
[Also, re: Smashing Pumpkins, Jimmy Chamberlin said in a clinic last summer that they were planning on getting together again]
Quote from: vexen on January 15, 2006, 02:55 PM
lilblakdak, about Slipknot. I don't know if i'd say they are an old man's group. It seems to me that most kids go through their slipknot stage. Most of their fans are kids are are trying to be "different." They are the MTV version of a rebel.
I said will be not are. think about what the Stones represented in the 70's. Know look at the geriatric crowd they draw. Things go in cycles its not good or bad its life.
Quote from: Chip71 on January 15, 2006, 12:21 PM
If those bands are dead and gone, how come the Stones pack any performance they play? Sure don't seem dead to me....They're still selling, making money and lots of it. ::)
You seen Keith Richards lately....looks pretty dead to me ;D ;D ;)
Quote from: lilblakdak on January 15, 2006, 08:54 AM
BTW according to an interview i saw Nickleback was one of Dimebag's favourite bands.
Yeah, Chad Kroeger and Dimebag were good friends. There's a song on Nickelback's new album that's about his death, and it features a solo that Dimebag recorded shortly before he died, but never released anywhere.
Quote from: Tae on January 15, 2006, 01:10 PM
Dead, are you kidding? those bands (except for the who) are known by most people at my school. dead is the wrong way to put it. Metallica, led zeppelin, and rolling stones are still as popular, if not more popular than they were then.
Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant that most of the bands on the list were gone and forgotten, while many classic bands (like Metallica, Led Zeppelin etc...) were not on there. My bad.
But there are also a lot of old bands nobody remembers. Also, alot of times it just takes some down time for the band to skyrocket. Van goh, a painter was never considered famous until he died. So maybe some bands aren't awesomely un-faddish right now. You never really know.
Quote from: donb on January 15, 2006, 03:12 PM
But as I see it, that's not what this topic is about. It's not about whether people carry on buying/listening to their music - it's about whether *new* generations start listening to it.
No it's not about whether they start listening too it, its whether they keep listening to it.
Quote from: Naigewron on January 15, 2006, 06:39 PM
Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant that most of the bands on the list were gone and forgotten, while many classic bands (like Metallica, Led Zeppelin etc...) were not on there. My bad.
oh, ya, ;D
Quote from: mapexdrummer1234 on January 15, 2006, 09:47 PM
Van goh, a painter was never considered famous until he died.
The music business is different. Vincent Van Gogh painted primarily for his love of art and painting itself. He did not create beauty solely for recognition. Can you play for the love of music? Sure you can! It was not his plan, but Van Gogh could paint all he wanted and let the painting sit around until the art community discovered the genius of his work. A band on the other hand, must have at least a modicum of success to be able to produce and distribute the music. If music is not exposed to the general public, how could they ever be considered a classic? I have over 6000 demo 45-rpm records from unknown bands that I have collected. Many of them are what I consider very good art. Given that I enjoy some of these songs years from now, who else would recognize the song, much less the name of the group? Exposure and marketing have a lot to do with temporary success in music. Some groups have had the exposure and marketing and also have the technical ability and education to pass the fad stage of their genre. These groups continue to produce and will remembered and listened to for years to come.
this thread's hilarious... ;D
made my morning. :)
Quote from: Tae on January 14, 2006, 07:19 PM
I just did some research on the net. Nickleback is referred to but not limited to pop/rock and metal. I don't know about you but it sounds like a specific genre to me...
Well everyone is gonna have a genre for a band. So people would classify KISS as Hard Rock, and I kinda put them under Classic Metal. Like all music, thhis thread is based on opinion, so there will be lots of opinions about things.
i think indie rock music is a fad, nerd rock a fad, mars volta a fad....music is like clothing the style will change with the times....bell bottoms came back and left so will indie nerd rock bands...
Quote from: Tae on January 14, 2006, 07:01 PM
Metallica,Heavy metal.Ac Dc Hard rock. Led zeppelin Fathers of Metal. Most of the general rock-genre specific bands came from these bands. Name one rock band that isn't a specific genre.
I meant to put this in the previous post.
You wanted a band without a specific genre... here it is.
Led Zeppelin- as you say Fathers of Metal
Listen to Black Dog. Then listen to Fool on the Rain. Notice a difference? Led Zeppelin once said that they play what they want to play, not what they are EXPECTED to play. They did all sorts of music genres... to the point where I didn't even know some of it was Zeppelin. You can't judge a band by the hits album.
QuoteI would LIKE to see Queens of the Stoneage fit that description....That guitarist/singer/writer is a freakin' genuis...if you think Sister and Go With the Flow is all there is to them....check out their B side stuff. Amazing band and a really great drummer. No two of their songs are the same..from pop to heavy metal and everything in between..
I would also like to see Queens of the Stone Age stick around. Really great band. ^^He pretty much summed up my views. I also think a lot of people under-rate their drummer.
Quote from: jokerjkny on January 16, 2006, 08:47 AM
this thread's hilarious... ;D
made my morning. :)
Ya, i didn't expect it to grow this popular. ::)
Quote from: mapexdrummer1234 on January 16, 2006, 09:18 AM
I meant to put this in the previous post.
You wanted a band without a specific genre... here it is.
Led Zeppelin- as you say Fathers of Metal
Listen to Black Dog. Then listen to Fool on the Rain. Notice a difference? Led Zeppelin once said that they play what they want to play, not what they are EXPECTED to play. They did all sorts of music genres... to the point where I didn't even know some of it was Zeppelin. You can't judge a band by the hits album.
Did i say that led zeppelin is only one specific genre? If i did sorry i don't mean it, i was saying that no matter what type of song they play the songs will have a genre. Other than some blues, and country (ish) songs then they play mostly rock.
Quote from: gammalight6000 on January 16, 2006, 09:17 AM
i think indie rock music is a fad, nerd rock a fad, mars volta a fad....music is like clothing the style will change with the times....bell bottoms came back and left so will indie nerd rock bands...
I really dislike it when people (not insinuating that you are, just the general pub) try to use "indie" as a genre. It's not. I know that it is sometimes marketed as such and that kind of irritates me. There are independent rap bands, country bands, pop bands, you name it. It's a shame that you even HAVE to catergorize your music these days. For a young band it is really hard trying to be an independent "indie" band and constantly having to battle down genres and supposed sounds... It's like right off the bat we're either labeled as emo or alternative just by the fact that we DO NOT play speed/death metal or punk (two dominant scenes where we live/play.)
Other than that I think that a MULTITUDE of bands from the 90s will be remembered. As long as those grunge and alt songs from the 90s continue to get airplay, they'll be popular.
Quote from: JayB on January 16, 2006, 07:09 PM
It's a shame that you even HAVE to catergorize your music these days.
Other than that I think that a MULTITUDE of bands from the 90s will be remembered.
We have to catagorize in order to do many things. Imagine going to Wal-mart and going to electronics to buy a rock cd. You are there for 5 hours and then you find the rock cd you are looking for next to a garth brooks cd and a 50 cent cd. Music would be hard to find without genres. If you were into Rock and wanted to hear it on a radio then you would have to wait for a rock song to come on because of all the other genres mixed in the station. the only way that that
might work is if everyone liked all genres of music. And last of, I don't think that you all are understanding what i meant by newer bands. I did not mean bands from the 90's i meant bands that have come around in the past few years.
Quote from: Tae on January 16, 2006, 07:28 PM
I did not mean bands from the 90's i meant bands that have come around in the past few years.
hence, nerd rock. like mars volta and stuff like that.....
Nickleback is good and I think they will stay for a while. Its hard because music isn't what it was..neither are the labels. Todays its popularity...where as when Zep,The Stones,Rush,Aerosmith...when they started in the 70's is was about the music. Hense why they remain power houses today...they are GREAT bands...and they do what they want..always have.
Quote from: Tae on January 16, 2006, 10:23 AM
Ya, i didn't expect it to grow this popular. ::)
or as notoriously moot! lol!
Quote from: JayB on January 16, 2006, 07:09 PM
I really dislike it when people (not insinuating that you are, just the general pub) try to use "indie" as a genre. It's not.
(...)
Other than that I think that a MULTITUDE of bands from the 90s will be remembered. As long as those grunge and alt songs from the 90s continue to get airplay, they'll be popular.
+1
well said, j.
if its on radio, its "pop" music that'll last so long as the masses keep it popular, and the record companies see it viable to keep printing reissue after ad nauseum reissue.
besides, a classic for one person, isnt necessarily gonna be a classic for another person.
capt. beefheart and nick drake will last forever in my mind, and anyone else's mind within earshot of my crazed ramblings honoring those two men. but i doubt most of the strangers i meet on the street will even know a single song title from either one.
and i bet half of the country, especially those away from the heartland of america could even name a single johnny cash song, up until that awful (yet well acted ;)) biopic came out last year.
again, if its marketable, he/she/them will last en masse.
and yes, hiphop is here to stay. deal with it, like i'm dealing with brooks & dunn, john mayer trio, jamie foxx (?!?!?!), and yes, ashley simpson. ::)
Quote from: gammalight6000 on January 16, 2006, 11:29 PM
hence, nerd rock. like mars volta and stuff like that.....
ya, I just didn't mean bands that have been around for more than lets say...3 years.
Newer pop bands with staying power?
Tool
Dave Matthews Band
Foo Fighters
Pop in the sense that they are popular bands, which is what the category Pop means.
As for all the other genre spewing nonsense, who cares? Call it rock, metal, blues, jazz, whatever. The mark of music with staying power is music that appeals to the masses and is good.
Bands like Zeppelin, Hendrix Exp, etc. are going to be recognized for a long, long time because they made music that is CROSS GENRE, or appeals to a wide variety of people, has the heart and soul of the artists, and is appealling. Every band that hits huge with a song or an album hits because what they do is timely for the moment. But to have massive staying power, you have to appeal to enough people for a long enough time to sustain your deal.
U2 is the biggest band in the world. Their music is sincere, true to their heart and appealing. That's why they sell out 200 million tickets in a day.
Slipknot's music is sincere and true to the nature of the artists. That's about it. Doesn't mean they aren't going to be around for a long time, it just means they have a limited target audience.
When people talk about staying power in the industry, it usually means 1 of 2 things. Staying power within your core audience and/or staying power overall.
While genre specific music has many bands that have been around for a while, true power comes from bands that appeal across the board.
Metallica has taken a lot of heat from a lot of people about their "selling out". The truth of the matter is they make music that doesn't limit themselves to a core audience. I'm sure the members of the band are ok with that.
I believe the only bands that will have broad, long range sucess of late are the Foo Fighters and Dave Matthews. There are several worthy canidates, but they haven't really been around long enough.
Bands like the Mars Volta, Slipknot, etc? They'll be around and probably sustain a viable career, but they'll never be major players in the big picture. They just don't have the appeal.
Quote from: Pirate Pig on January 14, 2006, 07:49 PM
i'd like to see how john mayer progresses
I haven't read this whole thread yet, but a comment so far up to this point:
What I'm excited about is that John Mayer, who is young and attractive to the younger generation, has the power to bring/reintroduce the aspect of
instrumentation to mainstream music, as well as blues/funk, etc. to the younger audience, who is not often exposed to such in these days of dance bands and electronic music, compared to the 70's, etc. when everyone was playing guitar, etc. Mayer is on the cover of Guitar Player this month, and will probably influence many younger folks to pick up the guitar and get back to the roots, which is awesome.
I think Tortoise will be around for a good long time. They may shift a member or two, but they'll stick around.
I also think Tali White (The Guild League, The Lucksmiths) and Colin Meloy (The Decemberists) will be those characters that will sit on the edge of superstardom for ages. Playing full 1000 seat clubs and small theaters, not necessarily the ampitheaters/arenas. They may keep their respective bands around, they may not. They'll be the Elvis Costello's and Mike Scott's of this generation.
Quote from: Tony on January 17, 2006, 01:05 PM(...)
Dave Matthews Band
(...)
what did my friend say about them???
"the best players in the world's worst band..."
:P
again, this thread's a little moot.
Quote from: 563 on January 17, 2006, 03:34 PM(...)
I also think Tali White (The Guild League, The Lucksmiths) (...)
... as joker rifles thru the search pages of allmusic.com ;D
but what, no sufjan? he's got another 48 records to go!
Quote from: jokerjkny on January 18, 2006, 02:56 AM
what did my friend say about them???
"the best players in the world's worst band..."
:P
again, this thread's a little moot.
Usually you're humorous. However, your bitter tone and the number of times you made it clear you don't like this topic is apparent. If it's moot and that bothersome to you, stay out of the thread.
Once again i agree with pirate pig. As far as bands staying, of course no band is going to be as much of an influence as the bands who influenced what we have today. Those bands like I Mother Earth, The Nixons, Second Coming etc etc stay in our hearts and amongst talks with other people who are familiar with these artists. In a way thats being remembered.
As far as bands staying, im sure any band who continues to put out cds every has a pretty good chance of staying power.
to name a few
Cold
Weezer
Sevendust
Foo Fighters
and nickleback is def not heavy metal. A hard rock act, at best.
Quote from: jokerjkny on January 18, 2006, 03:30 AMbut what, no sufjan? he's got another 48 records to go!
He (
Sufjan Stevens for those that aren't familiar) could be. I don't see his 50 states project happening if he stays on the schedule he's shown though ;D An album a year, yeah, maybe he can finish up. But an album every 2 years?
I might've counted
Jim O'Rourke among the list, but he's fallen to the wayside as a writer/performer lately. He will last and have a significant impact as a producer though I'm sure.
Quote from: Tony on January 18, 2006, 08:29 AM
Usually you're humorous. However, your bitter tone and the number of times you made it clear you don't like this topic is apparent. If it's moot and that bothersome to you, stay out of the thread.
aww, cmon, tony,
just being devil's advocate. a highly moody one, but nonetheless.
and as much as i was knocked clear to my ass then flat on my back by "under the table and dreaming" (a violin and sax player?!), i just cant get into the newer DWB, even with carter's uber cool drummng. :(
Quote from: 563 on January 18, 2006, 06:18 PM
He (Sufjan Stevens for those that aren't familiar) could be. I don't see his 50 states project happening if he stays on the schedule he's shown though ;D An album a year, yeah, maybe he can finish up. But an album every 2 years?
I might've counted Jim O'Rourke among the list, but he's fallen to the wayside as a writer/performer lately. He will last and have a significant impact as a producer though I'm sure.
my Xtn side is really rooting for him. but my pissy side is thinking, "how full of yourself can you be thinking you can churn out that much work?" i mean, not everyone's ryan adams! course, hopefully, sufjan wont have as bad a case of "mental diarrhea" as ry. :P
Quote from: 563 on January 18, 2006, 06:18 PM
He (Sufjan Stevens for those that aren't familiar) could be. I don't see his 50 states project happening if he stays on the schedule he's shown though ;D An album a year, yeah, maybe he can finish up. But an album every 2 years?
I might've counted Jim O'Rourke among the list, but he's fallen to the wayside as a writer/performer lately. He will last and have a significant impact as a producer though I'm sure.
i figured it out...
you either program for http://www.sonicboomrecords.com/]here or http://www.loc.gov/]here .
:P
I didn't read all 80+ posts on this but what I read indicates that most of us talking about this are missing a major point. Over the past 50 years there has been a huge shift in our culture, including pop culture, music culture, entertainment culture, the music business, etc. etc. Back when Elvis or the Beatles were the artist that almost everyone listened to, there were not many choices. Great artist got to the top and had more staying power in large part because of Ed Sullivan, ABC, Capital Records, Movie Studios, etc. Admittedly, there were some flashes of genius that have stood the test of time but so much of the music back then was fed to us through just a few large corporate distribution channels. Now, look at the industry. There is nothing equivalent to Ed Sullivan to introduce an act to the entire world - no - not Jay, or Dave or Conan or SNL. American Idol might be the closest thing but hmm........ Now it's all segmented, niche based distribution. When I was a kid, the whole family would watch Ed Sullivan. Now, one of my daughters sharing with friends on myspace.com, another is mixing her play list on Itunes, my son is checking out old stuff on Rhapsody, I'm renting music DVDs from netflix..... To me, itââ,¬â,,¢s obvious why really good, talented artist don't have staying power. There is too much on our plate. Is this a good thing? Maybe it is. Either way, it just is and there aint nothin you can do about it.
There's also a matter of style stagnation but that has to be another discussion.
Well, here's a thought: If the Beatles had started playing today, with the music industry as it is, instead, and written the exact same songs as they did back then, would they have enjoyed the same success? Or would they have been quickly forgotten?
Like eardrum said, a few bands have probably become classics because there were just not so many other bands around.
good thoughts, lobed-one.
Quote from: Naigewron on January 20, 2006, 02:51 AM
Well, here's a thought: If the Beatles had started playing today, with the music industry as it is, instead, and written the exact same songs as they did back then, would they have enjoyed the same success? Or would they have been quickly forgotten?
Interesting thought! There is no telling BUT considering in the 60s the total world population was less than 3 billion people and in 2000 it was over 6 billion. So world population has doubled and it has increased much more than that (percentage wise) in the developed countries. I guess what I am saying is that there is a larger market for music today and that equates to more bands. With more bands there is statistically a better opportunity for a higher number of great bands. It is really hard to compare musicians of the past with today. The bands of old were groundbreakers of their time, as some of the bands of today are. Personally I try to judge a group in relation to its time period and let it go at that.
Quote from: Naigewron on January 20, 2006, 02:51 AM
Well, here's a thought: If the Beatles had started playing today, with the music industry as it is, instead, and written the exact same songs as they did back then, would they have enjoyed the same success? Or would they have been quickly forgotten?
In my openion, I don't think that they would have had as much of the impact now as they did then. I say this because the time period in which they were most popular was different than now. During that time people were into their music like we are with new music. The Beatles were one of those bands that just had staying power.
In my openion, I don't think that they would have the impact as they did then. I say this because the time period in which they were most popular was different than now. During that time people were into their music like we are with new music. The Beatles were one of those bands that just had staying power.
Quote from: jokerjkny on January 19, 2006, 06:57 PM
aww, cmon, tony,
just being devil's advocate. a highly moody one, but nonetheless.
and as much as i was knocked clear to my ass then flat on my back by "under the table and dreaming" (a violin and sax player?!), i just cant get into the newer DWB, even with carter's uber cool drummng. :(
Well, fair enough, but I still think we'll be hearing music from DMB for quite a while.
QuoteOver the past 50 years there has been a huge shift in our culture, including pop culture, music culture, entertainment culture, the music business, etc. etc. Back when Elvis or the Beatles were the artist that almost everyone listened to, there were not many choices. Great artist got to the top and had more staying power in large part because of Ed Sullivan, ABC, Capital Records, Movie Studios, etc. Admittedly, there were some flashes of genius that have stood the test of time but so much of the music back then was fed to us through just a few large corporate distribution channels. Now, look at the industry. There is nothing equivalent to Ed Sullivan to introduce an act to the entire world - no - not Jay, or Dave or Conan or SNL. American Idol might be the closest thing but hmm........ Now it's all segmented, niche based distribution.
If I understamd you correctly, your saying the reason a lot of "Classic Artists" are so because during their heyday, they were supported by the corporate industry which created them? And that this doesn't happen today on such a broad spectrum?
Man, I think your argument is fataly flawed in the sense that is almost entirely backwards.
In the early days of rock and roll, the music appealed to a certain demographic, youth. The music was about rebellion, standing up and being heard, no longer allowing corporate, middle America (or England) to tell the youth culture what to do, say, watch, listen to or like.
Today, the music industry is completely controlled by a business model. In the 70's, acts like Rush, Yes, Genesis, and the like were signed to labels with the understanding that sometimes it takes an artist an album or 2 to really hit with the target audience. Today, if you don't go multi-platinum right out of the gate, you're done, EXCEPT in the genre specific market, ie. metal or jazz.
As for the Beatles, their music is timeless. It sounds as fresh and good today as it did 40 years ago. That's the mark of staying power. The logic that the Bealtes wouldn't be as successful or relevant if they came out in today's market never made any sense to me. First off, the music industry would be vastly different today had it not been for the Beatles. Second, the fact that their music still sells huge numbers today should quell any myth about their relevance in the industry.
Quote from: Tony on January 17, 2006, 01:05 PM
Newer pop bands with staying power?
Tool
um, dude tool is not a new POP band at all, i think they the have same esence as led zeplin in the sence of them doing ground breaking work along with the likes of king crimson and those types of bands. i listen to all of the Tool albums constantly, they are always on rotation...i believe they will be around for a long time....well, their music any ways...
This thread is a bit too large to comment on all the posts so please forgive my bit of rambling below. I actually editied it down so it is not exactly flowing as I wish.
I think if one looks at America's pop music and pop culture in general over the past 60 years and then you look at those who were one hit wonders compared to those had the staying power I think you'll find that there are a few common elements each individual or group possessed that kept them on the scene for so long.
Take Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles, or Zeppelin just as examples.
All had a combination of talent, timing, and charisma, some had more of one than the other, but in general that is what you find with them and many of the other long standing and productive acts out there.
As far The Beatles making it today. I tend to think that with their songwriting talents they would still break through. I think their versatality would trancend the times. They were innovative back then so I see no reason to believe they would not be innovative today. Maybe not with the same cultural impact as they had in the 60s but I do believe they would be viable contributors on the music scene today.
I find it refreshing that in today's very refracted music industry that Sinatra and Tony Bennett remain popular even with the younger generations of fans. Both of those gentlemen combined the elements of timing, talent and charisma. (can't forget shrewd business management either)
As far as all the genre's mentioned here...it is all marketing designed to move product.
I find it interesting when I see Led Zeppelin referred to as Heavy Metal. That label was applied to them after their 70s heyday. I don' t think that could be further from the truth. If you asked them they were a blues based band.
In fact Zep evolved from The Yardbirds who were very much part of the British Invasion, a lot of their songs were very poppy. "Good Times Bad Times," the first cut off of Zeppelin I is a perfect bridge from 60s Brit POP into a new era of sound.
I guess the same could be said for Pink Floyd's evolution from their 1st two Albums which were very 60s psychedelic POP (with the single "See Emily Play") to monumental works like Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall.
The term Heavy Metal has been around for a while though. but back then the band I'd often seen written about as being the first "Heavy Metal" band was a band called "Blue Cheer" from the 60s who scored hit with a version of The Who's Summertime Blues. They were loud....don't think they had a lot of staying power though..
OK time to crawl back into my hole.
This is a very interesting thread with lots of good opinions and observations. What I find interesting is that there is not necessarily a link between a bands's staying power over the years and the length of time they were actually together.
Think about this: The Beatles began generating their first hits in 1962. By the beginning of 1970 they had basically disolved. So they were only producing records for a mere 8 years, which is a drop in the bucket compared to groups like The Who, Rolling Stones, U2, etc.
But the Beatles were a song-generating machine. They had two of the best song writers in the history of music in the same band, and Harrison wasn't too shabby either. In 1968 they generated 32 songs in 5 months for the double white album (2 were subsequently jettisoned). When the album was released, they were ready to record several new songs right away. Songs like Birthday were written and recorded in the studio on the same day.
Led Zeppelin was only around for about 10 years, yet see what influence they have had on rock music.
To make it into the Baseball Hall of Fame, you likely need longevity in your career to generate impressive stats. But it is not necessary that a band be around for a long time to influence the music and be remembered for decades to come.
Quote from: Tony on January 20, 2006, 09:20 AM
Man, I think your argument is fataly flawed in the sense that is almost entirely backwards.
In the early days of rock and roll, the music appealed to a certain demographic, youth. The music was about rebellion, standing up and being heard, no longer allowing corporate, middle America (or England) to tell the youth culture what to do, say, watch, listen to or like.
Maybe I wasn't too clear in expressing it. My main point is not that great artists like The Beatles wouldn't make it today or that their staying power would be somehow reduced. That's getting into hypotheticals and I just won't go there Senator. And yes, the Beatles music is timeless and their success is not due to Ed Sullivan. The point is that there is a huge difference in how music gets to the public and the number of choices we have today in style, in distribution, genre, sub-genre, etc.... makes a comparison somewhat unrealistic. As much as we want to say this is ART, to hell with business, this is still the "Entertainment Industry" and subject to the rules and economics of business. It's not like Van Gogh, who was an absolute genius but worked in complete poverty and was not discovered until after his death. I'm pretty sure that your chance of being discovered and becoming a classic rock band after you're dead and gone is nill -unless anyone has an example that I'm missing. Why? Because by definition, we are talking about bands/artist that become popular within a huge segment of pop culture. (Maybe if Van Gogh had a good agent, he would of made millions, gotten help at the Betty Ford Clinic and married the girl instead of cutting his ear off.)
I think your point about corporations wanting an instant hit supports mine. Things have changed. However, some things never change - it's still about the money. Corporations now a days, whether it's Ford or ABC are much more focused on short term results. This is just business for them and their shareholders and I don't think you can argue (in fact you stated it) that business can make or break you. We probably need to redefine what we mean by a classic and diferentiate between artistic success vs comercial success.
As far as Rock & Roll being about freedom, rebellion, free love - blah blah blah - you are right that from an artistic and socio-political point of view - I think the socio-political situation/anger/dissatisfaction was a huge catalyst for creativity that is lacking today but that's about as far as it went. This was still big business. And the youth was a huge, hungry market which the smart corporations quickly took control of, and almost every rock star went merrily along following the money trail. This also supports my point that the great bands back then had a much more monolithic market to sell to and then be appreciated by (which is how a classic is born). I don't know if this was true everywhere but growing up in the 60s in Northern CA, every single kid listened to the same stuff. About the only segmentation was the AM or FM dial and we all listened to both (even though some of us never admitted to listening to Motown or Beach Boys on the AM dial). (Hey for you younsters, we actually had to DIAL in the station). We all knew the same bands, pretty much went to the same concerts and whether we were musicians or not, music was a big part of the culture. Now a days, there are lots kids I know who have never been to a big concert, just go to local shows if any, aren't into the big names at all or maybe just play video games and chat on the internet. Is that because the bands aren't as good? Maybe, but now we are talking chicken and egg. Does the culture make the artist or the artist make the culture?
I'll take issue with your point about corporate control of music today. Corporations today are fighting to hold their positions in the market. Technology has changed everything. Look at the numbers, the big corps have been loosing record sales and are scared to death that they can't keep up.
It's a different and segmented world! And man, this is a long post, Sorry about that.
Quote from: eardrum on January 20, 2006, 02:58 PM
We all knew the same bands, pretty much went to the same concerts and whether we were musicians or not, music was a big part of the culture.
Now a days, there are lots kids I know who have never been to a big concert, just go to local shows if any, aren't into the big names at all
Interesting point about concerts. I may go a bit off-topic here but - I've never been to a big concert, and I'd say the main reason is the cost. Quite frankly it's too expensive for me, a poor student, to go to big concerts. I don't know how this differs from the 60s/70s - I get the impression that concerts were much cheaper then (relative to other things), but I may be wrong.
The bands which I would be willing to fork out to see tend to be old bands that have broken up. The current, youthful bands, whilst I may like some of their music, it's not enough to warrant paying a considerable amount of money to go see them. To me, it's just not worth it.
Quote from: donb on January 20, 2006, 05:01 PM
I've never been to a big concert, and I'd say the main reason is the cost. Quite frankly it's too expensive for me, a poor student, to go to big concerts. I don't know how this differs from the 60s/70s - I get the impression that concerts were much cheaper then (relative to other things), but I may be wrong.
My best friends dad has been to see rush in the earlier days, pink floyd, Led Zeppelin, And One of Ac Dc's first concerts. He got his tickets for about 4 $. He got a bit of a discount because he helped sell tickets at the concert but he said they were about 5-10$ to get into. He showed him the tickets and my friend was amazed to find that he saw them live.
I agree with Pirate Pig on the Dave Matthews Band. Great Drummer. Big following Now!!
Nutty
Quote from: donb on January 20, 2006, 05:01 PM
I don't know how this differs from the 60s/70s - I get the impression that concerts were much cheaper then (relative to other things), but I may be wrong.
I'm not sure if they were cheaper compared to other stufff. Gas was under 50 cents/gallon. It was easier to sneak in :)
Future Classics?
Nirvana
Tool
Greenday
Rage Against the Machine
Pennywise
Jewel
Sheryl Crow
Joan Osborne
Dido
Everlast
Jack Johnson
Xavier Rudd
Though I have posted a few times.....
What different bands lack today is creativity. Not like, they are copying everyone else, but think about it. In the day of the Beatles... they were the FIRST band to do some of the things they did. Granted, a lot of it had happened, but they changed the whole outlook of the music industry. I don't know any band who really has that same power today, and perhaps it wont happen again. Then you have bands loike Led Zeppelin who just lay it down, and for one, you have Jimmy Page, who just speaks for himself. And JP Jones, he wasn't a real outstanding performer like Page or Plant were, but you gotta hand it to him... he was always laying down on that bass. He was awesome..... and You got Plant, and he was awesome. And the best of them all, they had John Bonham... and I'm sure everyone knows what I mean. But I don't think there are any revolutionary bands, but I wouldn't say they are fads. They are just opening up other possibilities for the next generation of musicians will grow on.
I agree with your opinion on John Paul Jones. He was very talented. Very hard to beat this bass player and his keyboard work was killer and his Triple neck acoustic was pretty impressive too. He put a CD out a few years ago call Zooma
I think, where he played a 10 string bass and 12 string bass.
You all's opinion of Led Zeppilin is probably right. The only band in history to draw more people was the Beatles. As for me, I am a Zep fan for life. No other band stands out like they do for me. They have and will stand the test of time. I really wish they would put a reunion tour together and use Jason Bonham as the drummer. He is very good, and is up to it. I think it has been talked about before but never happened?
Nutty
Jones wont do it.
Zep is my favourite band of all time, but lets be honest. They were the biggest rippoff artists in music.
I think that all Musicians are rip off artists. We all stole our stuff from someone else. Bonham was very original. Even Stevie Ray played everyones music. Hendrix play mostly Bob Dylan music. Zep is still my favorite all around band.
Nutty
Quote from: Tae on January 20, 2006, 05:19 PM
My best friends dad has been to see rush in the earlier days, pink floyd, Led Zeppelin, And One of Ac Dc's first concerts. He got his tickets for about 4 $. He got a bit of a discount because he helped sell tickets at the concert but he said they were about 5-10$ to get into. He showed him the tickets and my friend was amazed to find that he saw them live.
Yep. Back in the day (when dinosaurs roamed the downtown streets and the earth's crust was still cooling) tickets were cheaper. I believe I paid something like $7.50 to see Zep in 1971. Same price for Grand Funk Railroad and Black Oak Arkansas.
Tickets to Woodstock '69 were $15.......3 days... Santana, The Who,Hendrix, Sly & FS, Richie Havens, Country Joe, etc,etc,etc...of course, gas was .23c a gallon....
I can remember going to a converted underground taxi depot in Cincinatti, Oh to see Johnny Winter And ( Rick Zerringer..Derringer's real name) ,Mountain, and others for $5.50, &6.00 a pop in '70.
But, people worked for $80 to $100 a week.
I remember a friend of my brother had bought a '67 Corvette new for $4100....and his payments were $80 a month and that was alot...
When the Eagles blew thru last year, I think it was...those tix were $125. Alot of my friends went...I did'nt
I'm not sure what qualifies for 'classic'.
Little Richard?
The Drifters?
Steppenwolf?
It's a Beautiful Day?
Big Brother and the Holding Company?
Creedence Clearwater Revival?
Black Sabbath?
AC/DC?
Van Morrison?
Pink Floyd?
Albert Collins?
Joe Cocker?
Arlo Guthrie?
Sly and the Family Stone?
Tower of Power?
Average White Band?
Three Dog Night?
The Fifth Dimension?
The Temptations?
Bad Company?
Elvis Costello?
The Police?
All of these performers are part of history and how ever you want to lable them does not change that they touched many people and won't be forgotten in a lifetime. They may even be remembered a hundred years from now, or relegated to a footnote in the recorded archive. It doesn't matter, they made their mark, laid a brick in the wall.
Quote from: DaveFromChicago on January 21, 2006, 11:26 AM
I believe I paid something like $7.50 to see Zep in 1971.
7.50$!!! I would of gave anything to see them, if bonzo was still around...lucky... >:(
Quote from: Tae on January 21, 2006, 04:18 PM
7.50$!!! I would of gave anything to see them, if bonzo was still around...lucky... >:(
Funny how people react to certain things....sombody you know wins the lottery...anyone say, "Man, I'm so glad for you!" ?...No, it's almost always.."you lucky f*****g b******d"..A person you know loses 40 lbs..anyone say "wow,you're looking good, I can tell you've lost some weight"....? No,they don't say anything, at all. Just an observation on the human condition...
Quote from: DWdrmr on January 21, 2006, 07:48 PM
Funny how people react to certain things....sombody you know wins the lottery...anyone say, "Man, I'm so glad for you!" ?...No, it's almost always.."you lucky f*****g b******d"..A person you know loses 40 lbs..anyone say "wow,you're looking good, I can tell you've lost some weight"....? No,they don't say anything, at all. Just an observation on the human condition...
I would rather see Bonham live more than win the lottery. ;D
Quote from: Tae on January 24, 2006, 08:04 AM
I would rather see Bonham live more than win the lottery. ;D
Wish for the lottery then have a private Bonham concert with lots of cash left over for new drums, lessons, and a complete cowbell assortment!
Quote from: mapexdrummer1234 on January 21, 2006, 06:31 AM
Though I have posted a few times.....
What different bands lack today is creativity. Not like, they are copying everyone else, but think about it. In the day of the Beatles... they were the FIRST band to do some of the things they did. Granted, a lot of it had happened, but they changed the whole outlook of the music industry. I don't know any band who really has that same power today, and perhaps it wont happen again. Then you have bands loike Led Zeppelin who just lay it down, and for one, you have Jimmy Page, who just speaks for himself. And JP Jones, he wasn't a real outstanding performer like Page or Plant were, but you gotta hand it to him... he was always laying down on that bass. He was awesome..... and You got Plant, and he was awesome. And the best of them all, they had John Bonham... and I'm sure everyone knows what I mean. But I don't think there are any revolutionary bands, but I wouldn't say they are fads. They are just opening up other possibilities for the next generation of musicians will grow on.
i would have to say TOOL is one of those bands that changed music along with led zeplin....yes the beatles did do alot for the music but they weren't the only ones....we all have opinions on who did what, like for instance i really hate indie rock music aka nerd rock, but some one else may.....
Quote from: drumnut1 on January 21, 2006, 07:26 AM
I really wish they would put a reunion tour together and use Jason Bonham as the drummer. He is very good, and is up to it. I think it has been talked about before but never happened?
Nutty
they did do it with jason bohnam about 10 or 15 yrs ago....
Quote from: Tae on January 24, 2006, 08:04 AM
I would rather see Bonham live more than win the lottery. ;D
You have a better chance of winning the lottery.
Quote from: gammalight6000 on January 24, 2006, 08:12 AM
i would have to say TOOL is one of those bands that changed music along with led zeplin....
maybe I'm out of touch but I couldn't even name a song by TOOL.... :o
Quote from: gammalight6000 on January 24, 2006, 08:14 AM
they did do it with jason bohnam about 10 or 15 yrs ago....
It was only a couple of shows and no John Paul Jones.
Quote from: DaveFromChicago on January 24, 2006, 08:26 AM
You have a better chance of winning the lottery.
Though he is dead, He will always live on in my heart ;D ;)
Quote from: DaveFromChicago on January 24, 2006, 08:26 AM
You have a better chance of winning the lottery.
LMFAO!.... ;D ;D That's bad...funny, but bad...God Bless the pygmies in South America, as Larry the Cable Guy would say...
Quote from: gammalight6000 on January 24, 2006, 08:12 AM
i would have to say TOOL is one of those bands that changed music along with led zeplin....yes the beatles did do alot for the music but they weren't the only ones....we all have opinions on who did what, like for instance i really hate indie rock music aka nerd rock, but some one else may.....
While I think Tool is a good band, and will be remembered for times to come, I don't think Tool has done any "changing" of music. They are not that innovative. They just have a distinctive sound that sets them apart.
Tool is not a newer band... you all are seeming to miss the point. I said name some bands that have not been around for very long that you think might have staying power.