Classics stay, Newbies go...

[Louis Russell]

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.  

[Tae]

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.

[Tony]

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.

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.

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.

[gammalight6000]

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...

[KevinD]

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.

[DougB]

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.

[eardrum]

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.

[Ian]

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.

[Tae]

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.

[Mark Counts]

I agree with Pirate Pig on the Dave Matthews Band. Great Drummer.  Big following Now!!
                                      Nutty

[eardrum]

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 :)

[Bob Pettit]

Future Classics?

Nirvana
Tool
Greenday
Rage Against the Machine
Pennywise
Jewel
Sheryl Crow
Joan Osborne
Dido
Everlast
Jack Johnson
Xavier Rudd

[mapexdrummer1234]

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.

[Mark Counts]

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

[lilblakdak]

Jones wont do it.
Zep is my favourite band of all time, but lets be honest. They were the biggest rippoff artists in music.  

[Mark Counts]

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

[Dave Heim]

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.  

[DWdrmr]

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

[Bob Pettit]

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.

[Tae]

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... >:(