|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Oct 9, 2007 18:09:04 GMT -5
So what do you think of the 2000s, musically speaking? How do you think the '00s will hold up against the other rock n roll decades? Not well in my opinion but I'm in my early 50s so contemporary music isn't really aimed at me. But on the other hand I've seen people in their teens and twenties here say that modern music doesn't hold up to 'classic rock." So do you think any artist originating from the double 0s will have the staying power and longevity of the major acts from the 60's or 70s'? Is anyone starting out now that will have the prestige of The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Neil Young?
|
|
|
Post by Krista on Oct 9, 2007 22:08:07 GMT -5
Hm, that's a good question. Never thought of that before.
I can't really think of any off of the top of my head. I'll have to ponder that a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Oct 9, 2007 22:15:55 GMT -5
So do you think any artist originating from the double 0s will have the staying power and longevity of the major acts from the 60's or 70s'? Is anyone starting out now that will have the prestige of The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Neil Young? Short answer: no. Long answer: nope. Most of what I see is either bland rock that is so nameless as to be instantly forgettable, bubblegum pop, rap/etc., or else the artist has already made a name in the industry prior to this decade.
|
|
|
Post by wilson on Oct 9, 2007 22:17:07 GMT -5
So do you think any artist originating from the double 0s will have the staying power and longevity of the major acts from the 60's or 70s'? Is anyone starting out now that will have the prestige of The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Neil Young? Short answer: no. Long answer: nope. Most of what I see is either bland rock that is so nameless as to be instantly forgettable, bubblegum pop, rap/etc., or else the artist has already made a name in the industry prior to this decade. what he said ( but applied to an entirely other topic )
|
|
|
Post by Krista on Oct 9, 2007 22:30:44 GMT -5
I hate most 70's "rock."
Except early 70's. Like I don't see the big deal about the Eagles, Boston, ELO, or Jethro Tull... blech. It's so terrible and watered down and boring. I don't get why people like it.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Oct 9, 2007 22:34:06 GMT -5
Except early 70's. Like I don't see the big deal about the Eagles, Boston, ELO, or Jethro Tull... blech. It's so terrible and watered down and boring. I don't get why people like it. You're describing conventional formulaic classic rock. That's not all the 70s had to offer. In fact I don't mind Jethro Tull but I never had use for the other bands you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by wilson on Oct 9, 2007 22:37:25 GMT -5
Except early 70's. Like I don't see the big deal about the Eagles, Boston, ELO, or Jethro Tull... blech. It's so terrible and watered down and boring. I don't get why people like it. You're describing conventional formulaic classic rock. That's not all the 70s had to offer. In fact I don't mind Jethro Tull but I never had use for the other bands you mentioned. D D , I'd only knock Boston off that list. but how do you feel about folks from the same period who offered strong songs with a unigue voice ? Your Cat Stevens ? Your Elton John Your Zylon 5 from Dragoon Prime ?
|
|
|
Post by Krista on Oct 9, 2007 22:41:26 GMT -5
Since I'm into quite a bit of punk I appreciate the underground scene of the 70's, such as the glam rock schtuff like the New York Dolls, influencing the Ramones and those bands which turned into the 80's undergroun and punk scene. In fact, I almost did a skating solo to "Personality Crisis." I'm sort of sad the plans fell through, that would have been fun.
But you know, just the generic 70's run of the mill "rock" is God awful to me.
|
|
|
Post by wilson on Oct 9, 2007 22:43:48 GMT -5
right , a "dinosaur" slayer.
It's like you were there !
|
|
|
Post by Trumpy's Magic Snout on Oct 9, 2007 22:52:35 GMT -5
This decade's thrown up alot of interesting music, it's just that none of it's mainstream. In all honesty none of it, mainstream or otherwise will end up being talked about thirty years from now, either because it was never popular to begin with or, in the case of the vast majority of the mainstream, it's not very good. Most music fits in with the times in the sense there's no longevity in it. Artists come and go to be consumed by the here and now. Download it, listen to it and replace it with the next thing.
Mind you listening to the Eagles being around that long might not be a great thing either!
|
|
|
Post by Pierre Trudeau on Oct 9, 2007 23:57:59 GMT -5
I dunno, I think the Internet has completely changed how we will look at music 30 years from now. I mean some of the most critically acclaimed bands are pretty underground.
That said, I think Nickelback will be the ELO or other crappy 70s rock band in the future.
I think Queens of the Stone Age might have a lasting effect.
|
|
|
Post by Krista on Oct 10, 2007 0:00:29 GMT -5
HA!
Yes, Nickleback is by far one of the worst bands, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Shep on Oct 10, 2007 6:54:25 GMT -5
Well, alternative music-wise, I prefer to 90s to the 00s. (But maybe that's just because I'm an old 90s college guy. LOL)
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Oct 10, 2007 7:34:39 GMT -5
Well, alternative music-wise, I prefer to 90s to the 00s. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Father Mannix on Oct 10, 2007 7:34:56 GMT -5
Playing in/touring with various bands, I've had the opportunity to see a bunch of amazing bands, who play (to my ears) some of the best music I've ever heard. The problem is, not many people know who they are, and that's probably never going to change. So are they going to have much staying power? No.
I think the major difference between music of previous decades and this one is that it's much easier to start a band now. Because of this, I think there are just plain more bands now than there were, say, in the '70s. Music, in a way, is becoming more and more suited to very specific personal tastes.
I don't think that current bands (I'm talking mainly underground music here) lack longevity, I just think that with so many bands to choose from it's becoming less likely for one band to attract the huge following that bands would have in previous decades.
To me, it's kind of better that way. I like having so much music to choose from, and it doesn't bother me that the bands I like (or the ones I play in, for that matter) will probably never see much success. We've all seen what treating music as a business can do to it.
If we're talking current popular music: I agree with everybody else who said it won't stick around because it sucks.
|
|