Post by Trumpy's Magic Snout on Oct 10, 2007 9:41:42 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.
Actually great point. Velvet Underground are seen as one of the most important bands ever and most people know them now, yet none of their albums made the top 100 in America when they were released. Very few heard them but the few that did went and formed bands that also went on to change music. Still not sure who right now can be seen as this decade's equivalent to that.
I think you're giving Nickelback too much credit. I doubt anyone will remember them, crappy memories or not.
It always comes crashing down around your ears. At least they may have hurt their bums on my monitors.
From the perspective I share with folks like Phantom & Doctor Z ( meaning enough d*mn age to remember ) , we've gone from them simpler times to the exponential result.
As the 60's turned to the 70's , you didn't have to like an artist to have heard of them. Even a passing fan of music knew the names of everyone from Slim Whitman to John Coltrane . . . and on. Easier to pick out all the faces when there's only a few 100 players on the field. Now the field is full , spread thru the seating & out into the parking lot !
To go into a Tower Records ( oops . . . bye ! ) and see all these sub-genres ?? "Acid-Speed-House-Trance ?!" , well it's dizzying. Then we must factor in all the unsigned bands online , including many of us here ( even me ).
I believe we ain't too far from one half of the world putting out their latest work via one format or another . . . and the other half being their fan ! 50 / 50 . .. one-to-one . . .. a fan for each artist !
When I first looked over MySpace a year ago, it looked like a sprawling, endless forest . . . and every tree had hundreds of branches, and upon every branch's leaf , a little bird singing it's fool head off.
Post by callipygias on Oct 10, 2007 14:56:02 GMT -5
Because of this, I think there are just plain more bands now than there were, say, in the '70s.
Bands with contracts, maybe, but if you're including garage bands then the '70s rules.
Classic rock radio seems to have picked up a few bands over the years: Alice in Chains & STP & a few others. But it seems like when those bands were making their music you could tell even then that they'd most likely stand up to time. I can't think of any current acts like that, but I don't pay much attention anymore.
Somebody start a revolution why don't ya?
It's a very important practice to wash your hands each time after going to the toilet.
Post by Pierre Trudeau on Oct 10, 2007 18:05:26 GMT -5
Ugh, Nickelback... I know. I KNOW. I want to punt babies anytime I start to hear a song by them.
I don't think it's fair to say that nothing from this decade will stand the test of time or that nothing deserves to or whatever. People said the same thing about the 80s and now look- some of that is actually turning out to popular with the kids. I really think that because of technology, we can't judge music as it was in the past....
That said, I always think about 50 years in the future, when all the old people are going to be jammin out to the oldies of Snoop Dogg and Dre, Tupac and Notorious B.I.G...
What might be known , referenced or revered 5 Hundred years from now ? , as Shakespeare or Rembrandt is today.
Keeping in mind , of course , that the sheer volumes of "culture" churned out in the last several generations . . . plus how preserved it will likely be , means that the amount of "bags in the attic' will be absurdly vast.
oh, and they might be crankin' out some a' their own crap too . . should man survive.