I'll give you that.

 

However, other than Jack White, name some great guitarists today. Tell me the rock bands that will stand the test of time like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, GFR, The Who and on and on... There is some validity to our archaic rant. :lol:

 

CWB explains my feelings pretty well in the post above... they stand the test of time because they were HUGE bands in the 1970s whose fans, though older, are still numerous. My grandparents love Glenn Miller. How many people care about him now? And he was HUGE in the 1940s.

As to your "rock bands that will stand the test of time" statement, one of the problems with saying something like that is the fact that, by and large, the good rock bands aren't the folks getting exposure and radio play to give them the ability to make a serious stab at having the lasting impact that Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Who did. Those bands were big, and since rock and roll was big at that time, they got radio play and there impact on music was widely spread. In today's culture, rock and roll is NOT the big music scene, so it is not what the radios want to play. They want to play the American Idol singers, the MTV Video Music Award winners and the corporately produced stars that are so regretfully popular with the masses. Being a true "rock band" is not what makes you popular any more. It's not an easy road and whether you're great or not, chances are, being in a rock band won't get you written down in the annals of rock music with the likes of Jimmy Page, Pete Townshend, Jimi Hendrix and Keith Richards any more.

Right, because this younger generation has killed Rock with their inane attraction to Hip hop and AE style tripe they listen to. I know...I'm showing my age as Getslow pointed out, but it's how I feel. :lol:

CWB explains my feelings pretty well in the post above... they stand the test of time because they were HUGE bands in the 1970s whose fans, though older, are still numerous. My grandparents love Glenn Miller. How many people care about him now? And he was HUGE in the 1940s.

Except my generation would no way listen to Glenn Miller. The same can't be said about the likes of Led Zeppelin and others like them.

The stuff I grew up with - Beatles, Stones, Zepp, Floyd, The Who, etc. has been referred to as "classic rock" for years.

 

Is there ANYONE from the past 20 years that will be called "classic rock" 20 years from now?

Or will we yearn for the days of "classic hip-hop"?

While there can be no doubt that most mass marketing of music is designed to appeal to 13-year-old girls, I think you'll find that there's good music out there, just as there always has been. Maybe the author's right and that the future will consist of those who love rock music having delve a little deeper to find it, but that's the way it goes. I, for one, first really delved into indie music when I was about 16 or 17 and now, more than 10 years down the road, I find it's too exhausting to try and keep up with new music when I have to constantly try and dig for it. Perhaps my late 20s is too early to feel like an old man with regard to music and rest on the library from my high school and college days... but it's probably what I'll stick with from here on out.

 

In the end, however, I believe now as a have for years: music is a matter of taste and there's no accounting for taste. Just this week I told my girlfriend how terrible Aerosmith is, to which she responded by telling me how wrong I was. The week before, I was touting the merits of the Wu-Tang Clan only to be informed about how awful they are. C'est la vie. So, if music marketing really is targeted at 13-year-old girls, then we're not supposed to like it anyway.

 

BTW, I love the old guy vein in this thread. It might as well be the initial post and then five posts of "Those darn kids and their loud, lousy music! In my day we had real music, and we had to walk five miles in the snow just to listen to it!" :lol:

 

I agree, especially on the subjective nature of music. A few more thoughts:

 

I think every genre has had its obituary written several times over before it was eventually resuscitated. As the article points out, rock was pronounced dead in the late 80s then came Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Rap was pronounced dead in the mid 90s then came Nas, and later Jay-Z after it was pronounced dead again. But it does seem that rock music is less commercially viable than it used to be, even during those “dead” periods. Even when most of the bands were trashed by critics they were still able to move albums. Now it seems the commercial bands are both trashed by critics and taking a backseat to country and pop. I wonder if the collective palate of the public has changed, or if more talented musicians are going in new directions, rather than picking up the drums, bass, guitar and forming a rock band.

 

I appreciate the article's sentiment, but it sounds as though, as someone else noted, the author is longing for the days when "rock star" and "pop star" meant the same thing. The breaking up of music into various different genres so as to streamline radio formats (and subsequently narrow them) contributes to this. If anything, a "rock" song that becomes popular on the top 40 charts does so either in spite of itself (White Stripes) or because of massive promotional push from record companies (Creed, Korn, Limp Bizkit, and whatever their current progeny is).

 

I definitely agree, but it seems as thought even bands that are pushed commercially aren't doing well. I think in some of rocks "worst" periods they were still doing quite well, it was just bland, cookie-cutter stuff that was riding on the coattails of the genre. Now it seems commercial bands are neither as popular as they were but are critically panned as well.

Except my generation would no way listen to Glenn Miller. The same can't be said about the likes of Led Zeppelin and others like them.

 

I have to disagree with the sentiment. While maybe Glenn Miller isn't crushingly popular, people still listen to the greats, even those who didn't grow up with them. You can find Robert Johnson or Muddy Waters or Dizzy Gillespie or Count Basie records about anywhere, for instance. And while I think the Stones and Zeppelin were awesome bands, I think a lot of the 70s rock that rode their coattails was crummy and doesn't have much of a modern audience outside of those who grew up with them.

 

Or will we yearn for the days of "classic hip-hop"?

 

A lot of people already do, especially those who came of age during its beginnings.

I would argue that each of these falls into my aforementioned group of bands such as Creed, Korn, etc. — bands that are popular more for their respective record companies' marketing efforts than actual real talent. The fact that WEBN plays them regularly ain't exactly a ringing endorsement of quality.

 

I used the WEBN reference just to show they were rock bands. As to the real talent comment, listen to Disturbed and tell me your thoughts. I know you are a true music afficianado. I am not nearly in your category on that front, but trendiness and marketing have little impact on who I think is good and who isn't. I just go by what I think is good and not what other people or the marketing people may think.

I'll give you that.

 

However, other than Jack White, name some great guitarists today. Tell me the rock bands that will stand the test of time like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, GFR, The Who and on and on... There is some validity to our archaic rant. :lol:

 

Zakk Wylde. He could stand up to anyone in the history of rock and roll IMO. There are some I like better or just as much, but he's pretty good.

 

The stuff I grew up with - Beatles, Stones, Zepp, Floyd, The Who, etc. has been referred to as "classic rock" for years.

 

Is there ANYONE from the past 20 years that will be called "classic rock" 20 years from now?

Compared the the great age of rock music when Led Zepp, The Stones, & Sabbath ruled the rock world, today's bands do not really compare IMO.

There are not many but I do think there were some very good bands in the last 20 years, some of which depends on what you classify as rock: Nirvana, Foo Fighters, BLS, Green Day (who I personally hate), Red Hot Chili Peppers (they started earlier that 20 years ago, but still) come to mind.

 

I think what has killed the music industry is that it is too easy to get your music played because of the media, the emphasis of the catchy hooks/chorus, and young people are impatient. I know alot of people my age that would skip through a solo from Hendrix....

Many of the giants of the '60s and '70s would be relegated to indie rock stardom nowadays. The best example is Lynyrd Skynyrd, who would probably enjoy popularity of the level of a Drive-By Truckers, if they were birthed in the mid-'90s the way the Truckers were. By extension, DBT would be huge stars had they come out in a less fragmented time on the radio, such as the '70s.

And who could forget the Intros?

I have to disagree with the sentiment. While maybe Glenn Miller isn't crushingly popular, people still listen to the greats, even those who didn't grow up with them. You can find Robert Johnson or Muddy Waters or Dizzy Gillespie or Count Basie records about anywhere, for instance. And while I think the Stones and Zeppelin were awesome bands, I think a lot of the 70s rock that rode their coattails was crummy and doesn't have much of a modern audience outside of those who grew up with them.

Such as?

And who could forget the Intros?

:lol: Some of us really, really try.

Such as?

 

Should I take this one or leave it up to the young'uns?

Should I take this one or leave it up to the young'uns?

Eagles? :lol: