No more hero's
matabele
Posts: 277
This has been on my mind for a while now, anybody else wondering why all the mega talent has dried up? I know this will be easy to take out of context so let me say now that, yes there are many talented musicians coming through. I am talking about the real cream, Dylan, Young, Springsteen, Knopfler, The Band and the others from the same sort of time zone, I feel the likes of Pearl Jam are the last true greats we will see. Has it got something to do with the state of the world previously that influenced these great artists or is it something like hard times and drugs that played a big part in their development? Please people I am talking about the top talent here, The Stones and bands like this would fit into the category I am talking about, Creed on the other hand may have a lot of talent but would not fit into the category that I am talking about. The best two examples are Bob and Neil, same time zone and humongous amounts of talent.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Ryan Adams and Jack White don't even come close to touching the likes of Dylan, Springsteen, etc. They may be among the best artists around today (which in itself is debatable), but that doesn't put them anywhere near the same neighborhood as music's real heavy hitters.
I don't know what the cause of the OP's complaint is, though I wholeheartedly agree. Many of the artists in the 60s and 70s had a huge impact on the music scene, and they continue to sell out arenas even now, 40-50 years after they started releasing albums (the Rolling Stones alone formed 48 years ago, released their first single 47 years ago, and released the first of their 29 albums 46 years ago). Jack White and Ryan Adams will most certainly not be selling out arenas in 2045.
It might be due to the prolific nature of bands in the 60s and 70s. Look at the Rolling Stones numbers again... they've averaged an album every two years for close to half a century. Within five years of the release of their debut album they'd released 10 albums, and had given the world Time Is On My Side (a cover that a lot of people associate with them first), I'm Free, Get Off My Cloud, Satisfaction, Under My Thumb, Sympathy for the Devil, Street Fighting Man, Gimme Shelter, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Paint it Black, Ruby Tuesday, Jumping Jack Flash, and Honky Tonk Woman. That's an entire career for a lot of bands - and that was just the first ten years for the Stones. That's before they'd written and released Brown Sugar, Wild Horses, Angie, Tumbling Dice, It's Only Rock N Roll (But I Like It), Miss You, Beast of Burden, Start Me Up, Mixed Emotions, Love Is Strong, and Anybody Seen My Baby. They had five US #1 hits and 12 US Top 10 hits in their first five years. Every single album they released in their first five years went Gold in the US, and nine of the 10 were in the Top 5 on the charts.
The closest thing we've come to a band on that level in the last 20 years is Pearl Jam, but even their numbers pale in comparison. Five years after the release of Ten - a span that saw the Rolling Stones release 10 albums and have five #1 hits, 12 top-10 hits, 10 gold albums, and nine top-5 albums - Pearl Jam had released just four albums (three of which went to #1 on the charts, all of them went at least platinum), and they'd had just two songs go to #1 on the charts. The only other bands realistically in the discussion are probably Metallica (4 albums in 5 years) and Oasis (3 albums in 5 years).
For the sake of comparison, Ryan Adams has never had a song chart higher than #18 anywhere in the world, and only has two Top-20 albums in his entire career, covering both solo and band work.
Some of the problem might be down to the music that is promoted. Most of what makes it to the radio is cheap, disposable, harmless, inoffensive music that doesn't require a lot of thought (that goes for rock bands as well as pop bands). There aren't a lot of genuine musicians out there who write their own material and tour their asses off. Bands take several years between albums, and when they do release the albums, a lot of the material contained within is filler. Go back to the Stones again - in their first five years alone they averaged one #1 song per year, and two top-10 hits per year. And this was during an era that wasn't any more rock music friendly than today's era is. While they were averaging one #1 per year, other artists getting to the #1 spot on the charts included The Dixie Cups, The Supremes, The Shangri-Las, Petula Clark, Sonny and Cher, Nancy Sinatra, The Monkees, Lulu, The 5th Dimension, and the Archies - the charts were just as pop dominated then as they are now.
In a nutshell, as I see it, bands back then produced a lot more music in a much shorter time frame, and churned out an obscene number of hits - hits that have stood the test of time. Even as time went by and the albums became more and more spaced out, the artists still kept the hits coming, albeit not as frequently. None of today's bands seem to be able to do that - they have a handful of songs that chart well, yet you often cringe when you hear them five years later.
One thing I've noticed is how the majority of the really big bands and musicians throughout history have been British: The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen, the Police, Oasis, Eric Clapton... America has Elvis, Springsteen, Dylan, PJ, etc, but it seems to me that when it comes to the really big guns, it's Britain's world and we're all living in it.
Culturally, the world is much different now. You don't have to fight, scrape, claw and then get lucky to have a record executive hear you, like you, and sign you. You just post yourself playing on a webcam on youtube, and you have as good a chance as any to gain tremendous fame. On top of that, iTunes and the iPod in general have made the concept of an album mostly obsolete, as listeners can now simply upload their favorite songs and have a walking breathing soundtrack for themselves. There's literally no real investment involved in the consumer end. People don't tend to follow bands religiously and seek out every piece of music they can find, and even if they did, all they need is a modum and a website and they have what they want. No effort, no investment. Also, bands are so ridiculously plentiful with the emergence of the indie scene (making the big record labels obsolete) that the entire enterprise is oversaturated, and even the most ardent music fan won't give an album more than a listen or two before they are on to the next Brooklyn-based band with buzz. Again, no investment by the consumer in having that piece of art grow with you.
So, I guess my conclusion is, rather than placing the blame for lack of new classic iconic bands and albums on the musicians or the big bad record companies, I blame the culture of the times and the consumers, who no longer need to make the investment in the art that makes these things classic and time tested, and generally don't do it.
I mean, classic iconic rock music is exactly that because it's important to those people who bought it, invested themselves in it, and believed in it. I am just not so sure that happens anymore on the wider scale that it was happening when Dylan, Springsteen, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, or even Pearl Jam when they were in their heyday.
ha ha thats funny! i dont think so.
I think the days of the influential rock band are either over or going through a sleepy phase...I'm English so I've lived through the Madchester and The Arctic Monkeys hype...you would be surprised how big an influence they have had on new music.
I know it's a cliché but things like X Factor are taking from discovered talent...when all focus is being put on a new act voted for on a TV show up and coming acts just get pushed further down the interest ladder...there is a lot to be said for the rise of The Acrtic Monkeys and the part the internet played in their success...it's a whole new ball game is the internet.
Maybe it says more about the generation of listeners these days?...my parents are almost 70 and their era was the rock and roll era that came about after WW2...it was a new and refreshing sound and the 60s soon followed once again it was new and ground breaking...these days it's all been done seen and heard before...it takes people willing to go with their visions of a new sound and a gamble if that sound takes off...if Pink Floyd were to come on the scene tomorrow...as a new band...I doubt they'd garner much interest yet they are so influential to the sound of today...if you listen hard enough you can pick out subtle influences from lots of bands of yore in modern music...it evolves...I honestly believe the modern day hero is a completely different bloke/lass from those of the 60s/70s/80s and even 90s...they're just as important and influential but not in a 'in your face' kind of way...more creeping up on you unaware and seeping into your conciousness.