today's music pales in comparison...

Wobbie

today, I've been listening to classic vinyl on XM. I hate to sound like an old codger (which I am ) but really, as Cliff said in Singles, "where is the iron man of today? where is the misty mountain hop?" bands like pink floyd, zeppelin, hendrix, yes, jethro tull, rush, the who, the beatles, etc. just don't exist today...with maybe a very few exceptions.

these bands, and so many others, put out consistently great music and they did it for a long period of time. most of today's bands put out an album or two or three and fade into oblivion. is anyone going to be listening to death cab for cutie 30 years from now? somehow, I doubt it.

pearl jam, tho, will stand the test of time. maybe not backspacer but the rest, yes

lukin2006

Well said and in total agreement...to go 1 step further most of those bands also never put any filler on the albums as well as putting out great albums year after year.

rick1zoo2

Have to agree with you. I grew up listening to that generation of bands and maybe I am an old fart, but most of the new stuff just doesn't measure up. I keep trying though.

Wobbie

I'm still listening...all day. I have to admit, I just heard what might be the all time one hit wonder....Hocus Pocus by Focus. McCready would kill that solo

rick1zoo2

imalive wrote:

I'm still listening...all day. I have to admit, I just heard what might be the all time one hit wonder....Hocus Pocus by Focus. McCready would kill that solo

haha....got to love the yodelling.

Back_Pedal

Is it possible for there to even be an Iron Man of this generation? Back then rock was something new with tons of avenues left to explore, so Iron Man was fresh and exciting and iconic, because it was one of the first songs of it's kind. But that was decades ago, and in the interim rock has been thoroughly explored in almost every avenue, so could there be a song that would wow people as much as it, that does something incredibly new and interesting?

Besides that, radio isn't the dominant force in discovering new music anymore. People don't sit and listen to their local station, they scour the internet for new music, or hear a song on TV that's 'safe' enough to play and download it. But the internet has done a damn good job of dividing people's attention; one guy is reading Pitchfork.com for the newest indie band and the other is reading MetalSucks for death metal. So if there was something like Iron Man out, it's not going to reach the same audience it would have 40 years ago, it'll just be heard by people already interested in similar music.

The other obvious fact is that you're not going to hear anything groundbreaking on the TV or radio now. The radio sticks to the pre-approved playlist handed down from the Programming Director, and TV plays stuff that's essentially background music so it doesn't distract you from what you're watching. So essentially you're left with the internet for finding music that breaks the mold, and as I said, it's broken up into tons of different interests.

So will we ever see another Rush, or Black Sabbath, or Led Zeppelin? Maybe with an incredible stroke of luck, but I'm not holding my breath. But I don't think we need those kind of iconic bands anymore, anyway.

ForceofNature101

I always thought that it will be hard because of the digital age to have a "groundbreaking" music scene like the Seattle thing that was going on, or the hippie culture in the 60's

Record labels want quick hits that will go viral the second they come out, you don't get the label's support to experiment and work on your own sound the way YOU want to. There probably ARE some great bands out there that nobody has heard of that are on some independent record label - which presents the problem of a lack of promotion thus getting lost in the sea of other bands in the same boat

While the convenience of the digital age is great and still presents a chance of getting great quality material if you truly look for it, everything in the world of mainstream music is so disjointed and confused.

Back_Pedal

ForceofNature101 wrote:

I always thought that it will be hard because of the digital age to have a "groundbreaking" music scene like the Seattle thing that was going on, or the hippie culture in the 60's

Record labels want quick hits that will go viral the second they come out, you don't get the label's support to experiment and work on your own sound the way YOU want to. There probably ARE some great bands out there that nobody has heard of that are on some independent record label - which presents the problem of a lack of promotion thus getting lost in the sea of other bands in the same boat

While the convenience of the digital age is great and still presents a chance of getting great quality material if you truly look for it, everything in the world of mainstream music is so disjointed and confused.

Damn, you said it better than I did with less words.

lukin2006

I thought Coldplay had a chance to become that next big band...their first 2 albums were really good, the last one I didn't care so much for...just as the OP said bands seem to be good for a couple of albums, then the quality doesn't seem to be there. Audioslave also looked to be on thier way with what seemed liked 3 solid albums but broke up. Just as society in general seems dumbed down so does music. Bands like Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Who, The Stones and on and on could seemingly pump out albums 1 year that were of quality without filler, now it takes them 3 years and the quality is't even close.

pjl44

Disagree completely. It takes a little while for a band to establish themselves, but you can start to see who is shaking out from the 90s: Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead, Green Day, Foo Fighters. You may not like all of them, but I also don't like every "legendary" band from the 60s and 70s.

Also, there's plenty of outstanding current bands. Given the landscape of the music industry, it may require more work, but if you care enough to complain then you'd probably be psyched to find someone you really dig.

lukin2006

pjl44 wrote:

Disagree completely. It takes a little while for a band to establish themselves, but you can start to see who is shaking out from the 90s: Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead, Green Day, Foo Fighters. You may not like all of them, but I also don't like every "legendary" band from the 60s and 70s.

Also, there's plenty of outstanding current bands. Given the landscape of the music industry, it may require more work, but if you care enough to complain then you'd probably be psyched to find someone you really dig.

Sorry I don't see the comparison...The Beatles, Hendrix, Clayton, Zeppelin, The Who, Joplin, The Stones, Neil Young, the Doors, Springsteen, U2, Petty and on an on... were mega sucessfull by their mid twenties and had an incredible volume of work. Pearl Jam I think was a little older but I definitely put them in that class...it was thier first 3 albums that really established them.

In my opinion...the difference between then and now, is then the music came first with the hope that the money and fame would follow, today they write the music they think will lead to riches and fame...ie Creed, Nickelback, Theory of a Deadman and so on.

I'm guess I'm an old fogie though...hehehehehe

pandora

each generation celebrates their music
it is the soundtrack to their lives filled with personal memories

I love each decade of music always finding much to appreciate....
many greats and one hit wonders that can't be discounted.

I love discovering the new I didn't know too from the past to the current

it is amazing to me what man can create.

Wobbie

^^^^ the guys who agreed with me had some great analysis. really :thumbup:

you would think the internet would have had a positive affect on music...but maybe not. or, perhaps, it's just that today's band are nothing special.....whether it's indie or metal, maybe it's all kind of mediocre. :?

pjl44 wrote:

Disagree completely. It takes a little while for a band to establish themselves, but you can start to see who is shaking out from the 90s: Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead, Green Day, Foo Fighters. You may not like all of them, but I also don't like every "legendary" band from the 60s and 70s.

I like all those bands you mentioned varying degrees. I would also include the black crowes as an excellent 20 year old band. but, again, all these guys got together in the late 1980's. are there any new bands you see as embarking on 20-30 year lifespans of quality music?

and, yeah, not all the "legendary" bands are my taste either. one (un-named) in particular, I can't stand. :shifty:

keeponrockin

Arcade Fire is kicking my ass lately, as well as a bunch of smaller bands I've seen.

Rock music is doing fine, and there'll be great music for those who look for it.

Who Princess

imalive wrote:

and, yeah, not all the "legendary" bands are my taste either. one (un-named) in particular, I can't stand. :shifty:

Good thing for you it isn't The Who! :P

Lots of good discussion here. I think a major factor is that the music industry has changed so dramatically in recent years. Bands used to put out an album and tour to support the album. People don't buy albums the way they used, music is available in other ways, it's extremely expensive to tour and bands have to rely on merchandise sales and big time gimmicks (like U2's "claw" stage) to make a tour pay off.

Having come of age in the 60s and 70s (in other words, I'm old like imalive ) I always feel the need to remind people that wish they'd been around then--yes, there was some incredible music in those days. There was also a lot of crap! Bubblegum was a big trend in the late 60s/early 70s. Thankfully you don't have to hear that anymore. The mid to late 70s was also a very stagnant period. Fleetwood Mac put out their self-titled album and everything started to sound exactly like it. Music got really bland and boring for a few years till the punks came along. In the meantime we all had to survive disco too. I think we're in another stagnant period while musicians reconfigure the music scene for the digital age.

I also disagree that back in the 60s, etc. musicians weren't in it for the money. Once the Beatles made it big, every other band wanted to follow suit. British bands in particular wanted to become popular in the States because that was where the real money was. Many artists were more adventurous with their music and the recording process but in part that was because they had a chance to break new ground.

I think music has definitely been a lot more fun at some stages rather than others. I'm just trying to keep my ears open so I can hear more good music wherever I find it.

mookeywrench

Agreed that the 60's and 70's were full of crap.

You ask people about great music from that era and you always get the same handful of 20 artists. Everyone else is forgotton because they were garbage to begin with or they were just trying to copy those legendary bands.

You ask people the same question and the degree, number, and scope of artists continually broadens as you get closer to present day.

Now the broad range of the internet has allowed there to be something for everyone. You don't get a seminole group of 20 artists because there's so much more to choose from and so many different styles of music to dissect that there's no way it could rationally be narrowed down to 20 artists.

There is no legendary bands right now and that's further bringing more creativity and variety to the music scene because emerging artists don't have any color-by-numbers, roadmap to success. They have to find their own path in music. Compare that to the 70's where you just had to find a lead singer that the girls wanted to be with and a guitarist that the guys wanted to be and you were good to go.

Great/legendary music is still to be had, you just have to put in the effort to find it, since there's no longer narrow filters of delivering music to an audience.

SatansFuton

I admit that I don't keep that much up to date with recent music. My iTunes is pretty much only artists from the 60's through the 90's, including music they have released since the 90's. There are a few bands that I have gotten into since then, but not many.

But the stuff I hear on the radio (on the few occasions where I find myself doing so) is so awful. I know there are some bands that probably don't get the radio play, but speaking just of "popular" rock music, it seems like musicianship is dying, especially for the guitar. Most of these songs barely even have a decent rhythm guitar track, much less any decent lead guitar. They seem to be focused on the beat and the vocal melody, and the guitar is an afterthought at best, with somebody plucking a few notes or just doing some muted scratches.

I'm not saying the guitar is going to completely die out, but where kids used to learn how to play guitar they now just play Guitar Hero and Rock Band, shrinking the talent pool.

And I know we probably all sound old, and we probably are. But when I hear this stuff, I don't even focus on the fact I don't like the way it sounds, because I realize that my tastes aren't always going to evolve with the music scene. But just examining it from a standpoint of musicianship, it appears to be going way downhill, regardless of whether I find it pleasing to the ear. And like I said, there are exceptions to the rule, but I just mean in general.

keeponrockin

For me, seeing bands like Arcade Fire or The White Stripes (RIP) on stage putting every ounce of energy they have into their performance is enough to convince me that music today is FANTASTIC. At Ottawa Bluesfest, I caught 33 bands in 12 days, the 'new' bands certainly held their own in comparison to the established acts (Ben Harper, Soundgarden, Peter Frampton).

Wobbie

mookeywrench wrote:

Agreed that the 60's and 70's were full of crap.

You ask people about great music from that era and you always get the same handful of 20 artists. Everyone else is forgotton because they were garbage to begin with or they were just trying to copy those legendary bands.

maybe so...but of the 20 which were great, what is there out there today that can compare with the creativity of, say, Yes or Floyd? :?

pandora wrote:

each generation celebrates their music
it is the soundtrack to their lives filled with personal memories

I love each decade of music always finding much to appreciate....
many greats and one hit wonders that can't be discounted.

I love discovering the new I didn't know too from the past to the current

it is amazing to me what man can create.

gotta love Pandi.....not a negative bone in her body!

dcfaithful

pjl44 wrote:

Also, there's plenty of outstanding current bands. Given the landscape of the music industry, it may require more work, but if you care enough to complain then you'd probably be psyched to find someone you really dig.

I'm going to have to get behind this. It takes effort to find it amongst everything that is out there, but there is really some great music out today. Stuff that has a lot more character and depth than people want to give it credit for. I will not argue that it takes more effort to find this stuff, but it's also in consideration of the age of media we are in. As someone pointed out, I think the day of "big rock n' roll" bands like that are just in the past.

musicismylife78

i think this is a perennial question. Obviously the music of the 60's and 70's and 90's was great, but i think where the trouble begins is when people expect new music to sound like it. We like Bob Dylan so we expect the next Bob Dylan to have an acoustic guitar and write impressionistic lyrics. Or we like Nirvana and expect new music to sound like that. I think thats a major mistake.

I spent about a decade from 1994-2004, in search of good music like grunge music. The mistake was expecting it to sound like grunge.

I think there is a pletheora of bands, in hip hop, rock, indie, electronic, pop, and so on, who are just as significant, emotionally impactful and important as any of the grunge bands. But i think you miss out on that if you expect it to sound like, or look like or even feel like grunge.

I think the impact Arcade Fire, or Radiohead, or Burial, James Blake, or any number of bands are having on people and culture is just as important as the 60's 70's or 90's.

I think its a fools errand to whine about music being good in the old days and not good now. I think the difference nowadays as opposed to in the past, i think so many bands are popular right now, you have to sift through it all. But i also think alot more bands these days are popular and rightfully so, than a decade or even 3 decades ago. Its alot more likely that if you are a quality band you will be mentioned on Pitchfork, or on Itunes, or whatnot.

Of course their is great music in the past. But i think its a shame to miss out on all the bands who are right now, in their early stages, and creating mindblowing music.

musicismylife78

dcfaithful wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Also, there's plenty of outstanding current bands. Given the landscape of the music industry, it may require more work, but if you care enough to complain then you'd probably be psyched to find someone you really dig.

I'm going to have to get behind this. It takes effort to find it amongst everything that is out there, but there is really some great music out today. Stuff that has a lot more character and depth than people want to give it credit for. I will not argue that it takes more effort to find this stuff, but it's also in consideration of the age of media we are in. As someone pointed out, I think the day of "big rock n' roll" bands like that are just in the past.

I actually disagree. To find good underground hip hop or good non commercial rock in 1980, or 1995 may have been tough. I think nowadays its fairly easy. Visit some good blogs, Pitchfork, stereogum, brooklyn vegan, check out some festivals, Lolla, South By, Sasquatch. Listen to some quality streaming radio from KCRW or KEXP, or just tune in to some tv show and listen for the band thats soundtracking the scenes.

As I said, i think nowadays theirs MORE bands to sift through. In the old days i'd be lucky to listen to more than 10 complete albums a year. I'd mostly just listen to the radio. Hear single songs. Nowadays, i easily listen to and obtain 80 plus albums a year. Rolling Stone, Spin, Pitchfork, Paste etc... all have best of albums of the year lists and i usually check out most if not all of the albums on that list(s)

mookeywrench

maybe so...but of the 20 which were great, what is there out there today that can compare with the creativity of, say, Yes or Floyd? :?

Floyd - Flaming Lips: Embraces weird music and off the cuff recording that can still be pulled off in a large arena.

Yes - White Denim: great musicianship, with an easily noticable jazz influence. Ability to embrace prog while keeping their songs concise.

SatansFuton

mookeywrench wrote:

maybe so...but of the 20 which were great, what is there out there today that can compare with the creativity of, say, Yes or Floyd? :?

Floyd - Flaming Lips: Embraces weird music and off the cuff recording that can still be pulled off in a large arena.

Yes - White Denim: great musicianship, with an easily noticable jazz influence. Ability to embrace prog while keeping their songs concise.

I don't consider Flaming Lips to be "today's music", they've been around since the 80's. I thought we meant new acts and not acts that were still creating new music. Because then we could call The Rolling Stones "today's music".

mookeywrench

SatansFuton wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

maybe so...but of the 20 which were great, what is there out there today that can compare with the creativity of, say, Yes or Floyd? :?

Floyd - Flaming Lips: Embraces weird music and off the cuff recording that can still be pulled off in a large arena.

Yes - White Denim: great musicianship, with an easily noticable jazz influence. Ability to embrace prog while keeping their songs concise.

I don't consider Flaming Lips to be "today's music", they've been around since the 80's. I thought we meant new acts and not acts that were still creating new music. Because then we could call The Rolling Stones "today's music".

I'd call it a case by case basis. Flaming lips have been more relevant in music these past 9 years compared to the 19 years before.

SatansFuton

mookeywrench wrote:

I'd call it a case by case basis. Flaming lips have been more relevant in music these past 9 years compared to the 19 years before.

I guess it's different around here, they were at their most commercially popular here when they released "Transmissions from the Satellite Heart" in '93, and while "The Soft Bulletin" in '99 didn't get as much radio play, most people tend to say it was their best. I'm sure they have lots of fans around here who love all their stuff, but they've never been as generally popular here as they were from '93-'99.

mookeywrench

SatansFuton wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

I'd call it a case by case basis. Flaming lips have been more relevant in music these past 9 years compared to the 19 years before.

I guess it's different around here, they were at their most commercially popular here when they released "Transmissions from the Satellite Heart" in '93, and while "The Soft Bulletin" in '99 didn't get as much radio play, most people tend to say it was their best. I'm sure they have lots of fans around here who love all their stuff, but they've never been as generally popular here as they were from '93-'99.

Here they were cast as a one hit wonder from '93 until they blew up with Yoshimi in 02. But bottomline is that music made today is equally creative as music from prior generations.

DewieCox

I think popular music overall is in pretty good shape right now, but not sure anything can compare to late 60s and early 70s. There was just this explosion of all these subgenres that basically every band since has sprouted from by some path or another. Originality alot of the time today lies in being able to combine all your influences in an honest cohesive way. Like with PJ, to kinda think about their music you might not think they have an original sound, but who else really sounds like them? Or conversely a band like Radiohead that is always hailed as being this revolutionary band and not to say they aren't, but I don't feel like they ever shy away from showing their influences.

And yeah, there's always been shit bands, but has popular rock radio ever been so stale? I don't expect to hear MMJ or Wilco all the time. I seem to remember even the kinda cheesy but well put together tunes from the different eras seem better than the stuff that I hear most of the time when I make the mistake of listening to the radio.

pjl44

imalive wrote:

are there any new bands you see as embarking on 20-30 year lifespans of quality music?

It's impossible to say who will hold up because time is the true test. It's easy to name bands like Zeppelin, The Who, Beatles, etc. because the returns are already in and they came first. Who's on the right track? My Morning Jacket, Arcade Fire, Black Keys, Jack White, Ben Harper, Mumford and Sons, Fleet Foxes to name a few off the top of my head. But that's a discussion best had 10-20 years from now. They're each at various stages of their careers and, if you just want to be a cynic, you can poke holes in any of their bodies of work.

pjl44

imalive wrote:

maybe so...but of the 20 which were great, what is there out there today that can compare with the creativity of, say, Yes or Floyd? :?

Radiohead

And I LOOOOOOOOVE Floyd.

pjl44

The other problem here is that, if you want to seriously have this discussion, you have to completely take taste out of the equation. What makes music from the 60s and 70s "better?" There's only a larger collective consciousness of it because every single person from then forward will have grown up on it to some degree. Those bands are as much a part of my teenage years as Pearl Jam, Nirvana, and Smashing Pumpkins were.

The next generation will have Zeppelin, The Who, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Arcade Fire and White Stripes.

Then Zeppelin, Pearl Jam, White Stripes, and Mumford and Sons.

And so on and so on.