The other thing to remember is how novel bands like Pink Floyd, The Beatles, the Stones and Zeppelin were in the 60s and 70s. It was groundbreaking at the time. like REM was groundbreaking in the 80s Like Nirvana was groundbreaking in the 90s. But rock music is 50 years old now, and it can only go so far. Some artists push its boundaries a little and get recognized for it (Radiohead), but they won't be able to achieve what those bands in the 60s and 70s did, because basically it had been done before.
I guess what it comes down to are the metrics you are setting for "classic" is it sales, size of tours, hits groundbreaking in the genre, critically acclaimed, influential in their time, influential to future generations.
Someone who holds these bands as the standard and what they achieved as the metrics for classic, well, then thats an impossible bar to clear because a band today cannot clear that (And if we are being honest here, Pearl Jam wouldn't clear that hurdle because what they did was basically a rehash of 70s rock except they were so popular they spawned imitators thus elevating them to a classic status). But I most certainly believe there have been some classic artists in the past decade, but the only real way to tell is in another 10-15 years when new bands list them as idols.
This is a great point- one I've thought about many times over the last several years. It brings to mind the question: where does music go from hear? Music has evolved for centuries but- just as with terrestrial exploration, technology and human population- we are in the steep arc of an exponential curve. This implies the idea that there really may be very little territory left to explore. These thoughts both intrigue and, to a degree, disturb me. The antidote to that kind of thinking is remembering that there is enough music already out there to explore to last a lifetime and that even within the possible limitations of genre and style there are vast numbers of voices to add nuance to those genres and styles. Mine for example, had been heard by a very relative few- although there may be a reason for that.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
its all a matter of doing the legwork to find the good stuff. The decentralized industry and music mechanism makes it so you cant turn on the radio and find the new great band. Although the radio does have some fantastic stuff too. Great bands are alive and well. So is music. Theres plenty of good stuff out there. As I said, if your looking for bands that sounds like Led Zep or the Beatles or the Stones or Dylan, you most likely will be disappointed. If you are looking for amazing bands period, you will be greeted with some amazing albums. Its only looking back that the truly classic stuff can be seen. I guarantee those in the 60's didnt necessarily think the Beatles or Hendrix would be heading top albums and top artists lists 40 years later. They just were enjoying the music.
Or you can spend the rest of your life hoping new bands sound like and have the same impact the beatles and hendrix did.
Sure I get nostalgic for the music of my youth and the feeling it captured. But Kurt Cobain will never exist again. The next Kurt most likely is playing folk music or dubstep anyways, so waiting for a sound like Nevermind is useless since it only ensures I hear one sound at the expense of the fantastic music being made in 2013 that sounds nothing like Nirvana.
The other thing to remember is how novel bands like Pink Floyd, The Beatles, the Stones and Zeppelin were in the 60s and 70s. It was groundbreaking at the time. like REM was groundbreaking in the 80s Like Nirvana was groundbreaking in the 90s. But rock music is 50 years old now, and it can only go so far. Some artists push its boundaries a little and get recognized for it (Radiohead), but they won't be able to achieve what those bands in the 60s and 70s did, because basically it had been done before.
I guess what it comes down to are the metrics you are setting for "classic" is it sales, size of tours, hits groundbreaking in the genre, critically acclaimed, influential in their time, influential to future generations.
Someone who holds these bands as the standard and what they achieved as the metrics for classic, well, then thats an impossible bar to clear because a band today cannot clear that (And if we are being honest here, Pearl Jam wouldn't clear that hurdle because what they did was basically a rehash of 70s rock except they were so popular they spawned imitators thus elevating them to a classic status). But I most certainly believe there have been some classic artists in the past decade, but the only real way to tell is in another 10-15 years when new bands list them as idols.
good points but I think ultimately Lukin is comparing two different things. Plus things dont have to be classic to be good or worth listening. With the 60's you just had a confluence of events-rapid and extreme social change and a soundtrack that fueled and inspired it made up of the greatest bands in history, dylan, the beatles, stones, the who, neil, hendrix, cream and so on.
The wish that someone or some band would equal the heights of led zep is insane. People in the 60's didnt think dylan was the greatest songwriter of all time, they just thought he was an amazing songwriter. The 2000's have produced a ton of talented artists. Amazing guitarists, songwriters, drummers, and bands. Whether they get considered into that canon of "best artists of all time" remains to be seen.
A band could never reach that many people, and never will again. The sheer amount of music that exists now, and this year, makes it so, their are hundreds and thousands of niche scenes. Look at Arcade Fire. They won Album of the Year in 2012 and should have been the biggest band in the world as a result, but a large portion of the world doesnt know who they are. So you have a synth pop scene thats huge to its adherants but outside that no one knows who they are. The idea of the biggest band in the world can no longer exist. Because theirs so many genres, subgenres, niches and the like. A band having the impact of Nirvana, where millions of teens felt a singer was speaking to and about them couldnt happen anymore.
All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".
All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".
Except... there aren't a lot of people saying this. Most people recognize the fact that the quality offered in most new movies has made the older movies seem very inferior. I saw King Kong in the 70s with Jessica Lange and that was awesome to me. Have you seen the new King Kong? Imagine if we could send the Lord of the Rings trilogy through a time capsule and they could show it to the masses in, say, 1974. Minds... Blown. There have been some very novel and notable scripts written to boot!
Which bands today are going to be listened to in 30 years? Is there a Zeppelin/Floyd/Stones/Who... or Pearl Jam/U2/DMB... that has surfaced in the last 10 years? Not to my ears.
All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".
Except... there aren't a lot of people saying this. Most people recognize the fact that the quality offered in most new movies has made the older movies seem very inferior. I saw King Kong in the 70s with Jessica Lange and that was awesome to me. Have you seen the new King Kong? Imagine if we could send the Lord of the Rings trilogy through a time capsule and they could show it to the masses in, say, 1974. Minds... Blown. There have been some very novel and notable scripts written to boot!
Which bands today are going to be listened to in 30 years? Is there a Zeppelin/Floyd/Stones/Who... or Pearl Jam/U2/DMB... that has surfaced in the last 10 years? Not to my ears.
well said ...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".
Except... there aren't a lot of people saying this. Most people recognize the fact that the quality offered in most new movies has made the older movies seem very inferior. I saw King Kong in the 70s with Jessica Lange and that was awesome to me. Have you seen the new King Kong? Imagine if we could send the Lord of the Rings trilogy through a time capsule and they could show it to the masses in, say, 1974. Minds... Blown. There have been some very novel and notable scripts written to boot!
Which bands today are going to be listened to in 30 years? Is there a Zeppelin/Floyd/Stones/Who... or Pearl Jam/U2/DMB... that has surfaced in the last 10 years? Not to my ears.
well said ...
Not sure I understand what you are saying.
Again, you seem to have this mistaken notion that in the 60's and 70's people were watching Led Zep or Pink or whoever and saying "my god, this will be remembered in 40 years". Critics, fans and the band didnt think so. Certainly Sgt Peppers caused a big stir when it was released. It wasnt until decades later that people began to think of it as the greatest album ever recorded.
Plus you seem to be ignorant of the fact that alot of art isnt well receieved upon first listen or first run through. And only after several years later and being reevaluated does it get the "classic" stamp of approval. Most likely there were people in the 60's watching Hendrix and saying, "damn this is just okay, but I miss the rockabilly days of old, why isnt there anyone playing "regular" guitar like the Chuck Berry".
Bands take time to mature. When were the beatles viewed by the public as being legendary? u2 were a band years before Joshua Tree when they really blew up and became the biggest band in the world. PJ's legendary status is in large part a result of their 20 plus years of being a band. They were a great band during the grunge days, but no one was calling them legends then. It took years, and some horrific events that they outlasted, for that label to be bestowed on them.
I think Arcade Fire will be a band we tell our grandchildren about. I think we have our dylan;s of our generation. We will be talking about Sufjan, and Conor Oberst and Tallest Man on Earth for decades. Same with Isaac Brock, and Ben Gibbard. Ryan Adams will be talked about. as I said, 2 years ago we witnessed a pop singer Adele come along, those songs will be played on radio and will be staples for decades. I find Sam Beams lyrics as incredibly beautiful as anything being written today. Kanye's work will stand the test of time, he's absolutely someone who fits your criteria. Produced possibly the greatest hip hop album ever for Jay, then went on to make 6 albums of increasing critical acclaim every single one being named by rolling stone, spin, pitchfork, time, etc.. as being a classic.
I think its a mistake to want new bands to be like old bands and have that same impact. One, no band can have the impact those bands had. How in 2013 could a band sell 300 million like Led Zep did? Its just not possible. And how could any band have that much impact anymore? Secondly, all those bands you love, are singular. They had singular visions, even as bands, that were unique, and rare. There was only one Kurt, only one Lennon, only one Dylan, Hendrix, Jagger etc...
I dont think you are looking. Theres always new music. Some new band with the potential to be THAT band. Those bands exist.
Edited because quote feature messed up. I bolded my response to your post at the bottom of this post. Sorry!
Not sure I understand what you are saying.
Again, you seem to have this mistaken notion that in the 60's and 70's people were watching Led Zep or Pink or whoever and saying "my god, this will be remembered in 40 years". Critics, fans and the band didnt think so. Certainly Sgt Peppers caused a big stir when it was released. It wasnt until decades later that people began to think of it as the greatest album ever recorded.
Plus you seem to be ignorant of the fact that alot of art isnt well receieved upon first listen or first run through. And only after several years later and being reevaluated does it get the "classic" stamp of approval. Most likely there were people in the 60's watching Hendrix and saying, "damn this is just okay, but I miss the rockabilly days of old, why isnt there anyone playing "regular" guitar like the Chuck Berry".
Bands take time to mature. When were the beatles viewed by the public as being legendary? u2 were a band years before Joshua Tree when they really blew up and became the biggest band in the world. PJ's legendary status is in large part a result of their 20 plus years of being a band. They were a great band during the grunge days, but no one was calling them legends then. It took years, and some horrific events that they outlasted, for that label to be bestowed on them.
I think Arcade Fire will be a band we tell our grandchildren about. I think we have our dylan;s of our generation. We will be talking about Sufjan, and Conor Oberst and Tallest Man on Earth for decades. Same with Isaac Brock, and Ben Gibbard. Ryan Adams will be talked about. as I said, 2 years ago we witnessed a pop singer Adele come along, those songs will be played on radio and will be staples for decades. I find Sam Beams lyrics as incredibly beautiful as anything being written today. Kanye's work will stand the test of time, he's absolutely someone who fits your criteria. Produced possibly the greatest hip hop album ever for Jay, then went on to make 6 albums of increasing critical acclaim every single one being named by rolling stone, spin, pitchfork, time, etc.. as being a classic.
I think its a mistake to want new bands to be like old bands and have that same impact. One, no band can have the impact those bands had. How in 2013 could a band sell 300 million like Led Zep did? Its just not possible. And how could any band have that much impact anymore? Secondly, all those bands you love, are singular. They had singular visions, even as bands, that were unique, and rare. There was only one Kurt, only one Lennon, only one Dylan, Hendrix, Jagger etc...
I dont think you are looking. Theres always new music. Some new band with the potential to be THAT band. Those bands exist.[/quote]
I'm not sure how you are not hearing what I'm saying- I was pretty clear: there are no bands I listen to know that have sprung up in the last decade that appear to be headed towards 'Legend of Rock' status. They might have a bit of a following for the moment, but to my ears- they have no staying power and are far from special.
Were you around when PJ and U2 emerged? I was. They were a little bigger than what you are suggesting. Nobody could have predicted 20+ years of great rock and roll... but people certainly didn't dismiss the possibility of this.
I think Arcade Fire will be a band we tell our grandchildren about. I think we have our dylan;s of our generation. We will be talking about Sufjan, and Conor Oberst and Tallest Man on Earth for decades. Same with Isaac Brock, and Ben Gibbard.
I'm not going to agree with this.
I think its a mistake to want new bands to be like old bands and have that same impact. One, no band can have the impact those bands had. How in 2013 could a band sell 300 million like Led Zep did? Its just not possible. And how could any band have that much impact anymore?
You have kind of contradicted yourself here. I thought you were just saying that there were some epic bands/artists that were going to make history?
Secondly, all those bands you love, are singular. They had singular visions, even as bands, that were unique, and rare.
Which is why they are legends and not just run-of-the-mill.
Lastly... I don't think for a second that some band will never emerge and grab rock by the nuts. I think I'm just realistic saying that for the last 10 years... we are still waiting for this band to do so.
Further to the last thing I said in my response... I could most certainly be wrong. One of the bands you mentioned or some other may very well be working on material that is going to be awesome. And they may follow it up with even more awesome material.
But I'm not as hopeful given what I have seen in the 'minor leagues' (so to speak).
musicismylife ... I know what my ears like ... and todays music doesn't interest me.
And like I said it really says something even when most of the experts continue to always place the same bands, musicians and albums at the top of the list.
It would also say a lot about todays musicians if they just except that Hendrix is the best guitarist, the Beatles best band etc., I would like to think that musicians would strive to be better than those musician/bands of 30-40 years ago.
U2 didn't just except that there were bigger bands than them ... I saw an interview with Bono in which he admitted they strived to be bigger touring act than the stones ... why it would mean they were pretty good.
As for the Beatles ... every one knew who they were in the 60's ... teenagers parents, grandparents everyone ... and today everyone still knows who they are ... just like everyone knows who justin beiber and kanye west is ... of course they are no more for their controversial behaviour.
But I shouldn't knock Kanye West after all he is the next steve jobs .
I'm just glad the rest of society isn't like music and just excepted that something 30-40 years ago was the best we can't beat that.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
There is plenty of good music around and I dig discovering new bands but I do have to agree that there are fewer top of the heap legendary bands this century than most earlier eras, but there's always been big gaps between the really boundary pushing periods.
In alot of ways quantity does equal quality, but it doesn't bode well for having several mega successful, both financially and creatively, artists clumped into a short timeframe. There's just so much music and so many options that people don't have to gravitate to one big genre.
I think it's easy to point to the way the industry is set up and blame that, but I just think more and more music has become background noise for alot of people. To me, the blame for that comes back to both musicians and consumers.
The key here is to not take this whole thing personally. Nobody is saying there isn't some really good music coming out these days. The argument is whether or not any classic bands and albums are being made. I tend to agree that in fact there are not too many newer band that will stand the test of time in 50 or 100 years.
I know you are a music lover, and I know you're into the whole "Indie" thing. But to say there are classic albums all over the place these days (in the sense this topic is looking for) is just silly. Nothing in the rock world has grabbed the world by its balls and shaken it to its core recently. It just hasn't happened recently. I don't even know the last "movement" that occurred and held its ground. Punk did it's thing and I guess has spawned a scene that is still around. God knows Nu-metal died in a fiery blaze. This whole "Indie" thing that you keep trying to defend is really not all you desperately want it to be. It's just not. I'm not saying the music is or isn't good. But it's not doing what you claim it is.
Don't confuse musical tastes with what is happening on a grand scale. There are dozens of albums I love front to back, but I would never classify them as classic.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
If you guys aren't acknowledging indie culture and Hip hop culture has gone main stream in the past 10 years years I don't know what to tell you. Go to any urban environment or upper middle class suburb and throw a rock and you'll see influence of these cultures on the kids coming up. Both have become hugely influential in art, music and fashion. It may not be as jarring as Dylan going electric, or punk in 77, or Nirvana in 91, but the changes are there and just as huge. You could argue that the lack of shock to the groundswell is that it had been slowly building for a decade.
There are easily a dozen albums that kids in the past 15 years have grown up with that will be as important to them as Nevermind was to us, or Led Zeppelin IV or whatever. And some of those artists will be regarded as classic artists/bands.
And the lack of these albums /artists appearing in these lists (And lets be honest here, these "lists" are the annual Compendiums from Rolling Stone, Uncut and Mojo come up with) is that they are assembled by dinosaur magazines who cater to Baby Boomers, who, shocker loved 60s and 70s bands.
Things are just different now. You can't use the same criteria used to judge a band classic in 1975, 85,95 and today. The industry is different, music is different, peoples consumption of music is different. If Pink Floyd never existed before 2005, they wouldn't be as huge as they were in 1978. Guaranteed. Would that diminish their influence, or their achievements musically?
Personally I don't give a shit. I think Pink Floyd is wank and I'm not in High School, but I recognize that they are influential and were very popular and can see how they would fit in a list of classic artists.
If you guys aren't acknowledging indie culture and Hip hop culture has gone main stream in the past 10 years years I don't know what to tell you. Go to any urban environment or upper middle class suburb and throw a rock and you'll see influence of these cultures on the kids coming up. Both have become hugely influential in art, music and fashion. It may not be as jarring as Dylan going electric, or punk in 77, or Nirvana in 91, but the changes are there and just as huge. You could argue that the lack of shock to the groundswell is that it had been slowly building for a decade.
There are easily a dozen albums that kids in the past 15 years have grown up with that will be as important to them as Nevermind was to us, or Led Zeppelin IV or whatever. And some of those artists will be regarded as classic artists/bands.
Things are just different now. You can't use the same criteria used to judge a band classic in 1975, 85,95 and today. The industry is different, music is different, peoples consumption of music is different. If Pink Floyd never existed before 2005, they wouldn't be as huge as they were in 1978. Guaranteed. Would that diminish their influence, or their achievements musically?
Hip hop culture isn't new. It's been around for most of my life(I'm 31). And to me the indie culture is just the latest form of flannel and Doc Martins.
I'm sure there are some influential albums, but to say they're as influential as Nevermind, Hendrix, Zeppelin is just about the farthest thing from the truth. Will a few artists be mentioned in 50 years? Most likely.... But will their entire catalogs pop on lists the way the Beatles and Floyd albums do? I can't see that.
Is The Funeral as important as Sgt. Pepper's or to the people that are into it? No doubt, there just aren't as many people into it, meaning it's influence isn't as far reaching or all encompassing. And you got to take into account that Arcade Fire's sound didn't just pop up out of nowhere, they're furthering the influence of the bands that gave them their musical direction.
If you guys aren't acknowledging indie culture and Hip hop culture has gone main stream in the past 10 years years I don't know what to tell you. Go to any urban environment or upper middle class suburb and throw a rock and you'll see influence of these cultures on the kids coming up. Both have become hugely influential in art, music and fashion. It may not be as jarring as Dylan going electric, or punk in 77, or Nirvana in 91, but the changes are there and just as huge. You could argue that the lack of shock to the groundswell is that it had been slowly building for a decade.
Hip Hop culture I will acknowledge, but it's not a recent thing that it is mainstream.
Indie bands with a strong sense of DIY don't really see themselves as "Indie". And wearing tight pants and listening to vinyl isn't really a scene - you're buying into the very thing "Indie" is supposed to rebel against....in any era....commercialization and mass consumption. Buying tight jeans, "vintage" clothes (at mark-up no less) and an iPhone (Apple is just so cool!), is not Indie.
There are easily a dozen albums that kids in the past 15 years have grown up with that will be as important to them as Nevermind was to us, or Led Zeppelin IV or whatever. And some of those artists will be regarded as classic artists/bands.
Time will tell. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm showing my age, who knows.
And the lack of these albums /artists appearing in these lists (And lets be honest here, these "lists" are the annual Compendiums from Rolling Stone, Uncut and Mojo come up with) is that they are assembled by dinosaur magazines who cater to Baby Boomers, who, shocker loved 60s and 70s bands.
I don't care about dinosaur magazines and their self-important lists. I agree with you here.
Things are just different now. You can't use the same criteria used to judge a band classic in 1975, 85,95 and today. The industry is different, music is different, peoples consumption of music is different. If Pink Floyd never existed before 2005, they wouldn't be as huge as they were in 1978. Guaranteed. Would that diminish their influence, or their achievements musically?
Yes. It would diminish their influence. For better or worse. Pink Floyd owes their success not only to amazing songwriting and recording techniques, but an era that they fit perfectly into. Same goes for Nirvana, The Beatles, PJ, U2, GnR, Zep, etc.
But you most definitely can use the same criteria. Classic is classic. It means enduring. Ever-influential. Classic bands and albums will stand the test of time. Unfortunately we won't know about this era for sure for another 20-30 years. I don't see it, but I could very well be wrong.
Personally I don't give a shit. I think Pink Floyd is wank and I'm not in High School, but I recognize that they are influential and were very popular and can see how they would fit in a list of classic artists.
We're going to have to go ahead and disagree on that one. PF = wank...not in my book. They're the only band with a succession of albums to rival Rubber Soul through Abbey Road: Meddle through The Final Cut.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
There is plenty of good music around and I dig discovering new bands but I do have to agree that there are fewer top of the heap legendary bands this century than most earlier eras, but there's always been big gaps between the really boundary pushing periods.
In alot of ways quantity does equal quality, but it doesn't bode well for having several mega successful, both financially and creatively, artists clumped into a short timeframe. There's just so much music and so many options that people don't have to gravitate to one big genre.
I think it's easy to point to the way the industry is set up and blame that, but I just think more and more music has become background noise for alot of people. To me, the blame for that comes back to both musicians and consumers.
Some good points there, I think music has become background noise for a lot of people. I think it's one of the down sides of streaming services like Spotify, it's all too easy to jump from track to track and not have to give a lot of actual attention to the music. I finally pulled the trigger and got a turntable a few weeks back, and I feel so much more engaged with the music I play on it cause of having to flip the records
I do agree that there have been plenty of great new bands and artists over the last few years, however as someone else has said, they often feel a bit more minor league than the big bands of the past. I always think this is quite evident come festival season when most of the headliners are the same bands who have been doing the rounds for years.
To be honest I think there's a fairly simple criteria for what distinguishes a good band from a great band, and it's big memorable anthemic songs. I think that applies across all genres, and eras. It's this reason that I think a lot of the recent indie stuff doesn't match up to past bands. I'm not saying there aren't decent records from those bands, but there seems to be less emphasis on memorable melodies etc, and whilst they aren't everything, they do make a difference. For example, where would U2 be if they hadn't made the Joshua Tree? Or R.E.M if they hadn't made Out Of Time or Automatic For The People? I'm not saying their previous albums didn't have good songs, but by the time they wrote those albums they had really honed their skills which catapulted them to the status they hold today.
And you got to take into account that Arcade Fire's sound didn't just pop up out of nowhere, they're furthering the influence of the bands that gave them their musical direction.
I agree with this, but then that makes this whole discussion self defeating. There is no way to top the giants just because they were first.
Also, I think when baby boomers start to die out, you will see some of their influence drop out from these lists.
This is one of the best threads I can remember in a while. Interesting to see the opinions of different eras here. Me for one, I'm 25 and personally don't ever listen to The Beatles or care much for them. But you better believe I respect the shit out of them and appreciate everything they did. Not saying they aren't good, but it's just not my cup of tea but obviously they are still classic. There's just too many options now for bands to probably garner that type of succes like the '70s bands on a mainstream level. But you can absolutely find bands that have ridiculously loyal fan bases and will follow them for years and years down the road. I just think its impossible to compare bands to those of 30+ years ago because of the differences. But for me, I will have a few bands from this era that I will hold in just as high regards as those from the past.
The key here is to not take this whole thing personally. Nobody is saying there isn't some really good music coming out these days. The argument is whether or not any classic bands and albums are being made. I tend to agree that in fact there are not too many newer band that will stand the test of time in 50 or 100 years.
I know you are a music lover, and I know you're into the whole "Indie" thing. But to say there are classic albums all over the place these days (in the sense this topic is looking for) is just silly. Nothing in the rock world has grabbed the world by its balls and shaken it to its core recently. It just hasn't happened recently. I don't even know the last "movement" that occurred and held its ground. Punk did it's thing and I guess has spawned a scene that is still around. God knows Nu-metal died in a fiery blaze. This whole "Indie" thing that you keep trying to defend is really not all you desperately want it to be. It's just not. I'm not saying the music is or isn't good. But it's not doing what you claim it is.
Don't confuse musical tastes with what is happening on a grand scale. There are dozens of albums I love front to back, but I would never classify them as classic.
I dont necessarily take it personally. I just think when someone talks like Lukin or the OP they come off sounding ignorant or like old grumpy men. I guess its all in the eyes of the beholder. You can either moan about the lack of this or that. Or look at the beautiful art and music being created here and now. Is anything currently being made as good as The White Album? Who knows and frankly who the hell cares. The White Album is The White album. What is classic anyways. The OP seems to feel its a strightforward thing. What are the classic albums of old? Nevermind, The White Album, Rust Never Sleeps, Highway to Hell. Not everyone agrees those are good albums anyways. Whats a classic album to you is a mediocre album to your friend. Whats mindblowing to me is "meh" to you. Indie doesnt need to be defended. Look at the most dominant bands and artists of the last 10 years. Case closed.
Id argue one of the classic bands and albums to come out in the last 10 years was The xx's debut in 2009. This illustrates my point perfectly. The won the mercury prize, became huge stars, are doing the soundtrack for gatsby, yet they arent a household name. Yet that album was hugely influential. It inspired James Blake, i'd argue it was one of the reasons the most recent radiohead record sounds the way it does, and the band and its sound was one of the defining dubstep bands to rise up. Do they have the impact of John Lennon and Dylan? No, but neither did the beatles or dylan 4 years into their careers. But thats a classic album. One of the best albums of the 2000's.
Indie is the dominant musical scene and movement of the last decade. Whether you think its a great thing only illustrates my point further. The albums Give Up, Transatlanticism, Moon and Antarctica, Im Wide Awake its Morning, Chutes too narrow, Our Endless Numbered Days, are all classic albums of the last 10 years. Undeniably. They have changed culture.
Wishing bands to have the impact of the beatles or the stones or led zep is pointless. No band could live up to that. Its like watching Jordan play and then comparing every single player to him. Even great bands dont live up to those guys. Why havent their been any guitarists since Hendrix, who have been as talented? Well the major reason is he was the best ever. Its like comparing Steinbeck and Shakespeare to every single writer. Why aren't all basketball players as good as Jordan? How come we havent seen many players in the last decade plus who's playing rivals Jordans?
As Ive said ad naseum, bands can't become the biggest band in the world anymore. So any impact the bands like Led Zep or Dylan or The Beatles had, can't happen in 2013. It just cant. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesnt understand the way the music buisness exists currently and the way most people consume music.
So thats the other point. We have the dichotomy of having every album recorded in history for free at our fingertips, yet each scene is niche, small, and has a small dedicated fanbase. That limits the impact of the music. And the impact of the music on culture and the population.
Whats classic? Record sales? Influence? Number of other bands who ape that style as a result? iTunes sales? Ticket sales? Its so nebulous.
I can name dozens of classic albums from the last 10 years. Again it requires complete openness.
Humans are odd creatures. So myopic and so holier than thou. The "bands now wont stand the test of time like the classic bands of old did" argument happens every generation, and every time a new musical movement occurs. They also said that about Elvis, the beatles, dylan, the blues, punk, hip hop, abstract expressionism, etc...
Humans are odd creatures. So myopic and so holier than thou.
One could argue that standing up for what you believe is a huge cultural movement and that we are surrounded by dozens of classic albums from the past 10 years is myopic in every bit the same way as the viewpoints you are trying to fight against.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
There is plenty of good music around and I dig discovering new bands but I do have to agree that there are fewer top of the heap legendary bands this century than most earlier eras, but there's always been big gaps between the really boundary pushing periods.
In alot of ways quantity does equal quality, but it doesn't bode well for having several mega successful, both financially and creatively, artists clumped into a short timeframe. There's just so much music and so many options that people don't have to gravitate to one big genre.
I think it's easy to point to the way the industry is set up and blame that, but I just think more and more music has become background noise for alot of people. To me, the blame for that comes back to both musicians and consumers.
This^. Peoples way of consuming music has changed completely. Most people don't spend hours and hours and days on end on their bedroom floor, staring at album art, pondering lyrics, and getting to know albums on an intimate level like our parents did. I know I dont. Most people's iPods are full of disparate and varying genres and styles. You may have a Mariah Carey song on there, and some death metal, some hip hop, some punk etc... Most people dont devour albums over and over. You like a few songs off the new Queens album, delete the songs you think suck, add those to a playlist and do the same with a new Bruce album. Or you bring your iPod on a jog with you, and have a playlist for pumping you up, made up of a few songs from several artists. The sheer massive amount of music we get each year precludes us from forming lasting relationships with albums like we did even 15 years ago. Most people don't spend months on end listening to one album. Its much more transient.
Look at the albums released in the last few months. Kanye, The national, Sigur Ros, Queens, Daft Punk, Vampire Weekend. Thats the last 8 weeks. Insane amount of great music. Most people won't spend more than a week at most, or a few days, listening to those albums exclusively. They will listen to the new Kanye a few times, make judgements and delete the 2nd song and the last song and the middle song, then move on to Daft Punk, make judgements and delete the 1st half of the album and listen to that a few times, then move on to the VW album and love all of it, but listen to it for a few days etc...
That sort of listening habit doesnt conform or allow legendary bands to rise up.
Any one of those albums I listed could be classic albums. But they will be swallowed by the next 15 albums released next week and the week after. Its also fueled by the endless lists, and the need to deem something the best or classic upon first listen. We all do that, myself included, but this too plays into the idea of music as disposible. Albums dont grow. They can't. You could spend all year getting to know those albums I just listed.
Ironic, given the fact that one of the best albums of the year is a compilation from Italians Do It Better, which specializes in Italo-disco, modern day indie rock inspired by italian disco and house music. Chromatics and Symmetry (think the soundtrack for Drive), created 2 of the best albums of last year, both essentially disco inspired indie rock.
I just think when someone talks like Lukin or the OP they come off sounding ignorant or like old grumpy men.
Wait, where do I sound ignorant? For the most part I've asked questions, and when expressing my personal opinions I've backed them up with examples and in no way pushed them as being the truth!
My musical tastes aren't stuck in the 90's, but I have no problem admitting that I will always have a deeper affiliation with that era, just as people who grew up in the 60's or 70's probably lean more towards those bands. My reason for starting the thread was actually as a bit of very informal market research to help with some ideas I've thinking up.
And you got to take into account that Arcade Fire's sound didn't just pop up out of nowhere, they're furthering the influence of the bands that gave them their musical direction.
I agree with this, but then that makes this whole discussion self defeating. There is no way to top the giants just because they were first.
Also, I think when baby boomers start to die out, you will see some of their influence drop out from these lists.
Exactly, i made this point earlier. The fact that those people who make these lists are all boomers seems lost on people. So the list of best bands and albums ever, printed and edited and written by magazines owned and operated by aging hippies, thinks the 60's and 70's were the best years ever in music and that we somehow lost the plot and music died and now all we have are pale imitations of legendary bands.
Lets also not forget rock didnt just become great in the 60's and 70's. There were legendary and classic artists in the 50's as well. And legendary blues artists before that.
thats the high point of absolute ridiculousness and high and mighty in my view.
Comments
YES!!
Also, Iron and Wine.
This is a great point- one I've thought about many times over the last several years. It brings to mind the question: where does music go from hear? Music has evolved for centuries but- just as with terrestrial exploration, technology and human population- we are in the steep arc of an exponential curve. This implies the idea that there really may be very little territory left to explore. These thoughts both intrigue and, to a degree, disturb me. The antidote to that kind of thinking is remembering that there is enough music already out there to explore to last a lifetime and that even within the possible limitations of genre and style there are vast numbers of voices to add nuance to those genres and styles. Mine for example, had been heard by a very relative few- although there may be a reason for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IA_aHsER6c
'10- MSG 1-2 '11- PJ20
'12- MIA; DeLuna '13- Wrigley; Pitt; Brooklyn 1-2; Philly 1-2; Baltimore; Seattle
'14- Denver '16- Philly 1-2; MSG 2
'17- Pilgrimage Music Fest (Eddie)
'18- Fenway
Or you can spend the rest of your life hoping new bands sound like and have the same impact the beatles and hendrix did.
Sure I get nostalgic for the music of my youth and the feeling it captured. But Kurt Cobain will never exist again. The next Kurt most likely is playing folk music or dubstep anyways, so waiting for a sound like Nevermind is useless since it only ensures I hear one sound at the expense of the fantastic music being made in 2013 that sounds nothing like Nirvana.
good points but I think ultimately Lukin is comparing two different things. Plus things dont have to be classic to be good or worth listening. With the 60's you just had a confluence of events-rapid and extreme social change and a soundtrack that fueled and inspired it made up of the greatest bands in history, dylan, the beatles, stones, the who, neil, hendrix, cream and so on.
The wish that someone or some band would equal the heights of led zep is insane. People in the 60's didnt think dylan was the greatest songwriter of all time, they just thought he was an amazing songwriter. The 2000's have produced a ton of talented artists. Amazing guitarists, songwriters, drummers, and bands. Whether they get considered into that canon of "best artists of all time" remains to be seen.
A band could never reach that many people, and never will again. The sheer amount of music that exists now, and this year, makes it so, their are hundreds and thousands of niche scenes. Look at Arcade Fire. They won Album of the Year in 2012 and should have been the biggest band in the world as a result, but a large portion of the world doesnt know who they are. So you have a synth pop scene thats huge to its adherants but outside that no one knows who they are. The idea of the biggest band in the world can no longer exist. Because theirs so many genres, subgenres, niches and the like. A band having the impact of Nirvana, where millions of teens felt a singer was speaking to and about them couldnt happen anymore.
All of this reminds me of someone watching Godfather 2 and Streetcar and saying "todays movies suck no classic movies have been made in the last decade and all the best movies were made 30/40 years ago".
Except... there aren't a lot of people saying this. Most people recognize the fact that the quality offered in most new movies has made the older movies seem very inferior. I saw King Kong in the 70s with Jessica Lange and that was awesome to me. Have you seen the new King Kong? Imagine if we could send the Lord of the Rings trilogy through a time capsule and they could show it to the masses in, say, 1974. Minds... Blown. There have been some very novel and notable scripts written to boot!
Which bands today are going to be listened to in 30 years? Is there a Zeppelin/Floyd/Stones/Who... or Pearl Jam/U2/DMB... that has surfaced in the last 10 years? Not to my ears.
well said ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Not sure I understand what you are saying.
Again, you seem to have this mistaken notion that in the 60's and 70's people were watching Led Zep or Pink or whoever and saying "my god, this will be remembered in 40 years". Critics, fans and the band didnt think so. Certainly Sgt Peppers caused a big stir when it was released. It wasnt until decades later that people began to think of it as the greatest album ever recorded.
Plus you seem to be ignorant of the fact that alot of art isnt well receieved upon first listen or first run through. And only after several years later and being reevaluated does it get the "classic" stamp of approval. Most likely there were people in the 60's watching Hendrix and saying, "damn this is just okay, but I miss the rockabilly days of old, why isnt there anyone playing "regular" guitar like the Chuck Berry".
Bands take time to mature. When were the beatles viewed by the public as being legendary? u2 were a band years before Joshua Tree when they really blew up and became the biggest band in the world. PJ's legendary status is in large part a result of their 20 plus years of being a band. They were a great band during the grunge days, but no one was calling them legends then. It took years, and some horrific events that they outlasted, for that label to be bestowed on them.
I think Arcade Fire will be a band we tell our grandchildren about. I think we have our dylan;s of our generation. We will be talking about Sufjan, and Conor Oberst and Tallest Man on Earth for decades. Same with Isaac Brock, and Ben Gibbard. Ryan Adams will be talked about. as I said, 2 years ago we witnessed a pop singer Adele come along, those songs will be played on radio and will be staples for decades. I find Sam Beams lyrics as incredibly beautiful as anything being written today. Kanye's work will stand the test of time, he's absolutely someone who fits your criteria. Produced possibly the greatest hip hop album ever for Jay, then went on to make 6 albums of increasing critical acclaim every single one being named by rolling stone, spin, pitchfork, time, etc.. as being a classic.
I think its a mistake to want new bands to be like old bands and have that same impact. One, no band can have the impact those bands had. How in 2013 could a band sell 300 million like Led Zep did? Its just not possible. And how could any band have that much impact anymore? Secondly, all those bands you love, are singular. They had singular visions, even as bands, that were unique, and rare. There was only one Kurt, only one Lennon, only one Dylan, Hendrix, Jagger etc...
I dont think you are looking. Theres always new music. Some new band with the potential to be THAT band. Those bands exist.
Not sure I understand what you are saying.
Again, you seem to have this mistaken notion that in the 60's and 70's people were watching Led Zep or Pink or whoever and saying "my god, this will be remembered in 40 years". Critics, fans and the band didnt think so. Certainly Sgt Peppers caused a big stir when it was released. It wasnt until decades later that people began to think of it as the greatest album ever recorded.
Plus you seem to be ignorant of the fact that alot of art isnt well receieved upon first listen or first run through. And only after several years later and being reevaluated does it get the "classic" stamp of approval. Most likely there were people in the 60's watching Hendrix and saying, "damn this is just okay, but I miss the rockabilly days of old, why isnt there anyone playing "regular" guitar like the Chuck Berry".
Bands take time to mature. When were the beatles viewed by the public as being legendary? u2 were a band years before Joshua Tree when they really blew up and became the biggest band in the world. PJ's legendary status is in large part a result of their 20 plus years of being a band. They were a great band during the grunge days, but no one was calling them legends then. It took years, and some horrific events that they outlasted, for that label to be bestowed on them.
I think Arcade Fire will be a band we tell our grandchildren about. I think we have our dylan;s of our generation. We will be talking about Sufjan, and Conor Oberst and Tallest Man on Earth for decades. Same with Isaac Brock, and Ben Gibbard. Ryan Adams will be talked about. as I said, 2 years ago we witnessed a pop singer Adele come along, those songs will be played on radio and will be staples for decades. I find Sam Beams lyrics as incredibly beautiful as anything being written today. Kanye's work will stand the test of time, he's absolutely someone who fits your criteria. Produced possibly the greatest hip hop album ever for Jay, then went on to make 6 albums of increasing critical acclaim every single one being named by rolling stone, spin, pitchfork, time, etc.. as being a classic.
I think its a mistake to want new bands to be like old bands and have that same impact. One, no band can have the impact those bands had. How in 2013 could a band sell 300 million like Led Zep did? Its just not possible. And how could any band have that much impact anymore? Secondly, all those bands you love, are singular. They had singular visions, even as bands, that were unique, and rare. There was only one Kurt, only one Lennon, only one Dylan, Hendrix, Jagger etc...
I dont think you are looking. Theres always new music. Some new band with the potential to be THAT band. Those bands exist.[/quote]
I'm not sure how you are not hearing what I'm saying- I was pretty clear: there are no bands I listen to know that have sprung up in the last decade that appear to be headed towards 'Legend of Rock' status. They might have a bit of a following for the moment, but to my ears- they have no staying power and are far from special.
Were you around when PJ and U2 emerged? I was. They were a little bigger than what you are suggesting. Nobody could have predicted 20+ years of great rock and roll... but people certainly didn't dismiss the possibility of this.
I think Arcade Fire will be a band we tell our grandchildren about. I think we have our dylan;s of our generation. We will be talking about Sufjan, and Conor Oberst and Tallest Man on Earth for decades. Same with Isaac Brock, and Ben Gibbard.
I'm not going to agree with this.
I think its a mistake to want new bands to be like old bands and have that same impact. One, no band can have the impact those bands had. How in 2013 could a band sell 300 million like Led Zep did? Its just not possible. And how could any band have that much impact anymore?
You have kind of contradicted yourself here. I thought you were just saying that there were some epic bands/artists that were going to make history?
Secondly, all those bands you love, are singular. They had singular visions, even as bands, that were unique, and rare.
Which is why they are legends and not just run-of-the-mill.
Lastly... I don't think for a second that some band will never emerge and grab rock by the nuts. I think I'm just realistic saying that for the last 10 years... we are still waiting for this band to do so.
But I'm not as hopeful given what I have seen in the 'minor leagues' (so to speak).
'10- MSG 1-2 '11- PJ20
'12- MIA; DeLuna '13- Wrigley; Pitt; Brooklyn 1-2; Philly 1-2; Baltimore; Seattle
'14- Denver '16- Philly 1-2; MSG 2
'17- Pilgrimage Music Fest (Eddie)
'18- Fenway
And like I said it really says something even when most of the experts continue to always place the same bands, musicians and albums at the top of the list.
It would also say a lot about todays musicians if they just except that Hendrix is the best guitarist, the Beatles best band etc., I would like to think that musicians would strive to be better than those musician/bands of 30-40 years ago.
U2 didn't just except that there were bigger bands than them ... I saw an interview with Bono in which he admitted they strived to be bigger touring act than the stones ... why it would mean they were pretty good.
As for the Beatles ... every one knew who they were in the 60's ... teenagers parents, grandparents everyone ... and today everyone still knows who they are ... just like everyone knows who justin beiber and kanye west is ... of course they are no more for their controversial behaviour.
But I shouldn't knock Kanye West after all he is the next steve jobs
I'm just glad the rest of society isn't like music and just excepted that something 30-40 years ago was the best we can't beat that.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
In alot of ways quantity does equal quality, but it doesn't bode well for having several mega successful, both financially and creatively, artists clumped into a short timeframe. There's just so much music and so many options that people don't have to gravitate to one big genre.
I think it's easy to point to the way the industry is set up and blame that, but I just think more and more music has become background noise for alot of people. To me, the blame for that comes back to both musicians and consumers.
The key here is to not take this whole thing personally. Nobody is saying there isn't some really good music coming out these days. The argument is whether or not any classic bands and albums are being made. I tend to agree that in fact there are not too many newer band that will stand the test of time in 50 or 100 years.
I know you are a music lover, and I know you're into the whole "Indie" thing. But to say there are classic albums all over the place these days (in the sense this topic is looking for) is just silly. Nothing in the rock world has grabbed the world by its balls and shaken it to its core recently. It just hasn't happened recently. I don't even know the last "movement" that occurred and held its ground. Punk did it's thing and I guess has spawned a scene that is still around. God knows Nu-metal died in a fiery blaze. This whole "Indie" thing that you keep trying to defend is really not all you desperately want it to be. It's just not. I'm not saying the music is or isn't good. But it's not doing what you claim it is.
Don't confuse musical tastes with what is happening on a grand scale. There are dozens of albums I love front to back, but I would never classify them as classic.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
There are easily a dozen albums that kids in the past 15 years have grown up with that will be as important to them as Nevermind was to us, or Led Zeppelin IV or whatever. And some of those artists will be regarded as classic artists/bands.
And the lack of these albums /artists appearing in these lists (And lets be honest here, these "lists" are the annual Compendiums from Rolling Stone, Uncut and Mojo come up with) is that they are assembled by dinosaur magazines who cater to Baby Boomers, who, shocker loved 60s and 70s bands.
Things are just different now. You can't use the same criteria used to judge a band classic in 1975, 85,95 and today. The industry is different, music is different, peoples consumption of music is different. If Pink Floyd never existed before 2005, they wouldn't be as huge as they were in 1978. Guaranteed. Would that diminish their influence, or their achievements musically?
Personally I don't give a shit. I think Pink Floyd is wank and I'm not in High School, but I recognize that they are influential and were very popular and can see how they would fit in a list of classic artists.
Hip hop culture isn't new. It's been around for most of my life(I'm 31). And to me the indie culture is just the latest form of flannel and Doc Martins.
I'm sure there are some influential albums, but to say they're as influential as Nevermind, Hendrix, Zeppelin is just about the farthest thing from the truth. Will a few artists be mentioned in 50 years? Most likely.... But will their entire catalogs pop on lists the way the Beatles and Floyd albums do? I can't see that.
Is The Funeral as important as Sgt. Pepper's or to the people that are into it? No doubt, there just aren't as many people into it, meaning it's influence isn't as far reaching or all encompassing. And you got to take into account that Arcade Fire's sound didn't just pop up out of nowhere, they're furthering the influence of the bands that gave them their musical direction.
Hip Hop culture I will acknowledge, but it's not a recent thing that it is mainstream.
Indie bands with a strong sense of DIY don't really see themselves as "Indie". And wearing tight pants and listening to vinyl isn't really a scene - you're buying into the very thing "Indie" is supposed to rebel against....in any era....commercialization and mass consumption. Buying tight jeans, "vintage" clothes (at mark-up no less) and an iPhone (Apple is just so cool!), is not Indie.
Time will tell. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm showing my age, who knows.
I don't care about dinosaur magazines and their self-important lists. I agree with you here.
Yes. It would diminish their influence. For better or worse. Pink Floyd owes their success not only to amazing songwriting and recording techniques, but an era that they fit perfectly into. Same goes for Nirvana, The Beatles, PJ, U2, GnR, Zep, etc.
But you most definitely can use the same criteria. Classic is classic. It means enduring. Ever-influential. Classic bands and albums will stand the test of time. Unfortunately we won't know about this era for sure for another 20-30 years. I don't see it, but I could very well be wrong.
We're going to have to go ahead and disagree on that one. PF = wank...not in my book. They're the only band with a succession of albums to rival Rubber Soul through Abbey Road: Meddle through The Final Cut.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Some good points there, I think music has become background noise for a lot of people. I think it's one of the down sides of streaming services like Spotify, it's all too easy to jump from track to track and not have to give a lot of actual attention to the music. I finally pulled the trigger and got a turntable a few weeks back, and I feel so much more engaged with the music I play on it cause of having to flip the records
I do agree that there have been plenty of great new bands and artists over the last few years, however as someone else has said, they often feel a bit more minor league than the big bands of the past. I always think this is quite evident come festival season when most of the headliners are the same bands who have been doing the rounds for years.
To be honest I think there's a fairly simple criteria for what distinguishes a good band from a great band, and it's big memorable anthemic songs. I think that applies across all genres, and eras. It's this reason that I think a lot of the recent indie stuff doesn't match up to past bands. I'm not saying there aren't decent records from those bands, but there seems to be less emphasis on memorable melodies etc, and whilst they aren't everything, they do make a difference. For example, where would U2 be if they hadn't made the Joshua Tree? Or R.E.M if they hadn't made Out Of Time or Automatic For The People? I'm not saying their previous albums didn't have good songs, but by the time they wrote those albums they had really honed their skills which catapulted them to the status they hold today.
I agree with this, but then that makes this whole discussion self defeating. There is no way to top the giants just because they were first.
Also, I think when baby boomers start to die out, you will see some of their influence drop out from these lists.
'10- MSG 1-2 '11- PJ20
'12- MIA; DeLuna '13- Wrigley; Pitt; Brooklyn 1-2; Philly 1-2; Baltimore; Seattle
'14- Denver '16- Philly 1-2; MSG 2
'17- Pilgrimage Music Fest (Eddie)
'18- Fenway
I dont necessarily take it personally. I just think when someone talks like Lukin or the OP they come off sounding ignorant or like old grumpy men. I guess its all in the eyes of the beholder. You can either moan about the lack of this or that. Or look at the beautiful art and music being created here and now. Is anything currently being made as good as The White Album? Who knows and frankly who the hell cares. The White Album is The White album. What is classic anyways. The OP seems to feel its a strightforward thing. What are the classic albums of old? Nevermind, The White Album, Rust Never Sleeps, Highway to Hell. Not everyone agrees those are good albums anyways. Whats a classic album to you is a mediocre album to your friend. Whats mindblowing to me is "meh" to you. Indie doesnt need to be defended. Look at the most dominant bands and artists of the last 10 years. Case closed.
Id argue one of the classic bands and albums to come out in the last 10 years was The xx's debut in 2009. This illustrates my point perfectly. The won the mercury prize, became huge stars, are doing the soundtrack for gatsby, yet they arent a household name. Yet that album was hugely influential. It inspired James Blake, i'd argue it was one of the reasons the most recent radiohead record sounds the way it does, and the band and its sound was one of the defining dubstep bands to rise up. Do they have the impact of John Lennon and Dylan? No, but neither did the beatles or dylan 4 years into their careers. But thats a classic album. One of the best albums of the 2000's.
Indie is the dominant musical scene and movement of the last decade. Whether you think its a great thing only illustrates my point further. The albums Give Up, Transatlanticism, Moon and Antarctica, Im Wide Awake its Morning, Chutes too narrow, Our Endless Numbered Days, are all classic albums of the last 10 years. Undeniably. They have changed culture.
Wishing bands to have the impact of the beatles or the stones or led zep is pointless. No band could live up to that. Its like watching Jordan play and then comparing every single player to him. Even great bands dont live up to those guys. Why havent their been any guitarists since Hendrix, who have been as talented? Well the major reason is he was the best ever. Its like comparing Steinbeck and Shakespeare to every single writer. Why aren't all basketball players as good as Jordan? How come we havent seen many players in the last decade plus who's playing rivals Jordans?
As Ive said ad naseum, bands can't become the biggest band in the world anymore. So any impact the bands like Led Zep or Dylan or The Beatles had, can't happen in 2013. It just cant. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesnt understand the way the music buisness exists currently and the way most people consume music.
So thats the other point. We have the dichotomy of having every album recorded in history for free at our fingertips, yet each scene is niche, small, and has a small dedicated fanbase. That limits the impact of the music. And the impact of the music on culture and the population.
Whats classic? Record sales? Influence? Number of other bands who ape that style as a result? iTunes sales? Ticket sales? Its so nebulous.
I can name dozens of classic albums from the last 10 years. Again it requires complete openness.
Humans are odd creatures. So myopic and so holier than thou. The "bands now wont stand the test of time like the classic bands of old did" argument happens every generation, and every time a new musical movement occurs. They also said that about Elvis, the beatles, dylan, the blues, punk, hip hop, abstract expressionism, etc...
'10- MSG 1-2 '11- PJ20
'12- MIA; DeLuna '13- Wrigley; Pitt; Brooklyn 1-2; Philly 1-2; Baltimore; Seattle
'14- Denver '16- Philly 1-2; MSG 2
'17- Pilgrimage Music Fest (Eddie)
'18- Fenway
One could argue that standing up for what you believe is a huge cultural movement and that we are surrounded by dozens of classic albums from the past 10 years is myopic in every bit the same way as the viewpoints you are trying to fight against.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
See, now you're talking. I'm in. This statement is classic. It will stand the test of time.
Then again, will tight jeans make a resurgence in 30 years? Bell-bottoms did...
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
This^. Peoples way of consuming music has changed completely. Most people don't spend hours and hours and days on end on their bedroom floor, staring at album art, pondering lyrics, and getting to know albums on an intimate level like our parents did. I know I dont. Most people's iPods are full of disparate and varying genres and styles. You may have a Mariah Carey song on there, and some death metal, some hip hop, some punk etc... Most people dont devour albums over and over. You like a few songs off the new Queens album, delete the songs you think suck, add those to a playlist and do the same with a new Bruce album. Or you bring your iPod on a jog with you, and have a playlist for pumping you up, made up of a few songs from several artists. The sheer massive amount of music we get each year precludes us from forming lasting relationships with albums like we did even 15 years ago. Most people don't spend months on end listening to one album. Its much more transient.
Look at the albums released in the last few months. Kanye, The national, Sigur Ros, Queens, Daft Punk, Vampire Weekend. Thats the last 8 weeks. Insane amount of great music. Most people won't spend more than a week at most, or a few days, listening to those albums exclusively. They will listen to the new Kanye a few times, make judgements and delete the 2nd song and the last song and the middle song, then move on to Daft Punk, make judgements and delete the 1st half of the album and listen to that a few times, then move on to the VW album and love all of it, but listen to it for a few days etc...
That sort of listening habit doesnt conform or allow legendary bands to rise up.
Any one of those albums I listed could be classic albums. But they will be swallowed by the next 15 albums released next week and the week after. Its also fueled by the endless lists, and the need to deem something the best or classic upon first listen. We all do that, myself included, but this too plays into the idea of music as disposible. Albums dont grow. They can't. You could spend all year getting to know those albums I just listed.
Nice.
Ironic, given the fact that one of the best albums of the year is a compilation from Italians Do It Better, which specializes in Italo-disco, modern day indie rock inspired by italian disco and house music. Chromatics and Symmetry (think the soundtrack for Drive), created 2 of the best albums of last year, both essentially disco inspired indie rock.
Wait, where do I sound ignorant? For the most part I've asked questions, and when expressing my personal opinions I've backed them up with examples and in no way pushed them as being the truth!
My musical tastes aren't stuck in the 90's, but I have no problem admitting that I will always have a deeper affiliation with that era, just as people who grew up in the 60's or 70's probably lean more towards those bands. My reason for starting the thread was actually as a bit of very informal market research to help with some ideas I've thinking up.
Exactly, i made this point earlier. The fact that those people who make these lists are all boomers seems lost on people. So the list of best bands and albums ever, printed and edited and written by magazines owned and operated by aging hippies, thinks the 60's and 70's were the best years ever in music and that we somehow lost the plot and music died and now all we have are pale imitations of legendary bands.
Lets also not forget rock didnt just become great in the 60's and 70's. There were legendary and classic artists in the 50's as well. And legendary blues artists before that.
thats the high point of absolute ridiculousness and high and mighty in my view.