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.
Ive been you. I was you for a decade plus. But that way of looking at things is boring, at least in my view. And it sounds like something our parents would moan about. All thats to say, I react strongly because I lived like this for years. Waiting around for the next Nirvana is boring and pointless. I sensed a "this era in music isnt as good as the years of x and I want music to be this and sound like it did back then". Maybe that wasnt what you were implying.
I think its a loss for music lovers to have that attitude. You miss out on some great bands. Even some classic bands by doing that. I view every band as a potential life changer. Every single one. Pop, rock, hip hop, folk. And approach new bands that way. No prejudice, no preconceptions. And Ive found some of my all time favorites this way. Believing that this era sucks in music sets you up. It sets you up to view new bands as inferior and the 90's or whatever era as untouchable.
The 90's were classic obviously. But how many classic albums were released during those 10 years that were life changing and classic? 100? 50? 10? Its as big of a misconception to believe that the 90's was one classic album after another, as it is to believe the 60's were that way.
How many Neil albums are considered classic? Bruce albums? I love them to death, but for the general public, a handful at most of each artists catalogue of 20 or 30 albums are classic. This idea that some time in history classic music was growing on trees is a fantasy.
Again, what hasnt been discussed is the real tendency for classic albums to only reveal themselves years later. For albums to be considered failures and bombs, then years later for the album to be considered classic. Pinkerton comes to mind. As does. Kid A.
Ive been you. I was you for a decade plus. But that way of looking at things is boring, at least in my view. And it sounds like something our parents would moan about. All thats to say, I react strongly because I lived like this for years. Waiting around for the next Nirvana is boring and pointless. I sensed a "this era in music isnt as good as the years of x and I want music to be this and sound like it did back then". Maybe that wasnt what you were implying.
Fuck no. Ironically I was you for a decade plus, I trotted out the line "the next Nirvana won't sound like NIrvana", and I still don't think they will.
What I liked most about the 90's was the switch from the hedonistic hair-metal kind of rock to the more thought provoking music - I'm a sensitive guy so it fit me really well
But, I don't need a record to appeal to that sensitive side for me to dig it. Memorable tunes are pretty much all I require, regardless of genre. I just question who will headline all these festivals when the older bands call it a day?
Perhaps I should be more specific and say that hard rock, or alt-rock is kind of lacking any big new bands.
Im reminded of that scene in Almost Famous-Phil Seymour Hoffman tells William "you arrived here just for the death knell of rock, its dead, its over". this was 1973. How many classic rock albums, classic albums of any genre have appeared since 1973? How many appeared in the 1973-1979 alone? London Calling hadnt been made yet. Nor had Highway to Hell. Quadrophenia was released THAT year. Houses of the Holy THAT year. One of the best selling albums of all time was released in the late 70's, Rumors. Blood on the Tracks one of Dylans most beloved albums was released in 75 and didnt get good reviews. ShotGun willie was released THAT year and it wasnt until two years later red headed stranger came out
Ive been you. I was you for a decade plus. But that way of looking at things is boring, at least in my view. And it sounds like something our parents would moan about. All thats to say, I react strongly because I lived like this for years. Waiting around for the next Nirvana is boring and pointless. I sensed a "this era in music isnt as good as the years of x and I want music to be this and sound like it did back then". Maybe that wasnt what you were implying.
Fuck no. Ironically I was you for a decade plus, I trotted out the line "the next Nirvana won't sound like NIrvana", and I still don't think they will.
What I liked most about the 90's was the switch from the hedonistic hair-metal kind of rock to the more thought provoking music - I'm a sensitive guy so it fit me really well
But, I don't need a record to appeal to that sensitive side for me to dig it. Memorable tunes are pretty much all I require, regardless of genre. I just question who will headline all these festivals when the older bands call it a day?
Perhaps I should be more specific and say that hard rock, or alt-rock is kind of lacking any big new bands.
I agree with this. Alt rock and hard rock as currently exists hasnt interested me in a decade. I never got into Seether and Three Days grace and Hinder, Linkin Park all that stuff. I find the current alt rock radio stuff to be uninteresting. Catchy stuff to be sure, but thats about it. The whole alt rock term seems outdated to me. The last alt rock album seems to me to have been made in 2001 or something.
I think our generation isnt in shortage of quality and important bands making important music that will resonate for generations to come. All the festivals like Bonnaroo and Coachella, Lolla, Sasquatch all have tons of bands who I could see having long and lasting careers.
Music, quality music, will be fine and survive, just like it always has. And when things get stale, the next Arcade Fire rises up and on and on.
Im reminded of that scene in Almost Famous-Phil Seymour Hoffman tells William "you arrived here just for the death knell of rock, its dead, its over". this was 1973. How many classic rock albums, classic albums of any genre have appeared since 1973? How many appeared in the 1973-1979 alone? London Calling hadnt been made yet. Nor had Highway to Hell. Quadrophenia was released THAT year. Houses of the Holy THAT year. One of the best selling albums of all time was released in the late 70's, Rumors. Blood on the Tracks one of Dylans most beloved albums was released in 75 and didnt get good reviews. ShotGun willie was released THAT year and it wasnt until two years later red headed stranger came out
Haha! I have hope, don't get me wrong, and you are quite right that loads of bands are bringing out great stuff in other genres, it's just that this one still seems to be dominated by bands who are 40+, and that doesn't seem quite right to me.
I agree with this. Alt rock and hard rock as currently exists hasnt interested me in a decade. I never got into Seether and Three Days grace and Hinder, Linkin Park all that stuff. I find the current alt rock radio stuff to be uninteresting. Catchy stuff to be sure, but thats about it. The whole alt rock term seems outdated to me. The last alt rock album seems to me to have been made in 2001 or something.
I think our generation isnt in shortage of quality and important bands making important music that will resonate for generations to come. All the festivals like Bonnaroo and Coachella, Lolla, Sasquatch all have tons of bands who I could see having long and lasting careers.
Music, quality music, will be fine and survive, just like it always has. And when things get stale, the next Arcade Fire rises up and on and on.
Still, while we say this, QOTSA are number one in the charts everywhere!
Oh, and I'm in the UK where festivals essentially recycle the same headliners year after year, if it's not the Foo Fighters it's the Chili Peppers, and if it's not them it's Metallica or Blur.
someone mentioned ryan adams and he fits perfectly. Been doing this for close to 2 decades now, released some of the most important albums of our generation, yet how big is he really? He's undoubtedly one of the best lyricists of our generation and will be remembered for eons to come, but classic albums like Gold and Heartbreaker, had seismic impacts in a specific niche, the alt country/singer songwriter genre. He's not a household name, despite all the accolades and acclaim, and I think most people probably know BRYAN Adams more than Ryan, and probably know more of his songs too.
How much of an impact can bands have nowadays? I dont know how a band in 2013 can achieve Michael Jackson size fame and success. Its impossible. Because for all intents and purposes the OP is talking about Funeral. Completely altered not only indie music, but essentially launched indie music as we know it today, was emotionally powerful in a way few records ever are, and launched the career of probably the single biggest and most successful indie band of the modern era. But does your grandmother love AF? Your Mom? Your uncle? Does your teen sister know who Win and Regine are?
someone mentioned ryan adams and he fits perfectly. Been doing this for close to 2 decades now, released some of the most important albums of our generation, yet how big is he really? He's undoubtedly one of the best lyricists of our generation and will be remembered for eons to come, but classic albums like Gold and Heartbreaker, had seismic impacts in a specific niche, the alt country/singer songwriter genre. He's not a household name, despite all the accolades and acclaim, and I think most people probably know BRYAN Adams more than Ryan, and probably know more of his songs too.
Totally agree, I think he's an amazing talent, and he is well known within his genre. He could easily have big cross-over appeal, IF he wrote some huge anthemic songs. But I don't think that's his style. That's not to say it isn't catchy, but it's probably a touch more subtle.
How much of an impact can bands have nowadays? I dont know how a band in 2013 can achieve Michael Jackson size fame and success. Its impossible. Because for all intents and purposes the OP is talking about Funeral. Completely altered not only indie music, but essentially launched indie music as we know it today, was emotionally powerful in a way few records ever are, and launched the career of probably the single biggest and most successful indie band of the modern era. But does your grandmother love AF? Your Mom? Your uncle? Does your teen sister know who Win and Regine are?
I don't think they need Michael Jackson level of success to be deemed big. My grandmother wouldn't know who Foo Fighters were, but they're undeniably massive - though not Jackson big.
Very interesting thread.
I've been bitching for years that there hasnt been a real classic/badass band to come into the mainstream since the 90's. Then it occurred to me that Im standing still and "mainstream" is what possibly changed. I have discovered 2-3 of my favorite bands ever in the last few years. They are small time though. None of them can stand up to the successes of Pearl Jam or Radio Head or Foo Fighters. But maybe my taste didnt evolve.
Its become easier to find things I love with Pandora, amazon etc... but the point was made earlier in the thread that musical sound can only evolve so much. I do hope that something new and badass is right around the corner though.
I will also add that although bands like the Black Keys Arcade FIre, and Band of Horses are good, somewhat popular and in mainstream, none of them will have half the impact of the big bands of the past.
I think it would be interesting to get the opinions of some 15 year olds, or even 20 year olds in here. Though probably not a PJ fan (Which is a point to consider, Pearl Jam fans already have a predilection towards Rock, so it can hardly be unbiased here). I'd like to see their views on these already established bands.
I would think they may acknowledge that these bands have accomplished something, but that ultimately their interest is more current than the 60s or 70s.
While anecdotal, I look at my Brother in law and his friends who are a decade younger than me. Out side of the Dead when they were in High School, they never cared either way for the Beatles and the Stones and Zeppelin, The Band or whoever. They were fine with them but their focus was on stuff that was more recent. Pavement, The Pixies, NIN, Phish. As they grew up bands like Animal Collective, Deerhunter, and LCD Soundsystem drew their attention more because they could trace their roots to bands like Pavement and whoever.
What I'm getting at is, Perhaps people here WHo I'm guessing are mainly in their 40s and 30s put a little too much weight on the stuff from the 60s and 70s because that was still more recent in 1990 than it may be to a kid who is 15 in 2013.
I don't think These classic bands are going to have the weight or dominance they have now in another 20 years. Will they be recognized? yes, Could Led Zeppelin stand next to LCD Soundsystem in 20 years though? Quite possibly.
Interesting view. I tend to think I'm part of the younger crowd of 10 Clubbers at 25 and for me I never even really liked PJ until I saw them live in '08 and now I'm hooked. Same thing with MMJ in 2011. I've seen so many bands live but some just immediately stand out and rise above others, it's funny because if we go back to 2008 I would say Oasis was far and away my favorite band and actually The Police second. Now, PJ has completely solidified that spot but MMJ and Jack White have blown past everyone else and are nestled in right behind PJ for my all time favorites. But I definitely love me some Zep, Who, Clapton, etc.
I'm just always looking for the next great band bc for me, giving PJ and MMJ a chance it has now paid off dividends and they are my one and probably number two all time faves. I'm thinking about putting my money on Tame Impala to make great strides next. Hope to catch them tomorrow in Philly.
Weezer
Tool
Taking Back Sunday
Jimmy Eat World
Bright Eyes
Death Cab for Cutie
Pepper
System of a Down
Cake
and the Jack's..
Daft Punk
Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Incubus
Deftones.
These bands continue to produce great albums, and persistently. :?
Weezer has been slacking. :nono:
Tim Simmons knows what im talking about with this one, but great music can come from anywhere. Ive been playing Kacey Musgraves new album constantly the last 24 hours. I hadnt particularly thought a pop country album would be something id be into. If you asked me in January what I thought Id be listening to this year, I dont think I would have thought Id be listening to this. She's not a legend, she's just 24. But I think thats how this stuff starts. It starts with an open mind. Thats how bands in 2013 become legends. Organic, grassroots growth. You build it one listener at a time. One show at a time. Legendary status takes decades to cement. Its hard to discuss legendary bands from the 2000's because most havent put out more than a few albums. Dylan or The Beatles a few albums into their careers werent legends. They just were good or great.
As I said, I view any new band as THAT band, that could change my life. It doesnt matter if its Justin Timberlake, or Sigur Ros, or The Lumineers. I give anything a listen precisely because of this. A potential life changing band usually doesnt hit you upside the head and give out a notice prior. Its usually something you stumble onto. Not expecting.
I think it would be interesting to get the opinions of some 15 year olds, or even 20 year olds in here. Though probably not a PJ fan (Which is a point to consider, Pearl Jam fans already have a predilection towards Rock, so it can hardly be unbiased here). I'd like to see their views on these already established bands.
I would think they may acknowledge that these bands have accomplished something, but that ultimately their interest is more current than the 60s or 70s.
While anecdotal, I look at my Brother in law and his friends who are a decade younger than me. Out side of the Dead when they were in High School, they never cared either way for the Beatles and the Stones and Zeppelin, The Band or whoever. They were fine with them but their focus was on stuff that was more recent. Pavement, The Pixies, NIN, Phish. As they grew up bands like Animal Collective, Deerhunter, and LCD Soundsystem drew their attention more because they could trace their roots to bands like Pavement and whoever.
What I'm getting at is, Perhaps people here WHo I'm guessing are mainly in their 40s and 30s put a little too much weight on the stuff from the 60s and 70s because that was still more recent in 1990 than it may be to a kid who is 15 in 2013.
I don't think These classic bands are going to have the weight or dominance they have now in another 20 years. Will they be recognized? yes, Could Led Zeppelin stand next to LCD Soundsystem in 20 years though? Quite possibly.
I think this is absolutely true, and ultimately music is alot like most peoples regular day to days. Most people like routines, and have their things they do and don't alter it. Same with music. You find a sweet spot as a kid, the music is a soundtrack to your life, and music changes, new bands come to the fore and you wonder where "your favorite sound or band went".
People like a certain sound or a certain style, especially Boomers who didn't grow up in the days of iPods where its common for teens now to have Britney Spears, and NIN and Dylan, and Coltrane all on the same mix.
Most people tend to like a certain style of music and not want to venture outside it. And that makes a great deal of sense. If grunge soundtracked my teens and it has an emotional resonance for me, why would I listen to dubstep? But that emotional connection can be stiffling and limiting too. Most likely those bands that soundtracked your youth you found by accident. And going to an electronic show or a balkan gyspy music concert is scary if you are of that mindset and it makes you vulnerable. But it could also change your life.
Its generational. Every older generation thinks the new generations music is less relevant than their own. Our grandparents talked about the beatles and dylan to our parents in this way. When we got into Nirvana and NIN our parents said the same thing to us. And now you see on this board people who are Gen X'er's who say the same thing about Skrillex or Mumford or The Shins. I dont want to end up like that.
Well, that and only 2 of those are really "classic bands". Not saying that they haven't put out some respectable music, but only Tool and RHCP have the combined success and influence to qualify for what we're talking about. Weezer is the next and then probably SOAD. Most of the rest have pretty much been forgotten by people outside of their fans.
I just think when someone talks like Lukin or the OP they come off sounding ignorant or like old grumpy men
Music is subjective ... that does not make me ignorant, just because I enjoy music from the 60's and 70's. And you're starting to sound like a salesman trying sell me on music I have no interest in.
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
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,070
Can we define what is meant by "Classic bands"?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Well I know what I mean by the term 'classic', but I'd be interested to know what other people think?
For me I'd say it's a combination of things, not just obvious things like sales. I mean, Nickelback have sold a boat load of records but I think even the most ardent fan would be hard pushed to create a case for them being a classic band.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,070
Well I know what I mean by the term 'classic', but I'd be interested to know what other people think?
For me I'd say it's a combination of things, not just obvious things like sales. I mean, Nickelback have sold a boat load of records but I think even the most ardent fan would be hard pushed to create a case for them being a classic band.
I agree- sales number alone do not count in the long run. My definition would be a band that has withstood the test of time- at least a couple of decades- The Stones, Beatles, The Doors, The Ramones, Pearl Jam, etc. If that definition were to be accepted, then any band from the last ten years could only be considered "a potential classic". But either way- and I could be proven wrong- I'm still not convinced there have been any bands from the last ten years that will be considered "classic".
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I agree- sales number alone do not count in the long run. My definition would be a band that has withstood the test of time- at least a couple of decades- The Stones, Beatles, The Doors, The Ramones, Pearl Jam, etc. If that definition were to be accepted, then any band from the last ten years could only be considered "a potential classic". But either way- and I could be proven wrong- I'm still not convinced there have been any bands from the last ten years that will be considered "classic".
Whilst I get what you mean, I think sometimes you just know - a record can have that much impact that a band kind of writes themselves into musical history. I think Radiohead's OK Computer would be an example of that. I remember when it came out EVERYBODY sat up and listened, it just seemed so out there (little did we know what would come later!), yet so well made.
Comments
I own the Drive soundtrack, fucking love it
Brilliant film, great soundtrack.
Absolutely - they fit together so well.
Ive been you. I was you for a decade plus. But that way of looking at things is boring, at least in my view. And it sounds like something our parents would moan about. All thats to say, I react strongly because I lived like this for years. Waiting around for the next Nirvana is boring and pointless. I sensed a "this era in music isnt as good as the years of x and I want music to be this and sound like it did back then". Maybe that wasnt what you were implying.
I think its a loss for music lovers to have that attitude. You miss out on some great bands. Even some classic bands by doing that. I view every band as a potential life changer. Every single one. Pop, rock, hip hop, folk. And approach new bands that way. No prejudice, no preconceptions. And Ive found some of my all time favorites this way. Believing that this era sucks in music sets you up. It sets you up to view new bands as inferior and the 90's or whatever era as untouchable.
The 90's were classic obviously. But how many classic albums were released during those 10 years that were life changing and classic? 100? 50? 10? Its as big of a misconception to believe that the 90's was one classic album after another, as it is to believe the 60's were that way.
How many Neil albums are considered classic? Bruce albums? I love them to death, but for the general public, a handful at most of each artists catalogue of 20 or 30 albums are classic. This idea that some time in history classic music was growing on trees is a fantasy.
Again, what hasnt been discussed is the real tendency for classic albums to only reveal themselves years later. For albums to be considered failures and bombs, then years later for the album to be considered classic. Pinkerton comes to mind. As does. Kid A.
Fuck no. Ironically I was you for a decade plus, I trotted out the line "the next Nirvana won't sound like NIrvana", and I still don't think they will.
What I liked most about the 90's was the switch from the hedonistic hair-metal kind of rock to the more thought provoking music - I'm a sensitive guy so it fit me really well
But, I don't need a record to appeal to that sensitive side for me to dig it. Memorable tunes are pretty much all I require, regardless of genre. I just question who will headline all these festivals when the older bands call it a day?
Perhaps I should be more specific and say that hard rock, or alt-rock is kind of lacking any big new bands.
I agree with this. Alt rock and hard rock as currently exists hasnt interested me in a decade. I never got into Seether and Three Days grace and Hinder, Linkin Park all that stuff. I find the current alt rock radio stuff to be uninteresting. Catchy stuff to be sure, but thats about it. The whole alt rock term seems outdated to me. The last alt rock album seems to me to have been made in 2001 or something.
I think our generation isnt in shortage of quality and important bands making important music that will resonate for generations to come. All the festivals like Bonnaroo and Coachella, Lolla, Sasquatch all have tons of bands who I could see having long and lasting careers.
Music, quality music, will be fine and survive, just like it always has. And when things get stale, the next Arcade Fire rises up and on and on.
Haha! I have hope, don't get me wrong, and you are quite right that loads of bands are bringing out great stuff in other genres, it's just that this one still seems to be dominated by bands who are 40+, and that doesn't seem quite right to me.
Still, while we say this, QOTSA are number one in the charts everywhere!
Oh, and I'm in the UK where festivals essentially recycle the same headliners year after year, if it's not the Foo Fighters it's the Chili Peppers, and if it's not them it's Metallica or Blur.
How much of an impact can bands have nowadays? I dont know how a band in 2013 can achieve Michael Jackson size fame and success. Its impossible. Because for all intents and purposes the OP is talking about Funeral. Completely altered not only indie music, but essentially launched indie music as we know it today, was emotionally powerful in a way few records ever are, and launched the career of probably the single biggest and most successful indie band of the modern era. But does your grandmother love AF? Your Mom? Your uncle? Does your teen sister know who Win and Regine are?
Totally agree, I think he's an amazing talent, and he is well known within his genre. He could easily have big cross-over appeal, IF he wrote some huge anthemic songs. But I don't think that's his style. That's not to say it isn't catchy, but it's probably a touch more subtle.
I don't think they need Michael Jackson level of success to be deemed big. My grandmother wouldn't know who Foo Fighters were, but they're undeniably massive - though not Jackson big.
I've been bitching for years that there hasnt been a real classic/badass band to come into the mainstream since the 90's. Then it occurred to me that Im standing still and "mainstream" is what possibly changed. I have discovered 2-3 of my favorite bands ever in the last few years. They are small time though. None of them can stand up to the successes of Pearl Jam or Radio Head or Foo Fighters. But maybe my taste didnt evolve.
Its become easier to find things I love with Pandora, amazon etc... but the point was made earlier in the thread that musical sound can only evolve so much. I do hope that something new and badass is right around the corner though.
I will also add that although bands like the Black Keys Arcade FIre, and Band of Horses are good, somewhat popular and in mainstream, none of them will have half the impact of the big bands of the past.
I would think they may acknowledge that these bands have accomplished something, but that ultimately their interest is more current than the 60s or 70s.
While anecdotal, I look at my Brother in law and his friends who are a decade younger than me. Out side of the Dead when they were in High School, they never cared either way for the Beatles and the Stones and Zeppelin, The Band or whoever. They were fine with them but their focus was on stuff that was more recent. Pavement, The Pixies, NIN, Phish. As they grew up bands like Animal Collective, Deerhunter, and LCD Soundsystem drew their attention more because they could trace their roots to bands like Pavement and whoever.
What I'm getting at is, Perhaps people here WHo I'm guessing are mainly in their 40s and 30s put a little too much weight on the stuff from the 60s and 70s because that was still more recent in 1990 than it may be to a kid who is 15 in 2013.
I don't think These classic bands are going to have the weight or dominance they have now in another 20 years. Will they be recognized? yes, Could Led Zeppelin stand next to LCD Soundsystem in 20 years though? Quite possibly.
I'm just always looking for the next great band bc for me, giving PJ and MMJ a chance it has now paid off dividends and they are my one and probably number two all time faves. I'm thinking about putting my money on Tame Impala to make great strides next. Hope to catch them tomorrow in Philly.
'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
Tool
Taking Back Sunday
Jimmy Eat World
Bright Eyes
Death Cab for Cutie
Pepper
System of a Down
Cake
and the Jack's..
Daft Punk
Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Incubus
Deftones.
These bands continue to produce great albums, and persistently. :?
Weezer has been slacking. :nono:
Pearl Jam is the essential.
'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
As I said, I view any new band as THAT band, that could change my life. It doesnt matter if its Justin Timberlake, or Sigur Ros, or The Lumineers. I give anything a listen precisely because of this. A potential life changing band usually doesnt hit you upside the head and give out a notice prior. Its usually something you stumble onto. Not expecting.
I think this is absolutely true, and ultimately music is alot like most peoples regular day to days. Most people like routines, and have their things they do and don't alter it. Same with music. You find a sweet spot as a kid, the music is a soundtrack to your life, and music changes, new bands come to the fore and you wonder where "your favorite sound or band went".
People like a certain sound or a certain style, especially Boomers who didn't grow up in the days of iPods where its common for teens now to have Britney Spears, and NIN and Dylan, and Coltrane all on the same mix.
Most people tend to like a certain style of music and not want to venture outside it. And that makes a great deal of sense. If grunge soundtracked my teens and it has an emotional resonance for me, why would I listen to dubstep? But that emotional connection can be stiffling and limiting too. Most likely those bands that soundtracked your youth you found by accident. And going to an electronic show or a balkan gyspy music concert is scary if you are of that mindset and it makes you vulnerable. But it could also change your life.
Its generational. Every older generation thinks the new generations music is less relevant than their own. Our grandparents talked about the beatles and dylan to our parents in this way. When we got into Nirvana and NIN our parents said the same thing to us. And now you see on this board people who are Gen X'er's who say the same thing about Skrillex or Mumford or The Shins. I dont want to end up like that.
Well, that and only 2 of those are really "classic bands". Not saying that they haven't put out some respectable music, but only Tool and RHCP have the combined success and influence to qualify for what we're talking about. Weezer is the next and then probably SOAD. Most of the rest have pretty much been forgotten by people outside of their fans.
Music is subjective ... that does not make me ignorant, just because I enjoy music from the 60's and 70's. And you're starting to sound like a salesman trying sell me on music I have no interest in.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Well I know what I mean by the term 'classic', but I'd be interested to know what other people think?
For me I'd say it's a combination of things, not just obvious things like sales. I mean, Nickelback have sold a boat load of records but I think even the most ardent fan would be hard pushed to create a case for them being a classic band.
I agree- sales number alone do not count in the long run. My definition would be a band that has withstood the test of time- at least a couple of decades- The Stones, Beatles, The Doors, The Ramones, Pearl Jam, etc. If that definition were to be accepted, then any band from the last ten years could only be considered "a potential classic". But either way- and I could be proven wrong- I'm still not convinced there have been any bands from the last ten years that will be considered "classic".
Whilst I get what you mean, I think sometimes you just know - a record can have that much impact that a band kind of writes themselves into musical history. I think Radiohead's OK Computer would be an example of that. I remember when it came out EVERYBODY sat up and listened, it just seemed so out there (little did we know what would come later!), yet so well made.
'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