Why isn't this happening today?

brianlux

I saw a post on FB today that linked a photo of a poster titled "What the Coachella line up would have looked like at the birth of KLOS in 1969!" the lineup for this imaginary festival includes these acts:

Jimi Hendrix
The Who
The Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Bob Dylan
Crosby Stills Nash and Young
The Doors
Janis Joplin
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Band
The Grateful Dead the band
Cream
Pink Floyd
Chuck Berry
Santana
Velvet underground
Frank Zappa and Mothers of Invention
The Stooges
Allman Brothers Band
Johnny Cash
Miles Davis
Buddy Guy
Bo Diddley
The Byrds
Sly and the Family Stone
Traffic
Fleetwood Mac
Buffalo Springfield
Maountain
James Taylor
Jefferson Airplane
B. B. King
Mountain
Jethro Tull
Steve Miller...
and a few more plus some that could be added to their list...

So my question is: Why isn't this happening today? Some of those listed above today are still around but certainly not in their prime as they would have been in 1969. Why is it that, 46 years later with the world's population double what it was in 1969, is there not this much cumulative talent that is at the same level as those listed above in terms that encompass performer's peak years, active performers, and this level of recognition? Why, with twice as many people living today, do we not have this broad a band of well recognized, excellent talent? Or do you believe this much talent exists without the recognition?

I have my own theories but I'm curious as to what some of you think.

PJ_Soul

Hmmmmm.... I reckon that Byonce and JayZ, Drake, Kanye, Taylor Swift, and all these other artists/bands, most of whom you and I have never even heard of but are wildly popular, might actually get more recognition today than most of those bands listed above ever did in their primes.
This might just be a generational/taste issue Brian.

rr165892

It's like the idiot on Social media who said in all seriousness after Kayne west did a song with Sir Paul."I don't know who this Paul Mcartney guy is but Kayne about to make him famous"

rr165892

And Brian I would be happy with a one off Zeppelin show.Dont need the whole fest.

Idris

rr165892 said:

It's like the idiot on Social media who said in all seriousness after Kayne west did a song with Sir Paul."I don't know who this Paul Mcartney guy is but Kayne about to make him famous"

Amazing.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Hmmmmm.... I reckon that Byonce and JayZ, Drake, Kanye, Taylor Swift, and all these other artists/bands, most of whom you and I have never even heard of but are wildly popular, might actually get more recognition today than most of those bands listed above ever did in their primes.
This might just be a generational/taste issue Brian.

I thought about this but the thing is, back in 1969 if you asked anybody (even my G.I. generation parents, for example) if they knew anything about The Rolling Stone or Jimi Hendrix or Janis or several others of those listed above they would probably say yes. Now I'm in that older generation and I can guarantee, sorry to say, that most of my peers know little or nothing about many of the new artists.

And again, we we could somehow do statistics by percentage artist recognition and fame as viewed by the general population, I fairly sure today's artists would score lower. And I'm not sure these artists will have the longevity of bands like The Stones, Beatles, Hendrix, the Who, etc.

rr165892 said:

It's like the idiot on Social media who said in all seriousness after Kayne west did a song with Sir Paul."I don't know who this Paul Mcartney guy is but Kayne about to make him famous"

Haha! I can only concluded that this guy probably also never heard of Beethoven or Miles Davis either.

There are a few artists of the post 60's generation that will have long-term staying power- obviously Pearl Jam (and even our beloved PJ, it could be argued, is not a younger act in their prime) - but how many others? And that's not to say there aren't some great younger acts out there but for example, will Boris be recognized in 2050? (And I know some here will say, "Who?" )

PJ_Soul

rr165892 said:

It's like the idiot on Social media who said in all seriousness after Kayne west did a song with Sir Paul."I don't know who this Paul Mcartney guy is but Kayne about to make him famous"

I don't actually believe that person/those people said that in seriousness. I think they were viral trolls.

brianlux

OK, here are my theories, for what they're worth (Hey buddy, got a dime? LOL):

1) Lack of label support. In the 60's, when a band was signed on to a label that band was given time and encouragement to develop their talent. When someone like Ahmet Ertegün or Berry Gordy, Jr. discovered a new talent they gave that musician or band time to develop and progress. Today it's: show up on America's Got Talent, put out a gold record, and your out. Next!

2) Records, singles and radio. Records were a big deal, radio was far more popular than today giving artist a much wider audience. Today things are much more compartmentalized by the internet. Now wait, before you say I'm full of it, think about it. Things only go "viral" on the internet within the context of the age/interest group. Your parents (unless you're my kid) do not visit (for example) Pearl Jam's fan site.

3) Television. Bands get a lot of television exposure these days but mostly on late night shows. In the sixites, shows like The Ed Sullivan Show and American Band Stand were broadcast during prime time and everybody, young and old, watched these shows. Think Beatles, Rolling Stones and thank Ed Sullivan.

4) The social/cultural connection. Social movements and music were much more connected int the sixties. Yes, we had the Occupy Wallstreet movement that went strong for, what, maybe a year at the most. Vietnam, Civil Rights, the Woman's Movement and freedom of speech were major news making events that went on for several years and the music was strongly tied to them- many of those songs remain widely and well known today.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for nostalgia or saying my generation was best. No way. We grew old and comfortable and weak. I'm actually hoping somewhere, somehow, a spark will ignite and music will become more vital again. The talent is out there- it has to be. Out of 7 plus billion people you know there are people with the talent and staying power of Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, or Janis Joplin. I can't wait to hear what they are going to lay on us and I hope they are given the time and opportunity to grow into that talent.

Tim Simmons

I think the different times prevent artists from becoming that big (there are so many choices in terms of entertainment and things to distract us - Music has lots of competition). That coupled with how different and groundbreaking those artists were at the time. I think there are plenty of vital and groundbreaking artists now or have been in the past 10-15 years, and many have done well, but clearly they won't be as big as Zeppelin or whoever.

rr165892

PJ_Soul said:

rr165892 said:

It's like the idiot on Social media who said in all seriousness after Kayne west did a song with Sir Paul."I don't know who this Paul Mcartney guy is but Kayne about to make him famous"

I don't actually believe that person/those people said that in seriousness. I think they were viral trolls.

No it's true,I saw all the tweets.It was like a 20 year old kid.obviously without a proper upbringing and parental influences.

rr165892

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Hmmmmm.... I reckon that Byonce and JayZ, Drake, Kanye, Taylor Swift, and all these other artists/bands, most of whom you and I have never even heard of but are wildly popular, might actually get more recognition today than most of those bands listed above ever did in their primes.
This might just be a generational/taste issue Brian.

I thought about this but the thing is, back in 1969 if you asked anybody (even my G.I. generation parents, for example) if they knew anything about The Rolling Stone or Jimi Hendrix or Janis or several others of those listed above they would probably say yes. Now I'm in that older generation and I can guarantee, sorry to say, that most of my peers know little or nothing about many of the new artists.

And again, we we could somehow do statistics by percentage artist recognition and fame as viewed by the general population, I fairly sure today's artists would score lower. And I'm not sure these artists will have the longevity of bands like The Stones, Beatles, Hendrix, the Who, etc.

rr165892 said:

It's like the idiot on Social media who said in all seriousness after Kayne west did a song with Sir Paul."I don't know who this Paul Mcartney guy is but Kayne about to make him famous"

Haha! I can only concluded that this guy probably also never heard of Beethoven or Miles Davis either.

There are a few artists of the post 60's generation that will have long-term staying power- obviously Pearl Jam (and even our beloved PJ, it could be argued, is not a younger act in their prime) - but how many others? And that's not to say there aren't some great younger acts out there but for example, will Boris be recognized in 2050? (And I know some here will say, "Who?" )

Swift has staying power and is very sellable across multiple genres.like her or not she's a force.
ZacBrownBand also has an incredible following.
I could see Bruno Mars reaching legendary status due to him being such a great entertainer also.

brianlux

Tim Simmons said:

I think the different times prevent artists from becoming that big (there are so many choices in terms of entertainment and things to distract us - Music has lots of competition). That coupled with how different and groundbreaking those artists were at the time. I think there are plenty of vital and groundbreaking artists now or have been in the past 10-15 years, and many have done well, but clearly they won't be as big as Zeppelin or whoever.

What you said about "groundbreaking" is interesting, Tim. As I've been thinking about this, the concept of groundbreaking keeps coming back. One of the things that aided the breakthroughs in the 60 to occur was the technology- the development of powerful amplifiers and effects peddles. Those devices had a lot to do with the changing sound and that was exciting. Of course, we have far more technology today but almost of it is digital and has more to do with speed of information transmission and storage capacity. I can't think of any modern device related to music that has had as big or bigger influence on music than something like a wah peddle, reverb unit, flanger or anything like that.

Popular music starting in the early 20th century developed basically like this:

Ragtime
Blues
Big Band
Swing/Bop/Cool/Modern/avante garde jazz
Electric Blues
Early Rock and Roll
Psychedelic/Hard Rock
Punk/Disco
Grunge/alt/indie rock (which generally were not major changes over existing forms of rock)
Rap/Hip Hop

There have been no major changes is popular music in that last 20 or so years. It could be argued that some of the newer noise groups are creating new music but these may prove to be too obscure to become widely recognized just as in the 1960's free jazz was mostly overlooked (sorry to say).

I hope we are in for something big to happen in music again. It seems to me like we are overdue.

Tim Simmons

if there have been any recent developments, its really the rise of dance and electronic music. Its really permeated many aspects of music from film and TV to pop sounds.

PJ_Soul

rr165892 said:

PJ_Soul said:

rr165892 said:

It's like the idiot on Social media who said in all seriousness after Kayne west did a song with Sir Paul."I don't know who this Paul Mcartney guy is but Kayne about to make him famous"

I don't actually believe that person/those people said that in seriousness. I think they were viral trolls.

No it's true,I saw all the tweets.It was like a 20 year old kid.obviously without a proper upbringing and parental influences.

Yeah, i saw all the tweets too. I truly don't believe them. I think that is what kids are doing these days to fuck with people, and it totally worked.

rr165892

PJ_Soul said:

rr165892 said:

PJ_Soul said:

rr165892 said:

It's like the idiot on Social media who said in all seriousness after Kayne west did a song with Sir Paul."I don't know who this Paul Mcartney guy is but Kayne about to make him famous"

I don't actually believe that person/those people said that in seriousness. I think they were viral trolls.

No it's true,I saw all the tweets.It was like a 20 year old kid.obviously without a proper upbringing and parental influences.

Yeah, i saw all the tweets too. I truly don't believe them. I think that is what kids are doing these days to fuck with people, and it totally worked.

Little bastards.not a full brain between them.

Massara133

I think iTunes might play a role as well. If people have the option of paying 0.99 for their favorite song vs paying 9.99 for an album a lot of people take the 0.99 option. Then many miss out on some great music that maybe would have contributed to the artist getting the massive recognition. If iTunes existed in 91 maybe some of us would have Alive, Evenflow and Jeremy but would have never heard Black, Porch and Release. I think the talent is out there it just doesn't get the exposure and recognition that it used to.

HughFreakingDillon

so many factors. It is like the perfect storm. The newest generation is all about the gadgets. No time to actually listen to music as an individual activity. Life moves too fast for these kids to stop and listen. I was just thinking what life would have been like for me as a teen listening to nirvana and pj while typing about it with friends all over the globe on social media instead of just sitting in my room alone or with a buddy, listening to the music, forming the connection to it.

Remember listening parties? Winning tickets on the radio to merely listen to a new record before everyone else? That shit was exciting! Try explaining the appeal of that to the dgital immediate satisfaction generation! Lol.

The current music business model is dead, preventing labels from being able to spend the time and money on developing a band. Highest musical output for one, maybe two albums, and on to the next one. There are a few extreme exceptions, like the aforementioned swift and bruno.

I have two very distinct memories of my teenage experiences with regards to new music.

1) making plans in august of 91 to head downtown by bus to pick up the Black Album on the saturday after it was released. Sold out at one music store. Walked down the block to the other one. Then a third. Got it. Remember multiple music stores in a 4 block radius, and they all thrived? That was fun. Then we both hopped on the bus back to my place, grabbed the ghetto and brought it outside, and sat there for over an hour, silent, just listening. Then again and again and again. The entire cassette.

2) standing in line at midnight in the fall of 93 at my dowtown music store with my then-gf to pick up VS. It was nuts. Line up around the block. They were blasting it on loudspeakers outside while we waited for midnight to hit. And then inside the store was chaos. It was literally like a moshpit.

Everything, including music, has its peak. After the shitpile tgat was the 80's, the 90's music hit, and simultaneously brought it back to life then killed it. It just could not sustain itself for longer than it did. Grunge was like a cocaine high. Quick, awesome, intense, but never to be duplicated. But everyone will keep trying.

There is now, also, simply too much to filter through to find what you like. Radio is essentially dead and takes zero chances, as the life of a certain format for radio is as fickle as the rest of the business, so they have to play the lowest common denominator like everyone else. AC/DC in heavy rotation. Classic rock is the only money maker now, as everyone is wising up that either the public no longer cares for new bands, or the new bands just aren't cutting it, or they dont need radio anymore since everything is at their fingertips with the latest digital device, or a combination of the 3.

Did I mention AC/DC just sold out a 50,000 seat venue in Winnipeg in minutes a few days ago? Sad times indeed. Meanwhile my favorite bands play 300 seat clubs. Just bizarre.

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

so many factors. It is like the perfect storm. The newest generation is all about the gadgets. No time to actually listen to music as an individual activity. Life moves too fast for these kids to stop and listen. I was just thinking what life would have been like for me as a teen listening to nirvana and pj while typing about it with friends all over the globe on social media instead of just sitting in my room alone or with a buddy, listening to the music, forming the connection to it.

Remember listening parties? Winning tickets on the radio to merely listen to a new record before everyone else? That shit was exciting! Try explaining the appeal of that to the dgital immediate satisfaction generation! Lol.

The current music business model is dead, preventing labels from being able to spend the time and money on developing a band. Highest musical output for one, maybe two albums, and on to the next one. There are a few extreme exceptions, like the aforementioned swift and bruno.

I have two very distinct memories of my teenage experiences with regards to new music.

1) making plans in august of 91 to head downtown by bus to pick up the Black Album on the saturday after it was released. Sold out at one music store. Walked down the block to the other one. Then a third. Got it. Remember multiple music stores in a 4 block radius, and they all thrived? That was fun. Then we both hopped on the bus back to my place, grabbed the ghetto and brought it outside, and sat there for over an hour, silent, just listening. Then again and again and again. The entire cassette.

2) standing in line at midnight in the fall of 93 at my dowtown music store with my then-gf to pick up VS. It was nuts. Line up around the block. They were blasting it on loudspeakers outside while we waited for midnight to hit. And then inside the store was chaos. It was literally like a moshpit.

Everything, including music, has its peak. After the shitpile tgat was the 80's, the 90's music hit, and simultaneously brought it back to life then killed it. It just could not sustain itself for longer than it did. Grunge was like a cocaine high. Quick, awesome, intense, but never to be duplicated. But everyone will keep trying.

There is now, also, simply too much to filter through to find what you like. Radio is essentially dead and takes zero chances, as the life of a certain format for radio is as fickle as the rest of the business, so they have to play the lowest common denominator like everyone else. AC/DC in heavy rotation. Classic rock is the only money maker now, as everyone is wising up that either the public no longer cares for new bands, or the new bands just aren't cutting it, or they dont need radio anymore since everything is at their fingertips with the latest digital device, or a combination of the 3.

Did I mention AC/DC just sold out a 50,000 seat venue in Winnipeg in minutes a few days ago? Sad times indeed. Meanwhile my favorite bands play 300 seat clubs. Just bizarre.

Great input here, Hugh, thanks.

Looking at all the factors you mention, I can't help but think the latest generation of kids are living in a bit of a vacuum. I remember all the excitement you mention. I remember when the advent of a new great band be it The Who or the Jimi Hendrix Experience or Nirvana or Pearl Jam was a major event. I would think music execs would be anxious to have that happen still today but I guess the business works differently now. It's almost as though the gadget market is the big thrill. People line up for the latest i-phone (or whatever) rather than the next great record.

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so many factors. It is like the perfect storm. The newest generation is all about the gadgets. No time to actually listen to music as an individual activity. Life moves too fast for these kids to stop and listen. I was just thinking what life would have been like for me as a teen listening to nirvana and pj while typing about it with friends all over the globe on social media instead of just sitting in my room alone or with a buddy, listening to the music, forming the connection to it.

Remember listening parties? Winning tickets on the radio to merely listen to a new record before everyone else? That shit was exciting! Try explaining the appeal of that to the dgital immediate satisfaction generation! Lol.

The current music business model is dead, preventing labels from being able to spend the time and money on developing a band. Highest musical output for one, maybe two albums, and on to the next one. There are a few extreme exceptions, like the aforementioned swift and bruno.

I have two very distinct memories of my teenage experiences with regards to new music.

1) making plans in august of 91 to head downtown by bus to pick up the Black Album on the saturday after it was released. Sold out at one music store. Walked down the block to the other one. Then a third. Got it. Remember multiple music stores in a 4 block radius, and they all thrived? That was fun. Then we both hopped on the bus back to my place, grabbed the ghetto and brought it outside, and sat there for over an hour, silent, just listening. Then again and again and again. The entire cassette.

2) standing in line at midnight in the fall of 93 at my dowtown music store with my then-gf to pick up VS. It was nuts. Line up around the block. They were blasting it on loudspeakers outside while we waited for midnight to hit. And then inside the store was chaos. It was literally like a moshpit.

Everything, including music, has its peak. After the shitpile tgat was the 80's, the 90's music hit, and simultaneously brought it back to life then killed it. It just could not sustain itself for longer than it did. Grunge was like a cocaine high. Quick, awesome, intense, but never to be duplicated. But everyone will keep trying.

There is now, also, simply too much to filter through to find what you like. Radio is essentially dead and takes zero chances, as the life of a certain format for radio is as fickle as the rest of the business, so they have to play the lowest common denominator like everyone else. AC/DC in heavy rotation. Classic rock is the only money maker now, as everyone is wising up that either the public no longer cares for new bands, or the new bands just aren't cutting it, or they dont need radio anymore since everything is at their fingertips with the latest digital device, or a combination of the 3.

Did I mention AC/DC just sold out a 50,000 seat venue in Winnipeg in minutes a few days ago? Sad times indeed. Meanwhile my favorite bands play 300 seat clubs. Just bizarre.

Great input here, Hugh, thanks.

Looking at all the factors you mention, I can't help but think the latest generation of kids are living in a bit of a vacuum. I remember all the excitement you mention. I remember when the advent of a new great band be it The Who or the Jimi Hendrix Experience or Nirvana or Pearl Jam was a major event. I would think music execs would be anxious to have that happen still today but I guess the business works differently now. It's almost as though the gadget market is the big thrill. People line up for the latest i-phone (or whatever) rather than the next great record.

The funny thing is, and I have been guilty of this myself, is that, as we age and our generation's old exciting habits tend to die off, we always blame the kids coming up for it. "Kids today and their damn (insert annoying behaviour/product that didn't exist in our day)! They just dont get it!". When really, they are just a product of their environment, just as we were. My parents went nuts thinking how stupid me and my friends were be ause of what we did for fun as they regaled us with stories of their glory days, and how they thought were were missing out by not being a part of that generation. I had my own things, as I mentioned above, as will my kids. It is an interesting phenomenon that most adults almost feel pity for the next generation, that the new kids won't get to experience what they did. Is that just a way of preserving their own memories and justifying how we feel about them? That nothing could indeed be better than "our" time spent as youth?

I find it very interesting.

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so many factors. It is like the perfect storm. The newest generation is all about the gadgets. No time to actually listen to music as an individual activity. Life moves too fast for these kids to stop and listen. I was just thinking what life would have been like for me as a teen listening to nirvana and pj while typing about it with friends all over the globe on social media instead of just sitting in my room alone or with a buddy, listening to the music, forming the connection to it.

Remember listening parties? Winning tickets on the radio to merely listen to a new record before everyone else? That shit was exciting! Try explaining the appeal of that to the dgital immediate satisfaction generation! Lol.

The current music business model is dead, preventing labels from being able to spend the time and money on developing a band. Highest musical output for one, maybe two albums, and on to the next one. There are a few extreme exceptions, like the aforementioned swift and bruno.

I have two very distinct memories of my teenage experiences with regards to new music.

1) making plans in august of 91 to head downtown by bus to pick up the Black Album on the saturday after it was released. Sold out at one music store. Walked down the block to the other one. Then a third. Got it. Remember multiple music stores in a 4 block radius, and they all thrived? That was fun. Then we both hopped on the bus back to my place, grabbed the ghetto and brought it outside, and sat there for over an hour, silent, just listening. Then again and again and again. The entire cassette.

2) standing in line at midnight in the fall of 93 at my dowtown music store with my then-gf to pick up VS. It was nuts. Line up around the block. They were blasting it on loudspeakers outside while we waited for midnight to hit. And then inside the store was chaos. It was literally like a moshpit.

Everything, including music, has its peak. After the shitpile tgat was the 80's, the 90's music hit, and simultaneously brought it back to life then killed it. It just could not sustain itself for longer than it did. Grunge was like a cocaine high. Quick, awesome, intense, but never to be duplicated. But everyone will keep trying.

There is now, also, simply too much to filter through to find what you like. Radio is essentially dead and takes zero chances, as the life of a certain format for radio is as fickle as the rest of the business, so they have to play the lowest common denominator like everyone else. AC/DC in heavy rotation. Classic rock is the only money maker now, as everyone is wising up that either the public no longer cares for new bands, or the new bands just aren't cutting it, or they dont need radio anymore since everything is at their fingertips with the latest digital device, or a combination of the 3.

Did I mention AC/DC just sold out a 50,000 seat venue in Winnipeg in minutes a few days ago? Sad times indeed. Meanwhile my favorite bands play 300 seat clubs. Just bizarre.

Great input here, Hugh, thanks.

Looking at all the factors you mention, I can't help but think the latest generation of kids are living in a bit of a vacuum. I remember all the excitement you mention. I remember when the advent of a new great band be it The Who or the Jimi Hendrix Experience or Nirvana or Pearl Jam was a major event. I would think music execs would be anxious to have that happen still today but I guess the business works differently now. It's almost as though the gadget market is the big thrill. People line up for the latest i-phone (or whatever) rather than the next great record.

The funny thing is, and I have been guilty of this myself, is that, as we age and our generation's old exciting habits tend to die off, we always blame the kids coming up for it. "Kids today and their damn (insert annoying behaviour/product that didn't exist in our day)! They just dont get it!". When really, they are just a product of their environment, just as we were. My parents went nuts thinking how stupid me and my friends were be ause of what we did for fun as they regaled us with stories of their glory days, and how they thought were were missing out by not being a part of that generation. I had my own things, as I mentioned above, as will my kids. It is an interesting phenomenon that most adults almost feel pity for the next generation, that the new kids won't get to experience what they did. Is that just a way of preserving their own memories and justifying how we feel about them? That nothing could indeed be better than "our" time spent as youth?

I find it very interesting.

It's true. And sometimes I realize I sound just like my parents did and when I was a kid I thought, "I'll never be like them!" or "I'll never do that!" or "I'll never say that!"

Never say never? Haha!