I don't see them getting huge popular...at least I hope not
but I believe they have the talent to accumulate a great cult following.
They will be enourmously lucky if they have 10% of the following Nirvana or the Beatles had. Get over it, and that goes to the rest of you that just have to mention your favorite blah, innacessable indie bands.
I like music too. I think Queens of the Stone Age is (insert one: the best band of the decade/the most musically original band ever/the band most likely to receive the golden raspbaerry award), but that doesn't mean they will make it big. Not every good band gets what it deserves. Fact.
Pearl Jam will be the band that everyone will pretend they listened to all along. They will be like the Rolling Stones in another decade, and all these old people who only bought "Ten" will go to their shows and try to pretend they were always huge fans.
Yes, but they will be behind us, because we kept up our 10 club memberships all these years till then!
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
the internet has opened the flood gates for music. It is now much easier to record and release and gain exposure for all types of music.
This however creates a semi-drawback, because music as a whole is litterally impossible to keep up with, in the 60's and 70's and even up into the 80's and 90's you could honestly keep track of all of the new artists coming out and the newest music that was being released. there was also only a single primary format of music that was being released, and if you wanted to listen to it, you had to purchase it.
This means that when an artist was big; they got extraordinarly huge. Album sales were all accounted for, people were able to keep track of them, hence a much larger fanbase and audience.
Now with the internet there are millions of bands trying to pitch out their albums to billions of people. The mass of bands that are coming into the music scene with easy exposure, and easy releasing of music, has created the sub genre. Now instead of rock, you have post-rock, pop-punk, drone metal, pshyco billy, alternative, industrial, indie, goth etc. etc. etc. There's something out there for everyone now. Its like going from choosing your favorite cookie and given three options, to choosing your favorite cookie and given 3000 options.
Now that the spread of so bands is so large, there are those people that are idolized (built to spill, pearl jam, green day, arcade fire, etc.) but they are no longer condensed, because music fans are spreading their time out evenly to discover all sorts of bands and music. Also, people are no longer purchasing records as much anymore, meaning that album sales no longer match what is popular in music. And how does mainstream media choose what is popular? Album sales.
And what generates album sales these days? People who don't have the know-how or access to computers (tweens and the lower-class), thus those who can't download music.
Sorry this is so long, hope someone reads and agrees or gains some insight.
Pearl Jam will be the band that everyone will pretend they listened to all along. They will be like the Rolling Stones in another decade, and all these old people who only bought "Ten" will go to their shows and try to pretend they were always huge fans.
I think that's already happened. I saw a lot of that in Europe in the last 2 years. It was suddenly okay to like Pearl Jam.
it won't happen until the standard guitar, bass, drums, singer format gets played out.
It's not happened in the last 50 years, and I think it's unlikely to happen in the next 2. Until that crunch of the guitar or bonham esque drum sound stops mainlining adrehnalin or testosterone or whatever it is straight to where it counts there will be a place for that combo. What people do with it is another matter, people have managed to continually reinvent it for 50 odd years and I really don;t see it changing.
Saying that I think you are right about sigur ros etc, as they change what is acceptable to do with the canvas, but wiping it away completely is modernism, which has never sustained success in any art form.
the internet has opened the flood gates for music. It is now much easier to record and release and gain exposure for all types of music.
This however creates a semi-drawback, because music as a whole is litterally impossible to keep up with, in the 60's and 70's and even up into the 80's and 90's you could honestly keep track of all of the new artists coming out and the newest music that was being released. there was also only a single primary format of music that was being released, and if you wanted to listen to it, you had to purchase it.
I think this is true, but I think it started further back than the birth of the internet, when punk came along in the 70's people realised that it wasn't that hard to create your records and distribute them, so people with a little bit of money($500) could record and press a 7" and distribute it. This continued throughout the 80's, so while I usually laugh at the 80's it was an extemely important decade for music. It put some of the power for decisions as to where things were going back to where it counted, and we moved away from the huge money hungry record labels. We didn't wipe them out, but more things became possible and I think this had a huge effect on music. I think Sub Pop was a huge example of this.
Now with the internet there are millions of bands trying to pitch out their albums to billions of people. The mass of bands that are coming into the music scene with easy exposure, and easy releasing of music, has created the sub genre. Now instead of rock, you have post-rock, pop-punk, drone metal, pshyco billy, alternative, industrial, indie, goth etc. etc. etc. There's something out there for everyone now. Its like going from choosing your favorite cookie and given three options, to choosing your favorite cookie and given 3000 options.
It's a good analogy, but I think ultimately people really want to be part of something, even if it is to join together with the other non-conformists. Most of these "super underground indy bands" that people are quoting in this thread are not very super underground. They are big bands with global sales, the bands doing the whole thing on their own and becoming famous without the music indsutry that were predicted haven't really materialised. The internet is just another medium that unsigned bands can use to show a record company that they have a following. People getting signed from their myspace pages are about as likely as people getting signed from a home produced demo tape that they hocked around, which people have been doing since the late 70's.
Now that the spread of so bands is so large, there are those people that are idolized (built to spill, pearl jam, green day, arcade fire, etc.) but they are no longer condensed, because music fans are spreading their time out evenly to discover all sorts of bands and music. Also, people are no longer purchasing records as much anymore, meaning that album sales no longer match what is popular in music. And how does mainstream media choose what is popular? Album sales.
I think the big change for me is that I can't imagine people "growing" with a band quite as much any more, becuase our consumer society means that we want more more more now now now. I grew with Pearl Jam, their advances and evolution maps onto the advances and evolution I made in my own life. I think it's such a wonderful thing and wish everyone could experience it. I always think the beatles are a great example, imagine being 13 in 1963. She loves you yeah yeah yeah, perfect music for 13 year olds, providing much the same vibe as greenday currently do for each generation of 13 year olds who come along. The beauty of the Beatles is that every year that 13 yr advanced with their favouirite band until in 1970 they were adults and ready to fly off on their own. I don't see that happening with so many band's careers and the space and focus of a fan to get that experience has pretty much gone nowadays. Therefore I feel incredibly lucky.
pearl jam are one of if not the last bands that can survive purely on reputation, obsessive fan base, touring and their music (without a HUGE lights and stage set up like U2 for example). I think no bands will ever be 'huge' again they may be influencial on future bands but not to the point where Zeppelin and Floyd have been. 70's were a golden era for rock and won't ever be beaten again. A lot more bands are in the spot light now that are mid level.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Ironically,the answer to this question may well be "Led Zeppelin" or "Pink Floyd", if either or both of those bands decides to do even a limited tour or release new material.
There is a whole young generation who are now discovering these bands as exciting new things. I have a bud at college who constantsly introduces frinds to these bands (as I did to him) and whole groups of kids get tuned in and really excited.
They have the weight to cut through the static that mookeywrench described.
They might be old geezers, but the music is electric and marketable.
It's not happened in the last 50 years, and I think it's unlikely to happen in the next 2. Until that crunch of the guitar or bonham esque drum sound stops mainlining adrehnalin or testosterone or whatever it is straight to where it counts there will be a place for that combo. What people do with it is another matter, people have managed to continually reinvent it for 50 odd years and I really don;t see it changing.
Saying that I think you are right about sigur ros etc, as they change what is acceptable to do with the canvas, but wiping it away completely is modernism, which has never sustained success in any art form.
Hear hear: though I would like to see a less vocal-centric trend in rock, the big three instruments (and four if you count keys) will not go out of style for many, many years.
If Meg doesn't tour anymore, WS fans are going to follow Jack to his next project most likely the Raconteurs. I could see them developing a huge following, especially if they incorporate WS songs in their set lists. This could happen in less than 2 years.
how many bands from 80's to 00's had combined an good Mainstrean image/public with good music and excellent live perfomances like most of 70's bands? no so many....
It ain't happening this decade. When will the current trends finally die off already? 2011? Are people gonna keep sending this rap/pop/emo shit to the top of the charts well into the next decade? This is like waiting for a show you really hate to get cancelled already. I mean it happend with The O.C., surely it can happen with Fallout Boy!
ive been wondering this myself. Being only 20 years old ive been waiting for a band to come out during my generation that doesnt suck. I hated school dance because of the music. It was ll horrible music (dont get me wrong I still had fun) But eh horrible crunk rap and just shitty pop tunes...What the hell happened to good music?????
Shows:
San Diego 2003
Grand Rapids 2004
Grand Rapids 2006
Detroit 2006
Columbus 2010
i don't get the exposure to new acts like i use to for some reason. maybe i do but i just hate everything out there right now. i am actually very content on discovering bands that broke up in the 90s and the early 00s that i missed the first time around:
Botch
Smile
Hum
Far
Only Living Witness
Milligram
Faraquet
Kyuss
The Refused
Snapcase
Tree
i've read most if not all of the posts in this thread and my take on everything is that in this day and age of Myspace, iTunes, Limewire, SoulSeek etc we'll never have an act as big as the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Stones, Floyd, Nirvana, PJ. the record companies either aren't signing quality acts or are just not promoting them or the public just doesn't care about rock music like they use to. seek out what you like and turn as many people onto them as you can. boards like these are a wealth of information.
how many bands from 80's to 00's had combined an good Mainstrean image/public with good music and excellent live perfomances like most of 70's bands? no so many....
PJ, U2, STP, R.E.M, QOTSA, RATM, Others?
Others = NIN
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
Problem these days seems to be the record companies are run by bean counters and CEO's that want "safe" recording artists rather than nurturing talent or trying anyone the slightest bit risky. Hence they only sign bland artists who all sound the same, and the ones who may present something fresh get no exposure at all.
Take a look back on one of the bands that have been mentioned a few times in this thread: Pink Floyd. They put out a number of rather "interesting" albums especially in the Sid Barrett years before they had the commercial success with Dark Side of the Moon. They would be seen as too much of a risk these days so would be overlooked before they had a chance to develop. Look at the battle that even Uncle Neil had with a record executive that just wanted commercial albums from him.
Geez these clowns who are running the record companies even cracked down on guitar tabs on the net. Surely this was a chance for young musicians to learn from what the big acts were doing and develop their own style from there.
The record companies are run by people who love the dollar not the music, and if they had been running the business in the past many of the great albums would never have been made.
Now I'm livin' out here on the beach,
but those seagulls are still out of reach.
Comments
-Greg Dulli
They will be enourmously lucky if they have 10% of the following Nirvana or the Beatles had. Get over it, and that goes to the rest of you that just have to mention your favorite blah, innacessable indie bands.
I like music too. I think Queens of the Stone Age is (insert one: the best band of the decade/the most musically original band ever/the band most likely to receive the golden raspbaerry award), but that doesn't mean they will make it big. Not every good band gets what it deserves. Fact.
(around since the late 90s, but still a "new" band by my standards)
Yes, but they will be behind us, because we kept up our 10 club memberships all these years till then!
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
This however creates a semi-drawback, because music as a whole is litterally impossible to keep up with, in the 60's and 70's and even up into the 80's and 90's you could honestly keep track of all of the new artists coming out and the newest music that was being released. there was also only a single primary format of music that was being released, and if you wanted to listen to it, you had to purchase it.
This means that when an artist was big; they got extraordinarly huge. Album sales were all accounted for, people were able to keep track of them, hence a much larger fanbase and audience.
Now with the internet there are millions of bands trying to pitch out their albums to billions of people. The mass of bands that are coming into the music scene with easy exposure, and easy releasing of music, has created the sub genre. Now instead of rock, you have post-rock, pop-punk, drone metal, pshyco billy, alternative, industrial, indie, goth etc. etc. etc. There's something out there for everyone now. Its like going from choosing your favorite cookie and given three options, to choosing your favorite cookie and given 3000 options.
Now that the spread of so bands is so large, there are those people that are idolized (built to spill, pearl jam, green day, arcade fire, etc.) but they are no longer condensed, because music fans are spreading their time out evenly to discover all sorts of bands and music. Also, people are no longer purchasing records as much anymore, meaning that album sales no longer match what is popular in music. And how does mainstream media choose what is popular? Album sales.
And what generates album sales these days? People who don't have the know-how or access to computers (tweens and the lower-class), thus those who can't download music.
Sorry this is so long, hope someone reads and agrees or gains some insight.
I think that's already happened. I saw a lot of that in Europe in the last 2 years. It was suddenly okay to like Pearl Jam.
It's not happened in the last 50 years, and I think it's unlikely to happen in the next 2. Until that crunch of the guitar or bonham esque drum sound stops mainlining adrehnalin or testosterone or whatever it is straight to where it counts there will be a place for that combo. What people do with it is another matter, people have managed to continually reinvent it for 50 odd years and I really don;t see it changing.
Saying that I think you are right about sigur ros etc, as they change what is acceptable to do with the canvas, but wiping it away completely is modernism, which has never sustained success in any art form.
I think this is true, but I think it started further back than the birth of the internet, when punk came along in the 70's people realised that it wasn't that hard to create your records and distribute them, so people with a little bit of money($500) could record and press a 7" and distribute it. This continued throughout the 80's, so while I usually laugh at the 80's it was an extemely important decade for music. It put some of the power for decisions as to where things were going back to where it counted, and we moved away from the huge money hungry record labels. We didn't wipe them out, but more things became possible and I think this had a huge effect on music. I think Sub Pop was a huge example of this.
It's a good analogy, but I think ultimately people really want to be part of something, even if it is to join together with the other non-conformists. Most of these "super underground indy bands" that people are quoting in this thread are not very super underground. They are big bands with global sales, the bands doing the whole thing on their own and becoming famous without the music indsutry that were predicted haven't really materialised. The internet is just another medium that unsigned bands can use to show a record company that they have a following. People getting signed from their myspace pages are about as likely as people getting signed from a home produced demo tape that they hocked around, which people have been doing since the late 70's.
I think the big change for me is that I can't imagine people "growing" with a band quite as much any more, becuase our consumer society means that we want more more more now now now. I grew with Pearl Jam, their advances and evolution maps onto the advances and evolution I made in my own life. I think it's such a wonderful thing and wish everyone could experience it. I always think the beatles are a great example, imagine being 13 in 1963. She loves you yeah yeah yeah, perfect music for 13 year olds, providing much the same vibe as greenday currently do for each generation of 13 year olds who come along. The beauty of the Beatles is that every year that 13 yr advanced with their favouirite band until in 1970 they were adults and ready to fly off on their own. I don't see that happening with so many band's careers and the space and focus of a fan to get that experience has pretty much gone nowadays. Therefore I feel incredibly lucky.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
There is a whole young generation who are now discovering these bands as exciting new things. I have a bud at college who constantsly introduces frinds to these bands (as I did to him) and whole groups of kids get tuned in and really excited.
They have the weight to cut through the static that mookeywrench described.
They might be old geezers, but the music is electric and marketable.
Hear hear: though I would like to see a less vocal-centric trend in rock, the big three instruments (and four if you count keys) will not go out of style for many, many years.
PJ, U2, STP, R.E.M, QOTSA, RATM, Others?
San Diego 2003
Grand Rapids 2004
Grand Rapids 2006
Detroit 2006
Columbus 2010
"With my own two hands I can change the world."
Botch
Smile
Hum
Far
Only Living Witness
Milligram
Faraquet
Kyuss
The Refused
Snapcase
Tree
i've read most if not all of the posts in this thread and my take on everything is that in this day and age of Myspace, iTunes, Limewire, SoulSeek etc we'll never have an act as big as the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Stones, Floyd, Nirvana, PJ. the record companies either aren't signing quality acts or are just not promoting them or the public just doesn't care about rock music like they use to. seek out what you like and turn as many people onto them as you can. boards like these are a wealth of information.
Others = NIN
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
Take a look back on one of the bands that have been mentioned a few times in this thread: Pink Floyd. They put out a number of rather "interesting" albums especially in the Sid Barrett years before they had the commercial success with Dark Side of the Moon. They would be seen as too much of a risk these days so would be overlooked before they had a chance to develop. Look at the battle that even Uncle Neil had with a record executive that just wanted commercial albums from him.
Geez these clowns who are running the record companies even cracked down on guitar tabs on the net. Surely this was a chance for young musicians to learn from what the big acts were doing and develop their own style from there.
The record companies are run by people who love the dollar not the music, and if they had been running the business in the past many of the great albums would never have been made.
but those seagulls are still out of reach.