Is rock as we know it dead?

[JethroTull]

Deleted.

[Jahfin]

I am the one asking you to give me a band that is better than those in the seventies I have mentioned. So you have this twisted somehow.

I must ask, have you even bothered to read any of your own comments, particularly the second post you made in this thread, you know, the one where you said, "The newer stuff is shamefull (sic) compared to music of the seventies. It does not even compare"? This was before I even joined the conversation. When I did enter into this thread my question to you was to name the current artists you've listened to that caused you to reach the above conclusion. All you have done since then is to outright avoid the question at hand. Want to answer that with yet another question? Go ahead, it will only go to show you that haven't a leg to stand on this discussion. In other words, I asked you first and in kind, I expect a response. Instead I get more questions and more attempts on your part to avoid the question I posed to you. Answer that and I will be more than forthcoming with the artists I feel are noteworthy today.

[silvermedalist]

I must ask, have you even bothered to read any of your own comments, particularly the second post you made in this thread, you know, the one where you said, "The newer stuff is shamefull (sic) compared to music of the seventies. It does not even compare"? This was before I even joined the conversation. When I did enter into this thread my question to you was to name the current artists you've listened to that caused you to reach the above conclusion. All you have done since then is to outright avoid the question at hand. Want to answer that with yet another question? Go ahead, it will only go to show you that haven't a leg to stand on this discussion. In other words, I asked you first and in kind, I expect a response. Instead I get more questions and more attempts on your part to avoid the question I posed to you. Answer that and I will be more than forthcoming with the artists I feel are noteworthy today.

Listen Jahfin, I dont know the names of the bands. I have heard the stuff on the radio and I dont like it. I dont know the names. But you know the names Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, and hell, Ill even throw old Johnny Cash in who I like. Just because I cant name the bands does not mean I have not heard any of it. By the way, I see that flute player that always insults me deleted his posts. I can only imagine the words he used against me. He deleted them to save his butt from reprimand. Why he is still here baffles me. I can come on here and discuss music at least without calling people names and insulting them personally. Im sure that is what he did to me, I wouldnt bother to read anything he says. So my answer is, dont know the names. I love the 50s, 60s, 70s (the best) and Ill even take the roaring twenties over todays garbage.

Wait, I know one name. Green Day. I dont like them

[danelectro]

Just popping in to mention that Prince sold out the O2 for days on end (20, I think?), not that long ago. Michael Jackson, if he'd lived, was going to play 50 sold-out shows there. And other bands have sold out multiple nights there and elsewhere.

Just sayin'.

Popping out again.

Good point. Besides what do attendance records really mean? That your management is aggressive? That you are greedy? I'm sure there many bands that think that type of thing is silly and pompous. Twenty sold out shows is part of the show for an artist like Prince or MJ, they and their fans feed off of that kind of thing. But just because it can be done isn't reason enough to do it or that it should be the standard of success for every other act. That's what I was getting at earlier, though not very clearly because I had to hurry though it as I was getting ready to head out for a minute.

For example, with regard to LZ's attendance records, it's not like they were doubling the seats their peers were selling. It was a few thousand more, a small percentage in an era when arena rock shows were just getting started. If Zep sold 3% more tickets than Rod Stewart or Framptom did in the same arena does that mean they were 3% more popular in that market or that the promoter for Stewart's show was 3% lazier? If they sold 5% less than one of their peers in a market I'm sure nobody pointed that out or lost any sleep over it. IMO a lot of that was done and documented as a way of marketing the band, some of it seems a bit forced.

[silvermedalist]

Good point. Besides what do attendance records really mean? That your management is aggressive? That you are greedy? I'm sure there many bands that think that type of thing is silly and pompous. Twenty sold out shows is part of the show for an artist like Prince or MJ, they and their fans feed off of that kind of thing. But just because it can be done isn't reason enough to do it or that it should be the standard of success for every other act. That's what I was getting at earlier, though not very clearly because I had to hurry though it as I was getting ready to head out for a minute.

For example, with regard to LZ's attendance records, it's not like they were doubling the seats their peers were selling. It was a few thousand more, a small percentage in an era when arena rock shows were just getting started. If Zep sold 3% more tickets than Rod Stewart or Framptom did in the same arena does that mean they were 3% more popular in that market or that the promoter for Stewart's show was 3% lazier? If they sold 5% less than one of their peers in a market I'm sure nobody pointed that out or lost any sleep over it. IMO a lot of that was done and documented as a way of marketing the band, some of it seems a bit forced.

I can assure you they blew Frampton and Stewart out of the water. They were too big to come to this town by post 1973 and Stewart and Frampton were both here and the tickets sold gradually. No comparison. Not even close. Were you around in the 1970s? Be honest now? Led zeppelin was a monster. They were legends in their own time. The demand to see them was astronomically larger to see any band other than a Beatles reunion or maybe the Stones or Who. But even the Rolling Stones and the Who, both being huge then, were no match for Led Zeppelin. You just cant imagine the demand and how hard it was to get a ticket. The scalp prices were whatever the market would bare. There was nothing like it. And the great thing about it was, this band was worth every cent. They are a super group. There has never been a more talented group of musicians assembled. And to even mention Frampton or Rod Stewart in the same breath as Led Zeppelin is like comparing a major league team to a minor league team.

[danelectro]

I can assure you they blew Frampton and Stewart out of the water. They were too big to come to this town by post 1973 and Stewart and Frampton were both here and the tickets sold gradually. No comparison. Not even close. Were you around in the 1970s? Be honest now? Led zeppelin was a monster. They were legends in their own time. The demand to see them was astronomically larger to see any band other than a Beatles reunion or maybe the Stones or Who. But even the Rolling Stones and the Who, both being huge then, were no match for Led Zeppelin. You just cant imagine the demand and how hard it was to get a ticket. The scalp prices were whatever the market would bare. There was nothing like it. And the great thing about it was, this band was worth every cent. They are a super group. There has never been a more talented group of musicians assembled. And to even mention Frampton or Rod Stewart in the same breath as Led Zeppelin is like comparing a major league team to a minor league team.

You missed the point, entirely. I am not comparing anyone to Zep. What I am asking is what does concert attendance really prove. I think you are a very loyal fan but that's what makes it hard to have a conversation with you. Personally I could disagree with just about everything you've said in this thread because most if not all of it is based on your near and dear recollections and opinions and that gets into tricky territory. Your reluctance to discuss anything about LZ objectively is starting to look like it has nothing to do with LZ and everything to do with you. Anything but agreeing to some total domination fantasy seems to diminish the experience for you, there is no right answer except to bow to the band. Honestly I stopped having band crushes back in jr. high so it's hard for me to get into it on that level with any band.

By the way Zep wasn't a technically a supergroup. Bands like Blind Faith were supergroups, besides Page nobody in LZ had any real fame or mainstream recognition before LZ. It's comments like that that make it pointless to discuss it any further.

[Swede]

Hey Silvermedalist

It's funny, kids of the 90's and 00's will speak exactly like you in 20 years. But they will speak how great Oasis, Guns 'n' Roses, Kings Of Leon, Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, etc etc were.. That's how it usually works, you get old and dream of days of your youth. Then you forget about the bad stuff that ruled the charts.

I randomly picked Billboard chart July 28 1974. Where's your Zep, Floyd & Stones??? Seems like a lot of forgotten and mediocre shit on this list to me. I can only imagine what shit comes next, 11 - 100. If you're lucky there might be 4 or 5 songs out of 100 that today is concidered ground breaking and milestones in rock history from that list.

No. 1, "Annie's Song" John Denver

No. 2, "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me" Elton John

No. 3, "Rock and Roll Heaven "The Righteous Brothers

No. 4, "Rock Your Baby" George McRae

No. 5, "Rikki, Don't Lose That Number" Steely Dan

No. 6, "Feel Like Makin' Love" Roberta Flack

No. 7, "The Air That I Breathe" The Hollies

No. 8, "Rock the Boat" The Hues Corporation

No. 9, "Please Come to Boston" Dave Loggins

No. 10, "Call On Me" Chicago

[Swede]

Wait, I know one name. Green Day. I dont like them

I don't like Green Day either, but there's loads of people in their late 20's that regard them as high as you regard the bands of your generation. Weird but true.

[greenman]

One thing that I agree has changed since the 60's/70's is that the "supergroup" mentality, bands like Zep, Floyd, The Beatles and the Stones all contained multiple indivudals who could have been the driving force behind bands themselves yet they stuck together for prolonged periods. From the late 70's onwards the tendancey was for bands in that situation to break up(or at least one of the key players leaving) more quickly, generally within 5 years or so of them having much sucess.

[JethroTull]

I spoke to my father last night. During the 70's, he was a marketing director for Chrysalis and Capitol records, among others. He is 91 years old, but sharp as a knife. He told me, the biggest, most profitable artist of the 70's was hands-down Ted Nugent.

Dad went on to say that Nugent was headlining 50,000-60,000 seat venues when other bands were wasting their time in Madison Square Garden playing to 18,000. Additionally, the Nugent money-making machine operated on very low overhead. Low payroll, etc, etc.

[silvermedalist]

I spoke to my father last night. During the 70's, he was a marketing director for Chrysalis and Capitol records, among others. He is 91 years old, but sharp as a knife. He told me, the biggest, most profitable artist of the 70's was hands-down Ted Nugent.

Dad went on to say that Nugent was headlining 50,000-60,000 seat venues when other bands were wasting their time in Madison Square Garden playing to 18,000. Additionally, the Nugent money-making machine operated on very low overhead. Low payroll, etc, etc.

With all respect to your ffather, I saw Ted Nugentn at the Rochester War Memorial, got tickets no problem, and I do not believe iti sold out. No way did he ever out sell Led Zeppelin and he is not even in their league. As for you Danelectro, you are full of it. Telling me that my speaking up for Zeppeliin is related to myself. How absurd some of your statements are. You are right. There is no point even having a conversation with you. And by the way, still waiting for all of you to name that present day group that is in the same league as Led zeppelin, the Rolliing Sones, The Who, Pink Floyd? Come on? And Electro, you seem to spend alot of time on Pink Floyd. Gee. I wonder why? Maybe because they are so much better than all this present day junk it is laughable. You know they are.

[danelectro]

And by the way, still waiting for all of you to name that present day group that is in the same league as Led zeppelin, the Rolliing Sones, The Who, Pink Floyd? Come on?

Again you have provided any criteria. In the same league how? For example, and this may help get your point across, by being more specific in the future. It's already been pointed out many current day artists exceed classic rock era bands ticket sales. The venues are bigger now and the ease of buying tickets via inet makes it simple for Prince to do 20 nights at the O2. This is an example, pointed out by someone else that you have chosen to ignore. But again it isn't apples to apples. Now for instance if you wanted to talk about album sales we have a problem because for it to be apples to to apples we'd need to go back and calculate how many albums LZ had sold in the same time whatever that particular artist has been around. But again the data would be flawed because how music is bought these days is different, downloading one mp3 etc instead of buying an entire album. If the criteria was wealth again time would have to been rolled back to get an accurate figure for how much a classic rock era band made over the same amount of time. But again not apples to apples because even with inflation factored in everything is more expensive today and bands are more profitable. That and the way an artist markets themselves today is completely different, far more options. It wouldn't be fair because there are probably rap artists out there making more money than LZ was.

At any rate to simply toss a name out there as an example of a successful modern day artist would be pointless because your failure to be objective about bands like LZ mean you let your opinion dictate your response and that has already proven to be a big obstacle. That and you have a tendency to embellish, saying things like LZ sold 140,000 tickets in 45 minutes. Just so you know that couldn't of happnened, even if you read it somewhere, broken down that is 51 tickets per second in a time when buying a ticket meant getting in a line, pulling out cash and making a transaction by hand. You've also said LZ was a monster act more than 40 years ago and that they were a supergroup, both false. Why do I bring this up, again, because it shows that your "proof" of how successful these bands are only makes sense to you. With obstacles like that in the way it's impossible to overcome, even with rock solid examples.

Have a good one, seriously.

[Electrophile]

Hey Silvermedalist

It's funny, kids of the 90's and 00's will speak exactly like you in 20 years. But they will speak how great Oasis, Guns 'n' Roses, Kings Of Leon, Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, etc etc were.. That's how it usually works, you get old and dream of days of your youth. Then you forget about the bad stuff that ruled the charts.

I randomly picked Billboard chart July 28 1974. Where's your Zep, Floyd & Stones??? Seems like a lot of forgotten and mediocre shit on this list to me. I can only imagine what shit comes next, 11 - 100. If you're lucky there might be 4 or 5 songs out of 100 that today is concidered ground breaking and milestones in rock history from that list.

No. 1, "Annie's Song" John Denver

No. 2, "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me" Elton John

No. 3, "Rock and Roll Heaven "The Righteous Brothers

No. 4, "Rock Your Baby" George McRae

No. 5, "Rikki, Don't Lose That Number" Steely Dan

No. 6, "Feel Like Makin' Love" Roberta Flack

No. 7, "The Air That I Breathe" The Hollies

No. 8, "Rock the Boat" The Hues Corporation

No. 9, "Please Come to Boston" Dave Loggins

No. 10, "Call On Me" Chicago

Led Zeppelin didn't do singles and the few singles that PF released aside from Money and ABITW pt 2. didn't do well. So you can't use the singles chart as an example if you want to use those bands. Also, neither group had an album out in 1974 anyway.

[Electrophile]

Also, I listen to more contemporary music than I do music from 30 or 40 years ago, so you better check yourself. I'm not like you -- I don't shut my ears to anything new just because I don't hear it get beaten to death on the radio. Muse, The Fleet Foxes, Goldfrapp, Sigur Ros, Broken Bells......those are some of my favorite groups and all of them are from the present time, surprise surprise.

What's absurd about this whole thread is the idea that you can compare eras -- you can't. Of course there aren't any bands right now that possess the largesse that Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin do. THOSE BANDS HAVE HAD THEIR CATALOGS OUT FOR 40 YEARS.

There are no contemporary acts out there right now who've had their catalogs out for 40 years.

[Jahfin]

You missed the point, entirely.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, trying to have a conversation with this person is absolutely futile.

[danelectro]

Led Zeppelin didn't do singles and the few singles that PF released aside from Money and ABITW pt 2. didn't do well. So you can't use the singles chart as an example if you want to use those bands. Also, neither group had an album out in 1974 anyway.

Led Zep did release singles, just not in the UK. Also the year something is released doesn't mean it's confined to that years charts. Billboard is US only figures.

[silvermedalist]

Again you have provided any criteria. In the same league how? For example, and this may help get your point across, by being more specific in the future. It's already been pointed out many current day artists exceed classic rock era bands ticket sales. The venues are bigger now and the ease of buying tickets via inet makes it simple for Prince to do 20 nights at the O2. This is an example, pointed out by someone else that you have chosen to ignore. But again it isn't apples to apples. Now for instance if you wanted to talk about album sales we have a problem because for it to be apples to to apples we'd need to go back and calculate how many albums LZ had sold in the same time whatever that particular artist has been around. But again the data would be flawed because how music is bought these days is different, downloading one mp3 etc instead of buying an entire album. If the criteria was wealth again time would have to been rolled back to get an accurate figure for how much a classic rock era band made over the same amount of time. But again not apples to apples because even with inflation factored in everything is more expensive today and bands are more profitable. That and the way an artist markets themselves today is completely different, far more options. It wouldn't be fair because there are probably rap artists out there making more money than LZ was.

At any rate to simply toss a name out there as an example of a successful modern day artist would be pointless because your failure to be objective about bands like LZ mean you let your opinion dictate your response and that has already proven to be a big obstacle. That and you have a tendency to embellish, saying things like LZ sold 140,000 tickets in 45 minutes. Just so you know that couldn't of happnened, even if you read it somewhere, broken down that is 51 tickets per second in a time when buying a ticket meant getting in a line, pulling out cash and making a transaction by hand. You've also said LZ was a monster act more than 40 years ago and that they were a supergroup, both false. Why do I bring this up, again, because it shows that your "proof" of how successful these bands are only makes sense to you. With obstacles like that in the way it's impossible to overcome, even with rock solid examples.

Have a good one, seriously.

Are you kidding me. Ok, lets not say 40 years exactly. You want to be more specific? Lets say 37 years ago. Were absolutely, positivey a monster and a super group the likes that will never be seen again. And they had phone orders for tickets them. No internet true. But I heard the reports. They sold out madison Square garden in the blink of an eye. for seven f---cing nights. Sold out!!!!! You should have been around to try and get a ticket. All of you.

[Swede]

Led Zeppelin didn't do singles and the few singles that PF released aside from Money and ABITW pt 2. didn't do well. So you can't use the singles chart as an example if you want to use those bands. Also, neither group had an album out in 1974 anyway.

No, that's correct, but that's really not my point..

[Electrophile]

I know what your point was -- there was a lot of crap in the 70s. There's a lot of crap in every decade. I was saying that you shouldn't use the Billboard Charts as a measure of success because not every band relied on singles to sell records/concert tickets.

[silvermedalist]

In case you haven't figured it out yet, trying to have a conversation with this person is absolutely futile.

Its only futile when you know you are not always right Jahfin. You have your views and I have mine. And mine is that the music of the seventies was far better than the music of today. And I will stand by that. thats all. Its useless to fight about this all day. Electro will probably come back and try and rile me up. She is an expert at that.

[Gospel Zone]

Pretty much all music as we know it is dieing of several deadly viruses such as rap, hip-hop an plain old record company greed. Even the Rolling Stones (my own all time personal favorites) who have been called by many "The Greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band In The World" can now also be called "The Stupidest Rock 'N' Roll Band In The World" for giving into the aforementioned temptations. And I don't get why anyone, especially some as talented as the Rolling Stones, would be tempted by such things. It's like seeing someone do something stupid and then doing it yourself.

[danelectro]

Pretty much all music as we know it is dieing of several deadly viruses such as rap, hip-hop an plain old record company greed. Even the Rolling Stones (my own all time personal favorites) who have been called by many "The Greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band In The World" can now also be called "The Stupidest Rock 'N' Roll Band In The World" for giving into the aforementioned temptations. And I don't get why anyone, especially some as talented as the Rolling Stones, would be tempted by such things. It's like seeing someone do something stupid and then doing it yourself.

Jagger is bustin' rhymes, sweet.

[Jahfin]

Its only futile when you know you are not always right Jahfin. You have your views and I have mine. And mine is that the music of the seventies was far better than the music of today. And I will stand by that. thats all. Its useless to fight about this all day. Electro will probably come back and try and rile me up. She is an expert at that.

It is your opinion, I've made that clear from the start and there's no disputing that. My frustration lies with your inability to comprehend the concept that there is indeed very worthy music being made today. Music that is just as worthy of your attention as Led Zeppelin was in the 70s. Just think, if you had held the attitude that another decade prior to the 70s was best, would you have ever even bothered to listen to Led Zeppelin when they were new? If you close your ears to what's happening currently you are missing out on the opportunity to expand your musical horizons. I am just glad I don't share that attitude.

[greenman]

Its only futile when you know you are not always right Jahfin. You have your views and I have mine. And mine is that the music of the seventies was far better than the music of today. And I will stand by that. thats all. Its useless to fight about this all day. Electro will probably come back and try and rile me up. She is an expert at that.

It really depends on what you consider quality I spose, if only music in the style of the classic rock acts of the 70's interests you then of course music will have declined as times have changed.

I'm sure its been commented on but the big shift after the 70's was that as promotion(MTV espeically) became more effective quality and sucess havent come together as often as they did with Zep, Floyd etc. The upshot is that you need to be following music much more closely to pick out the best stuff than you did back in the day, much of the time the very best material only gets the credit it deserves years after its release.

Part of them problem is I think that as you age your standards tend to increase, I know I listened to alot of music in the 90's I consider average at best today, for every great album there were 10 overhyped unoriginal scenester releases. I'm simpley not willing to sift though so much chaff today and as a result I find myself using the best reviewer of all, time, if somethings still being talked about 5 years after its release then I get round to picking it up.

[Jahfin]

It really depends on what you consider quality I spose, if only music in the style of the classic rock acts of the 70's interests you then of course music will have declined as times have changed.

I'm sure its been commented on but the big shift after the 70's was that as promotion(MTV espeically) became more effective quality and sucess havent come together as often as they did with Zep, Floyd etc. The upshot is that you need to be following music much more closely to pick out the best stuff than you did back in the day, much of the time the very best material only gets the credit it deserves years after its release.

Part of them problem is I think that as you age your standards tend to increase, I know I listened to alot of music in the 90's I consider average at best today, for every great album there were 10 overhyped unoriginal scenester releases. I'm simpley not willing to sift though so much chaff today and as a result I find myself using the best reviewer of all, time, if somethings still being talked about 5 years after its release then I get round to picking it up.

I belong to music lists, message boards and go to concerts frequently. That is how I discover new artists. The best way is still word of mouth, just as it's always been. I have never confined my tastes to new, old or just one style of music and I hope to hell I never do.