Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
eightiesbaby80

Is rock as we know it dead?

Recommended Posts

Just take a good look at music in the 1920's (the roaring twenties) and then look at the big bands during the war and post war era. And then look at the 50s and the American Grafitti type Buddy Holly era and then the early sixties, Beach Boys, Chuck Berry and then the Beatles invasion. So things were very very different from one decade to the next. The seventies were very very different than now. And in my opinion every single one of those decades I mentioned are far better than today's "music".

:bait:

Sorry, you haven't convinced me and I still think you're wrong. I say it's mostly an generation thing, and how a big interest in music you have. My dad is probably 10 - 15 years older than you (born in Jan '45), and he thinks the late 60's and 70's sucks music wise (outside of Creedence Clearwater Revival and John Fogerty that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's lazy and doesn't want to listen to anything that corporate radio drones don't spoon-feed him. He listens to only classic rock radio and nothing else because he hasn't been told to listen to anything else. He wouldn't know what modern rock (or any modern music) sounds like if it bit him in the ass. He says that music today sucks, but when you ask him what artists he heard that he doesn't like, he can't answer. He's been told that only music from the pre-1980 era is good, so that's what he thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more Swede! Like I said earlier, some of the "mainstream" stuff of the rock 'n' roll genre being produced today may not be as good as the "mainstream" stuff which was being produced back in the glory days (the 60s and the 70s) but there are so many bands in the underground music scene (especially!) who have got genuine talent! And I reinstate the fact that rock can never die...but I do hope that ummm....rap does! LOL! :P;)

Indeed, the music business have definitely changed. But in a way I am happy to find the new bands that I like today, does not fill arenas and stadiums. Therefore I get to see them in smaller venues, or even clubs, wich has a lot more intimacy and nerve and I can see them without staring on big screens. And the sound's better in smaller venues too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, the music business have definitely changed. But in a way I am happy to find the new bands that I like today, does not fill arenas and stadiums. Therefore I get to see them in smaller venues, or even clubs, wich has a lot more intimacy and nerve and I can see them without staring on big screens. And the sound's better in smaller venues too. :)

I completely agree with this I'll just add that ticket prices are generally really cheap compared to the prices of bigger shows. As well as meet some band members and have a chat or just get an autograph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with this I'll just add that ticket prices are generally really cheap compared to the prices of bigger shows. As well as meet some band members and have a chat or just get an autograph.

You got that right! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you haven't convinced me and I still think you're wrong. I say it's mostly an generation thing, and how a big interest in music you have. My dad is probably 10 - 15 years older than you (born in Jan '45), and he thinks the late 60's and 70's sucks music wise (outside of Creedence Clearwater Revival and John Fogerty that is).

Not to mention that any and all of the so called "great" bands mentioned in this thread represent a VERY small percentage of whatever decade it belongs to. People tend to be overly romantic about what the 60-70's really were like. It not like a band like LZ was muzak for a generation played in elevators and Starbucks like a lot of classic rock is now, blech. As popular and the leading bands of the time were it was still more or less the music of the young counter culture. Stuff, I mean everything, was a lot more conservative then.

Anyway some people can't be convinced and that's fine, I don't try. But I will correct them if they make blanket statements about entire decades of music, not just new music but when they start to present BS as facts about older music. Just like not everything was gold in the 70's not everything today is gold nor does all of it suck. If somebody chooses to ignore the great bands of this time it's their loss. It's not my job to get the Archie Bunker out of their system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, the music business have definitely changed. But in a way I am happy to find the new bands that I like today, does not fill arenas and stadiums. Therefore I get to see them in smaller venues, or even clubs, wich has a lot more intimacy and nerve and I can see them without staring on big screens. And the sound's better in smaller venues too. :)

Your post pretty much reminded me why I love today's underground rock music scene by the way! B):goodpost:

Edited by Kiwi_Zep_Fan87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Swede alluded to in his Billboard Chart of July 74, by the mid 70's the tide was starting to turn for many of the bands who established themselves in the 60's and early 70's. The popularity of punk (76-79) and new wave wasn't kind to the likes of Jethro Tull, Yes, ELP and yes, even The Rolling Stones and our beloved Led Zeppelin. Some of those bands fared better than others. Tull has soldiered on for over 40 years with a dedicated fan base, amidst personnel changes, Anderson's vocal difficulties, etc.

The fact that Zeppelin stopped after 1980 benefited them in many ways. During the 80's and 90's, Zeppelin popularity probably increased during to younger generations interest in the band and their music. Although Tull has also attracted more young listeners, those numbers of new fans don't compare to Zeppelins I only use this comparison, because between 71 and 75, both Tull and Zeppelin were both huge draws. It was difficult to determine which band was bigger. I was an obsessed Tull fan starting in 71. Zeppelin was also a favorite during that period. That's my 2 cents worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to using financial and commercial success of bands to establish their worth or importance, specifically LZ, it should be pointed out they had the benefit of a brilliant manager and the smarts of Page. They didn't make bad deals, ever. This is a big reason they sustained success, they controlled pretty much everything they did. Good old fashioned luck played a part too. Nothing like being in the right place at the right time, lots of bands that were part of the 1st wave of hard rock music were winding down as Zep started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad Ted doesn't have a brain to go along with his teetotalling and massive success, he filed for bankruptcy in 1980.

There were some bad investments, but his manager also stole a lot of Nugent's earnings. Nugent fired the manager and toured relentlessly to recover, and in so doing helped keep guitar-driven rock music alive during the New Wave music era of the early '80s. Not everyone agrees with Nugent's politics, but it's hard to deny he doesn't bring convincing, clearly articulated positions to any argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the 80's and 90's, Zeppelin's popularity probably increased due to younger generations interest in the band and their music.

You've hit the nail on the head, and I'd say their interest was stimulated by the obvious influence Led Zeppelin had upon so many popular rock acts of the '80s & '90s, coupled with high-profile reunions of the surviving members in 1985 and 1988.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of sh*t! Rock 'n' Roll dead??! Yeah right! And pigs fly! Only the ignorant fools will think that! Now Disco is DEAD but Rock, no way! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with respect to all opinions here, 70's rock music wasn't quite the glorious nirvana that many seem to think it was. At the early part of the decade? Yeah I think it was at it's absolute zenith as a musical art form. Towards the middle to later part of the decade though? Maybe not so much. Early punk and new wave sprang up the way it did because mainstream rock music had gotten so bloated and corporate and boring.

I won't give specific examples of what bands had totally run out of gas by 1977 or new ones that were generic AOR fodder. Folks here might like some of them. I just don't think the 1970's were the be all and end all of rock music although it did contain some of the very best.

Regards;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and the same applies to today's music. For every Justin Bieber and Katy Perry, there's a Goldfrapp and Sigur Ros. All decades have had great music and shit music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to using financial and commercial success of bands to establish their worth or importance, specifically LZ, it should be pointed out they had the benefit of a brilliant manager and the smarts of Page. They didn't make bad deals, ever. This is a big reason they sustained success, they controlled pretty much everything they did. Good old fashioned luck played a part too. Nothing like being in the right place at the right time, lots of bands that were part of the 1st wave of hard rock music were winding down as Zep started.

They were successfulll because they were a great band musically. Are you kidding me? You are goiny to tell me that wise business sense was the reason they made it so big? That is a load of crap. And Look at the guy below that trashes Tull. Tull was damn good but was no Led zeppelin JT. No way. Not even close. saw them both. Im a fan of both. But Led Zeppelin is far bigger than Jethro Tull. I cant believe half the garbage I read here. Who was it that said they wont name the band? They wont because they cant. And ok Electro continue your petty insults ms know it all. You are the big Pink Floyd fan. Gee, what decade did they come from? And why would I want an autograph from some fly by night band that cant fill a local bar Swede? Twisted group of know it alls here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were successfulll because they were a great band musically. Are you kidding me? You are goiny to tell me that wise business sense was the reason they made it so big? That is a load of crap. And Look at the guy below that trashes Tull. Tull was damn good but was no Led zeppelin JT. No way. Not even close. saw them both. Im a fan of both. But Led Zeppelin is far bigger than Jethro Tull. I cant believe half the garbage I read here. Who was it that said they wont name the band? They wont because they cant. And ok Electro continue your petty insults ms know it all. You are the big Pink Floyd fan. Gee, what decade did they come from? And why would I want an autograph from some fly by night band that cant fill a local bar Swede? Twisted group of know it alls here.

Hmmm....when Zeppelin first started out they were a opening band for others and playing small venues. Those fly by night bands have to start somewhere. Wouldn't a fan be happy to have a autograph for the band they liked from the early days of their career?

Edited by ledzepfvr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm....when Zeppelin first started out they were a opening band for others and playing small venues. Those fly by night bands have to start somewhere. Wouldn't a fan be happy to have a autograph for the band they liked from the early days of their career?

Sure if they turn out to be as biig as Led zeppelin or the Rolling Stones. Ill bet the ranch not one of these fly by night bands will ever make it that big.

Gee, how long was LZ ans opening band? That is a bit of stretch to say it was any lenth of time.

Edited by silvermedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why would I want an autograph from some fly by night band that cant fill a local bar Swede? Twisted group of know it alls here.

Both Swede and I have favorite current bands that play at small venues. Favorite meaning we like their music a lot. So to see them play at a small venue is great for reasons Swede pointed out. Speaking of know it alls you claimed all music made after the 1970s sucked without actually backing up your claim by listing bands you listen to. Case in point, " I have heard bits and pieces and I will admit I probably have not heard enough to make a fair judgement". Please read this thread again closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Swede and I have favorite current bands that play at small venues. Favorite meaning we like their music a lot. So to see them play at a small venue is great for reasons Swede pointed out. Speaking of know it alls you claimed all music made after the 1970s sucked without actually backing up your claim by listing bands you listen to. Case in point, " I have heard bits and pieces and I will admit I probably have not heard enough to make a fair judgement". Please read this thread again closely.

I did not include the 70s or 80 in the suck category. I am talking about the current era. 90s and 2000's so far. Compared to the great music that came out in the 70s its pretty much not on the same level. And to the guy whos father was born well before me and dislikes the 70s, was that you Jethro? Cant remember the poster, sorrry. What did he like? The 30s and 40s or the punk era? ha,. And let me ask you this Electrophile, is there one band today or in the last ten years as good as your beloved Pink Floyd? ha. No f---cking way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay......so I'm a Pink Floyd fan. What the hell does that have to do with anything? The majority of music I listen to, rock and otherwise, is NOT from the same decade that spawned Pink Floyd. Unlike you, I don't think good music stopped when John Bonham died. As much as I love that music and always will, there's more to music that albums released 40 years ago.

Like I said, you're lazy. You don't listen to anything that corporate radio drones don't spoon-feed you every day. What's worse, when you were asked repeatedly to name some of these bands that turned you off to modern music, you couldn't name any! Plenty of people here named bands that we think will one day be regarded as highly as those "classic rock" bands are today, myself included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let me ask you this Electrophile, is there one band today or in the last ten years as good as your beloved Pink Floyd?

Goldfrapp

Muse

Sigur Ros

The Orb

There's four. I listen to them as often as I listen to Pink Floyd. They're amazing. Of course you wouldn't know that, you aren't told to listen to them by your corporate radio masters. Me, I listen to internet and satellite radio and therefore get all the music, none of the spoon-fed digital playlists by "DJs" trolling websites for "Greatest Classic Rock Songs from the 1970s" to shove down your throat some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goldfrapp

Muse

Sigur Ros

The Orb

There's four. I listen to them as often as I listen to Pink Floyd. They're amazing. Of course you wouldn't know that, you aren't told to listen to them by your corporate radio masters. Me, I listen to internet and satellite radio and therefore get all the music, none of the spoon-fed digital playlists by "DJs" trolling websites for "Greatest Classic Rock Songs from the 1970s" to shove down your throat some more.

As good as Floyd? Ok. Ill give a listen if I can find them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your opinion. I think they're great. It's impossible to compare the bands anyway, as they came from different eras, with different fan bases, different marketing avenues and different musical expectations. You can be as good, but good in a different way.

No one is trying to remake Dark Side of the Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your opinion. I think they're great. It's impossible to compare the bands anyway, as they came from different eras, with different fan bases, different marketing avenues and different musical expectations. You can be as good, but good in a different way.

No one is trying to remake Dark Side of the Moon.

What do fan bases and marketing avenues have to do with the actual quality or sound of the music? The end result of how successfull a band is usually has much to do with how good they are. Led zeppelin would have been a huge success with Peter Grant or Peter Pan as the manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...