[crazyfrenchman27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbamc119 Velvet Revolver are one of the good real rock bands around now. They say they have enough material for 5 albums at the moment. If they do 5 more albums, rock n roll is saved for a while longer.

Oh, come on, we can't live off the rotting carcass of Guns 'N Roses forever, now can we?

Live and Let Die, I say.

-Matt

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox will what i listen to become classic rock? who cares. if it doesn't, it will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of people that look past mainstream appeal, and into the music itself.. and that's all that really matters, IMO.

So let me ask you this - any of those bands you listed, do you believe they are simply ahead of their time and will be continually discovered as time marches on?

I think people are taking my question too literally. I mean what will make movements, what will greatly influence bands that follow, what will your children listen to, what will hold a footnote in history, etc?

For instance, I will put down a band like Television as such a band, although they had little commercial success. Or Fugazi, which has had much commercial and critical success, but remains indy largely due to the way they conduct their business. I do hear these bands the radio from time to time (although TV had a very small catalog so we're only a talking maybe a few songs in that case). But regardless, these bands hold lasting cultural significance, IMO.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox worry less about what's going to become classic rock tomorrow, and more about what's good today. will what i listen to become classic rock? who cares. if it doesn't, it will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of people that look past mainstream appeal, and into the music itself.. and that's all that really matters, IMO.

I think I can agree with some of what asmox is saying. I've been listening to music for nearly 30 years, starting with "classic rock" (which was contemporary back then, alas), and sticking with rock until the early 80's, and then branching out to jazz and classical. Then I got back into rock in the late 90's, and I found interesting bands that were either current, or that I didn't know about when they were active 10 or 20 or 30 years prior (including European and japanese rock). I'm glad that I just didn't give up on the whole genre.

I think when you get stuck in a rock "rut", it's time to experiment/branch-out to folk or jazz or avante-garde. By the time you come back, there will be a few new rock bands to check out. Some will have a lasting sound, but others will fizzle out. But, if you dig them, then they will always be "classic" for you.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink I think when you get stuck in a rock "rut", it's time to experiment/branch-out to folk or jazz or avante-garde. By the time you come back, there will be a few new rock bands to check out. Some will have a lasting sound, but others will fizzle out. But, if you dig them, then they will always be "classic" for you.

It's great to hear from someone who has not only lived through several eras but also tries to keep their pulse on what's going on throughout.

So do you think there's been a decline, or is music really moving forward? And what bands would you suggest I look at that you feel will be lasting (no offense to anyone else in this thread, I will try to sample all that which I'm not familiar with).

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau So let me ask you this - any of those bands you listed, do you believe they are simply ahead of their time and will be continually discovered as time marches on? I think people are taking my question too literally. I mean what will make movements, what will greatly influence bands that follow, what will your children listen to, what will hold a footnote in history, etc? For instance, I will put down a band like Television as such a band, although they had little commercial success. Or Fugazi, which has had much commercial and critical success, but remains indy largely due to the way they conduct their business. I do hear these bands the radio from time to time (although TV had a very small catalog so we're only a talking maybe a few songs in that case). But regardless, these bands hold lasting cultural significance, IMO.

The key ingredient here for historical significance is time. Maybe 20 years is a magic number. If, 20 years later, the music by a band sounds creative/unique then that says alot. That's not to say if you love an album in the present it doesn't have value, as there is not way to predict how it will hold up in the long term.

 

[Kassem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau I have the last two, 'Antartica' is good and the last is so-so IMO. Just not feeling them as a great talent.

What about the ones that were produced 4 years before The Moon and Antarctica?

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau So let me ask you this - any of those bands you listed, do you believe they are simply ahead of their time and will be continually discovered as time marches on? I think people are taking my question too literally. I mean what will make movements, what will greatly influence bands that follow, what will your children listen to, what will hold a footnote in history, etc?

some may be considered ahead of their time, and some not.. what i'm trying to say (and i apologize for going out of the scope of your question) is that these, and other, bands have been keeping all of the many subgenres of rock alive and exciting for many years - at least for me. i'm almost instantly bored by much of what's on the radio.. in fact, i end up sharing your outlook on rock. then, i listen to something like Frantic Bleep.. and faith is restored.

the fact that these bands have not been 'discovered' by the mass public will have a significant effect on one thing - the mass public's view of the 'classics' of the last 10, 20, 30 years.. and in this, i think gratefulshrink has some of what i want to say. bands like Smashing Pumpkins, Green Day, RHCP, Modest Mouse, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, etc., will never be classics for me. there is absolutely nothing in that music that is special to me.

on the other hand, much of what i listed will be forever rooted in my mind as being truly unique, innovative, original, and.. well.. classic.

as far as what my children will listen to - well, if i have anything to do with it..

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau It's great to hear from someone who has not only lived through several eras but also tries to keep their pulse on what's going on throughout. So do you think there's been a decline, or is music really moving forward? And what bands would you suggest I look at that you feel will be lasting (no offense to anyone else in this thread, I will try to sample all that which I'm not familiar with).

That's a tough one, as I have gone through phases where I thought a band was great, and then, a year later, I never find myslef wanting to listen to them. In the late 90's, I was checking out drone rock/space rock (Bardo Pond, Flying SAucer Attack), but I don't go back much to that now (maybe I will in a couple more years, who knows?). In the last couple of years, I've been following the bands in the psychedelic folk/ new weird America scence such as Tower Recordings, No Neck Blues Band, Sunburned hand of the Man, and Vibracathedral Orchestra. I'm already burned out on some of the material, but I think I will still find some of it cool in 20 years. I've collected alot of Acid Mother's Temple, and I hope I will still dig that in the future. Hell, I did the same thing when I was 16 and when I was 21 -- I'd listen/collect music and then a few years later, weed out the stuff from my collection that I just didn't like anymore. There is a process of continuously re-examining your tastes. That's a good thing.

Not to repeat myself, but, in addtion to Sebadoh and Pavement, I've mentioned Yo La Tengo and Sonic Youth and Radiohead. I listened to alot of Elephant 6 bands (Elf Power, OTC) and the Green Pajamas. Comets on Fire seem interesting. Ghost (out of Japan) is pretty cool.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink The key ingredient here for historical significance is time. Maybe 20 years is a magic number. If, 20 years later, the music by a band sounds creative/unique then that says alot. That's not to say if you love an album in the present it doesn't have value, as there is not way to predict how it will hold up in the long term.

True. But how many iconic bands can you think of that were virtual unknowns at their creative peaks?

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau So do you think there's been a decline, or is music really moving forward?

Sorry, didn't see this question earlier. That's a tough one. We coudl start a "Rock Music is Dead" thread, and see what people think. It does move forward, but, at the same time, it's hard to re-invent the wheel. If you capture a cool 60's sound, then you are labeled as retro or neo. But sometimes it's good to assimilate older styles in order to sythesize a new sound. Then there's the concept of music vs. musicianship -- there will always be talented performers (who would sound good covering a Beatles song), but is it getting harder to create new music?

But hey, there will always be young people wanting to be rebelious, to go to clubs, to dance, to listen to music that they know the establishment will hate. That's social anthropology in the modern era. So I think those forces continually push rock forward. But whether or not there is a decline, I would argue, requires the perspective of time.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kassem What about the ones that were produced 4 years before The Moon and Antarctica?

Nope. Which one should I look into next? From what I've heard Antartica was their best effort so it's the one I got first, and of course I got the latest as they really blew up and I was interested to see which direction they went in.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau True. But how many iconic bands can you think of that were virtual unknowns at their creative peaks?

They were probably not "unknowns" at their peaks, but they may have only been known to a fringe crowd. How popular were the Sex Pistols or Television or Joy Division or REM or Galaxie 500 or Spacemen 3 or Stereolab to the mainstream listening audience at the time they were most creative? They weren't. They were cutting edge at the time, and later foudn an audeince and a following. I guess the Internet maybe changes the ground rules these days (word of a new sound just spreads faster than it used to). And the groups that survived break-ups and were not tied to a particular sub-genre (like punk or hardcore), were more likely to continue to develop a sound and be recognized as "lasting" with each new album they put out (like Radiohead or Sonic Youth or Pavement).

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox in fact, i end up sharing your outlook on rock. then, i listen to something like Frantic Bleep.. and faith is restored.

Well I think I need to take that journey. Unfortunately I am looking for another band that excites me like, say the Pixies, and it seems like it might take quite a bit of digging. Thanks for the input!

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink They were probably not "unknowns" at their peaks, but they may have only been known to a fringe crowd. How popular were the Sex Pistols or Television or Joy Division or REM or Galaxie 500 or Spacemen 3 or Stereolab to the mainstream listening audience at the time they were most creative?

Hmm... REM is proof a band can exist for many years/albums then explode and continue on with success. They really have had a career that is inspirational.

Well then gratefulshrink, I appreciate your words. This thread has made me a bit less depressed. Although I haven't been able to find what I want now I feel it might really be out there.

 

[Nacher]

What an interesting thread.

First of all, I also do consider rock to be dead. People are just so used to the term "rock", as it was the genre to put majority of pop music into two or three decades ago. Music always changes. Every genre will change with time, even classical music did and still does. If the fans of classic rock keep on searching music that sounds exactly like what they were listening to few decades ago, that will be a lost battle. It's actually strange that the term rock is still used for bands that clearly play something else, even though they still may have guitars, drums and catchy songs. Good music is still being made. Actually, a lot of it. Music has never been so versatile and number of bands so high as it is today.

To enjoy the "better" music of today, you just have to keep your mind open and understand the fact that artistically creative and challenging music can't be found from the charts anymore. It's a shame that the pop music of today has such a shrot lifespan. It has become a product to be consumed quickly and then changed to the next. I don't know if there even will be "classic rock/pop/music" stations in the future playing music of 90s and 00s. However, various music subgenres will have their loyal fans and there the music can easily last several decades. In example the bands discussed in the Darkest Desires thread are most likely not going to be forgotten among their fans for quite some time. It's kind of music that is too extreme/intense for most of the people, so it never could become mainstream, but I do think it offers the same amount of depth as the classic (prog) rock did.