[Nomad]

Well, you never know with these things, but I can tell you I'm pretty sure Radiohead will be one of them.

 

[Rempert]

Coldplay? Linkin Park? System of a Down? Without getting into the "been around forever already" guys like Green Day, U2, and Weezer, these are the most likely bets I come up with.

 

[Oliver :)]

If they don't succumb to their french song affinity...

Nada Surf.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau 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!

If you want to check out the "rival" to the Pixies during the 80's, check out a band called Camper Van Beethoven. If you want to check out a brilliant offshoot from that back and forth time, check out the Monks of Doom. That should keep you in an odd groove for awhile. If you really want to get wigged out and see a "bridge" between the Pixies, REM, They Might be Giants and even Modest Mouse, check out Robyn Hitchcock and the Egyptians. None of those three groups will ever be considered classic rock, or even "seminal" to the mainstream, but they're worth checking out.

 

[Masonjar]

Classic rock will always be what it is today.. Led Zep, Eagles, Beatles, Who, Stones, Floyd, etc..

Most of that stuff has already stood the test of time, and until folks who are 20 to 50 years old start dying off, there will always be a market for this music. The stuff will stay in the catalog, so to speak.

You have to remember, that the stuff that survives from the 70's today is a small portion of what was recorded.

Same with the 80's.

Same with the 90's.

Same with today.

Most of the crap will be forgotten, even though it may seem mad-new and cutting edge right now.

There is a lot stuff from the 90's that I was doing backflips for that I've since pretty much forgotten about.

The good stuff will remain.

I just am not sure what it is..

-jar

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masonjar Classic rock will always be what it is today.. Led Zep, Eagles, Beatles, Who, Stones, Floyd, etc.. -jar

Actually some of those bands are already in danger of becoming "Oldies." Believe it or not, the Beatles may end up there soon enough. The Stones, if they had broken up by the mid 70's and stop touring dammit, would have followed suit soon after. There's no shame in becoming "Oldies" - heck, I'd take Buddy Holly over a ton of recent bands in a snap.

 

[markl]

I think "Classic Rock" needs to be defined. A lot of people are naming obscure bands that never had a song on the radio. IMO, "Classic Rock" is made up of songs and bands that sold well, are well known, that people remember sentimentally because that music was playing at certain points in their life on the radio. "Classic rock" stations aren't playing obscure stuff from the 70s that no one really listened to, it's all mainstream stuff that was widely exposed at the time.

Maybe there are two categories-- bands whose work will grow in stature and be recognized for being great well after the fact, and those artists who were in the mainstream and whose work proves over time to be durable and lasting, that people want to hear for the rest of their lives.

 

[bobeau]

New questions -

What was so new and progressive about the Seattle bands? Wasn't it more or less, that they brought rock back to a perhaps a more genuine place, yet they were also able to garner mainstream appeal with solid songwriting?

I know there were comments at the time of a throwback, but at the same time it all seemed pretty fresh. Take on the other hand the retro bands of the last few years. They seem more novel, future throwaways IMO, and the comparisons to the past are everywhere to be found. I contend the difference simply comes down to the quality of the songwriting, or at least consistent quality throughout their catalogs. Was Kurt Cobain really that much of an innovator? Or did he just write songs that stood on their own merits but really offer little new to the songwriting lexicon?

There are so many subgenres that people have to search hard to find the stuff they like... is this good, should it really be that much work? Seems like this is saying entropy is a characteristic of musical progression, and as such new music becomes less accessible as time marches on. But who knows, maybe this is a transitional phase with the internet taking shape as a distribution machine perhaps this will change.

With my limited take on the new music I've heard, my feelings so far is it's more about creating unusual sounds/varying the instrumentals rather than trying to forward the art of songwriting itself. I mean maybe that's setting the stage for something big. But take for instance Wilco... I have all their albums. Foxtrot was supposed to be their big critical smash. I thought Summer Teeth was much better - it did have a very Beatles/Beach Boy sound to it, but the songwriting overall seemed much fresher, more dynamic, tighter, hook laden, etc. Whereas on Foxtrot there were interesting sounds to be had all around, but I ended up feeling the melodies were trite and the songwriting itself not terribly inspirational.

From everything I've heard Jack Johnson is simply writing the best songs out there... and he's as far from innovative as one can get.

 

[Jahn]

When "Grunge" exploded on the Music Scene, it was the last legit stab for Rock in the mainstream - after that was a slew of crappy boy bands and bubblegum pop and retro junk and really nothing much of value in the mainstream - it was like the Last Time Folks Had Good Taste in the Majority lol.

Who is going to be the "new sound" everyone is waiting for? Folks thought it might be techno, didn't happen. Folks thought hip hop would become something epic - jury's still out, I still see alot of potential there. There's a crapload of 80's rehashing going on now, hopefully when that dies down we can see if there are any new bands that come out of the wash worth listening to 20 years from now.

Note - of course there are some amazing bands out there right now that haven't hit the mainstream - not even the fake "Alternative" mainstream. But that doesn't answer the original question of what will become "Classic Rock" - which I believe has to include being successful on a wide mainstream scale, even if their impact wasn't as big as others. Case in point- the Guess Who doing American Woman. They're no Rolling Stones, or even The Who, but you'll hear them on every Classic Rock station because that tune hit big in the Rock mainstream and everyone remembers it - and is worth remembering. Ask Lenny Kravitz, the Wynton Marsalis of Rock.

 

[BillyC]

IMO the only Seattle group that will turn classic is Pearl Jam. After Vs they pretty much abandoned commerciality. They never even officially released singles, yet they still get lots of airplay on "rock radio" if your city still has it. They still sell albums and are making viable new rock music 12 years after they broke it big. They are the only main stream rock group that is all about the music and only the music. Seeing them live this week has only reinforced this opinion.

The White Stripes, may be forgotten in the mainstream in the long run, but their music is timeless because it is based in traditional blues. Jack has such respect for the delta masters. I think covering stuff previously done by Son House, Blind Willie McTell, and Robert Johnson, prove it. If you listen to a Blind Willie cut you will see that he is a tremendous influence on Jack's playing and vocals.

The rock band that will be classic rock for sure is Weezer. The ultra catchy pop rock 3 to 4 minute tracks are what "classic rock" is all about. Buddy Holly, Island in the Sun, Hash Pipe, Say it ain't So will live on forever in classic rock format stations.

 

[Wmcmanus]

I think that in another 20 years, classic rock will still be the Beatles, etc. Some things will never change. I know that this doesn't directly address the question asked about 90's music, but in my opinion they'll develop a new label for that.

 

[BillyC]

As long as the boomers are alive, there will be what is today considered classic rock, Beatles, Stones etc. but unless new generations are exposed to it, love it and want to hear it on the radio, it may disappear.

Jazz and Classical always got lots of airplay, but as the war generations aged, lost interest, and began to pass away, it has very muched disappeared from the air waves.

I think that their is a strong case to be made that the Beatles, Stones etc. will always get airplay, but that is not guaranteed.

Only time will tell.

 

[Kassem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau 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.

Just suggestions:

This is a Long Drive for Someone with Nothing to Think About

and

Lonesome Crowded West

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC As long as the boomers are alive, there will be what is today considered classic rock, Beatles, Stones etc. Only time will tell.

Hmm... I think alot of people might argue bands like this are canonical the way Mozart is. I contend no one has done it better, and until they do, why should this music fade from the public conciousness. It's not nostalgia... most everyone I know places bands like the Beatles, Zeppelin, Stones, etc above everything else. I'm talking about people in their 20s/30s, not boomers. Of course that would be a different crowd than you might find at a site like this.

I Am the Walrus is still the most refreshing, daring, inventive, etc, etc, thing I've ever heard. It is timeless. That's my point with this thread. What music will live on, not just be for this or that generation.

 

[BillyC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau Hmm... I think alot of people might argue bands like this are canonical the way Mozart is. I contend no one has done it better, and until they do, why should this music fade from the public conciousness. It's not nostalgia... most everyone I know places bands like the Beatles, Zeppelin, Stones, etc above everything else. I'm talking about people in their 20s/30s, not boomers. Of course that would be a different crowd than you might find at a site like this. I Am the Walrus is still the most refreshing, daring, inventive, etc, etc, thing I've ever heard. It is timeless. That's my point with this thread. What music will live on, not just be for this or that generation.

I agree with you, The Stones, Zep, the Beatles are a defenitley seen as a cut above. 'A Day in the Life' is one of the most inventive and catch classic rock tunes ever. I will agree that they are cannon, but to use Mozart as an example doesn't work.

Admittedly it has been a really, really long time since Mozart was pop, but if Mozart or JS Bach are cannon, shouldn't they be on more than NPR or a couple of hours a week on a university station. I think that they got much more play in the 30s-50s than they do now. The same can be said for big band jazz, for along time it was THE music, but where can you here Ellington, Basie, Goodman etc. now? Remember this music was very popular and in the case of Ellington very unique and groundbreaking. Ellington is viewed as one of, if not the greatest composer of the 20th century and where exactly on the radio dial can you here his music?

Twenty years out I'm sure that 60s classic rock will still get play, but will it get the same play it does today? When the Gen-Xers grandchildren are in their 20s will the Stones still be as popular?