Nirvana the last real band?

Originally posted by darvlay
Everything is derivative from its predecessors. There was nothing entirely NEW about so-called Alt or Grunge or Punk or New Wave or Rave or Classic Rock. Everyone inspires everyone and it will go on forever.

As for the new bands with nothing left to do? They seem to be doing just fine...

Animal Collective
Abe Vigoda
Another Sunny Day
Arab On Rada ...[text shortened]... olf Eyes
Wild Beasts
Women
XBXRX
The xx
Yo La Tengo
Zach Hill


and on
and on
and on

Please pick some bands from that list and slot them into the 00-Present category. Now, ask yourself. Do they REALLY belong in that chart?

Do you honestly think there is no real distinction between music from the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s??


Pre 1950 - Motown records/Big band/classical music/Gershwin etc dominated
50's - The dawn of Rock and Roll..Chuck Berry and the guitar debut
60's - psychadellic music takes over...The doors, Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, Velvet Underground, Beatles etc
70's - Hard Rock - Led Zeppelin, Sabbath, Who, ACDC
70's - Punk Music takes off.. Clash, Ramones, Sex Pistols
70's - Also see rise of Disco and Surf Music --Bee gees, Beach Boys
80's - Hair bands/Metal take over. Metallica/Def Leopard/Bon Jovi GNR etc
80's - Electronic music debuts - Petshop Boys, New Order Depeche Mode
90's - Alt Rock/grunge...Nirvana, PJ, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Janes Addiction
90's Electrronic Music peaks with Rave explosion....Prodigy, NIN, Chemical Brothers etc

00- Present ...Atlas Sound, The Books, The Knife, US Maple, Zach Hill

Is this how you envision this chart? Is that how people will look back at this decade 50 years from now and point to those bands?

Originally posted by uzless
Please pick some bands from that list and slot them into the 00-Present category. Now, ask yourself. Do they REALLY belong in that chart?

Do you honestly think there is no real distinction between music from the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s??

I pick all of them and more. No use limiting the decade when the decade has been about expansion, saturation, experimentation and technology.

"Do you honestly think there is no real distinction between music from the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s?"

That's not what I said. I said one thing inspires the next and there never was a lot of real NEW music, as you like to put it. When I look at the 90s, I don't see the same thing as you. I don't see Smashing Pumpkins or Nine Inch Nails, I see Fugazi, Pavement, Six Finger Satellite, Polvo, US Maple, Don Cab, etc. Stuff that was never played on the radio. That's what me and my friends grew up listening to in high school.

The choronology you've given - it's the past. It's not going to be like that anymore! Thanks entirely to the internet.

"Is this how you envision this chart? Is that how people will look back at this decade 50 years from now and point to those bands?"

The chart is worthless to me. It means nothing. It speaks of the past and not of the future.

But yes, people will look back in 50 years and point to those bands and other "popular" acts.

Besides, you're only talking about popular music and other movements embraced by the media (ie radio and tv). Everything now happens on the internet and it will never be the same.

That does not equate to the death of music. Only the death of popular music.

Do you think kids today look at acts like the Pet Shop Boys, the Bee Gees, Bon Jovi, Elvis Presley, New Order, The Who and give a flying ____?

Those bands will be as forgotten as Chubby Checker and Chuck Berry in 20 years. (Except for maybe Elvis)

Originally posted by darvlay
Besides, you're only talking about popular music and other movements embraced by the media (ie radio and tv). Everything now happens on the internet and it will never be the same.

That does not equate to the death of music. Only the death of popular music.

Are you saying the bands of the past didn't have the internet to kill them and stop them from becoming popular?. I doubt that you would suggest that had the internet been around back in the 60's that those bands would never have gained the massive popularity they got. Or would you?

Because you seem to be saying that because of the internet, a band can no longer acheive the massive status of bands like zepellin/floyd etc. Are you saying that a band like LCD soundsystem, or aphex twins would be as big as the Rolling Stones if it weren't for the internet killing popular music?

For me, i still tend to believe that a band will become massively popular if they are really good and offer the average listener something they can't get elsewhere. I've left out Hip Hop in all this discussion but I think Hip Hop offered the average listener exactly that...something they couldn't find elsewhere, and this one of the main reasons why Hip Hop has become so popular. While, sure, Hip Hop built off Rap of the 80's and early 90's, it was that bumping bass line and the me-first attitude that was taking over society already that pushed it into the mainstream.

If anything, I think Hip Hop belongs in the 00-Present category.

Originally posted by darvlay
Do you think kids today look at acts like the Pet Shop Boys, the Bee Gees, Bon Jovi, Elvis Presley, New Order, The Who and give a flying ____?

Those bands will be as forgotten as Chubby Checker and Chuck Berry in 20 years. (Except for maybe Elvis)

Well, if you want to take the macro view of music then of course most bands of the last 50 years will be forgotten. Music has existed for thousands of years but we only listen to a handfull of music from then. 100 years from now, i'd be surprised if anyone other than elvis, the Stones and Zeppelin get any mention.

However, I do belive that kids (9-17?) today when they grow up will do exactly what most of us did when we got into highschool/university and start to listen to the music that came before our time. Music from the 60's and 70's was before my time but I like it so I don't see any reason why kids today won't discover music from the 80's 90's when they get older.

I'm actually jealous of them because they have a lot more to discover and have more good music to enjoy for the first time than I did.

One last thing...just because music is old, It doesn't mean it isn't any good. Stuff from the 50's and before is great too. Any kid that dismisses it because its old is an ass.

I have a 10 CD collection of music from the last 2000 years and listen to it all the time.

Originally posted by uzless
Are you saying the bands of the past didn't have the internet to kill them and stop them from becoming popular?. I doubt that you would suggest that had the internet been around back in the 60's that those bands would never have gained the massive popularity they got. Or would you?

Because you seem to be saying that because of the internet, a band can no ...[text shortened]... to the mainstream.

If anything, I think Hip Hop belongs in the 00-Present category.

Are you saying the bands of the past didn't have the internet to kill them and stop them from becoming popular?

I don't really know what this means or see how it's relevant but I can say with some certainty that I didn't say that.

I doubt that you would suggest that had the internet been around back in the 60's that those bands would never have gained the massive popularity they got. Or would you?

I might. But it doesn't matter. That's only speculation. If the Internet was around in the 60s, I'm sure a lot of things would have turned out differently. Doesn't matter in the context of this discussion.

Are you saying that a band like LCD soundsystem, or aphex twins would be as big as the Rolling Stones if it weren't for the internet killing popular music?

I guess I'm kind of saying that although I don't think it would happen anyway because of other factors and not just the internet. Certainly the internet and the deconstruction of the music industry is the biggest factor.

For me, i still tend to believe that a band will become massively popular if they are really good and offer the average listener something they can't get elsewhere.

I know you do. But your error is in stating that MUSIC is DEAD and NOTHING NEW IS HAPPENING because one hasn't arrived. In fact, this has already happened in Hip Hop and R&B, it just hasn't happened in rock.

Because you seem to be saying that because of the internet, a band can no longer acheive the massive status of bands like zepellin/floyd etc.

No, I'm not saying that. There's nothing to say a band can't achieve the status of those you've listed. I'm saying that it's highly unlikely and because of the underground/internet, popular music just ain't that popular anymore! And the way things happened in the past likely won't happen again. There's too much of what I like to call "Fringe Genius" out there, accessible to virtually everyone in the world, for any ONE sound to come and conquer the world as it once did.

While, sure, Hip Hop built off Rap of the 80's and early 90's, it was that bumping bass line and the me-first attitude that was taking over society already that pushed it into the mainstream.

You could likely argue that Hip Hop, R&B and watered-down Rock are the only mainstream genres left in music. It dominates the airwaves and record sales. Do you think this is because the music is "better"? Of course not. Do you think this will be the only thing remembered in this decade 20 years down the road? Of course not. The only reason it has thrived the way it has is because they market and advertise a lifestyle which appeals to many youths. They have learned how to exploit music for money better than all the true artists and musicians who are happy to quietly put out the best record in 2009 that only 250,000 have heard and leave the spotlight and fame to others. They are happy to keep integrity alive in the underground and blow peoples minds with performance, and not their latest video.

Originally posted by uzless
One last thing...just because music is old, It doesn't mean it isn't any good. Stuff from the 50's and before is great too. Any kid that dismisses it because its old is an ass.

Of course! But the opposite applies as well. Just because it was old and part of some "scene" doesn't make it good either.

Originally posted by uzless
However, I do belive that kids (9-17?) today when they grow up will do exactly what most of us did when we got into highschool/university and start to listen to the music that came before our time. Music from the 60's and 70's was before my time but I like it so I don't see any reason why kids today won't discover music from the 80's 90's when they get older.

Exactly! I feel the same way but I feel like the music of the underground and from the fringe will be what's remembered in the future, not necessarily just what's been pedalled in the mainstream.

what about Radiohead?

Originally posted by katlin85
what about Radiohead?

Overrated.

Originally posted by StTito
Can you think of a band in the last 20 years that changed the scope of rock and roll so profoundly?

1. what (according to you) defines a "real band"?

2. whats so good about nirvana?