Which of Today's bands will be Tomorrow's Classics
- Thread starter jsisk
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The Rolling Stones
spideyjack
Addicted Member
I think that is for the people of the future to decide.
BayouTiger
Super Member
If the timeline gets extended a bit I can think of some from the 90's that I still listen to a lot. Mostly in the "Alternative" genre. Makes no sense since I think that over time most of what was called alternative, was the most mainstream in the long run. I'm thinking Counting Crows, Dishwalla, Better Than Ezra, Refreshments, Gin Blossoms. Problem is that many of them are already gone, but still get a lot of play.
The strange thing about the true classic bands of the early 70's is that we all knew they were going to stick around.
I think the fact that the classic bands were "album oriented" meant that you had to make an effort to listen to them, rather than them just being what you heard on the radio. As such you were more invested somehow. I think the "singles" mentality of digital music tends to make it about the song rather than the band.
The strange thing about the true classic bands of the early 70's is that we all knew they were going to stick around.
I think the fact that the classic bands were "album oriented" meant that you had to make an effort to listen to them, rather than them just being what you heard on the radio. As such you were more invested somehow. I think the "singles" mentality of digital music tends to make it about the song rather than the band.
grillebilly
Empty Head
I think The Drive-By Truckers will always be a popular band in the southern USA.
fairgent Z
New Member
Those three band were pioneers in their respective genres, had a broad audience appeal, in a time of less sources, less accessibility and less choices in entertainment mediums.
Today there are more diversified sub genres, a more specific audience, more sources and easier accessibility to the music a person would want to hear, and more alternative entertainment mediums other than music. No one is watching Ed Sullivan to catch their first glimps of the latest band.
There are still classics being made today, but there will be a smaller niche audience base 20 to 30 years from now.
And there will be what mainstream media wants sheeple to think are classics, and they will play at Superbowl half times.
I agree that today's "popular" music is far too singles oriented.
However, I think that it is false to say that there are no current bands that are "album oriented".
Beside, do you, the listener really care if the music that YOU like is considered "a classic". Does it sound better if it is popular, does it sound better if went triple platinum?
Of albums released since 2000, for what I am listening to at this time in my life I consider these as "classics" as in I will be listening to them 20 years down the road. Or at the very least, my answer to anyone that thinks they can find music on FM radio or pandora. And I consider them "album oriented", as in sit down and listen. In no specific order.
Steven Wilson - The Raven That Refused to Sing (2013)
Steven Wilson - Grace For Drowning (2011)
Discipline - To Shatter All Accord (2011)
Riverside - Out Of Myself (2003)
Phideaux - Snowtorch (2011)
Phideaux - Doomsday Afternoon (2007)
Dream Theater - Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence (2002)
Birds And Buildings - Bantam To Behemoth (2008)
DeeExpus - The King Of Number 33 (2011)
Sean Filkins - War And Peace & Other Short Stories (2011)
I will leave you with these parting thoughts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz0Wyveu4RQ
peterfranks
Super Member
IMO record labels aren't interested in longevity of bands - they get as much as they can out of them right now and move on - like any other business they operate quarter to quarter .... tough for bands to become classics. And for those bands that do have real talent and promise, they aren't nurtured very much.
Not sure the music industry is conducive to creating classic bands anymore.
Have no clue what bands will be classics 25 yrs from now ....
Not sure the music industry is conducive to creating classic bands anymore.
Have no clue what bands will be classics 25 yrs from now ....
HeezDeadJim
Entrope Weasel
I think certain categories will yield more "classic" bands than others.
It's kind of like the 80's music. There were some groups that had lots of songs/albums in the Rock genre (80's hair metal), and tons of one-hit wonders or a few songs from groups/singers in the Pop category. It still defines the 80's era.
The 90's have a lot of offerings from the "Alternative/Grunge" area. REM, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, Alice in Chains, U2, Smashing Pumpkins, Collective Soul etc. There are going to be plenty of one-hit-wonders groups/singers that are going to define the 90's (if it hasn't already). There was a big "Dance" wave of groups (Real McCoys, Snap!, Amber, La Bouche) that might be "re-found" later (not this trance, jungle, house...dance music with real words/lyrics).
As for today's stuff, you might get followers of your "Nu-Metal" like Manson, Disturbed, Korn, Limp Bisquik, etc. Like someone else mentioned, today's music companies don't seem to care too much about longevity and pick any new "hot" singer and wear them out till the next new "hot" singer. "American Idol" is part of that wave of introducing new singers.
But that won't affect plenty here that only want to cling onto their LPs of 70's rock music and classic/jazz music. We can keep pining about how music was recorded/produced better than today.
It's kind of like the 80's music. There were some groups that had lots of songs/albums in the Rock genre (80's hair metal), and tons of one-hit wonders or a few songs from groups/singers in the Pop category. It still defines the 80's era.
The 90's have a lot of offerings from the "Alternative/Grunge" area. REM, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, Alice in Chains, U2, Smashing Pumpkins, Collective Soul etc. There are going to be plenty of one-hit-wonders groups/singers that are going to define the 90's (if it hasn't already). There was a big "Dance" wave of groups (Real McCoys, Snap!, Amber, La Bouche) that might be "re-found" later (not this trance, jungle, house...dance music with real words/lyrics).
As for today's stuff, you might get followers of your "Nu-Metal" like Manson, Disturbed, Korn, Limp Bisquik, etc. Like someone else mentioned, today's music companies don't seem to care too much about longevity and pick any new "hot" singer and wear them out till the next new "hot" singer. "American Idol" is part of that wave of introducing new singers.
But that won't affect plenty here that only want to cling onto their LPs of 70's rock music and classic/jazz music. We can keep pining about how music was recorded/produced better than today.
SA-708
Appalachian-American
I agree with that. I also think The Civil Wars can pull it off if they can continue to stay together. Looking forward to their second album next month.
Off the top of my head, I'll also go with The National and Iron & Wine. Perhaps not the biggest bands right now, but then bands like R.E.M. and U2 were not huge bands until 3-4-5 albums into their careers.
Major labels may not be big into letting bands develop over time, but there's some minor labels willing to step into the breach.
zenith2134
Lunatic Member
None. All the hipsters will dump their Jack's Mannequin LPs once the inital thrill wears off and they move to the next socially cool thing .
RamblinE
(╯°□°)╯彡┻━┻
I've already seen bands from the last 10-15 showing signs of becoming classics. Bands everybody my age knows and seems to look back on fondly, already.
I expect they'll be just as relevant on my taste in music as the classics that people here enshrine will be.
That is, irrelevant.
It's all mainly motivated by a sense of nostalgia anyway. My listening habits aren't influenced by it. There's always good music evolving with the bad if you just have the patience and perseverance to find it.
I expect they'll be just as relevant on my taste in music as the classics that people here enshrine will be.
That is, irrelevant.
It's all mainly motivated by a sense of nostalgia anyway. My listening habits aren't influenced by it. There's always good music evolving with the bad if you just have the patience and perseverance to find it.
riverrat
professional camper
Love it!
Limp Biskit, Limp Bisquik, whatever, the one sure thing is that this band sure was LIMP
ggrey
Sonically Insane
Just follow the money trail and you will have an answer. There was an explosion in $$ into the music industry after The Beatles hit. Additionally, the music of the 60s 70s and 80s was powered by the baby boom generation. The "powers that be" were very smart. They cashed in on the immense popularity of that explosion, and eventually helped to create "Classic Rock"...which of course did not exist prior to that time. A shrewd business move indeed. If their plan worked they would enjoy a steady stream of cash for years to come - without creating anything new at all. Nice gig if you can get it.
I submit we have all been fed a steady stream of Classic Rock music to keep the royalties flowing into the pockets of whoever owns the rights..and in most cases it is not the songwriters or performers, but the corporate types who buy, sell, trade the contracts.
Of course, as per the above, you probably are aware I cannot pass by a good conspiracy theory.
Almost forgot to add...I typed the above while listening to our local Classic Rock station
I submit we have all been fed a steady stream of Classic Rock music to keep the royalties flowing into the pockets of whoever owns the rights..and in most cases it is not the songwriters or performers, but the corporate types who buy, sell, trade the contracts.
Of course, as per the above, you probably are aware I cannot pass by a good conspiracy theory.
Almost forgot to add...I typed the above while listening to our local Classic Rock station
Last edited:
