The Classics in Rock'n'Roll, Hard Rock, and Metal.

[Siberys]

Something I've always wondered about classic music from the Rock'N'Roll generation. Bands Like Aerosmith, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Van Halen, Ozzy Osborne, etc; these bands have an incredible lasting value to be honest.

Now, there are bands that have come and gone, sometimes really quick, and sometimes it lasted a while. Sum 41 and Korn were around for a while, but it went rather quickly and you don't hear from them as much anymore. Then the two main boy bands that were around, Nsync and Backstreet boys I heard about for at least half a decade, but my point is, none of the aformentioned bands or anything similar has nowhere NEAR the lasting value of a band like Aerosmith.

They've been around since Woodstock and I'm still hearing about albums or compilations that they're coming out with. A band that was at woodstock you'd think would be retired by now but there was a Concert of Aerosmith sometime after the year 2000 (don't remember when but I know there was one).

So why is it that some of these bands have such a strong lasting value? Is it that their music is really just that good, or is it that members of mentioned bands have other activity going on, on television or something (Like the Osbournes, they have TV shows and talk shows and stuff, so even though you don't see Ozzy Osbourne performing a lot of concerts anymore, you still hear about him and his family)?

[dragon wench]

Interesting question..

I think it is perhaps because some bands have a certain timeless, universal appeal to them.. A universality that somehow cuts through generations..
Groups such as U2 or The Police are further examples. It's interesting, I was playing Joshua Tree around my pre-teen son, and he asked me who they were. I explained, and his response was, "Wow, they have a really great sound, I can't believe they are so old!"



It is a little like literature, or any art form, I suspect. Some singers, artists and writers have an ability to touch people no matter their age or cultural/historical period. One could just as easily ask, "Why do we still read Shakespeare and Hemingway while others writers have come and gone, almost unheard of?"

[Siberys]

That would definitely be an influence. One of my ideas for this is that it's because we're still in a rock and roll era. A lot of Speed and Death Metal music doesn't appeal as much, but how often do you hear any sort of Hard Rock, Rock'n'Roll or heavy metal music on just your ordinary commercial, movie premere, or television show?

I mean even the daily show with Jon stewart has an opening theme that's a bit of an electric guitar and drum set combo with a news show opening theme. So I guess the combination of Bass Guitar and Drums, or Electric Guitars and Drums, or anything like that also has some sort of lasting value as well.

[Fiberfar]

If a band enjoy making music, they'll do so as long as they can stand the looks of each other

Judas Priest has been going on for four decades now, and they're making a new album right now. I guess they'll be going on as long as Rob Halford still can sing.

[crusher310]

example: The Rolling Stones

I've seen them live a bunch of times.... Mick is an AWESOME performer and doesn't stop moving the entire three hour set...

[Kipi]

Sorry for belated answer, found this thread today...

Originally Posted by Siberys

That would definitely be an influence. One of my ideas for this is that it's because we're still in a rock and roll era. A lot of Speed and Death Metal music doesn't appeal as much, but how often do you hear any sort of Hard Rock, Rock'n'Roll or heavy metal music on just your ordinary commercial, movie premere, or television show?

In my country, a lot. Basically, thanks to Nightwish, many of Finnish documents now has songs from Nightwish as their theme/background music. This goes even as far as fashion shows, as I know at least three different local fashion shows which used Nw's music as background music...

[Moonbiter]

Originally Posted by Siberys

They've been around since Woodstock

Errrr... no. Aerosmith came out of the 70s generation of classic rock bands, and is NOT a part of the Woodstock generation. In fact, there isn't a single band of that generation alive and kicking today. However, the 70s provided us with so much good rock'n'roll music, and such a lasting impression on the stuff we listen to today, that I personally think the "Woodstock generation" is a complete loss. The 70s was a miserable time for everyone, but it gave birth to a lot of bands and genres that are still relevant today, especially with the retro-thingy going on right now. In the span of ten very hectic years, we got glam, prog, disco, punk, heavy metal, funk, rap, and to top it off at the end, a rockabilly revival that is unheard of to this day.

[Fiberfar]

@ Moonbiter: By Woodstock generation, do you mean bands that played at woodstock or just band formed before or in 1969?

[Siberys]

You're correct that Aerosmith wasn't actually at woodstock, but I will say that considering they were formed in 1968, and woodstock was in 1969, it's from the same generation.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Siberys

You're correct that Aerosmith wasn't actually at woodstock, but I will say that considering they were formed in 1968, and woodstock was in 1969, it's from the same generation.

With respect, I would strongly disagree. The sound, the attitude, and the ideas of the groups at Woodstock were from an earlier generation before Aerosmith. The latter had nothing in common with the former.

[Siberys]

Originally Posted by fable

With respect, I would strongly disagree. The sound, the attitude, and the ideas of the groups at Woodstock were from an earlier generation before Aerosmith. The latter had nothing in common with the former.

True, some of the bands at Woodstock had been around for a while and aerosmith was brand new at that time.

But still, both woodstock and other bands like aerosmith including aerosmith were still quite memorable and long lasting.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Siberys

True, some of the bands at Woodstock had been around for a while and aerosmith was brand new at that time.

But still, both woodstock and other bands like aerosmith including aerosmith were still quite memorable and long lasting.

No one's arguing the memorability or otherwise of Aerosmith. Just that they had nothing in common with anybody who appeared at Woodstock. They were of a different generation, and a more derivative, commercial sound. They got their record contract in 1973, some time after the recording industry had taken over rock n roll--unlike, say, Hendrix, etc, who came up during the early 1960s, when they had to fight for presence on the pop labels of the time, and were able to (in many cases, at least) determine their own trajectory at groups and their own vinyl sound.

[Moonbiter]

Originally Posted by Fiberfar

@ Moonbiter: By Woodstock generation, do you mean bands that played at woodstock or just band formed before or in 1969?

I mean bands associated with the hippie/counterculture movement, which many claim culminated at Woodstock. This is a big fat lie. By the time Woodstock happened, the hippie movement was already dead and smelled like it. If you look at the line-up of bands at Woodstock, very few of them had anything to do with the hippie/psychedelic movement, but those who did were the ones who made it on to the movie and soundtrack album. Hence the idea that Woodstock was a pure hippie happening. In fact it was the last gasp of a watered-out and corrupt movement which died with a bang at Altamont Speedway later that year. Many of the bands who played Woodstock later regretted it. John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival, the band many claims "killed psychedelia," later sneered "Woodstock was nothing but a bunch of junkies rolling around in their own ****!" The band refused to appear in the movie or on the soundtrack. Roger Daltry of The Who later called the band's appearance "a major mistake. We are nothing like those people."
Equally as famous is the many bands who refused to play the festival. John Lennon, at that point wobbling around with Yoko, wanted the Beatles to play, but the other three refused. Especially George Harrison, who was deeply traumatized by his experiences in Haight-Ashbury during the "Summer Of Love" in 1967, and wanted nothing more to do with the hippie movement. New hard rock bands like Free and Led Zeppelin, who were the inspiration for Aerosmith, simply refused to appear. Why would they play there? The 70s were coming. By the time Aerosmith came out in 1973, the big names at Woodstock were dead or dying, the rest of them had broken up or been forgotten. Glam Rock, Hard Rock and even Heavy Metal was hammering the charts in England and Europe, and English music completely dominated the US charts as well. The world's two greatest bands were called Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. In the US Aerosmith and Alice Cooper were the only homegrown rock alternatives to the bloody Carpenters. In New York four nutjobs had just started smearing their faces with make-up, but that was in the future.

Hence I can say, with all my heart, that Aerosmith hasn't got anything to do with Woodstock. Period.

Oh, and another thing: When I grew up, Aerosmith was vitually a forgotten band. They had self destructed so thoroughly in the late 70s that nobody remembered or wanted to remember them. If it hadn't been for the Run DMC cover of "Walk This Way" in the 80s, Aerosmith would have gone the way of the hippies.

[fable]

Moonbiter, I think you're just exaggerating a tiny, tiny bit. Granted, the hippies at Woodstock got all the press, and there were a huge number of these smelly layabouts at it, but there were a lot of people who weren't hippies in the audience, whom the media ignored (quite a few of my friends fit into the non-hippy-but-at-Woodstock category) and quite a lot on stage, too. Arlo Guthrie was just, well, Arlo Guthrie. John Sebastian was never a hippy. Joan Baez was part of the anti-Vietnam war movement, an environmentalist, and a folk singer, but never a hippy. Santana? No. Sly & the Family Stone? No. Creedence Clearwater Revival? No. Jefferson Airplane? No. Johnny Winter? No. CSNY? No. Sha-Na-Na? No way. I could go on. Most of the groups performing were not hippie-groups. The Who? No. Daltry was disgusted with the hippies, as you pointed out, but his group as as whole shared an attitude of youth rebellion with the audience, and their Woodstock performance was one of the big things that catapulted them to success. You don't do that if your audience has nothing in common with you. If it had just been hippies in the audience, a very different lineup of bands could have been managed, all of them very much in the lineage of the Grateful Dead (which was there). But the audience was more diverse.

he world's two greatest bands were called Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple.

Cheers on Deep Purple. Led Zeppelin's main gimmick was just a blues riff slowed down and played on bass guitars until it made great shag music.

[Fiberfar]

Originally Posted by fable

Cheers on Deep Purple. Led Zeppelin's main gimmick was just a blues riff slowed down and played on bass guitars until it made great shag music.

I take it that's your personal experience, no?