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

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:34 pm

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 · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:08 pm

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 · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:19 pm

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 · Post by **Fiberfar** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:33 am

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 · Post by **crusher310** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:04 pm

The Rolling Stones!!!!

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 · Post by **Kipi** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:20 am

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

Siberys wrote: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 · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:52 pm

Siberys wrote: 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 · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:14 pm

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

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:28 pm

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 · Post by **fable** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:37 pm

Siberys wrote: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 · Post by **Siberys** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:16 pm

fable wrote: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 · Post by **fable** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:29 pm

Siberys wrote: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 · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:04 am

Fiberfar wrote:@ 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 · Post by **fable** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:58 pm

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 · Post by **Fiberfar** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:38 am

fable wrote: 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?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:47 am

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

Why, what a question. :devil:

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:18 pm

fable wrote: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.

This was basically what I tried to convey, but it might be misunderstood.

It annoys the hell out of me that Woodstock is remembered today as a hippie festival, since the bands who were included on the soundtrack were bands mostly associated with the hippie movement. And here we have to agree to disagree: CSNY were definitely a part of the hippie/acid scene, and Jefferson Airplane (just the name gives me the runs...) WAS the acid/hippie scene. Every marketing angle of the movie/soundtrack was aimed at hippies and psychedelia, even the cover. Quite possibly because the label execs and promoters knew the movement was dead, and wanted to milk it for the last drops of acid blood. I know people who were there, and went home after one day in disgust. The only true rock'n'roll that made it to the movie/soundtrack was Ten Years After and Jimi Hendricks. Those are also the acts that young musicians starting out are playing in the garage. NOBODY who pics up a guitar for the first time wants to learn a song by Jefferson Airplane or the Sha-na-nas. They want to learn "I'm Going Home" or "Purple Haze." They know and worship Johnny Winter (who I'm going to see for the sixth time on the 25th this month) or CCR.

But back to Siberys' initial statement: Yes, some of the bands you mention have an incredible staying power, others don't. Nirvana would hardly be remembered today if it wasn't for the controversy surrounding Kurt Cobain and his death. Pearl Jam is the last surviving band from the abysmal Grunge era still plying their trade with any success. Oh, I know Sonic Youth are still around, but they, like Pearl Jam, has changed their style more times since 2000 than they've had hot meals. Ozzy had to put Black Sabbath back together to save his career, even though he put out some sterling solo work in the early 80s. Just like Aerosmith he was a complete washout on the brink of death by 1985. And here's the thing: If you go to a concert with any of these bands, people don't want the new stuff. They want the classics, and classics they are. Axl Rose still peddles his ridiculous idea of Guns'n Roses on the back of one classic album. Nobody wants to hear what Guns produced after "Appetite For Destruction." Deep Purple goes on tour and plays their entire "Machine Head" album from 1972. They've put out sterling stuff since then, but that's the carrot at the end of the stick for everyone from 7 to 70 years of age. Steppenwolf finally called it a night. They have been touring the world since 1969 on the strenght of "Born To Be Wild." The audiences keep filling the auditoriums because of that ONE encore, the rest of the band's almost 40 year output is moot.

So are all the good songs written? Is anyone going to remember My Chemical Romance, Nightwish, Dimmu Borgir, The Killers, Amy Winehouse, Jet, Nine Inch Nails etc 30-40 years from now? Sadly, I don't think so. They WILL remember Angus Young ripping out the riff to "Highway To Hell" or Keef (he'll probably still be around) churning out the chords on "Jumping Jack Flash." Johnny Rotten sneering "IIIiiiiiiii - wanna -beee - Anarchyyyyy!" That's what this whole retro rock'n'roll thing is all about. Kids once again discovering the classics and wanting to emulate/recreate them. To hell with trying to re-invent the wheel, just use it and enjoy the ride, and MAYBE you'll come up with something that people will remember. Maybe.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:43 pm

We can argue individual groups tiol the wolves come home, but we do agree about the main thing: the hippies grabbed all the media headlines at Woodstock, but there was a lot of good music being made that had nothing to do with them. I remember arguing with a college roommate of mine a couple of years afterwards that the hippie crowd was really a retreat into infantilism, away from responsibility--and oh-so-very American.

Today we see their right-wing equivalent. Joy.

As for great songs, I've heard many since the 1960s. Just because they're not being written in the style of one or another great group of the past, doesn't mean they don't exist. Times change. But it also helps if the groups coming up escape with their souls from the rock industry. This is where the rock pioneers had it over their descendants: they did it for love, not for money. At least, not until they became wealthy, Tory has-beens like Mick Jagger.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:43 pm

My late wife was living in Metuchen and working in NYC at the time of Woodstock. Several of her friends and acquaintances went, and their universal reaction when they got back was that it had been a dreadful experience and they wish they'd never gone. Then the hype kicked in, and their memories suddenly started changing, weird how selective our memories can be.

As for being 'Oh so American', I'd say it was more 'Oh so poor little rich kids playing at being rebellious', we had the same phenomena over here. In fact Hendrix was a virtual unknown until he came here and embraced the hippy movement. Many of the bands that were associated with Hippies were just in it for the money, the Stones and The Who being fairly typical. Neither of them gave a monkeys about the Hippies, all they cared about was the Hippies money. So I have to disagree about them doing it for love, the almighty $ or £ was their real driving force. As for 'Keef', jeez what a seriously crap guitarist that guy was, and still is amazingly. The only way he could play 'Jumping Jack Flash' was to get someone to tune his guitar to the major chord!

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:03 pm

galraen wrote:Many of the bands that were associated with Hippies were just in it for the money, the Stones and The Who being fairly typical. Neither of them gave a monkeys about the Hippies, all they cared about was the Hippies money. So I have to disagree about them doing it for love, the almighty $ or £ was their real driving force.

My comment about the performers taking up rock out of love for it, not out of a desire for money and stardom, was in my second paragraph. It didn't refernce Woodstock, but was meant to be a general indication of a generation who took up rock, not when it was a possible pathway to stardom, but a fresh means of expression as yet unexplored.