Will the music of today stand the test of time? If not, why? If so, why?

If the Beatles were a contemporary act and they just finished recording Abbey Road last fall, and it was being released in a month, how would it be accepted? As an example of a massively commercially successful album: if Pink Floyd had progressed through their discography as is (but, they started in the late 90s) and Dark Side of the Moon was being released next month: would it sell more?, less?, the same amount of copies? Would it get the endless radio play it got in today's world?

Has radio been downgraded to oldies stations and really bad popular music? Has the relevance of radio passed the world by? Was it the power of this medium that drove these early works to massive success, or just the sheer greatness of the art: rendering the medium irrelevant? E.g., if Led Zeppelin IV or Purple Rain came out tomorrow, would they eclipse all music of today's era in terms of album sales and credibility?

There's no answer, because you would have to allow for the acts currently performing that were heavily influenced by the bands/albums listed.

Explain, plz.

No. No strong original acts combined with even stronger songwriting.






As genius. It would sell millions, dominate the charts , etc.





Yes. It managed to get a shitload of airplay and record sales in the non-information age, it would only sell even more and be bigger today with the blitzkrieg of promotion and advertising we are subjected to on an hourly basis.

Gilmours monstrous, gigantic guitar would cut through todays bullshit tunes like a bolt of lighting from God's penis.







Yes.





Greatness of the art. The Beatles and Floyd would sell even more records had they had the massive media-hype/videos, internet , 500 direct tv channels, XM, thousands of net stations, bla bla bla etc during their prime.




Yes. Instantly.

The bands you mentioned are responsible for the formation of other bands, who are in turn responsible for the formation of other bands, etc. Without the Beatles you don't have Oasis, and so on. If those bands had released some of their classic albums today instead of 20-40 years ago, the 'music of today' wouldn't be as we know it.

The way the music is disseminated today is much different, too. There was (very little) leaks, radio stations got the exclusive (payola'd) single, there was no 'net, no myspace pages, no American Idol, no MTV. New music by the already most revered performers was an Event, because there was precious little quality product on the landscape to compare it to (bcause those products were inferior, or just didn't have the same backing).

Seems to me the only "event" release nowadays comes from artists who come out of long-time retirement...which the majority of the listening world dismisses as old hat.

What's my point?
Um...could today's oversaturated pop culture music artists of today be given the same reverence as The Beatles or Elvis or whatnot? Maybe not.

Off the top of my head, I can only picture Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and the Beastie Boys to be given the same amount of icon status 40 years from now.

I never got this connection. I think I am the only person in the world who sees/hears zero connection between these two groups.

On the main subject, I think I lean towards Montana. If you lean the other way: can you give me any examples of what has come out in the last 15 years that you see as equaling the great works of the previous decades?




OK, but is Montana right? I mean, isn't there more exposure now? Wouldn't Who's Next out-sell it's original numbers?

Another question: in general bands don't really even look half as cool as they used to, do they? In the past bands had the whole package, the whole image, that sold the records, right? Are the White Stripes the only band to do that successfully anymore?

(Isn't the lack of image an image? Is looking "not cool" cool? Now we're entering the realm of post modernism and irony...which is kinda leaving the original topic)

Prince has his image and sells his records well, methinks. And laugh if you will, but the same can be said of Weird Al.

The White Stripes are a throwback. They just need the solid consistency all the way through their albums and they are there.

In regards to the exposure, issue, there is no doubt about the intense, huge exposure today compared to the 60's and 70's. The Beatles, Floyd and Zep would have sold a shitload more albums in todays media world. Fuck, Dark Side is 35 years old and still sells 450,000 albums a year.

Good songs. You either have them or you don't. Good songs cut through all the bullshit.

If The Beatles released Abbey Road right now it would be a well-regarded indie album. Worthy of a SOMB thread and a best new music Pitchfork review. No mainstream artist today is releasing shit as weird/good as that. Of course, if no Beatles, then the state of modern music could look completely different so... it's pretty much an unanswerable question.

tatoo is/is not Ace/Panty Thief? just checking...

no, tattoo is.


What artist's today, or album's today (or since 1990) would have stood up in the 1970s and sold millions?

It would be much, much more than that.

Given the musical climate of that time, probably John Mayer, Ben Folds, or Scissor Sisters. ---the James Taylors, Elton Johns and Bee Gees of their times, respectively.

That's like comparing rotten beef to filet mignon. Mayer is horrid. Scissor Sisters on par with Bee Gees? Nope. Don't know Ben Folds, but equal to Elton John?

The fewer media outlets in the seventies probably helped those old bands sell records. It meant they dominated all of media. There was much more of a consensus in what it meant to be a rock band. There's no way The Beatles or Pink Floyd would sell huge as a new band these days because they don't put out what today's youth wants to hear. Plain and simple.

I feel The Lips, New Pornographers, and Rilo Kiley could've been huge then, but who knows. The ears were different then.

I hope the ER has the charcoal bags ready.

Dark Side sells 450,000 copies a year with no tour, no videos, etc and it's 35 years old.

I personally think Floyd is highly under-rated and light years above the Beatles in every way: musicianship, originality, substance, etc. For me, comparing the two is again like comparing rotten beef to filet mignon. Floyd is sophisticated and incredible. The Beatles are awesome at times, but more often than not just playing crappy blues riffs and singing nonsensical weird shit.

The Lips? pretty great, but not much better than a Capatain Beefheart type of thing, right?

New Pornographers? I have two of their albums. One is OK, the other really nice (Electric Version). When I consider I listened to this album about 10 times and I am sick of it, and that it took me 100 x's that to get sick of Floyd/Beatles, I'd say no way.

The modern is as good as the old crowd aren't making strong case yet...

and many newer bands have had them.

Dark Side wouldn't sell nearly as many copies if it were relased today, neither would Abbey Road. they'd be about as big as Yoshimi & Skylarking.

and, Duff, i agree about New Pornographers. their melodic sense is up there with the good 60s-70s artists.


Flaming Lips are MUCH more pop-oriented than Captain Beefheart. if they were around in the late 60s-70s, they'd be huge.

Jimmy - Dark Side sells 450,000 copies a year to this very day. No videos. No tours. No promotion. It's 35 years old. That's more than Yoshimi's best year and well past Skylarking, and those were new releases!

Next.

Vice versa, buddy.

yeah, and if it were released today, it would sell 3 million, tops. maybe they'd get a car ad.

I'm on the fence... But, heavily leaning towards the classics. I want to be proven wrong, though.

Some of the music of today will stand the test of time; the vast majority will not. This is how it has always been. There are some recordings from the 1920s that are considered essential, classic, etc., and many that are not. It seems that the main factor involved in determining which music "survives" is the influence that music has on its audience, and, most especially, upon other musicians.

Zeitgeist has something to do with it, but its hard to say just what.



If Abbey Road were released today, it would be a non-event. As mentioned above, the music climate that currently exists has been largely determined by the successful music of yesterday. Therefore, if somehow Abbey Road had not been released when it actually was, but was instead released today, it would sound to our ears like an old Beatles album (which, of course, is precisely what it is). It would, therefore, be regarded as exceptional but lacking in innovation.



Radio, as a cultural player, is over.

Remember all the hoopla over Seven Nation Army? Darkside would be 20x that. Good rock music does that sort of thing.

Neither got the exposure or airplay that Floyd continues to enjoy.

Indeed. Next.

I didn't say either were better or worse. Each is a throwback to the older...come on!

Wha? You really think that anything released in the past 15 years can hold a candle to Dark Side? Dark Side is genius that makes people like Cobain get confused and shit their pants. Wayne Coyne couldn't conceive of Dark Side if Water's brain was transplanted into his skull.

I mean, I'm just sayin'. This is a masterpiece.

At some point, certain things just can't be topped, right? I mean, just because classical music continued to exist post Mozart, et al., doesn't mean that the medium is going to continue with that greatness.



Out of curiosity: do you have any examples of tunes that are coming out today that my kids may dust off and discover in college?

i think you should just appreciate Dark Side for what it is and admit that maybe you have developed a music-listening history that prevents you from recognizing good music anymore. leave it to more open-minded, understanding people such as myself.

I personally feel Yoshimi is a masterpiece. But I have to admit getting a touch sick of it.

Darkside is Darkside. It's the closest thing rock has to Beethoven's 5th.

Each new generation of music fans snaps up that album. It's still the ultimate stoner album. I don't need to really go into the merits of the true greatness of that piece of work.





I think you are playing devils advocate half-heartedly, and it's boring.

I feel, without starting a war here and with respect, that Montana has got you on this. You don't refute what he says.

Is there a single album that came out in the last 15 years that will sell even a tenth of that in 35 years? And, you can talk hype all day, but it's the music on the album that is the hype. There is no more hype.



What is the last album to come out that in your mind is even close to being as well constructed, recorded and played as Dark Side? I mean, shit, I have this on my ipod, I have a massive music collection (I know you are happy for me):

and, in my entire collection, I can't imagine anything I'd say is better than Dark Side. All Montana'isms aside. What the fuck in hell is better than that album? It's absolute genius on every single level. Floyd is a great, great band, but the rest of their albums are backstage vomit in comparison.

Oh no, I'm not going to play that game!

The trick about seminal or classic music is that its status as seminal is determined by the sum total of its audience's appreciation of it (as well as the size and vociferousness of that audience).

If I could predict which records will be future classics I'd probably have a nice job in A&R.

That being said, I think I can point to several artists from the past decade or so who will continue to be heard on into the future:

Aphex Twin
Neutral Milk Hotel / Jeff Mangum
Pavement
Modest Mouse
Elliot Smith
etc.

Hell, people are still listening to The Smiths. Who could've predicted that in the 80s?

For that matter, why has no one heard of Kate Bush?

*shrug*

OK, OK, we all agree the Lips are great. Yeah, we all know Dark Side is an un-equalled masterpiece:

what other examples are there of contemporary greatness. True, tempered genius. Not a thrown together deal, with some great songs. But, something that is visionary.

I think Corgan attempted it on Melon Collie and failed...

how does montana have me on anything? Dark Side sells that much because it's a classic. when people buy it, they think, "i'm buying this great, classic album that everyone seems to know about"

the question was, if it were released as a new album today, would it do as well? i say no.

i use Yoshimi as an example because it's meeting Montana halfway, but i think Yoshimi is just about as good as Dark Side. "Money" and "Great Gig In The Sky" represent about 11 minutes, right? that's 11 minutes of boringness.

Even I am not bored enough to participate in this thread.

I think the answer just walked into the room........

yeah, i'm doing it against my better judgment. i quit now.




oh, and Funeral is better than Dark Side. seriously, it is.

The Smiths are a great band, though. I just recently got into them pretty heavily after bashing them on this board and foudn I was seriously, seriously wrong about them. They are fantastic and phenomenal. I am not surprised by their longevity in the least.

People say hip hop killed music, right? Well, what about punk? I mean, it was this era where people decided that it wasn't cool to make really, really great sophisticated music anymore. Was it at this point, and not bashing punk at all and understanding and liking it's significance: but, is it at this point that bands went from being a small group of really talented individuals unique in that only a small group could even do it and had to be extremely talented to do so:

to a situation where people with very little talent could pass as artist's by utilizing things such as angst, shock value, etc?

Nope. (I'm joining in, against my better judgment.)

Well, I can see this thread is going to go nowhere... Ooops...

Edit: hope somebody adds something more though...

Spot on. The "anti-talent backlash of the late 70's".


There's a real problem with balls in todays music. And I just don't mean riffing off on heavy metal stuff, but balls in even basic pop songs. The rhythm sections are terrible. All you hear is the guitar and the singer,as if the bands and producers don't know how to fit in all the instruments.

Many of the most "lite" pop bands of 70's had more punch than todays indie rock bands.

I want to know what the fuck Frank Zappa would say about this?

And, also, for everybody who is now going to come into this thread and echo yancy, F U now. But, yancy is allowed to, because he's funny.

the thread was always doomed to go nowhere because you can't take the context out of the listening experience, and hypotheticals have no substance. i happily embraced the absurdity of the thread.

I think my point may not have been clear. For the record, I personally love The Smiths, but if I'd been listening to them in the 80s as their records were released, I would have had no idea that they would still be popular in 2007 (in some ways, they're more popular than ever). In retrospect, it is clear that the band is excellent, so of course it has longevity, right? This thinking disregards the possibility that there are great bands from the past that are not currently appreciated - as great as they were.

For example - The Velvet Underground were very much underground until a number of prominent fans (significantly R.E.M.) brought them to the attention of the masses.

Another example - Do you or anyone else you know listen to The Monks? Evidently they were quite an amazing outfit.



I think that this disregards the fact that there has always been terrible crap with no value being foisted upon public. Sure, they didn't start utilizing angst or shock value until the 70s or 80s, but they had their own tricks. Schlocky music is nothing new, I'm afraid.

Explains your Funeral comment (that is one of the few albums that I think will hold up). It's moving, it's well played, and it has balls.

It's not absurd at all.

You all do realize that you're echoing the argument of the old classical music people, right.

"This new-fangled pop-music is crap! No one will listen to it by 1941! Now Bach, on the other hand..."

well, it's absurd to say that if Dark Side came out today, it would sell 450,000 per year.




but it's not absurd to say that Funeral is one of the best albums ever.

This is absurd.

the tattoo-montana back and forth in this thread is priceless and bizarre