I was just thinking that since the 1960's the number of epic bands or musicians, ones that would be universally recognized, has been declining. Consider that everyone knows who The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who and Bob Dylan are but since then how many names are there that have become that widely recognized? For the '80's U2 seems like the only band that has that much recognition. Madonna and Michael Jackson but possibly not necessarily for their music. Since then though could you say that bands like Smashing Pumpkins, Outkast and musicians like Beyonce, P Diddy have that kind of universal recognition? I'm guessing Britney Spears might but again a lot of that has less to do with music and I'm having a hard time of thinking of an actual Britney Spears song and 30 years now are people going to remember Britney Spears as much as people remember Janice Joplin or even Madonna from 20 years ago?
what are you exactly trying to say? That music is progressively sucking more? Yes it is. Smashing Pumpkins, britney spears, outkast aren't EPIC. There is a much much longer list of musicians that can be considered "EPIC" both before and after the time of the stones and the beatles. btw, The music biz is dead.
Actually I don't believe that music is progressively sucking more and I don't believe any decade can be considered as havign the best music. There's a lot of crap now but there was also in the '60's. For example I love The Who but even they produced crap like "Odorono" I'm more wondering about why there isn't the universal appeal of epic bands anymore, not whether I think they deserve too or not. My own theory is the fragmentation of media and that we have access to more and varied kinds of music than just what FM radio is playing.
When I think of epic bands, I think of bands that have had a lot of hits over a couple of decades. Red Hot Chili Peppers and Green Day come to mind.
Good music is still out there. You just have to look for it. Btw there are no EPIC bands around anymore. Those "Epic" bands have either turned into a corporation/institution or are a former shell of themselves playing on one good leg. I guess to some people Daughtry is considered epic. Whatever floats your boat. I agree with fragmentation. That is the dagger that killed the music biz. Its a really good time to be a musician right now. Never has there been so much freedom to do whatever you want. Its a great time to be a music lover as well. It might be harder find what you like, but you have soooooo many choices.
Well, there is a big difference in the number of bands and number of genres and number of countries with access to the music nowadays compared to the 1960's. It isn't that the music is worse, it's just that there are so many options and so many markets that just were not there back then
When I think epic music, or epic songs, I think a modern day band is My Morning Jacket. They aren't well known on the radio circuit but have a huge following. I think they are out of Austin. The one word I've always used to describe their songs is "epic". They just jam and jam and their singer's voice is relly different. I use another word to describe them now: "JELAFIED".
Yep, RIAA and Clear Channel have done all they can to choke the music industry to death. "Authentic" bands and music pretty much don't have a fighting chance anymore. It's similar to how movies are now dependent on the first 3 weeks' gross - the industry demands instant revenue and is happy to toss aside artists the second they sell less. 65-76 was a pretty awesome stretch for music (really, 55-76). Brief renaissance from 90-96. Been steeply downhill since. Part of it is MTV. In the mid-70s, there was a shift toward bigger-than-life stars (KISS) which later bled into Videos. All of a sudden, a catchier video was a better selling factor than music quality (and easier to produce). Then, it was obvious that videos with hotties was a pretty good bet over videos with fugly artists. That leads us to the 90s, where putting a Britney/Timberlake in front of canned music, a la the Monkees, became the way to run a label. Stashing 1 catchy single in with 11 other filler songs to sell only as a full price album was another good tactic. Clear Channel also did its part, raising concert prices to such a degree that it left the touring industry only open to mega-selling stars and freezing out any smaller acts. Since the best musicians are typically touring diehards, this helped squash lesser-known talents from building a name. Sad state of affairs. And all they're interested in doing about this....is suing teens for downloading Fergie. Evan
Music isn't getting any worse and hasn't been getting any worse. Just take a trip to SXSW in Austin every year, and you will see the vast number of great bands. But on the whole, the number of bands they give quality air time and tv time tends to focus on gimmick type acts with little substance. There is really good music out there. You just have to go out and look for it. (i.e..like on the music blogs). Its just not going to be presented in an easy access manner like on MTV or on the Buzz.
Except prior to the internet and other ways of distributing music record companies wielded even more power than they did now. I often wonder if the music that we consider great now really was the best? While we consider the Beatles and Eagles legendery what if there were other groups out there better who just never got the distrubution that those bands did?
I see what you're saying- seems like there hasn't been a powerhouse band emerge in the past decade. But before that (with the help of this list): Guns N Roses Metallica Red Hot Chili Peppers Nirvana Pearl Jam Soundgarden Beastie Boys Rage Against the Machine REM Motley Crue Radiohead The Cure Nine Inch Nails Depeche Mode Bob Marley & the Wailers Prince I think anyone under the age of 45 will recognize these bands in a heartbeat.
The pool from which to choose "epic" bands is much larger and more diluted. Media has exposed so many variations on what it is to be a "rock band" (for example) over the years that there's a seemingly new niche created every day. Back then (the 60s in your example) there were a few "rock bands" getting the exposure. And "rock" hadn't even had a chance to evolve into remotely the level of diversity that exists today.
rimrocker's list of the Top Ten EPIC acts (based on my definition only, which is sometimes not consistent with who will be on the list): Chuck Berry Elvis The Beatles The Stones The Who Led Zeppelin Springsteen The Police U2 Clapton Almost making it (in no particular order): B.B. King, REM, Nirvana, Hendrix, SRV, The Doors, Beach Boys, Jerry Lee Lewis, Michael Jackson, The Kinks, Buddy Holly, The Temptations, Paul Simon, Parliament-Funkadelic, Pink Floyd, and Lynyrd Skynyrd.
o i've taken multiple trips to SXSW. ...and SXSW is part of the problem. I concur, music isn't progressively sucking, you just have to look harder.
When something isn't rare, it we don't attach as much value to it. When something doesn't strike a chord of real emotion, it is forgettable. Disruptive creativity is more valuable than mere innovation. Marketing to the lowest common denominator does not produce art. But, what you lose in excellence you can compensate for with mass quantity. Early Rock was like going to a four star Thai restaurant, today, music is an All-You-Can-Eat for $4.99 Chinese buffet. Both can be satisfying in their own way.
Janis* and.. Are you taking a dig at Michael Jackson's music with that "not necessarily for their music" remark? If so.. As an interperator of songs alone, even as a child >>>>> Madonna. As a songwriter.. must I? I think that comment would be more suitably applied to Britney Spears 30yrs after the fact.. as far as universal recognition alone in the 80's however.. I'd say.. MJ >>> U2 > Madonna. In the 90's, I think Nirvana would qualify as being near 'epic'. I'd name them over Smashing pumpkins, P. Diddy, Beyonce , as having somewhat the universal recognition you're talking about..
