Dad bands

[TIMKEYS]

Yes, they played well, which I mentioned in a later post in this thread, but they didn't draw flies and lost whatever crowd was usually there. I guess it's just another version of the commerce vs. art debate, and it's not that interesting a topic. Certainly there are plenty of bands with older members that DO play recent music, including several that hang out here... and bands that specialize in classic songs, and find the right venues to play those. I'd like to think you'd go one way or another as a band, and not bother playing to an empty house, but if they are hobbyists, then whatever.

 

 

They do the songs that they do ,,, and do them well ,,, can you ask for more out of a band? they are not a jukebox.

[StratGuy22]

I agree with finding your crowd, and catering to them. We play everything from old school "boom chick boom chick" country to newer country, classic rock to a bit newer stuff depending on the crowd. With me being 41, and the youngest member of the band, we are a bit too old for the bars in our area. I do sound for said bars, and 80% of the time it will be 2 or 3 original bands. If one band plays the whole night, they will generally do 2 sets of covers, and then one set of their own music.

 

Our crowd, are the ones booking the private events & parties. They love what we do, and we do it well. They never balk or question our price, so it works for everyone involved.

 

That being said, I'm thinking of suggesting {censored} You to the list of new songs.

 

 

[TrickyBoy]

and their attempts at double leads sounded like 3rd graders blowing tonettes.

 

 

I love the solo to Detroit Rock City. Nothing special, but I've always thought that was a very smart, well thought out solo. YMMV

[Lee Knight]

Who cares how old the songs are? Why is everyone so hung up on setlist???? Play freaking great, have a focus to what you do, remember it is a visual medium to some degree too, lay it down hard and solid... and you'll get people coming to your shows.

Don't and you won't.

A couple years ago when I was leaving the NAMM show for the day, I heard Deep Purple's Space Truckin' bouncing of the outside walls of all the buildings. I followed the sound and...

...there was a band. Playing 70's classic rock. They were made up of 35 year olds, obviously professional musicians. Hip. Together. These were the guys you might see in Beck's touring band or behind Colbie Caillat. LA locals. THEY KICKED ASS. Feelin' Alright by Joe Cocker. On and on. Boring old fart music. Right? No way.

B3 and Wurly. Two guitars of the era. Fender, Marshall, Gibson. A guy playing a P-Bass into an SVT. Tight, 5 peice vintage Gretch kit tuned and finessed by a talented pro. Drummer and bassist tighter than a gnat's ass. Boring right?



I don't care, nor does any crowd care, if the songs are 40 years old or from yesterday. If they are played with real skill and passion, like the Tedeschi Trucks Band I saw last night playing some Sly Stone for fun, that's going to pack floors and sell booze just as much as a Lady Gaga cover.

The distinction is whether you suck or not. Whether you're paying attention to your audience. Whether you're using your considerable skill to turn them on or jack off. Setlist? Whatever. Just be great and be able to get them dancing. Don't be passable, get off your ass and get great.

You telling me Space Truckin' isn't a dance song? It sure as hell was for this band and their appreciative audience.

You telling me those dads would've been better if they busted into Nickleback? Who cares? If they weren't great, they weren't great. No amount of My Chemical Romance or the latest Adele is going to fix that. Why do people think so?

[Vito Corleone]

So don't hate the player, hate the game......

 

 

But it seems you just defined "the game" in terms of how lazy/motivated the "the players" are.

[Vito Corleone]

Who cares how old the songs are? Why is everyone so hung up on setlist???? Play freaking great, have a focus to what you do, remember it is a visual medium to some degree too, lay it down hard and solid... and you'll get people coming to your shows. Don't and you won't. A couple years ago when I was leaving the NAMM show for the day, I heard Deep Purple's Space Truckin' bouncing of the outside walls of all the buildings. I followed the sound and... ...there was a band. Playing 70's classic rock. They were made up of 35 year olds, obviously professional musicians. Hip. Together. These were the guys you might see in Beck's touring band or behind Colbie Caillat. LA locals. THEY KICKED ASS. Feelin' Alright by Joe Cocker. On and on. Boring old fart music. Right? No way. B3 and Wurly. Two guitars of the era. Fender, Marshall, Gibson. A guy playing a P-Bass into an SVT. Tight, 5 peice vintage Gretch kit tuned and finessed by a talented pro. Drummer and bassist tighter than a gnat's ass. Boring right? I don't care, nor does any crowd care, if the songs are 40 years old or from yesterday. If they are played with real skill and passion, like the Tedeschi Trucks Band I saw last night playing some Sly Stone for fun, that's going to pack floors and sell booze just as much as a Lady Gaga cover. The distinction is whether you suck or not. Whether you're paying attention to your audience. Whether you're using your considerable skill to turn them on or jack off. Setlist? Whatever. Just be great and be able to get them dancing. Don't be passable, get off your ass and get great. You telling me Space Truckin' isn't a dance song? It sure as hell was for this band and their appreciative audience. You telling me those dads would've been better if they busted into Nickleback? Who cares? If they weren't great, they weren't great. No amount of My Chemical Romance or the latest Adele is going to fix that. Why do people think so?

As usual, you put it all pretty well Lee. Nothing here to disagree with. The #1 point is that every band needs to BRING IT. The "IT" isn't nearly as important as the "BRING". My guess is the problem with this band for the OP had much less to do with song choice than the fact that they were probably standing there looking bored and dumpy and playing un-enthusiastically. It's at that point that the 40 year old Deep Purple song starts to seem like the problem.

Having said that, I think there are certainly some big points to be made about doing the right material for the intended audience and the right songlist is a BIG part of any well-thought-out program. But based on the original post, we don't even know for sure that this material this band was playing WASN'T just fine for the venue. Some other might have come in the next night with the same songlist and killed the place.

This might be too general of an observation or relying too much on my personal taste, but I think that it many ways it is HARDER for a band playing old classics to be good than a band playing newer material. I've heard "Space Truckin'" played 1,000 times by a 1,000 crummy bands over the years. For a song like that to work, the band better be playing the HELL out of it. Either putting a new spin on it or playing it better than I've heard anybody play it in 40 years. They should be THAT good. A modern dance hit like "Dynamite" is pretty much a free-shot-on-the-goal. Any band who can bang out those 4 chords is going to pack the dance floor with the under 35 crowd with that song this week.

I agree with you 100%: A great band is a great band. And material becomes secondary for a great band. Problem is, the vast majority of bands out there AREN'T great. Way too many "dad bands" out there just doing it because THEY want to have some fun on THEIR terms and they expect the rest of US to foot the bill.

[Lee Knight]

A great band is a great band. And material becomes secondary for a great band. Problem is, the vast majority of bands out there AREN'T great. Way too many "dad bands" out there just doing it because THEY want to have some fun on THEIR terms and they expect the rest of US to foot the bill.

[3shiftgtr]

But it seems you just defined "the game" in terms of how lazy/motivated the "the players" are.

The game is what constitutes a good cover band in the eyes of the OP. Remember it is all about the audience, right g? The music should be all about what they want not what you like or are good at. Dad band finished early.....musta not been a crowd. Fail. Dad band plays for themselves and to have fun....the game cuts them out of the win, not the fact that they are dads, wear cargos, or *gasp*, use a music stand. (sorry, the door was open;))

I agree with you 100%: A great band is a great band. And material becomes secondary for a great band.

And doesn't this fly in the face of every 'audience first' post you have ever slung around here? If I play in a KILLER band with Primus, Dream Theatre, Rush, Yes, and King's X covers that are sooo amazing, and they are 'bringing it' and so forth, are you telling me that if that same band playing 'the dancing hits' just as well, that they WOULDN'T have a bigger crowd?

If you just play what you are passionate about and can do the best in an attempt to insure the 'IT' factor, aren't you putting the music and yourself before your audience and what the people want? You've hammered this home around here a bunch....

[Lee Knight]

And doesn't this fly in the face of every 'audience first' post you have ever slung around here? If I play in a KILLER band with Primus, Dream Theater, Rush, Yes, and King's X covers that are sooo amazing, and they are 'bringing it' and so forth, are you telling me that if that same band playing 'the dancing hits' just as well, that they WOULDN'T have a bigger crowd?

 

 

If you're playing a dance club, you gotta play dance music. Dream Theater is not dance music. Feelin' Alright by Joe Cocker is. Sly is. The point is you don't have to cover Lady Gaga. Or you can. That's great. But you have to play the gig. If it's a dance gig, make them dance.

 

Kick their ass with your tightly wound band. Rush isn't going to do that. No slam against Rush, though I'm not a fan. The point is, play the gig. The age of the material is less an issue than doing things well. Modern hits setlist can be the crutch of the sub par.

[Vito Corleone]

And doesn't this fly in the face of every 'audience first' post you have ever slung around here?

No, because if you've read enough of my posts (and I post way too often and am often long-winded, so I certainly don't fault any one who scrolls past my ramblings) you'll know that I also post a LOT about the need for bands to be GOOD--to try to be GREAT---on ALL levels---that I blame a BIG part of what ails the live music industry on the bands themselves who continue to follow a 40+-year old business model and then wonder why so many audiences are apathetic and why they can't get more than $400 a night. "Audience first" is just one part of the equation. And isn't all about material.

 

Bands that work hard to "bring it" on ALL levels aren't doing all the extra stuff for themselves. Things like light shows, audience interaction, dressing better, better promo, well-paced sets, etc are ALL "audience first" components. No band does ANY of those things just to please themselves.

 

If I play in a KILLER band with Primus, Dream Theatre, Rush, Yes, and King's X covers that are sooo amazing, and they are 'bringing it' and so forth, are you telling me that if that same band playing 'the dancing hits' just as well, that they WOULDN'T have a bigger crowd?

 

 

Depends who they are playing for and how they are packaging the band. Like I said, the "classic" bands often have to work harder. I'm sure somewhere out there, there is a band doing all that material that packs 'em in every night, but they've worked hard to develop their image, their audience and their reputation. They done all the OTHER "audience first" stuff needed to make their band successful. But yeah, for bands who play the nightclubs for the general party-on-a-friday-nite crowd where holding a crowd who might not even know who you are is at least half the game? Yeah, the band playing the 'dancing hits' wins.

 

 

If you just play what you are passionate about and can do the best in an attempt to insure the 'IT' factor, aren't you putting the music and yourself before your audience and what the people want? You've hammered this home around here a bunch....

 

 

Again, the problem is most bands don't do what needs to be done to insure the "it". If they were, they'd be focused on the audience and not themselves. Nothing about cargo pants, 30 seconds between each song, and a couple of par cans on one side of the stage while gazing at your shoes is "doing what needs to be done to insure the IT" or connotes being "passionate" about the material.

[pickinatit]

To a certain degree when people are saying that "today's music isn't as good as the old stuff" they are saying "there aren't as many good songs released in 2011 as there have been released over the past 40 years combined."

 

 

Forget about the 40 years comparison. Take a look at the top 100 hits of a year like say...1971 or 1972. Compare that to a top 100 hits of any of the past 5 years. Tell me how, relatively speaking, you think the recent hits will hold up.

 

1. Joy to the World, Three Dog Night

2. Maggie May/Find a Reason to Believe, Rod Stewart3. It's Too Late/I Feel the Earth Move, Carole King4. One Bad Apple, Osmonds

5. How Can You Mend a Broken Heart?, Bee Gees6. Indian Reservation, Raiders

7. Go Away Little Girl, Donny Osmond

8. Take Me Home, Country Roads, John Denver

9. Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me), Temptations

10. Knock Three Times, Dawn

11. Me and Bobby McGee, Janis Joplin

12. Tired of Being Alone, Al Green

13. Want Ads, Honey Cone

14. Smiling Faces Sometimes, Undisputed Truth

15. Treat Her Like a Lady, Cornelius Brothers and Sister Rose

16. You've Got a Friend, James Taylor

17. Mr. Big Stuff, Jean Knight

18. Brown Sugar, Rolling Stones

19. Do You Know What I Mean, Lee Michaels

20. The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, Joan Baez

21. What's Going On, Marvin Gaye

22. Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Paul McCartney

23. Ain't No Sunshine, Bill Withers

24. Signs, Five Man Electrical Band

25. She's a Lady, Tom Jones

26. Superstar, Murray Head and The Trinidad Singers

27. I Found Someone Of My Own, Free Movement

28. Amos Moses, Jerry Reed

29. Temptation Eyes, The Grass Roots

30. Superstar, Carpenters

31. My Sweet Lord / Isn't It a Pity, George Harrison

32. Sweet and Innocent, Donny Osmond

33. Put Your Hand In the Hand, Ocean

34. Chick-A-Boom, Daddy Dewdrop

35. For All We Know, Carpenters

36. Help Me Make It Through the Night, Sammi Smith

37. Rainy Days and Mondays, Carpenters

38. If You Could Read My Mind, Gordon Lightfoot

39. Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves, Cher

40. Never Can Say Goodbye, Jackson 5

41. Rose Garden, Lynn Anderson

42. Don't Pull Your Love, Hamilton, Joe Frank and Reynolds

43. It Don't Come Easy, Ringo Starr

44. Mr. Bojangles, Nitty Gritty Dirt Band

45. I Love You for All Seasons, Fuzz

46. Whatcha See Is Whatcha Get, Dramatics

47. That's the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be, Carly Simon

48. If You Really Love Me, Stevie Wonder

49. Spanish Harlem, Aretha Franklin

50. I Don't Know How to Love Him, Helen Reddy

51. Yo-Yo, Osmonds

52. Bridge Over Troubled Water, Aretha Franklin

53. Doesn't Somebody Want to Be Wanted, Partridge Family

54. Draggin' the Line, Tommy James

55. Proud Mary, Ike and Tina Turner

56. Beginnings/Color My World, Chicago

57. Stay Awhile, Bells

58. Sweet City Woman, Stampeders

59. Me and You and a Dog Named Boo, Lobo

60. Another Day/Oh Woman, Oh Why, Paul McCartney

61. If, Bread62. Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology), Marvin Gaye

63. One Toke Over the Line, Brewer and Shipley

64. She's Not Just Another Woman, 8th Day

65. Bring the Boys Home, Freda Payne

66. I Just Want to Celebrate, Rare Earth

67. Never Ending Song of Love, Delaney and Bonnie and Friends

68. Easy Loving, Freddy Hart

69. Liar, Three Dog Night

70. Stick-up, Honey Cone

71. Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep, Mac and Katie Kissoon

72. (Where Do I Begin) Love Story, Andy Williams

73. Wild World, Cat Stevens

74. When You're Hot, You're Hot, Jerry Reed

75. Funky Nassau, Beginning Of The End

76. If Not for You, Olivia Newton-John

77. Groove Me, King Floyd

78. Watching Scotty Grow, Bobby Goldsboro

79. Woodstock, Matthews' Southern Comfort

80. Amazing Grace, Judy Collins

81. I Hear You Knocking, Dave Edmunds

82. Lonely Days, Bee Gees

83. Here Comes That Rainy Day Feeling Again, Fortunes

84. Won't Get Fooled Again, Who

85. Trapped By a Thing Called Love, Denise Lasalle

86. Mama's Pearl, Jackson 5

87. Timothy, Buoys

88. I Woke Up In Love This Morning, Partridge Family

89. Theme from "Shaft", Isaac Hayes

90. If I Were Your Woman, Gladys Knight and The Pips

91. I Am... I Said, Neil Diamond

92. Wedding Song (There Is Love), Paul Stookey

93. Don't Knock My Love, Pt. 1, Wilson Pickett

94. Love Her Madly, The Doors

95. Here Comes the Sun, Richie Havens

96. Sweet Mary, Wadsworth Mansion

97. Right On the Tip of My Tongue, Brenda and The Tabulations

98. One Less Bell to Answer, Fifth Dimension

99. Riders On the Storm, The Doors

100. It's Impossible, Perry Como

 

You can argue with some of the songs I emboldened, sure. But you could argue that some of the songs I didn't embolden should have been. And I recognize that my prejudices are at play here too (I'm 57). But I don't see how it can be argued that as many of the top 100 hits of say 2008 will still be playing regularly on the radio fourty years from now (assuming as if all things would be equal as far as media is concerned) as there is from just that one year of "back in the day" Look at some other years too. I just picked 1971 because it was my junior to senior years in high school.

[Lee Knight]

'71 was a freaking good year for music. Wow. I love 75% of that list.

[Vito Corleone]

Modern hits setlist can be the crutch of the sub par.

 

 

True. But so can old classics.

 

I think the point is: don't let your songlist be your crutch---but be smart enough to know how and why to use your songlist appropriately. My band's setlist is a big mix of both old and new stuff. The goal is that each song has a point and a purpose and the song choices are designed to reach the audience in a certain manner. Based on the audiences we are playing for (usually a mix of age groups, but with the dance floor being "driven" mostly by the younger members of the audience) there are points in the set where NOTHING will work better than a modern dance hit. And points where nothing will work better than a tried-and-true classic. Points where a blistering guitar solo is just what will ignite the audience and points where a guitar solo would clear the dance floor.

 

Songlists are VERY important. But the individual song choices can vary because there are so many songs available to choose from to fill specific needs. Timing and pacing of the set is primary. Which specific songs used to fill those slots is secondary. Knowing how to work the audience and flow the set is the key. The songlist is just one (albiet a very big one) component of all that.

[Vito Corleone]

You can argue with some of the songs I emboldened, sure. But you could argue that some of the songs I didn't embolden should have been. And I recognize that my prejudices are at play here too (I'm 57). But I don't see how it can be argued that as many of the top 100 hits of say 2008 will still be playing regularly on the radio fourty years from now (assuming as if all things would be equal as far as media is concerned) as there is from just that one year of "back in the day" Look at some other years too. I just picked 1971 because it was my junior to senior years in high school .

 

 

Which is exactly why YOU love that year in music. And is exactly why a million other people will love 2011 40 years from now. All I know is I've lived long enough to see this cycle repeat endlessly. I remember distinctly my parents telling me in the mid-70s how none of the music I was listening to would be around in a few years and how all the stuff they grew up with in the 40s and 50s was so much better because THAT stuff was still being played on the radio and on TV at the time. Why was "Happy Days" so popular except that that era and that music was superior to the junk being produced in the 70s?

 

I don't know WHICH hits from the Top 100 of 2011 will still be loved in 40 years but I'm pretty sure there will be at least 20-30 of 'em.

 

Here's the Top 100 of 1991:

 

http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1991.htm

 

I'm guessing there aren't more than a couple of songs on here you like very much at all. But for anyone who was a junior-to-senior that year? I'm guessing they love a BIG chunk of those songs as much as you love "It's Too Late".

[3shiftgtr]

"Audience first" is just one part of the equation. And isn't all about material.

 

 

Conflicts with.....

 

 

Yeah, the band playing the 'dancing hits' wins.

 

[Vito Corleone]

Conflicts with.....

 

 

Only because you left out the qualifying statements I made in between those two.

[pickinatit]

Which is exactly why YOU love that year in music. And is exactly why a million other people will love 2011 40 years from now. All I know is I've lived long enough to see this cycle repeat endlessly. I remember distinctly my parents telling me in the mid-70s how none of the music I was listening to would be around in a few years and how all the stuff they grew up with in the 40s and 50s was so much better because THAT stuff was still being played on the radio and on TV at the time. Why was "Happy Days" so popular except that that era and that music was superior to the junk being produced in the 70s? I don't know WHICH hits from the Top 100 of 2011 will still be loved in 40 years but I'm pretty sure there will be at least 20-30 of 'em. Here's the Top 100 of 1991: http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1991.htm I'm guessing there aren't more than a couple of songs on here you like very much at all. But for anyone who was a junior-to-senior that year? I'm guessing they love a BIG chunk of those songs as much as you love "It's Too Late".

 

 

As for the italicized line: Sorry your parents took such a narrow view of music of the day. My Grandmother hummed Beatle tunes while she was fixing dinner.

 

Sorry, but I think that statement (emboldened) verges on the delusional. I've been around long enough to see the "cycle" and the claims your making over and over again. I've heard your argument 100 times if I've heard it once. But when I turn my radio on regardless of the station or formatt, I don't think I'm hearing more then maybe 8 or 10 of your 1991 top hits. Maybe it's because not ENOUGH time has passed yet...maybe it's because the songs are passing...I dunno. But the songs on the 1971 list I don't think I ever STOPPED hearing including half the ones that I didn't embolden. Just my $.02

 

And just so you know, I agree 100% that if you want to do the A-List rooms / clubs today most bands would have to be playing current dance hits. That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing against the idea that the hits from last decade will stand up to the test of time as well as the songs of the "classic rock" era (which I personally consider to be songs of the 60's and 70's). That I don't buy and I have NOT seen that pattern repeat itself over and over. Since we probably won't still be regulars on the BSWTB forum 40 yrs. from now to settle the argument we'll just have to agree to disagree o this one.

[Kramerguy]

Great post back there Lee-

 

I honestly think Lee is right about "bringing it" and also it's about playing to the crowd. We currently have 5 sets , but we only play 3 per gig. What it is is simply different sets to cover different crowds. I personally like to mix it up and mix generations, but when we play a biker bar.. nope, not pulling out the gaga and the katy perry.. we bust out the metallica, ac-dc, and of course, skynyrd and whatever else classic rock we gots. opposite for yuppie and sports bars. We gauge the crowd and change sets as needed.

 

But hey, one of the best bands I've seen locally did all 70's and early 80's rock, and their version of Radar Love was a tight as I've ever heard!

[JoeDirt]

But when I turn my radio on regardless of the station or formatt, I don't think I'm hearing more then maybe 8 or 10 of your 1991 top hits. Maybe it's because not ENOUGH time has passed yet...maybe it's because the songs are passing...I dunno. But the songs on the 1971 list I don't think I ever STOPPED hearing including half the ones that I didn't embolden. Just my $.02

 

 

I believe that depends on the radio station, but around here the "classic rock" channels play 70's and 80's music and that is basically it. Very few 60's tunes and even less from newer than the 80's.

 

I have to admit it's funny hearing Motley Crue on the classic rock channel.

[TIMKEYS]

Which is exactly why YOU love that year in music. And is exactly why a million other people will love 2011 40 years from now. All I know is I've lived long enough to see this cycle repeat endlessly. I remember distinctly my parents telling me in the mid-70s how none of the music I was listening to would be around in a few years and how all the stuff they grew up with in the 40s and 50s was so much better because THAT stuff was still being played on the radio and on TV at the time. Why was "Happy Days" so popular except that that era and that music was superior to the junk being produced in the 70s? I don't know WHICH hits from the Top 100 of 2011 will still be loved in 40 years but I'm pretty sure there will be at least 20-30 of 'em. Here's the Top 100 of 1991: http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1991.htm I'm guessing there aren't more than a couple of songs on here you like very much at all. But for anyone who was a junior-to-senior that year? I'm guessing they love a BIG chunk of those songs as much as you love "It's Too Late".

 

 

In a way they were right.... that 71 top song set list has some real bowzers on it ,,,, it has three songs we do. You do have to cherry pick the decades to get the best songs. I work for a guy who has played professionally for going on 35 years. I had this thread in the back of my mind last night , and after we came off stage I asked mike ,, just exactly how many songs are we shuffling through in these shows. I really didnt have any idea. the backing band learned everything on the fly live. He said 550 songs in regular rotation and a total of 750 songs, plus 46 originals. Thats just the dinner show pool side bar stuff. We do his arrangements them obviously. People like this band. I think the reason is that with such a large pool of material ,, it can run with about any crowd. He also said that he had an agent tell him that he needed to pull out his set list from his promo pack,, due to the fact that potential customers would think he was bull{censored}ting. one thing for sure ,, I have learned how to read a guitar players hands, and upped my by ear game, and theory a ton with this project and it never gets boring. Its also about the show and being entertainers. Mike puts on a great show, and people come back to see it everytime they get in town. He makes them part of whats going on. Great people guy. Its not the lights , its not the moves, and its not how we dress, Its how this guy can connect with a room full of people and do it not only with the songs we do , but his personality. It still amazes me and I have played like 250 shows with him.

[Jerry_L]

The Preservation Hall Jazz band will be on Letterman on Tuesday night: http://www.preservationhall.com/band/tour_schedule/index.aspx

 

They may have a few '90's tunes in their setlist... 1890's.

[Lee Knight]

The Preservation Hall Jazz band will be on Letterman on Tuesday night: http://www.preservationhall.com/band/tour_schedule/index.aspx They may have a few '90's tunes in their setlist... 1890's.

 

 

They're a Greatgrandad band!

[Vito Corleone]

As for the italicized line: Sorry your parents took such a narrow view of music of the day. My Grandmother hummed Beatle tunes while she was fixing dinner.

 

 

I'm sorry they did too. Well, they liked a couple of Beatles songs and other modern songs OK. But they didn't believe any modern music had the staying power of the classics THEY grew up with. They thought it would all be forgotten as soon as the teens grew up and moved on to "real" music. Was that view "narrow"? Yes. Was it uncommon? Either then or now? No.

 

 

Sorry, but I think that statement (emboldened) verges on the delusional. I've been around long enough to see the "cycle" and the claims your making over and over again. I've heard your argument 100 times if I've heard it once. But when I turn my radio on regardless of the station or formatt, I don't think I'm hearing more then maybe 8 or 10 of your 1991 top hits. Maybe it's because not ENOUGH time has passed yet...maybe it's because the songs are passing...I dunno. But the songs on the 1971 list I don't think I ever STOPPED hearing including half the ones that I didn't embolden. Just my $.02

 

 

There's probably a few reasons for that, a couple of which you hit on: probably not quite enough time has passed yet (the 90s are just now becoming the new 80s as far a nostalgia goes) and technology has a lot to do with it. There's a lot of people in their mid-30s listening to the 90s stuff they grew up on. Just not necessarily on the radio or other outlets where YOU might hear them as well.

 

All I can tell you is we play 3 songs off that 1991 list and they are among the biggest songs we play all night. When I play the opening piano chords to "Good Vibrations" I get just as big a whoop and a holler out of the crowd as we get for the opening licks to "Sweet Home Alabama" or "Don't Stop Believin'" Why? Because it is objectively a great song? No. Because we play it so damned well? No. Because it's a fond memory from the youth of a bunch of 30-somethings in the crowd? Yes.

 

 

I'm arguing against the idea that the hits from last decade will stand up to the test of time as well as the songs of the "classic rock" era (which I personally consider to be songs of the 60's and 70's). That I don't buy and I have NOT seen that pattern repeat itself over and over. Since we probably won't still be regulars on the BSWTB forum 40 yrs. from now to settle the argument we'll just have to agree to disagree o this one.

 

 

You're right. It's an "agree to disagree" moment. But I WILL point out that your attempt to prove your point was to use a list from songs that were popular when you were 17. Which, in and of itself, pretty much proved my point. I've got a big fondness personally for 1978-1979--my senior year of high school. Lots of great songs on THAT Top 100 list as well. My parents probably prefer 1953-1954 and would still argue that THAT list beats 1971 any day of the week.

[Vito Corleone]

Sorry, but I think that statement (emboldened) verges on the delusional.

 

 

Not that my being delusional isn't a distinct possiblity, but I would have to ask you....what music do you THINK today's 17 year olds will be listening to 40 years from now? Eighty-year old hits from 1971? The modern hits of 2051?

 

I really don't think I'm going that far out on a limb to think what they will be listening to is a nice collection of the best classics from the 2000-2020 era that they grew up with and maybe some "new" stuff by old geezers like Bruno Mars that will be playing over the speakers at Starbucks.

 

(Or whatever passes for "playing", "speakers" and "Starbucks" in 2051...)

[troyguitar]

 

I WILL point out that your attempt to prove your point was to use a list from songs that were popular when you were 17. Which, in and of itself, pretty much proved my point. I've got a big fondness personally for 1978-1979--my senior year of high school. Lots of great songs on THAT Top 100 list as well. My parents probably prefer 1953-1954 and would still argue that THAT list beats 1971 any day of the week.

 

 

I just looked at the list from when I was 17 (2003). It's a bunch of garbage to me. The 1971, 1981, and 1991 lists all look pretty good though. Going much past 1991 though it gets pretty bad for my tastes - even 1991 is pushing it as the rock songs on there are a bunch of wimpy ballads from the end of the 80's rock movement. Here's that 2003 list for reference:

 

1. Crazy In Love, Beyonc