Why do younger folks like classic rock?

[Lee Flier]

Because they stopped collaborating, and started doing everything themselves in the studio I also think the emphasis on live performance in the "golden age" was a factor in influencing the music of that time, not just because musicians were honing their chops, but because they were "collaborating" with the audience...the audience was almost like a focus group. If you buy into the concept that music is a language, well, a conversation will usually be more interesting than a monologue (Jean Shepard and Spalding Gray notwithstanding!).

 

Yeah, I agree completely. I don't think that's all there is to it, but it's a big factor.

[Lee Flier]

 

That might largely be because anything newer than that is just dated stuff that hasn't grown old enough to become "classic" yet or part of anyone's childhood memories.

 

 

Nah - like I said, it's not like when today's "classic" stuff came out that everybody didn't know it was great.

 

 

I can distinctly remember my parents saying the exact same thing about the stuff I was listening to 40 years ago.

 

 

But the difference is (as we've been discussing) a lot of young people now agree.

 

 

Not sure that's ironic. The fact that there ARE so many more choices now---and not just musical, but so many other things to impact the culture of youth---is probably THE biggest reason any individual song or musical act doesn't have the same impact such things had 40 years ago.

 

 

Sure, of course. But it is ironic because everyone thought more freedom and choices would lead to more creativity, more expansion of the culture. To this point, instead it has mostly shrunk the culture, resulted in less creative stuff being heard (even though it exists, that doesn't matter to the average listener if they don't hear it).

 

Don't get me wrong - I like not having record labels dictate what gets heard. But I won't deny that it has a downside too.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Nah - like I said, it's not like when today's "classic" stuff came out that everybody didn't know it was great.

 

 

Well, we kids "knew" most of it was great. Our parents? Not so much.

 

 

 

But the difference is (as we've been discussing) a lot of young people now agree.

 

 

So the older people keep telling me. While I'm certain that there are a lot of young people who like classic rock, I have to say that hearing so many people my age crow about this (and this is something that gets repeated a LOT on this board) really just makes me think that a lot of it is just them reaching to confirm their own musical preferences---it's as if they are still trying to convince their parents that the music they like really IS good, Ma!

 

Because the truth seems to be that for all this talk of how much kids these days love the old, good stuff, the #1 music radio station in my market is the Top 40 station (kids even still HAVE radios??) and the best selling CD and download charts are all still heavily dominated by new music. For all this love the kids supposedly have for the old stuff, they certainly aren't listening to it and buying it in numbers even remotely close to what we did when it was new. Nor in numbers even remotely close to what they spend on newer stuff.

 

So while I agree it's a good thing (and makes ME feel good too) to know that kids have classic rock as part of their musical palette, I hesitate to join with those who think that there could be a major revival for Zeppelin-esque rock bands if only the marketplace would allow us to get them out there!

[Vito Corleone]

 

Sure, of course. But it is ironic because everyone thought more freedom and choices would lead to more creativity, more expansion of the culture. To this point, instead it has mostly shrunk the culture, resulted in less creative stuff being heard (even though it exists, that doesn't matter to the average listener if they don't hear it).

 

 

My thoughts on that are this:

 

We are smack-dab in the middle of the biggest technological revolution to date. 10 years ago, who had even heard of a "smartphone"? Now look at all the things we do with them. Similarly, there has been a flood of new gadgets on the market for musicians to incorporate the we are all just beginning to even grasp the possibilities. Music, for all of its genesis in brain-thought and creativity, has always been a technology-driven artform. Rock and roll itself was largely the result of the inventions of the electric guitar and the trap-kit and as such, it was enough for early rock to just exist to be popular---it didn't have to be particularly good or creative, just the newness of it was enough at first. It took several years for musicians to grasp the full potential of even that primitive technology.

 

I believe we are just on the cusp of what is possible and what is to come. Sure, most of what kids are doing with apps on their iPads sounds pretty ridiculous right now---but in a few years when all this new technology has been absorbed and mastered and the simple fascination with the newness of everything has worn off and the creative juices begin flowing? Who knows what will come? And if doesn't involve electric guitars and trap kits and people singing into SM58s under a few par cans on a stage in a nightclub? Maybe that will be for the better.

 

If even young kids consider the pinnacle of guitar-rock to be what came out in the 70s, that might be because it was and needs to stay there to some degree. Sure, there are some good big-band type acts out there, but will any EVER be as good as the bands in the Artie Shaw/Benny Goodman heyday of the 1940s? No. Will modern classical music composers EVER completely rival Mozart and Beethoven? Probably not. Will there ever be a 4-piece guitar/bass/drum blues-based band as good as Led Zeppelin? Smart money says "no".

 

I have no idea where music is headed in the face of the new technology. I can only imagine what might be done with handheld devices, home computers, worldwide wireless interconnectivity and so on. My only guess is that the next Led Zeppelin will look as foreign to Jimmy Page as his band would have looked to Mr. Beethoven.

[Lee Flier]

Well, we kids "knew" most of it was great. Our parents? Not so much.

 

Personally, my parents were pretty good about that. They liked all the music of their own generation, and classical, and so forth, but they didn't mind most of what I listened to, either, and liked a lot of it in fact. So that just was not my experience.

 

In any case... the whole point is that you didn't hear many young people at the time saying the Beatles were crap or Hendrix was crap or anything of the sort. But now you do hear quite a lot of young people say that about the majority of artists in the charts.

 

So the older people keep telling me. While I'm certain that there are a lot of young people who like classic rock, I have to say that hearing so many people my age crow about this (and this is something that gets repeated a LOT on this board) really just makes me think that a lot of it is just them reaching to confirm their own musical preferences---it's as if they are still trying to convince their parents that the music they like really IS good, Ma!

 

Like I said... that ain't my battle. It seems to me more like YOU are reaching to confirm your own "truisms" - namely that "kids" always dictate cultural tastes and they never want to listen to what their parents listened to. I don't believe either opinion is universally true or even close.

 

Because the truth seems to be that for all this talk of how much kids these days love the old, good stuff, the #1 music radio station in my market is the Top 40 station (kids even still HAVE radios??) and the best selling CD and download charts are all still heavily dominated by new music. For all this love the kids supposedly have for the old stuff, they certainly aren't listening to it and buying it in numbers even remotely close to what we did when it was new. Nor in numbers even remotely close to what they spend on newer stuff.

 

They don't have to - they borrow their parents' copies. And yes, most young people who like classic rock seem to also like a decent amount of new music. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

So while I agree it's a good thing (and makes ME feel good too) to know that kids have classic rock as part of their musical palette, I hesitate to join with those who think that there could be a major revival for Zeppelin-esque rock bands if only the marketplace would allow us to get them out there!

 

I haven't heard anybody say that there is. You're reading a whole lot into this discussion that isn't there.

[Vito Corleone]

 

In any case... the whole point is that you didn't hear many young people at the time saying the Beatles were crap or Hendrix was crap or anything of the sort. But now you do hear quite a lot of young people say that about the majority of artists in the charts.

 

 

So I keep hearing. And again, while I don't doubt this is true to some degree the results of this aren't really reflected in radio ratings and recorded music sales. So the only real conclusion I can reach is that a lot these reports are exaggerated. I think it's great if there are a lot of kids out there who love Zeppelin and hate Gaga. I just don't know if that phenomena exists to a great enough degree to actually mean anything regarding the future of the music industry.

 

My guess is that the only thing it really means is that we have reached a turning point where we are at the effective end of the old paradigm and have barely scratched the surface of what's to come. The old line I've been hearing for decades -- "how many more 4-chord guitar songs can there be left to write?-- may have finally come true to some degree.

 

 

 

Like I said... that ain't my battle. It seems to me more like YOU are reaching to confirm your own "truisms" - namely that "kids" always dictate cultural tastes and they never want to listen to what their parents listened to. I don't believe either opinion is universally true or even close.

 

 

Well I don't think I've ever said preciesly THAT--kids are free to listen to whatever they choose for whatever reasons they choose-- but I think it's obviously true that younger people will drive culture. That's just a function of the passage of time.

[Lee Flier]

 

So I keep hearing. And again, while I don't doubt this is true to some degree the results of this aren't really reflected in radio ratings and recorded music sales. So the only real conclusion I can reach is that a lot these reports are exaggerated.

 

 

As I just said... it doesn't really translate to sales because kids are getting these records passed down to them, and buying them at used record stores which aren't recorded in the charts.

 

 

I think it's great if there are a lot of kids out there who love Zeppelin and hate Gaga. I just don't know if that phenomena exists to a great enough degree to actually mean anything regarding the future of the music industry.

 

 

But I don't give a crap about the music industry. I give a crap about music, which the music industry does not.

[A. Einstein]

Nobody give a damn what any of you thinks about artists who are legend today.

 

Also the music industry doesn't give a damn about anything fan boys and girls think about the music industry.

 

Buy the music, buy tickets and enjoy. That all which is reqiured from you.

 

Apply for autograms at the artist's website.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I give a crap about music, which the music industry does not.

 

 

Then go back and read what I posted in post #54 in case it got passed over during the course of the conversation. I think music itself and the creativity that leads to great music is largely driven by technology and that a lot of this past vs. present phenomenon we might be seeing now is simply the result of being at the end of one paradigm and still waiting for the next paradigm to fully develop.

 

I think a pretty good parallel to today existed in the 1950s: new music was driven by the new technology of electric guitars, amps, PA systems and drum kits. But the music itself? Most really wasn't very good or creative at first. And the new stuff arose largely because the old stuff had grown tired and stale. Yet, those artists kept releasing material and having hits using the old paradigm well into the late 60s.

[TIMKEYS]

 

My thoughts on that are this: We are smack-dab in the middle of the biggest technological revolution to date. 10 years ago, who had even heard of a "smartphone"? Now look at all the things we do with them. Similarly, there has been a flood of new gadgets on the market for musicians to incorporate the we are all just beginning to even grasp the possibilities. Music, for all of its genesis in brain-thought and creativity, has always been a technology-driven artform. Rock and roll itself was largely the result of the inventions of the electric guitar and the trap-kit and as such, it was enough for early rock to just exist to be popular---it didn't have to be particularly good or creative, just the newness of it was enough at first. It took several years for musicians to grasp the full potential of even that primitive technology. I believe we are just on the cusp of what is possible and what is to come. Sure, most of what kids are doing with apps on their iPads sounds pretty ridiculous right now---but in a few years when all this new technology has been absorbed and mastered and the simple fascination with the newness of everything has worn off and the creative juices begin flowing? Who knows what will come? And if doesn't involve electric guitars and trap kits and people singing into SM58s under a few par cans on a stage in a nightclub? Maybe that will be for the better. If even young kids consider the pinnacle of guitar-rock to be what came out in the 70s, that might be because it was and needs to stay there to some degree. Sure, there are some good big-band type acts out there, but will any EVER be as good as the bands in the Artie Shaw/Benny Goodman heyday of the 1940s? No. Will modern classical music composers EVER completely rival Mozart and Beethoven? Probably not. Will there ever be a 4-piece guitar/bass/drum blues-based band as good as Led Zeppelin? Smart money says "no". I have no idea where music is headed in the face of the new technology. I can only imagine what might be done with handheld devices, home computers, worldwide wireless interconnectivity and so on. My only guess is that the next Led Zeppelin will look as foreign to Jimmy Page as his band would have looked to Mr. Beethoven.

 

 

Given the style of modern stuff I do think you are right that tech will drive it, and its going to be more of the same with more gizmos to support the musical show.

 

I also think that we will always have the songwriter stuff that will keep churning away. back from what is percieved as the cutting edge.

[Lee Flier]

 

Then go back and read what I posted in post #54 in case it got passed over during the course of the conversation. I think music itself and the creativity that leads to great music is largely driven by technology and that a lot of this past vs. present phenomenon we might be seeing now is simply the result of being at the end of one paradigm and still waiting for the next paradigm to fully develop. I think a pretty good parallel to today existed in the 1950s: new music was driven by the new technology of electric guitars, amps, PA systems and drum kits. But the music itself? Most really wasn't very good or creative at first. And the new stuff arose largely because the old stuff had grown tired and stale. Yet, those artists kept releasing material and having hits using the old paradigm well into the late 60s.

 

 

Yeah, you might be right about that. I'm not sure though that there are any historic parallels for what's happening or is about to happen, though. Nor am I sure that technology per se is going to drive the next musical revolution, if there is one. Which there might not be for a long time, for all we really know. I honestly don't even pretend to have a clue which way things are going to go at this point, other than I'm observing the beginnings of a backlash against the apparent dominance of technology over emotion in current music, regardless of genre (and I think that is behind much of the classic rock and vinyl fetish amongst young people).

[A. Einstein]

 

Nor am I sure that technology per se is going to drive the next musical revolution, if there is one.

 

 

You talk like my grandmother, hee hee

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I honestly don't even pretend to have a clue which way things are going to go at this point, other than I'm observing the beginnings of a backlash against the apparent dominance of technology over emotion in current music, regardless of genre (and I think that is behind much of the classic rock and vinyl fetish amongst young people).

 

 

That's pretty much where I'm at as well, and I do feel that the love of classic rock and vinyl fetish among teenagers and twenty-somethings reflects that also.

[rasputin1963]

Maybe. But he put them right at ease with his smash hit, "Old Folks At Home."

 

IIRC, Stephen Foster had good reason to get ticked off himself any time he heard one of his tunes played: Apparently he was a severe alcoholic who never saw a penny of royalty from his tunes, because, as a man, he just never really could get his {censored} together...?

[RockViolin]

IIRC, Stephen Foster had good reason to get ticked off himself any time he heard one of his tunes played: Apparently he was a severe alcoholic who never saw a penny of royalty from his tunes, because, as a man, he just never really could get his {censored} together...?

 

Didja mean at himself?

 

That's a shame. He should have gotten his {censored} together and written some good 'get your {censored} together' music. Marches are good for that. Got one going right now myself...sorta.

I played the above mentioned work so many, many times and made some $$$ doing it. I've spent far more time with the piece than he ever did, and if he were here I'd resent giving him a solitary penny. And if I ever have to play it again, it's really gonna cost somebody!

[Vito Corleone]

 

I also think that we will always have the songwriter stuff that will keep churning away. back from what is percieved as the cutting edge.

 

 

There will always be songwriters, that's for sure. As far as what form the songs they write take? Well, few genres completely die. There are still symphony orchestras, dixieland bands, washboard-and-jug combos. The 4-piece rock band and the singer/songwriter with guitar/piano genres will certainly live on forever as well. Although how much they drive the culture in the future is probably debatable.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Yeah, you might be right about that. I'm not sure though that there are any historic parallels for what's happening or is about to happen, though. Nor am I sure that technology per se is going to drive the next musical revolution, if there is one. Which there might not be for a long time, for all we really know. I honestly don't even pretend to have a clue which way things are going to go at this point, other than I'm observing the beginnings of a backlash against the apparent dominance of technology over emotion in current music, regardless of genre (and I think that is behind much of the classic rock and vinyl fetish amongst young people).

 

 

Well, just my view, but I think the parallels are pretty clear. The world seems to move in cycles to a large degree. The post-war period was a pretty dreadful time for pop music, as evidenced by that chart from 1954 someone posted earlier. Pop music had become quite stale and I think the exact same thing is true of rock music during the last decade. Certainly that, along with the rise of new musical technology, was what precipitated the advent of rock and roll. But early rock was far from sophisticated in both compositional and performance terms and one of the reasons so many in the older generation didn't "get" it was because it was such a step back from the much-more complex melodies, harmonies, lyrical content and chord structures that existed in pop music in the 30s and 40s. It took quite a few years for rock musicians/writers to begin to catch up with their predecesors in this regard. Somebody posted earlier about not being able to distinguish the melody of any Katy Perry song from any other current pop hit and they were right. But the exact same thing could be (and was) said about Chuck Berry songs.

 

The biggest area where I don't see a parallel, however, is in all the outside influences that helped make rock the "music of a generation" during the 60s and 70s. I suspect there might have been more kids back then who would have enjoyed their parents music, but it was deemed so 'uncool' to like anything your parents liked back then---for reasons that had nothing to do with music---that the likes and dislikes of the youth became very narrow and insular. There hasn't been that "rage against the establishment" phenomenon there was back then in the years since. Plus, there wasn't a whole lot else in culture geared towards teens and pre-teens; pretty much the only thing we HAD to connect with each other was our music.

 

I think you're absolutely right about there being a backlash against technology vs. emotion and that is both a natural and a good thing. That some of the backlash is throwing kids back to older styles of music makes sense, but I suspect that what we're more likely to see in the future is an increase of emotion being applied to the music made with newer technology. Already in 2011 I hear fewer pop hits being drenched in Autotune than I heard a year ago.

 

In any case, I remain optomistic about the future of music: art will find a way--it always does-- and it will continue to move forward, even it is sometimes looking back at the same time. And as far as the industry goes? Well, if there is a product people like, there will always be people who will figure out a way to make money from it.

[RockViolin]

 

but it was deemed so 'uncool' to like anything your parents liked back then---for reasons that had nothing to do with music---that the likes and dislikes of the youth became very narrow and insular. There hasn't been that "rage against the establishment" phenomenon there was back then in the years since. Plus, there wasn't a whole lot else in culture geared towards teens and pre-teens; pretty much the only thing we HAD to connect with each other was our music.

 

 

Yeah. Many of the anthems of classic rock are still the anthems of teenage rebellion, done well with some authenticity. How to rebel against the rebellion? Hmmm.