|
|
| IanBillen |
How about I seen John Mayer on TV tonight and they mentioned that he played with Eric Clapton recently. We'll the guest asked him how about that? And he said "His respect for that type of music is deep". What a moron. I am no Clapton fan at all but these kids today only see from Creed to Dave Mathews. You may say well what was wrong with his response? Well it makes it seem as if Clapton and the music he is involved with is like Rag-Time or something. It's like come-on guy it's Eric Clapton. He should of just responded like: "wow how great that was" or "Yes what an oppurtunity I had to share a stage with someone of his stature" or something. Instead his response was like....I don't know, Like the guy reffered to Elvis or Bill Hailey and the Comets. It's like come on kid it's Eric Clapton he is still around....Geez. Speaking of Clapton, Is it me or is that new Los-Lonely-Boys hit "Heaven" just an Eric Clapton copy in the later part of his carreer? Also I was talking to my cousin's girlfriend who is 22 and I mentioned AC/DC and Van Halen. all she could say is she has heard of them.....? What is wrong with kids today. They are so fucking out of it besides Britney Spears and Nickleback. When we were kids we were well aware of goups that were around and what they did in the previous decade or two. Today kids are just so shallow about everything. Both her and her girlfriend never heard of Vicent Price either? What's with this generation?
Ian
Any thoughts. |
|
|
| scratched |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Also I was talking to my cousin's girlfriend who is 22 and I mentioned AC/DC and Van Halen. all she could say is she has heard of them.....?
Why should she have heard them? She's 22 for God's sake! She might not even be that interested in music. Are you that knowledgable about everything? It's not as if their music will transcend time and generations like, say, the Beatles, Stones and Dylan do. They will be footnotes in musical history.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
What is wrong with kids today. They are so fucking out of it besides Britney Spears and Nickleback. When we were kids we were well aware of goups that were around and what they did in the previous decade or two. Today kids are just so shallow about everything.
Not true. If you take the time to look at who posts on this message board (among others), you'll find that a high proportion of them (me included) are from the 'Britney Spears and Nickleback' generation and probably know a lot more about music than you do, and listen to music going back to more than just the 'previous decade or two'. Most probably don't listen to the artists you mentioned as there's alot more to modern music than what you see on MTV. Shallow? Don't you think that judging an entire generation of people just because they might listen to Britney Spears and Nickleback is a touch shallow?
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Any thoughts.
The only thought I came away with from your post is that you sound like the ignorant old fart you probably are.
[Edited by scratched] |
|
|
| PolkSalad |
Clapton's blues = Ragtime. Maybe Dixieland as well. Never thought of it like that but I think you're on to something. |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
scratched wrote:
Why should she have heard them? She's 22 for God's sake! She might not even be that interested in music. Are you that knowledgable about everything? It's not as if their music will transcend time and generations like, say, the Beatles, Stones and Dylan do. They will be footnotes in musical history.
Not true. If you take the time to look at who posts on this message board (among others), you'll find that a high proportion of them (me included) are from the 'Britney Spears and Nickleback' generation and probably know a lot more about music than you do, and listen to music going back to more than just the 'previous decade or two'. Most probably don't listen to the artists you mentioned as there's alot more to modern music than what you see on MTV. Shallow? Don't you think that judging an entire generation of people just because they might listen to Britney Spears and Nickleback is a touch shallow?
The only thought I came away with from your post is that you sound like the ignorant old fart you probably are.
[Edited by scratched]
Scatch,
1. I am not that old. Infact I am we'll under 35. And how can you possibly say you know more about music than I do? You don't even know me. If you want an example of ignorance you've just coined it.
2. Young people today are much more unaware of music in the past than the seventies and eighties younger generations were. That is factual.
3. And yes, my cousins girlfriend does buy music and listen to music. How she wouldn't know who AC/DC is strange. AC/DC were very much around in the late eighties, nineties, and even today. And so was Van Halen. Balance was released in 1994-1995. She would of been roughly 13. It was a big hit and had top-ten hits. So they were very much around when she was old enough to recognise it.
While sure AC/DC and Van-Halen are not the most influential of bands but were a staple in music in the very decades you and here both started to listen to music. Why she doesn't know who they are, what they look like, what type of music they play, or any of the above is beyond me.
However,
How a younger person like yourself could understand her point of view is just as ignorant. You say you know alot about music but infact I detect not. Someone who really knew alot about the subject would not of been so quick to see her point of view.
Ian
|
|
|
| Angiegirl |
I'm with ya Scratchy. Judging a generation because 2 people don't know some names...and stating they are shallow about 'everything' while you're at it. That's sad man.
In every generation ('a Slayer is born', ooops, kidding) there's more than 1 group of people. People who like only the enjoyable hits and dance music, people who are into rockmusic (old and new), people who know the hot new 'alternative' bands, people who like world music, people who like something of all flavours, people who...etc. So that hasn't changed. There are probably loads of kids who know the great new rock bands and new singer-songwriter stuff you never heard of Ian, like Scratched pointed out before me. Also, modern MTV stuff is not bad and shallow per se.
You should visit a festival or some club gigs of young bands, and see how many kids are there and in 7th heaven...
I'm 29 and although I don't qualify as a 'kid' anymore, I am however young and I listen to lots of modern rock and crossover acts as well as the 'golden oldies'.
Maybe YOU should broaden your perspective Ian... |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
2. Young people today are much more unaware of music in the past than the seventies and eighties younger generations were. That is factual.
Is it? And who decided that to be factual anyway? You did I guess...
So, ok, maybe it's strange if she has never heard of AC/DC or whatever. But that doesn't mean all kids are the same.
|
|
|
| scratched |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
And how can you possibly say you know more about music than I do? You don't even know me. If you want an example of ignorance you've just coined it.
I didn't say I knew more about music than you do. Read my post. I said that there are going to be SOME PEOPLE from my generation that listen to good music and know alot about music and some of them probably are more knowledgable about music than you are. My point was that you saying an entire generation is musically ignorant is rubbish.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
2. Young people today are much more unaware of music in the past than the seventies and eighties younger generations were. That is factual.
It is not factual. You give me some proof. You need proof of something for it to be factual.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
3. And yes, my cousins girlfriend does buy music and listen to music. How she wouldn't know who AC/DC is strange. AC/DC were very much around in the late eighties, nineties, and even today. And so was Van Halen. Balance was released in 1994-1995. She would of been roughly 13. It was a big hit and had top-ten hits. So they were very much around when she was old enough to recognise it.
While sure AC/DC and Van-Halen are not the most influential of bands but were a staple in music in the very decades you and here both started to listen to music. Why she doesn't know who they are, what they look like, what type of music they play, or any of the above is beyond me.
Why should she care who AC/DC are? If she's not interested, she's not interested. It doesn't make her ignorant just because she doesn't know who they are.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
However,
How a younger person like yourself could understand her point of view is just as ignorant. You say you know alot about music but infact I detect not. Someone who really knew alot about the subject would not of been so quick to see her point of view.
Ian
I can understand her point of view because I am open-minded, not ignorant. I don't necessarily agree with it or relate to it in any way but I can still see her point of view in an objective way.
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
You say you know alot about music but infact I detect not.
I know alot about music. I had to know alot to get a degree in it and for my job as an audio engineer.
[Edited by scratched] |
|
|
| scratched |
Cheers Angiegirl. |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Never heard of AC/DC?????? WTF?? Now that is .... unforgivable. |
|
|
| caro |
quote:
How a younger person like yourself could understand her point of view is just as ignorant. You say you know alot about music but infact I detect not. Someone who really knew alot about the subject would not of been so quick to see her point of view.
Man, look at what you wrote! Does that make any sense to you, really?
For the record, I'm 23 and I don't know anybody who listens to Britney Spears. Britney is a barbie doll for teenagers who makes music because it's the easiest & most consensual way to have her soft porn imagery shown on TV. If you can't tell the difference between her and the bands that make music that's relevant to young people, then you're missing the whole point of today's music industry, IMO.
-And I agree with scratchy too!- |
|
|
| glencar |
Does Miss 22-Year-Old know who the Rolling Stones are? |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Does Miss 22-Year-Old know who the Rolling Stones are?
Yes. Everyone knows that. Thank goodness for her sake.
Ian |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Yes. Everyone knows that.
No they don't. My mum works with refugees from several African countries (Siera Leone, Ivory Coast, Sudan etc), and I've spoken to at least 5 of them. None of them knew anything about the Stones, not even the name. 1 man had heard the name, but didn't know anything about them or their music. These are young people in their 20-ies en 30-ies.
So probably almost everyone in the rich western world knows who they are. You really dig generalizing, don't you Ian  ... |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
I'm with ya Scratchy. Judging a generation because 2 people don't know some names...and stating they are shallow about 'everything' while you're at it. That's sad man.
In every generation ('a Slayer is born', ooops, kidding) there's more than 1 group of people. People who like only the enjoyable hits and dance music, people who are into rockmusic (old and new), people who know the hot new 'alternative' bands, people who like world music, people who like something of all flavours, people who...etc. So that hasn't changed. There are probably loads of kids who know the great new rock bands and new singer-songwriter stuff you never heard of Ian, like Scratched pointed out before me. Also, modern MTV stuff is not bad and shallow per se.
You should visit a festival or some club gigs of young bands, and see how many kids are there and in 7th heaven...
I'm 29 and although I don't qualify as a 'kid' anymore, I am however young and I listen to lots of modern rock and crossover acts as well as the 'golden oldies'.
Maybe YOU should broaden your perspective Ian...
I liked Britneys first album. I think Pink is better. And yes, I am slammed for liking today's Pop music by some people around. Nickleback is fine to listen too. So is Britney. That is why I bought her first album. (although I think Pink is better. Broadening your horizons is my point exactly. I feel too many young people care and know about only music that has been made by artisits within the past five years or so.
The reason I say most, not all, but most are really unfamiliar with the whole scope is because every time I go out, every time I am at the video store, any where I go most kids seem to no very little about any music that was created before 1990. I have had so many examples over the past few years it is sick. Now, if you were to ask a younger person in 1983-84 who the group Leonard Skynard was or who The Doors were 8 out of 10 times they would surely know. Today it is much different. Over half of kids around the age of 20cannot name one song Van-Halen sang. It is not a matter of interest. It is a matter of Knowledge. I am not really interested in Hockey at all. However I know who Wayne Gretsky is. You may not be a boxing fan but you should atleast know who Sugar Ray Leonard is or Joe Louis is.
Ian
Ian
Ian
Ian |
|
|
| glencar |
10 yaers ago, I asked a young 18 year old who Mick Jagger was. Blank frigging stare. There are probably more people like that today. |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
Well, I guess musical knowledge develops with years. As with all common knowledge. Most teens are influenced by wht they see all around them every day. That's MTV, VH-1, adds and whatever. That's why companies focus on this age group as they are very easy to influence. When they get older they start to develop a real and honest personal taste in everything. They start to look for things themselves instead of thriving on what's provided for them directly. That's development. That continues a whole lifetime.
There are some kids who develop the personal taste and personality sooner than others, sure. And not every person is that much interested in music anyway. For some they can't live without it and some others regard music as a nice relaxing ornament in their lives, one of many.
So they should at least know the names of the greats. If a 16 year old kid knows the names of Pink Floyd, Eric Clapton and AD/DC (to name some), that doesn't make him/her a better person. If they not only know the names, but also know the music behind these names, you can say they have better knowledge of music and they understand what diversity in music is about. But that still doesn't make them better persons or less shallow persons...
Character is not bases on amount of facts-knowledge imo. |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Lots of generations are unaware of the music before them. These are casual music fans. Some ditz listening to Tom Jones in 1965 might give you a blank stare if you asked them who is Muddy Waters, Charlie Parker, Woody Guthrie or even Chuck Berry. The music must change for sure, but real music fans develop their tastes when they get older. Some 30-somethings today who listen to the great music of the past ignored it when in school.
Me, I've been developing tastes since discovered the Beatles when I was 10. I may be modest sometimes, but not when it comes to my musical tastes for a person my age (18). Let's be honest that most people my age don't know or have any music in their collection by eclectics like Van Morrison, Miles Davis, Lou Reed and the Clash. Each generations seems like a waste and a total dud to its elders, but it goes on to be unique in its own way. Even I knock the shallowness and crap this generation has endorsed. But in some way, it will be reversed and rebelled against by people who are sick of it like I am. And in the future I'm sure we youngsters will look at the younger generation and wag a finger and panic. It's a natural cycle I guess.
It can really shape who you are in a lifetime based on your musical idols. And it really changed my life to hear Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles, the Who and Neil Young. Each discovery taught me something I didn't know about musical expression, lyrically and instrumentally. Those are the major five for me. |
|
|
| IanBillen |
No. You're absolutely right in the fact that knowing a band, group, or entertainer doesn't make anyone better or more wise. However, it does seem the younger generation is so contrived in their ability to recognise some of the majors, what they stand for, and the quality of them and some of their works.
For example, if you go out to a bar or club half of the younger generation there under the age of say 22 or 23 could not name one album that The Beatles, Stones, or The Who released. Many would not be able to name one Who song. They may get a Beatles song or two along with a Stones tune but other than that would be about it. The younger generation often looks to Creed at the moment while five years down the road they will look to the next band of the week. A younger friend of mine told me recently Seve Mary Three were fantastic while The Rolling Stones were washed up. Now, in four years this same person will have forgotton all about Seven Mary Three and will declare the popular band of that month, week, or even year are the greatest thing since sliced bread. That is silly. Yet this is a huge portion of the attitude and mind-set of much of the younger generation and their outlook and knowledge base. Kids burn so many MP3's today most of them never even go to the store to purchase an album and sit and listen to it and appreciate it for what it's worth. If, and when they do, which is rare, it is usually the band of the week that they are purchasing. It seems most do not realise or even know of any works or credible songs before 1990 or so. It's silly and yes, it is shallow in my opinion. For instance: Last month I asked a 23 year old female friend of mine if she could name this famous group of entertainers from the 1960's in which their first names started with Paul, George, John, and Ringo. She had no idea.....? This chic is not sheltered, and she lives the normal life of any other kid her age.
-Something is truly wrong with this picture-
Ian |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Speaking of Clapton, Is it me or is that new Los-Lonely-Boys hit "Heaven" just an Eric Clapton copy in the later part of his carreer?
Clapton copy ? wtf ?
I don't hear it.
My first reaction was that it reminded me of Los Lobos, in fact, I thought it was Los Lobos. Not a bad tune btw.
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>Britney is a barbie doll for teenagers who makes music because it's the easiest & most consensual way to have her soft porn imagery shown on TV.<
Not really. It's really about making money. It is ALWAYS about making money.
To Ian...The music industry of the present, or at least the major imprints anyhow, are all about making money. You can't blame our younger generation for that. Sure lots of kids are listening to crap right now....because that is, for the most part(there are always notable exceptions), what the major record companies are slopping out for the moment. That isn't the younger crowd's fault.
You also are dismissing the hip hop effect. People under 25 don't remember a time before hip hop/rap. They have grown up with it. It has always been there. This instilled different musical values on their generation. Kind of like what punk did for my generation. Obviously, people in the 20-something demographic are going to like different things from you & I because their influences are very different from ours.
Besides...I wish I didn't know who Van Halen was either! |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>Britney is a barbie doll for teenagers who makes music because it's the easiest & most consensual way to have her soft porn imagery shown on TV.<
Not really. It's really about making money. It is ALWAYS about making money.
To Ian...The music industry of the present, or at least the major imprints anyhow, are all about making money. You can't blame our younger generation for that. Sure lots of kids are listening to crap right now....because that is, for the most part(there are always notable exceptions), what the major record companies are slopping out for the moment. That isn't the younger crowd's fault.
Hi Sir StonesAlot,
Very nice to read your post.
Well the record companies have Always been about making money. From Elvis Presley till now.
Secondly I cannot blame the younger generation of music fans for what the industry has put out. It is not their fault. They are neither the record company or the musicians. Reguardless I have absolutely no problem with the younger generation and their preference to music.
My only problem is that they very much over-rate today's bands and performers too often and yet are totaly unfamiliar with bands who shaped and formed the music industry and music in general as to what it is today. To dislike something is one thing. To be totaly unaware of it is another. Ask a 23 year old in 1984 who were the famous entertainers John, Paul, George and Ringo were from the 1960's and they would surely know. Today half of the generation 22 and under would not.
I find that ignorant, closed minded, and absurd. I don't give a hoot what the record industry is putting out today. That is irrelevant.
Ian
You also are dismissing the hip hop effect. People under 25 don't remember a time before hip hop/rap. They have grown up with it. It has always been there. This instilled different musical values on their generation. Kind of like what punk did for my generation. Obviously, people in the 20-something demographic are going to like different things from you & I because their influences are very different from ours.
Besides...I wish I didn't know who Van Halen was either!
|
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Ask a 23 year old in 1984 who were the famous entertainers John, Paul, George and Ringo were from the 1960's and they would surely know. Today half of the generation 22 and under would not.
I find that ignorant, closed minded, and absurd.
actually Ian i find your whole rationale a bit absurd - that is when i can occasionally distill a "rationale"
because you see these artists as important you seem to think that every one else should
as pointed out above (angiegirl i think) not all young people are obsessed with music let alone to the point where they are familiar with acts from 30/40 YEARS AGO
for good or ill music doesn't have the same cultural clout as it used to - in fact i get annoyed when people keep going on about the Beatles the Stones and all the other '60's stuff (as much as i like a lot of it myself)as if there was no good music ever made after them
and SS is right you've not really apreciated that since the early '80's rap/hip hop has completely changed the musical landscape and it is pointless for people to moan about this and they usually do becuase the real meaning behind it is that the music they held (hold) to be so important is, from a general cultural point of view, pretty much irrelevant - this upsets people because they don't like to think that the things they hold to be important are no longer so
why should the average 23 year old today really care much about the Beatles - it's a bit like someone in the '60s/70's complaining that kids in those days had never heard or appreciated Vera Lynne (or some one like that)
the spirit of rock and roll is what is important (to me at least) and for mine a big part of that spirit is a healthy iconoclasm - it's all about trashing museums not building them
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>My only problem is that they very much over-rate today's bands and performers too often and yet are totaly unfamiliar with bands who shaped and formed the music industry and music in general as to what it is today<
You think Van Halen and AC/DC have anything to do with what is going on in the music industry today? For that matter, what the heck does Elvis or Chuck Berry have to do with music today? Next to nothing. They are past. Van Halen and AC/DC may have been a big deal 15 years ago...but they ain't nothing but nostalgia today.
>Ask a 23 year old in 1984 who were the famous entertainers John, Paul, George and Ringo were from the 1960's and they would surely know. Today half of the generation 22 and under would not.<
I would disagree with that. You may find a few young people here or there who may not know of the Beatles....but not many. You may forget, the Beatles STILL make the cover of most music magazines over the course of a year. AND today's bands STILL cover Beatles songs. My 8 year old knows who the Beatles are. My 17 year old neice, and her friends Ashley and Kayla know who the Beatles are(I know this because they asked me to make them a Beatles mix CD). You are way off base on this one dude.
>I don't give a hoot what the record industry is putting out today. That is irrelevant. <
Whaaaa???? How can it be irrelevant? The under 25's are gonna buy music made by their peers.....it's been that way throught music history. People buy what their peers are putting out. Let's take the Stones, for instance. Who bought the Stones' records back in 1965? It sure as hell wasn't people in their 40's! Now, who bought Bridges To Babylon? Late 30's and up. As a band ages, so does it's fan base. When a band is young, most of the fans are also young. So knowing that, and knowing that the major demographic for music buying is under 25....what kind of bands are going to be pushed by the record companies? Young artists...bought up by young people. And they buy it because they are targeted by aggresive marketing aimed right between their eyes.
You can call it close minded, ignorant, absurd...whatever. I call it obvious.
I consider that girl who never heard Van Halen as very lucky. |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Once again my very point is being totaly missed here:
Ian's point-
1.For a younger person not to care about The Stones or The Beatles is totaly up to them. HOWEVER, for them not to know of them or who they are is totaly rediculous.
2. Yes, if asked. Half of the kids 22-23 and under at the mall, or at the clubs would not realise you were talking about the Beatles if you said name who these guys are. Then you stated "John, Paul, George, and Ringo." Now I am sure almost everyone has heard of The Beatles but my point being, how much do they really know? You could play "She Loves You, yeah, yeah, yeah" and you could ask say 5 girls under the age of 22. And you could ask 5 boys under the age of 22-23. I am telling you atleast half would have no clue as to who is singing. All they will know is The name the Beatles, or The Rolling Stones. It is not about not caring. It is about not knowing. I am not into magic or escape artists but I who Houdini is. I know around the time he was performing and I recognise some of his famous tricks. Ask a younger person who Andrew Johnson was. I guarantee you could tell them it was a famous poet from the 1930's and they would beleive you. Years back it wasn't like that with the younger generation. While in 1975 they may of not liked him, but kids knew who say Humphrey Bogart is. Today many young-ins would be clueless. Ask your relatives who Vincent Price or
Judy Garland is and I don't think they will be familiar. I think today's generation only really sees 5 feet in front of their face and 1 foot behind. Ofcoarse their are exceptions. And there are many I am sure. However, I am speaking of the over-all concensus. I hope I did not offend anyone and that is truley not my objective here.
Ian
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>HOWEVER, for them not to know of them or who they are is totaly rediculous.<
Uhhhh....why is that ridiculous? And why do you give a shit?
>Ask a younger person who Andrew Johnson was. I guarantee you could tell them it was a famous poet from the 1930's and they would beleive you.<
Dude, you could ask people with college degrees who Andrew Johnson was, and not that many would know. He's a rather obscure historical figure, known mainly for taking over for the assasinated Lincoln and being impeached. I mean, the only reason I know that is because I'm a history geek. That would be like asking kids who Chester Arthur or Sir Edmund Hillary was!
I think you are missing the point Ian. The point is Van Halen and AC/DC are minor blips in rock & roll history, and have almost ZERO impact on today's music styles. Younger people don't know about those bands because those bands are completely off the radar. There is NO REASON for someone who is 22 to know who Van Halen is because, quite simply, Van Halen no longer matters, and hasn't mattered for a very long lime. Out of sight, out of mind.
It baffles me as to why you would think anyone under 30 SHOULD know them. |
|
|
| Blind Dog McGhee |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Dude, you could ask people with college degrees who Andrew Johnson was, and not that many would know. He's a rather obscure historical figure, known mainly for taking over for the assasinated Lincoln and being impeached. I mean, the only reason I know that is because I'm a history geek. That would be like asking kids who Chester Arthur or Sir Edmund Hillary was!
Or Chester Burnett for that matter. |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
"It's not as if their music will transcend time and generations like, say, the Beatles, Stones and Dylan do. They will be footnotes in musical history."
that statement sounds like your making the mistake of thinking music began in the 1960's |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>HOWEVER, for them not to know of them or who they are is totaly rediculous.<
Uhhhh....why is that ridiculous? And why do you give a shit?
>Ask a younger person who Andrew Johnson was. I guarantee you could tell them it was a famous poet from the 1930's and they would beleive you.<
Dude, you could ask people with college degrees who Andrew Johnson was, and not that many would know. He's a rather obscure historical figure, known mainly for taking over for the assasinated Lincoln and being impeached. I mean, the only reason I know that is because I'm a history geek. That would be like asking kids who Chester Arthur or Sir Edmund Hillary was!
I think you are missing the point Ian. The point is Van Halen and AC/DC are minor blips in rock & roll history, and have almost ZERO impact on today's music styles. Younger people don't know about those bands because those bands are completely off the radar. There is NO REASON for someone who is 22 to know who Van Halen is because, quite simply, Van Halen no longer matters, and hasn't mattered for a very long lime. Out of sight, out of mind.
It baffles me as to why you would think anyone under 30 SHOULD know them.
Sir Stones-Alot,
Again I appreciate your input totaly. I strongly do not agree with the opinion that AC/DC and Van-Halen were "minor blips" in music? They are within the top twenty most famous bands of all time. AC/DC or Van-Halen could very well come in the 11 or 12 spot in terms of popularity, and as a long standing act. They have had countless hits and countless number one ablums with each band and have played to millions of people all over the world (more so AC/DC in terms of international notoriety). AC/DC's Back in Black is easily one of the biggest selling albums of all time. Each band is strangely one of the only few groups in history to change lead singers after being famous and continue basically just as famous as before. Each band has had roughly a 20 year stretch as one of the more popular groups of their day and at short times in their reign they were the most popular . Sure it ended for Van-Halen in 96. As for AC/DC they are very much still around but their success has diminished since 1991.
1.Yes, they have little influence on any of today's music.
2. Yes, not many youngins are familiar with exactly who they are, and what they consisted of, or produced musically.
3. No. They are not the most creative or original of groups (although Van-Halen and AC/DC were not as un original as one may over-look). And many may think they are over-rated, dated, or down right stink.
*BUT, as for Van-Halen and AC/DC being "minor blips" in music they were definately not.
Ian |
|
|
| PolkSalad |
Read in the Sunday Chicago Trib John Mayer joined Buddy Guy last week to tape an episode of Soundstage. Missed them on ACL. I can understand why he would want to hang w/him however. Maybe he really does dig his music. |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
there's no reason anyone should've known who AC/DC was in the first place, but they're not any better or worse than they already were, so I just stopped caring. still, AC/DC is just about all I hear in modern rock. Van Halen's a little trickier. if more bands could emulate them, they would
I also find it ironic to read that guys who have been following the Rolling Stones for I'm guessing the better part of their career that they know what 'the kids' are listening to today. if you wanna know what 20 year olds are listening today, take my word for it
and give John Mayer some credit, its about time we heard another guitarist who knew more than one inversion of the same chord |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]