A good new thread?

I once heard Clapton say that all the great rock music has already been written in the 60's and 70's. And all that's happening now is that artists are just putting there own style to it. He also went on to say that DJ,s will be famous in the way that guitar greats of the 70's will be remembered. Also that the guitar hero is almost a thing of the past.

Whilst I can't agree with the business about DJ's I think he may have a point about the rest.

I'd be interested to hear of any songs or albums since 1995 that will be remembered in twenty years time in the same way as Free's 'All Right Now' or Clapton's 'Layla' is now. Will these always be the standard's?

I'm finding it hard to think of anything that will be remembered like that since perhaps Nirvana's Nevermind.

There definately will be. It may not be rock, but there will be new music that dominates just as older classic rock did.

It's always hard to say what will be the thing that will be remembered when you actually live it.

I guess that what majors are trying to sell right now won't be remembered, while what independant labels that create a new style and a following audience will.

It's also funny to see that sometimes, players weren't really famous when they were alive, and they are rediscovered once they die...

I'm pretty sad when I see the 1969 woodstock film. All those great bands, they have become a part of history. And when I see the 1999 woodstock revival, I hardly remember half of those bands names... I guess money has taken over talent...

Wait, if Clapton said that all great rock music was made in the 60/70's and people now are just applying their style to it, and seeing as Clapton made some of the best rock music of the period, then why the hell is he still making records?

yeah.. I agree with Poney one here... The Fat of the land will be remembered, Radiohead will have 2 or 3 albums (the Bends, Ok computer, and kid A just becuase it was such a surprising change yet such as good one)... The smashing pumpkins have to have one...

TO be honest I dont really agree with clapton here... I dont think that anything in the 60s or 70s is really that similar to so of the Pumkins live stuff, where it crosses the boundary between guitar rock and dark heavy techno... and to be honest I dont think a Marxist band like the Manic street preachers could really have made it... THey're got to have a defining album in there som where...
This reminds me of an excelent post by Skee1... Basically he took the history of rock back to the 50s, and basically how distortion came about and styles etc etc.. what I'm trying to say is no music is truely "new", it's simply furthering what's already there...

REM's album "up" (1997 i think) was an amazing album... God there's loads...

Sorry Clapton, you may be a guitar ledgend, but that dont mean i have to agree with what you say...:)

What about Rage Against The Machine? Their original

Ricky Martin, yeah definitely Ricky Martin and that whole latin thing!

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin
What about Rage Against The Machine? Their original

And very repedative.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin
What about Rage Against The Machine?

And very repedative.

. . . not to mention tedious, predictable, and annoying.

there are someother genuis bands that I dont think did that whole transaltlantic thing... like JAMEs... fantastic band, fairly well know over here, but I dont think so in the Us (Check them out, get something like "Some times (lescter piggot)" or "laiD" or "sit down" etc etc).... Gomez is another one, but i thought they were fairly well known across the pond...
Greendays album "dookie" was a great album (regardless of the simple guitaring)....

RAge are pretty good... but they're too darn repetitive... I dont understand this thing about Zack's voice... The guy from the Beastie boys, the really high pitched one (is it mix master mike? the one who played the guitar in the old days).... Now he's annoying! I think's Zacks voice and "singing's" pretty good like on "guerilla radio" and "sleep now in the fire".... oh well that's just my oppinion anyway....

Ponyone: I've got "stuck on you"... um... it's good, but really i need more to form a proper oppinion of Failure... I must admit though, it does make me smile... Please dont think I'm slating them, cos I'm not, but lyrically they're a little lacking,I love imagery in songs (like "a girl in floral dress, face is real mess, she scribbles the words, she scrobbles my words, she scribbles the REAL words, but I'd rather these were not my words")... I dont know I need to hear more... It's difficult to have "angst" with harmonies and perfect guitar, and perfect vocal, and the catchy octavier doohikie (it's difficult to explain, have a listen to "burn it clean" by mudhoney)... So the jury is still out for the mo, but so far they're pretty good..

hrckid, you mentioned Free's "All Right Now"... I don't remember them. Who the hell are they? I think that's how much of the music, regardless of style, of our generation will be remembered.

Get that track and listen to the guitar solo. It's perfect. You are winding me up that you've never heard it though aren't you.

I'm not saying that it's a particularly brilliant song but it is a good example of a 'classic' of the 70's.

I must admit I was a bigger fan of FNM at the time of Nirvana. Out Of Nowhere is my favourite of theirs. I just think they got a bit lost after Jim Martin left.

"The Zombie Eaters" rules.

About Morrello, I think he's damn good (almost anyone who impresses Les Claypool is good in my book). What I think got me about the band is not what they were doing, but how it seemed to concentrate on a few musical ideas. Their first album was really good, especially "Revolver" as it was such a break from the political stuff. The band itself is incredibly solid, and I like Zack's vocal style (he just needs more diverse lyrical content). But the thing is that probably all of us here could make a "Rage" song in about thirty seconds. Their riffing and song structures became so formulaic...

As for Clapton, he's a living legend. Frankly, I think that keeps him very insolated from all the music that's living and breathing out there. All of us are in a better position to look around, poke our head into a club, stumble into a party where some nobody band happens to be playing their first gig. Sadly, not many people do. Sometime there will be an artist or group that completely rewrites rock (or maybe invents a new type of music), and who's to say when? I can't, but I know it will happen and I'm just about to pee my pants in anticipation.

Partly why I like Rage's last album of covers so much. Yes their riffs continued to be fairly predicatable, but it worked so well on many songs, and with the lyrics already written, Zack already had slightly different things to sing about. As a Dylan fan, I think their version of Maggie's Farm is about as perfect a cover as is possible with that song; the lyrics are perfectly suited to such heavy riffs and I think it demonstrated how relevant Dyaln is to hard Rockers. Other favourites were Cypress Hill's "How I could Just Kill a Man" and Springsteen's "Ghost of Tom Joad". I don't actually listen to much Rage, and par tof the reason why i think they are so good probably stems from the fact that I spend weeks listening to Jazz and earlier rock like Hendrix before suddenly putting on Rage and dancing round the room like a maniac.

Ponyone: I know what your saying about sony records... but there is a flip side to you (perfectly valid) arguement... it is that capatilism has gone so far that i'll premote and sell anything that makes a profit even if it is against the system, because it's all about money. Money comes first. You also need to reach the masses to spread the word, and so why not use what you can?

I'm gonna carry on checking out failure... I'll report my progress SIR *Salutes* :)...

Thier coveres album is good, but what really gets on my goat is that I cant figure out who did the originals.. I know about the Dylan and Cypres hill covers (i didn't know that springsteen did Tom joad) and that Afrika Bambatta (sp) did renegades of funk (a very excelent song)...
Yeah and thier vidoes are Ace, my faviourite two video's probably "guerila radio"

A lot of the best rock music might have been written in the 60's and 70's,and that the rest of musicians(or if you prefer"musicians")are just adding their own style to it.But as long as people inhabit this earth,or wherever/whatever else they inhabit,there will be good music being put out.Good here depending on who you're talking to.Coz music is about people and their emotions,experiences,whatever.
And besides,what is so special about 1960-1979 that no can write better music than that written then?The food they ate?Cosmic phenomena in this timeframe?
Clapton is/was great,but all the elements that inspired/drove him are still there.And they(the elements)are still potent enough to inspire/drive someone else(elses).
At the end of the day,we're all people.Period.

I actually listen to people that push the envelope right now like Clapton pushed it... Ron thal does it, as Freak Kitchen's guitarist, IA...

lami.....
what are you saying?I dont understand.

What I'm saying is that those guys are innovators just like Hendrix or Clapton were in their time. They are pushing the technical, compositional, tonal capabilities of the guitar, except they aren't really recognized yet by the public... Steve VAI knows about those guys, he is trying to sign Freak Kitchen, and Ron THAL has recently had an appearence of Dweezil ZAPPA on his CD '9.11' I hope they will get the attention they deserve, because when the public knows about them, guitar will come back really hard in the music industry (not in the way of nu-metal band, but really like hendrix in his time, I hope)

Check out those sites
http://www.freakkitchen.com
http://www.ronthal.com

and a lick by Ron Thal I have contributed http://www.guitartricks.com/2000/trick.php?trick_id=3659

lali(i got thi right this time)
who's doing that lick?You or Thal?
And these people are not counting your posts correctly.After two posts,you still have 623 posts,according to them

Originally posted by kingdavid
lali(i got thi right this time)
who's doing that lick?You or Thal?
And these people are not counting your posts correctly.After two posts,you still have 623 posts,according to them

On the recording, it's me...

The posts actually increase and change on all the posts you have. Your first post will have the number of posts you now have and not 1 as you might think it should be (I guess it's called Dynamic HTML or something, I took some time to figure it out too)