The 70's, and the music as of late...

I'm not exactly a disgruntled musician who is still waiting for the past to repeat itself, :D, but besides some minor improvement when it comes to songriting over the past few years, I'm really not that impressed. The seventies was one of the greatest years in rock history, because if you ask me alot of the musicians from the past seemed to work a little harder on their arrangments and experimented with a greater amount of discipline than their counter parts today. Would you agree?

Now I'm sure there are alot of people who really love the music that has reached the surface as of late, (and some of it is really good), but for the most part I think most musicians today are more fixated with the idea of being a rockstar, to the point where they don't really work out their tunes from their heart and soul. The message that we're recieving isnt very personal, its more like they are stating the obvious. I'm not saying that we should live in the past, or that classic rock is "better" than whats out today (although its obviously was), I just feel that its important for us as musicians to examine our roots, to learn how they relate to the way we create.

-Joseph, :), and without a much needed cup of coffee...

I knew I was an old man when a guy posted a request for some good, easy bass riffs. I suggested some early Alice Cooper. I think the melody and timing he learned from 'Billion Dollar Babies' would give him a good start on anything else he tried. I'm still looking for a bass player who can do a fluid job on 'Lemon Song' from Led Zeppelin's 2nd album. I meet far too many guitar players who developed Steve Vai's speed, without learning his sense of melody.

I can't claim a lot of familiarity with new music. The hooks are gone. The stuff that gets airplay has been homogenized to the point of blandness. At the price of CDs, I'm reluctant to part with my hard-earned coin for one or two good tracks on a disk.

I wonder how much the music 'biz' in general has to do with it...
It used to be a guy had to be absolutely amazing to get a recording contract. Now it seems like you just need to be amazing *looking* to get one.

Just my .02cents. The '80's wasn't all so bad either.
Yeah Smange, I think the Biz has alot to do with trying to force-feed the public the "Flavor-of-the-Month" stuff out there.
Don't get me wrong, there is some good stuff out there, thank you Napster!

Originally posted by schmange
I wonder how much the music 'biz' in general has to do with it...
It used to be a guy had to be absolutely amazing to get a recording contract. Now it seems like you just need to be amazing *looking* to get one.

Well, what sells today seems to be based on shock value, instead of thinking about longevity. In order for alot of the bands today to succeed, it seems like they have to constantly find new and creative ways to pull the wool over our eyes. But once the moment passes, its all about the music, and if you ask me it doesn't really have a whole lot to say. With the 80's, everyone seems to go out of their way to make a mockery out of the music because of the way they looked, but they are overlooking a very important factor, (these guys played their instruments very well, and polished their licks like there was no tomorrow. However, with the 70's rock, most of the bands weren't trying to sell their image, they were selling their music, (and it worked.) They made history, and years from now their music is thought of as a classic formula that respresented not only how they were feeling at the time, (but their overall personality.)

-Joseph, :). It would be nice if music was judged on talent these days, but thats just wishful thinking. But every now and then a few good bands tend to slip between the cracks..

Umm, I think perhaps if you look in the top 40 you might find that no new music is very interesting but from my point of view, I'm not sure that I entirely agree. We tend to remember the best music of any period, or the worst in the case of the 80's, and it seems as if there were thousands of grat songs being written all the time back in the 60's and 70's, as oposed to only a few good songs now. However, there was a lot of crap being produced then, and there always will be. Think of the Monkeys. However, you have a point, it does seem harder to find musicians these days who are more than one hit wonders. Here are few who are I think.
Pearl Jam: They are consistently creating music with integrity and soul. They don't advertise much, or create vido clips, because of how wary of the music buisness they are.
Radiohead. Another rock band that has integrity.
U2: They continue to innovate with new styles and at the same time have managed to not become gimmicky or bland.
Bob Dylan: Still rocking on, possibly he doesn't count cause he started in the 60's, but he continues to write new songs of merit.
FatboySlim: Some might disagree, but I think he is one of very few artists of his kind that is creating new music that is popular yet musically interesting. Time will tell whether he endures.
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Madonna
REM
Rage Against The Machine
Anyone else have some more? There are more bands that I like, but haven't listed, these are the bands that although I don't particularly like some of them (ie RATM), I think they are bands that go against the trend of one off hit bands.

I'm old enough to remember 1965, when the Top Ten changed completely every week, because Motown and the Brill Building were full of composers pouring out great material at an unprecedented rate. What gets glossed over in any of the documentaries on that period, is the fact that all of the 'bands' at the time were artificial assemblies of singers, backed by studio session musicians.

What makes the Supremes infinitely better than the Spice Girls, is the simple fact that those women could all sing well, the musicians were the best that could be found, and the composers were top-notch talents. As the computer jocks say, Garbage in, Garbage out!

Some look back to the 60's and 70's as the golden age of rock, at times I do to, having lived through it all though I can look back, and when I think hard about all the crap there was then I can assure you all there was just as much crap then as now. The talented, the innovators, the great songwriters and riffmeisters will always be remembered and emulated in later years, the crap will be forgotten. In 20 years nobody will remember Britney or Ricky Martin. David Cassidy, The Partridge Family, who he? Who they? When you talk about bands now relying on shock value, do you think Kiss and Alice Cooper or The Sex Pistols relied on their musicianship to climb to the top, I don't think so, Marilyn Manson is not doing anything new, my bet is that in 10years time if it is'nt already so, he'll be playing golf, he'll have a wife and 2.4 children, a dog and a conventional house, just as soon as he's made enough money to retire.

Originally posted by howie50
When you talk about bands now relying on shock value, do you think Kiss and Alice Cooper or The Sex Pistols relied on their musicianship to climb to the top, I don't think so, Marilyn Manson is not doing anything new, my bet is that in 10years time if it is'nt already so, he'll be playing golf, he'll have a wife and 2.4 children, a dog and a conventional house, just as soon as he's made enough money to retire. [/B]

The difference with Bands like Kiss and Alice Cooper, is that they had a creative vision, and their music made up for the rest. Once they grabbed ahold of the publics attention, the music took care of the rest. Today it seems like alot of recording artists are afraid that they'll no longer be able to hold onto the publics attention with their music as an ancor. Because face it, image is everything today, and anything else tends to get lost between the cracks, and it shouldn't be that way. But I honestly feel, (well at leat to a certain extent, that alot of people today like being in the moment, and not having to analyze what they like.) And most record companies realize that, where they are in the business to find limitted rock stars that will make them a whole lot of cash. I'm not saying that we should analyze everything that seems good, but at least we should should think about what we are getting to.

Well, there were many factors which made the seventies such a great time, It was an unpresedented time of artistic freedom and exploration in the music industry, primarily due to the fact that many of the recording companies didn't quite understand rock music, and as a result placed their trust in the musicians to belt out good tunes, (and to make history.) But now, thats too much of a risky move for most companies, considering the fact that most recording artists of today don't know whether they are coming or going, and they have confused whats most important when makng music.

-Joseph, :).

Please unearth a CD of Alice Cooper's Killer and listen to it!! Note the depth of the composition, the intricacy of the arrangement, the talent and skill of the players, and the quality of the production. Then, if you can suggest anything from Marilyn Manson's discography that even comes close, I'll give him another chance. I don't think that'll happen, though.

The root of the malaise we're trying to fathom here, is the sad fact that most of the product-buying target market demographic (the [u]only[/u] vote that counts with The Biz), will gladly "give that song 9 outa 10 cuz' itz gotta good beat 'n itz EZ2danss2".

The industry is based on these musically illiterate slobs because they're willing to part with good money for mediocre dreck.

I'm a big fan of the 70's myself, altough i never was there, because i'm too young...
i think that the 70's were the best rock years
i really believe that all the best bands i can think off started in the 60 or the 70.. today we have good musicians too, and maybe some stuff are more proffesional now, but when talking only about rock music i think the 70's were the best of the best, because lots of poor band, were covered by stuff like led zeppelin and deep purple, and today the good bands are in a quality of an average 70's band, and too much people think that rock is just to turn on the distortion and to play power chords...
ouh and by the way i dont understand why are everybody turned on by radiohead kind of bands????
i think that their music lacks of any energy...
and i also think that today vocalists could be better (like ian gillan)
i hope i make some sense anyway :)

> The Partridge Family, who he? Who
> they?

Actually, they were some of L.A.'s top session musicians and songwriters of the 70's. Of course it was pop music by a 'manufactured' band but just take a listen to the backing tracks sometime... it was extremely well crafted stuff.

The pop of the 70's was much more better
than our days, because back than you had bands like abba, which wrote they music and bought it from some producers, like today stars do

I'm glad someone said something about how classic rock was so great. Those rockstars were truly rockstars and great musicians. They come up with the idea of a rockstar, before them there weren't that many people to copy. Music of today has no substance. A lot of people say I live in the past, but if I have to be happy with most (not all but most) of today's music, then I would rather live in the past. Know what I'm saying. The 70's rocked. I wish I was born in that time era. Zeppelin, Hendrix, Cream, Sabbath, were all visionaries. They didn't copy anyone. Plus they wrote their own music. And can you believe, that an album like nsync no strings attached sold like 15x and many copies and 10x as fast as about all of the others I mentioned put together. that makes me mad. When I look at today's youth ( which I am a part of) it saddens me. Well, that is all I have to say. Catch ya later, and remember ROCK ON.

Jimi Hendrix must've had a pretty sharp hand.

I don't quite understand what you meant, but anyway "I'll stand up next to a mountain and chop it down with the edge of my hand," was from Voodoo Chile (slight return). Ever heard it. It's a really good song. Awesome guitar solo.

Lol. Ok. I don't think I've ever heard that one.