More proof

You know, this brings up an interesting topic. Why does Rock discriminate against age? Country doesn't, neither does Jazz, Blues, or Classical music. In fact, most genres of music honor the older and more experienced musician.

Rock is the anthem of youthfull rebellion.

It's hard to be a rebel with a second morgage and a 401k.

And while those acts are pulling in the crowds (who can now afford to pay several hundred dollars a seat) they are hardly "kicking the kids butts" on the charts. Most of those acts, if they do record a new song or two, find they can't actually add it to the show 'cause the crowd wants to party like it's 1969, so they dance around hoping they don't toss their back out while pretending they have hair and can see their toes.

I do agree that musically some of them are better musicians today than when they were young.

Others, like the Stones, I don't agree with that thought. (To me, the Stones ceased being musically interesting when Mick Taylor left) Most of these acts I have little respect for because they no longer try to do something new and interesting.

You don't see that in older musicians in jazz, country and what-not. By and large, it's the difference between trying to cash in and still trying to create art.

Trying to cash in and rest on your laurals is against everything that is central to any kind of rock "ethos." That's why they get such a hard time. The fans know that they don't passionately believe the lyrics anymore (if they ever did -- but at least at one time you could believe 'em) they're just corporate sell-outs trying to make a buck playing to people trying to pretend they're still teenagers hoping to forget about their own worries of putting their kid through college.

I agree with you for the most part. I really don't think these groups are trying to rest on their laurels though. But the problem is just what you said, the crowd comes to hear those hits they grew up listening to. And they would be fools not to make the crowd happy.

But groups like the Stones are still writing new music. They mix the new with the old. So I think many of these bands are still trying to progess, but again, they must make their crowd happy.

And it is ridiculous to believe that only older people are going to these concerts. Many young people go to see these Classic Rock bands.

Turn on the radio today. You will find far more stations playing Classic Rock than Modern. Now you can argue that people are force fed what to listen to. That is plain stupid. If people don't like it, they will change the station. They are listening to this older music because they like it better. And whatever the people like is what the stations are gonna play. It is not the other way around.

The Stones could come out and play all their new songs, but the crowd will go away. They have to play to the crowd. And this is what the stations have to do too.

If the modern groups would strive to be a little more original and not all play down-tuned power chords, then they will gain some fans. People like good music, not the same sound on every song.

So I think many of these bands are still trying to progess, but again, they must make their crowd happy.

No they don't. They chose to, noone is forcing them to do anything.
You will find far more stations playing Classic Rock than Modern.

It's about marketing. Classic rock targets the 40+ people. If you want to hit the youngsters you use rap, not modern rock. That has nothing to do with quality of music or anything, but just popularity of genres of different generations.
If the modern groups would strive to be a little more original and not all play down-tuned power chords, then they will gain some fans. People like good music, not the same sound on every song.

Are you suggesting the Stones are more original and inventive then modern bands like Radiohead and Muse? The Stones are blues based rock, very simple, straightforward and easy to listen to. That doesn't make it bad in any way but it makes no sense at all to accuse other bands of lack or originality, espescially not since plenty of modern bands use *far* more varied sounds, styles and progressions whereas the 'classic rock' bands typically found a spot they liked and stayed there.

Modern bands aren't better or worse then the old stuff, they're different.

I'm not saying Dave is over the hill or I don't like bluegrass, but come on, Jump and Bluegrass together is just crazy!

It's like having Kurt sing Rape Me over a Beethoven piece. :shock:

Also, I don't agree about the modern music being the same. I love the blues, but what is it? 12 bars........ Not EVERYONE sticks to it, but many do. Same tempo and same feel.

But, if you think about it, yeah, a LOT of music will sound the same because of the progression. Once you step too far out of the progression, the music goes down the drain because it doesn't sound right.

I agree with you for the most part. I really don't think these groups are trying to rest on their laurels though.

When groups are putting out more "greatest hits" collections than new albums, they've jumped the shark. I disagree with you here.
But the problem is just what you said, the crowd comes to hear those hits they grew up listening to. And they would be fools not to make the crowd happy.

I will bet they didn't write those songs to make crowds happy. Songs like "Satisfaction" were written primarily as an act of expression. It was about the art, not about filling stadiums.
But groups like the Stones are still writing new music. They mix the new with the old. So I think many of these bands are still trying to progess, but again, they must make their crowd happy.

Again, my take on the Stones is they stopped being interesting the moment they lost Mick. Others disagree, but I'm also not alone in that view.
And it is ridiculous to believe that only older people are going to these concerts. Many young people go to see these Classic Rock bands.

Young people can not afford to go to these shows unless Mommy and Daddy front the ticket costs. Kids don't go to $300 a seat shows on their own dime.
Turn on the radio today. You will find far more stations playing Classic Rock than Modern. Now you can argue that people are force fed what to listen to. That is plain stupid. If people don't like it, they will change the station. They are listening to this older music because they like it better. And whatever the people like is what the stations are gonna play. It is not the other way around.

That's not true in my market. Alternative, country, pop and heavy metal all have more stations than the classic rock genre. I don't have access to Arbitron's numbers, but my guess is that classic rock is probably one of the more profitable segments per listener (since the fans of classic rock have money to spend) but is probably 3rd or 4th in station count behind alternative, pop, country and rap.
The Stones could come out and play all their new songs, but the crowd will go away. They have to play to the crowd. And this is what the stations have to do too.

No. They choose to. That's what makes them sell-outs.
If the modern groups would strive to be a little more original and not all play down-tuned power chords, then they will gain some fans. People like good music, not the same sound on every song.

Interesting view. I think it's completely at odds with my experience of new music -- I'm hearing stuff that's vastly more creative than anything the classic rock crowd ever did.

I also agree that it's not a better/worse thing. Creativity is contextual. What's plain to a 21st century ear was wildly out there to someone hearing it for the first time in 1972.

Why are the Rolling Stones sell-outs for playing their many great hits they wrote over a 40 year span?

Look, Mick Jagger does not live in a little house in the suburbs. He probably owns 20 homes all over the world. This guy needs to make income to live the lifestyle he is used to. I would put out a "Greatest Hits" album too. What's wrong with that?? It's their music.

The Stones just came out with a new album. They have put out albums throughout their career. People made fun of the Stones when they came out with a new album in the 80's and toured. They were calling them old way back then. Man, they had a lot of great hits like Start Me Up, Missing You, Shattered. They have never set back on their laurels.

The Rolling Stones made over $250 million touring last year, #1 in the world. You think they did that by sitting back and relaxing???? The very thought is silly.

I don't know what market you live in. There are all sorts of stations in my area. But the majority, and the most successful play Classic Rock. You saw the current poll I posted. Many Classic bands are far more successful than Modern. Godsmack was way down at #28. Tom Petty was #4. Nuff said.

I know many young people who go to see these bands. Mommy and Daddy are not giving them the money. They go to see these bands because they have heard the music and like it.

Back to the subject of being a sell out. If the Rolling Stones are sell outs because they play to make money, then so is Godsmack, so is Tool, so is Puddle of Mudd, so is Staind.

Sheesh,that is Socialist mentality. There is nothing wrong with making money. I wouldn't mind making $250 million a year like the Rolling Stones. Would you?

And not all modern bands are copycats. I like Radiohead myself. I am not familiar with all of their music, but from what I've heard I like it very much. They are more original than most bands today. They were also the highest rated Modern band on that list.

But if you argue that bands today are just as original as they were back in the 60's or 70's, you are going to lose. Because it simply is not true.

Lots of old guys still doing well, John Fogarty recently had a hit, Areosmith still does a great SOLD out show, and still do good solid albums. I can,t get tickets for Clapton!Who by the way did a great album weth BB King a few tears ago :D Just because a band like the stones can still fill a stadium It don't mean they "Sold out" Like Wes said they had one hell of a hit list, Probably more than the top 10 bands of today put together will ever have :P

Now to be fair I have to point out the fact that it is VERY hard to get radio play or a record contract unless you play the CRAP that the record executive and Clear Chanel want you to play. Unlike in the 50's and 60's when you could do something different and get away with it( infact once upon a time the record companies (well some of them :roll: ) actually looked for origionality.....There is still and always have been lots of good young talent, you just have to know where to look :D :D ---the dog

well said wes and dog, i'm with ya 8)

Very differing views here.

Bashing DLR for stretching into new things.
Bashing old rockers for playing their their old hits that got them to where they were.

Music is a business, sell tickets, sell records. If you want to listen to music as an art form as opposed to music as a mass market appeal vehicle then you should check out some Prog or Progressive Rock groups. The Flower Kings come to mind. They don't make much money but their music is fantastic modern orchestrations and explorations. Their pieces aren't 2 minutes and 38 seconds so you won't hear them on your local Top 40 radio.

On the other hand if you want to see the groups you were influenced by in the 60's and 70's and 80's then by all means do so. And yes, you have the right to be disappointed if they don't play your favorites. You will most likely hear some cuts off a new album they've done. You'll notice that the stuff will get luke warm receptance. People are there to hear the hits. Neil Young toured last year. I heard that at one show he played nothing but cuts from his new album. No Cinnamon Girl, no Needle and the Damage Done, no Heart of Gold, no Hey Hey, no My My. People left as if Rock and Roll did die. If you go to Paris and go to the Louvre you expect to see the Mona Lisa, not something else a bit newer. Modern art museums exist for that. You give the people what they want.

Two years ago I took my son to his first rock concert, KISS and Aerosmith. It was a great show, he loved it. And I love the fact that we were able to share something, new for him. Not so new for me. A few years earlier he asked me if I had ever heard of a group called the Beatles, lol he was about 12 then. Told them they sounded familiar. At 16 he likes the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, U2 as well as some groups of today Lincln Park, Tool, Smashmouth, Three Doors Down, Cold Play, Green Day, Third Eye Blind, Aerosmith, U2. But I dare you to find anything by Britney Spears or the such on his IPOD. Why? Because even at the young age of 16 he understands what music industry fluff is all about.

Why do we pay $300 to see the Rolling Stones and the Eagles, and Eric Clapton? Because they're there.. like Mt Everest. Because the Beatles are not there, because John and George are not here. Is it okay for Mick Jagger to be rocking at his age? (who didn't call the Steel Wheels tour the Steel Wheelchairs tour?) Answer that question with "Do you think Britney Spears will be touring or even remembered in 40 years? Where are the Spice Girls? Backstreet Boys? Menudo, anyone?

The older rockers are the masters of our time. No one told Beethoven to stop after 8 symphonies. I for one am glad he had it in him to do number 9. Should old rockers explore new genre? Of course they should, if they want. While we might be uncomfortable seeing them wearing a different hat that is their job as artists, to give us pause to think, maybe to make us feel uncomfortable to create cause for discussion. That is the nature of art.

Okay, getting off my soap box now.

Michael

Too bad: clicking on (kingpatzer's) link brings up the following message:

"This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner NBC because its content was used without permission"

Ghost 8)

Well, I blew my second chance to listen to DLR and that bluegrass band play. Wes and KP are/were putting up an interesting conversation because of it to.

Bad NBC, bad!!! :x

Mickey, I agree with what you are saying,Nothing wrong with DLR doing bluegrass... but IMHO he was just very bad at it :oops: ( although the band was excellent :D )Lots of rockers have ventured into other types of music, and when its good it usually gets approval from the masses. The Stones Have done some top notch country for example ("Far Away Eyes, and Dead Flowers come to mind) Jerry Garcia did a bluegrass album("Old and In the Way") I think it very cool to see some one get out of there box and experiment :D and god bless DLR for taking a risk...It just didn't work out for him...and if any one liked it, well thats cool also, I just thought he came across as very cheesy. :D :D :D ---the dog

Right -- not bashing DLR for doing bluegrass, but for doing it badly. Vocally, he adds nothing to that performance. He ends up looking trite and one-dimensional, instead of cool or hip or funny. I think DLR is capable of better than this goof. So let's see some of it -- in whatever style. Trad or not, I'm game, but show me the good stuff.

Sorry, didn't mean to bash for alleged bashing. Didn't get to see the DLR clip before NBC clipped it. As for cheesy, I'm not sure I've ever seen DLR not being cheesy. He loves to play it up for the cameras. As for not being up to par or not being up to the quality of the band behind him, I'll take my fellow GN'ers opinion on it.

Mike

pretty sure Hayseed Dixie recorded 'Jump' a few years ago, DLR was peobably linking up with them to get the exposure he craves.

People knock the stones because they seem to be there purely for the money, yes they do make new records but no-one wants to buy them they want to hear Brown Sugar again! And remember they are the first band able to carry on this long with success, most of the groups before them ended up playing small clubs to make a buck.

OT for an excellent version find Aztec Camera's version.

How many acts, contemporary or otherwise, can draw an audience of 1 million+, like the Stones' recent Rio concert?