Discussion of anything not related to audio or music production
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
I didn’t start appreciating The Stones until about 5 years ago, but having said that I think if competition back then was 1/16th of what it is today they probably wouldn’t be considered legends or might not be on most people’s radar today, and that goes for a lot of artists from that time period and beyond. And of course that also means there was a lot of potential legends back then that nobody has heard of because they didn’t get/have the opportunity the given to The Stones and a handful of others.
I think we have to be careful about judgements like this. No one walked up to Mick Jagger and said "Here, have some fame, and thirty years worth of selling out the biggest stadiums in the world." The Stones earned that. And sure, Mick's not the greatest singer, but he's also Mick Jagger, which means he's a motherfucker-on-fire on a stage, and people like that.beats me wrote:I didn’t start appreciating The Stones until about 5 years ago, but having said that I think if competition back then was 1/16th of what it is today they probably wouldn’t be considered legends or might not be on most people’s radar today, and that goes for a lot of artists from that time period and beyond. And of course that also means there was a lot of potential legends back then that nobody has heard of because they didn’t get/have the opportunity the given to The Stones and a handful of others.
More importantly, everyone is cast their lot. No one today has to contend with notions of "What the fuck is this 'rock and roll'? This just sounds like noise. Stupid fad, I wish it would go away." Now, in large part due to bands like the Stones, any 13 year old—or 43 year old—who likes rock music can just head down to Guitar Center or jump on Craigslist, buy an electric guitar, and start playing. There's no paradigm left to be shifted, rock music is just an accepted thing now, if you want to play it, you play it.
It's not a better or worse thing, just a matter of timing. What if you were born to be the gnarliest punk-rocker ever but you were born in 1890? If you didn't get burned as a witch, the best you could do is listen to Stravinsky—if you lived on one of the parts of the planet where they knew about Stravinsky, that is. By the 60s, the competition for the Stones was steeper than it would have been for our turn of the century punk, because by the time they started coming up people were starting to buy into the idea that Rock and Roll was actually a thing you could participate in.
You can look back at any situation from any era and say "Oh, those total assholes. Things would have been so much different for them if only <insert piece of technology or cultural shift that has only existed for a decade>" but that doesn't really make any sense. The Rolling Stones didn't have to contend with the internet because there was no internet in the 1960s, and if there had been, that parallel universe would bear little resemblance to timeline we recognize as being "history."
to YOUR ears, fine. to mine, that's not perfection, neither epicness. I'ts an interesting unreleased track from a really creative and historical band, agreed. This track may be epic for FANS, but has noting epic in itself, IMO. I'm not saying this band is shit, while I admit my precedent post was provocative. I clearly accept that lots of people acclaim this band, and I respect them for being such a musical monster since ages. I just can't like their music, and I tried, apart from a few tracks I find really interesting, melody speaking.that song is near perfect
agreed about poor songwriting these days in the mainstream musical field, and mainstream radios and musical clips, but you can find great artists that still know how to write great songs, hopefully! and you can find some great local or internet radios that play these great artists.songwriting is so bad these days that we can't even listen to the radio or mtv anymore
cheers and sorry for my provocative first answer to the OP