What music from today will stand the test of time?

No worries. I just finished reading Sully's autobio and he really goes out of his way to distance the band from AIC. If you listen to the music, it isn't that much like AIC: Godsmack is more aggressive and explosive. That and Godsmack has only put out one album. Sully also wrote that Godsmack never really was a hair-metal band; he just was in a few when he began his music career in the mid-80s, and it was more along the lines of Megadeth, Metallica and such.

Pantera did start out as hair-metal, but then they came to their senses and took a big ol' dosage of Fuckitol.

 

A few thoughts, while I try to get over the nausea induced by seeing Yes favorably compared to the Beach Boys...

• There is plenty of good music being made today, but the industry has grown fragmented so it doesn't reach the audience it would have in years past. It's out there. Go find it. And it won't be on the radio.
• People seem to be listing the stuff they listened to when they were 16 as being the last time music was any good.
• Don't make the mistake of thinking that an artist that wins Grammys is somehow a lasting example of music from that era. The Grammys have always been a joke. Know how many times the Beatles won Record of the Year? Try never -- but in the same era, the 5th Dimension won it twice. They won Song of the Year exactly once -- for fucking "Michelle." In 65-66 the Beatles released "Help!", "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver." The Album of the Year winners were "September of My Years" by Frank Sinatra and "Sinatra: A Man and his Music." Nothing against Sinatra, but Jesus, Album of the Year? By the way, the Beatles won album of the year just once, in 67 for "Sgt. Peppers." For that matter, the Rolling Stones have won just two Grammys, both in 1994 - Best Rock Album and Best Short Form Music Video. And that's two more than The Who, The Kinks, and Led Zeppelin combined.

 

"Crazy" will likely stand up. As far as the rest of their work, I can't say the same. Mainly because no one has ever heard any of it.

The problem with Reba, George, Alan and Garth (who may or may not have come out of retirement - who knows or even cares at this point?) is that all of them are well past the point of releasing music that favourably compares with their best material.

 

Double J, don't even include my man George in that group of releasing non-good stuff. I'd argue that while he "goes to the well" every now and then, he's still kicking out damn good stuff.

 

Gnarls Barkley? I don't think we'll remember them in 2 years, let alone 20.

 

What counts as the test of time?
Elvis and the Beatles are still admired 50-60 years later, but will they stand the test of time lik Mozart has?

 

Junkie, have you ever listened to Pet Sounds? Can you honestly say that is "simple" music? Are you hard of hearing?

 

Well, the singles are what a lot of people will go by (especially given this day and age). And right now, he's building a solid collection.

 

In all fairness, Junkie. Yesterday scarcely was three minutes long.

 

Boxcar Willie sold more records in Belgium than Elvis and the Beach Boys combined.

 

Oz, you're da man, but I could not disagree with you more. Everything about Timberlake is concocted. He's not dangerous, the controversy was staged, his "sexual overtones" are aimed at the daughters of soccer moms, he's not a musical genius. Prince's stool samples have more depth than Timberlake's songs.

Prince, before he found God and became safe enough to play the halftime show of the Super Bowl, was an unpredictable, dangerous motherfucker. His songs oozed sex appeal. Timberlake will never bolt his label on principle. I feel confident he'll never become known as the most spontaneous live performer of his day. He won't be the most prolific artist of his day. Prince followed up the biggest record of his career, "Purple Rain," within a year. Timberlake has two albums out in five years.

You can chalk that last one up to the vagaries of the industry today. But Timberlake couldn't carry Prince's dirty socks.

 

Did anyone in the group other than Brian have any kind of say in the material that was being produced? I suspect they were, as usual, instructed to sing that part just like this and this part just like that. Of course, none of them played instruments in the studio. Looking at it from that standpoint, Mike, Carl, Al and Bruce were indeed no more important to the process than Mike, Davy, Peter and Micky were to theirs.