What music from today will stand the test of time?

This thread reminds me how much today's popular music absolutely sucks.

I've heard of every artist/band EStreet mentioned, and that's some quality music. Unfortunately, the majority of people gravitate toward what the industry pushes. People who truly love music will still be listening to those acts in 20 years. But the lazy masses will be listening to the newest load of mainstream crap and the mainstream crap from their youth. So I think the problem isn't that there's no music today that will stand the test of time; the problem is that the truly creative acts of this day and age don't fit the formula for success and have to fly under the radar for the most part.

As for Metallica, their last album was atrocious. Sounded like they forgot how to put a song together in the midst of all the therapy and whiny soul searching.























And the Beatles are overrated.

 

From now on, I'll try to fashion my posts completely to your liking.

As for the Beatles, I'm not underestimating their cultural significance, and while I like a lot of their music, there's a lot I don't like, especially the early stuff. From quality of work top to bottom, I'd take a few of their British Invasion contemporaries first.

 

And whose fault is it that radio is dead? Radio's.

I'd still have some interest in listening to the radio if I'd hear more than one new song a week, or if Clear Channel didn't ram the same 11 songs down our throats every two hours. I'd still listen to the radio if DJs were allowed to develop a personality unique to their area, instead of being voice programmed from some basement in L.A. I'd stil listen to radio if hundreds of stations across the country used DJs during the prime time evening hours instead of John fucking Tesh.

That's not an option. So I listen to satellite radio...and yeah, I stick with what's comfortable: The music I grew up with. I figure if someone comes out with something worth listening to, I'll be clued into it here.

I realize Clear Channel's not in this to keep us interested in music. Those scumbags are making oodles of money as the corpse cools. It's a lot like media companies picking at the carcass of newspapers, if you think about it.

 

Great thread idea, Boobie. (Most of us have managed to dodge the boolshit to keep it going, too.)

Here's another old man's view of it.

I thought I knew the answer to this not too long ago. Today, I'm sure I don't have a good read on who from today will be rock stars in 2027.

Notice the italics. There are some people from today who I think will still be household names, but perhaps not for their hit-making potential.

I put Aguilera at the top of that list. She may not be turning out an album every nine months. But she will be big. I'm thinking she will branch out into movies. Believe it or not, I put Justin Timberlake in the same category. I've been impressed by his acting more than by his song selection or delivery.

Now, musically. Here's what I DO think I know. The "cult following" people who some are crazy about today? You folks will be crazy about them in 20 years. And the rest of the world will not have caught up with you. Yes, just like me with Eric Carmen and the Raspberries.

Lucinda Williams? Hey, I know she's good. But she obviously doesn't have the mass appeal to be a heavy hitter at a point in her career where she should. Ryan Adams? Godsmack? Same. Same.

If U2 counts, they will have held up. If U2 doesn't count, they still will have held up.

Will rap hold up? I honestly have no clue. But if there were a gun pointed to my head, I'm wondering if 40somethings will be lining up to hear their favorite rappers in 2027.

John Mayer ... I'm absolutely a fan, but he's already bending so heavily toward the jazz end of the spectrum that I have my doubts about whether he'll be a long-time major player.

Bottom line: I've been through this long enough to know that I don't know that much.

 

It won't be Mary J. Blige's.

 

Oh, yeah. That I will DEFINITELY agree with.

 

No, but I read about the incident and now I'd love to do that.....if I could win tickets on the radio or have them given to me in some other fashion. Then again, maybe it's the kind of pleasure you'd be willing to pay for. Not sure right now.

 

I feel the other way around. I'm a huge fan of the Beatles' early stuff and I have little use for their later output.

Like Dave Marsh once wrote, you can argue that they got more mature and sophisticated as they went along, but you can't argue that they got "better" because it just doesn't get better than "Twist and Shout" or "She Loves You."

 

Oasis?

(Just kidding)

Actually, as has been posted already, the correct answer is that right now nobody can be compared to the Beatles.

 

You're right: St. Anger stunk worse than festering elephant diarrhea, but I have hope for the next album now that Rick Rubin is behind that project. Who knows.

And Piotr: Godsmack is the best hard rock/metal band to come out in the last 15 years. IV wasn't nasty like Awake, but diversified, especially with "Shine down" and it's bluesy feel to it. It's sad that they don't get the credit they deserve because they're "scary-looking." Fuckin' fuck-tarded MTV suits. I wish Sully would place a Wiccan curse on their asses.

 

No, there is nobody.

But the thing which everyone glosses over in that argument is this: In 1964, there were very few artists turning out the genre of music which the Beatles were. It was new. They didn't have competition on every street corner like today. It was light-years easier to put eight songs on the Top 40.

 

Does anyone think the American Idol winners (or runners-up) will still be listenable in 2027?