What music from today will stand the test of time?

I think there's every possibility that some will. Neither one of us knows whether a Kelly Clarkson or Carrie Underwood will continue to develop.

You will notice I did not say Clay Aiken.

 

A few other artists and bands flying under the mainstream radar that deserve wider audiences
-- Dan Bern (amazing singer-songwriter/folk singer with a wry sense of humor who can incorporate sports figures into some of his songs.. for instance he has a great song about courage called Tiger Woods.. http://www.danbern.com/smartieminelyrics.html#tigerwoods or just check out all his lyrics at http://www.danbern.com/lyrics.html)

-- Marah .. great rock band out of Philly.. if you like straight-ahead rock with an old-time feel to it, this is the band for you.. check out their Kids in Philly or 10,000 Streets Under the Sky
discs.

-- Steve Earle. Tremendous rock/country/folk singer-songwriter.

-- Allison Moorer. Grammy-winner Shelby Lynne's sister. Great voice.

 

I know, I know. They're mostly all unlistenable right NOW.

 

I think you're being WAY too hard on them as a group ... especially Underwood. That girl has some chops.

And believe me, I'm no AI groupie.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Godsmack start out as a hair metal band before changing direction with the musical climate?

Pantera did the same thing.

Hard to take those guys seriously when they were, in the beginning, just as pouffy (??) as Poison and Warrant.

If I'm wrong about Godsmack, my humble apologies. Though I think they're trying too hard to be Alice In Chains with the acoustic stuff.

 

To be fair, they did have competition. I'm sure there are Liverpool oldtimers who remain pissed off that Rory Storm didn't get the break they did, or the Searchers or Gerry Marsden. Because, let's face it, up until late 1962 there was little to set the Beatles apart from any other group in that city -- and there were a ton of groups there at that time.

But they lucked out when they landed Brian Epstein because, for all his limitations (contract negotiations and sobriety, to name two), he knew how to sell and promote. Very few performers had ever made it big from the north of England. They had a lot of prejudices to overcome from the big boys in London and Epstein, who had a great deal of polish, was a big, big factor in them getting over those hurdles.

The other big key to their success was the friendship/rivalry between John and Paul. If the band had been led by one or the other, it would never have reached the heights that it did. Luckily, they were both very talented and, just as important, they were both egomaniacs. Neither wanted to be outdone by the other, so they worked hard to become better singers and better songwriters. They pushed each other, consciously and subconsciously, wanting the other one to excel while determining to get/stay one step ahead. Of course, when they brought their vocal and writing talents together, they were like no other team before or since.

Yes, I'm a fan. Can you tell?

 

You could write a book.

 

The factors besides their music that made the Beatles the most significant rock band ever:

They wrote their own material (save a for a few covers) at a time when nobody was writing their own songs.
Guided by George Martin, they eventually produced their own albums at a time when no groups produced their own stuff.
They reached a level of worldwide popularity that had previously been reached only by Elvis, and they easily surpassed him
They became successful enough to form their own record label and take complete control over everything they did at a time when this was unheard of in the music business.

The only exception to the writing and producing was Buddy Holly -- one of the Beatles inspirations -- who probably would have revolutionized the industry by 1960 had he not died in the plane crash in 1958 ... Holly was writing, producing and multi-tracking and experimenting with remixes of his own voice as early as 1956 when most rock music had very little production value.

 

I would put them behind Alice In Chains as far as best hard rock group to emerge in the last 15 years. I know AIC was slightly before that, but they were the best band of the 1990s as far as I'm concerned.

But yeah, they're good. They opened for Metallica (St. Anger hasong or two that I dug, but the rest was tripe) three years ago, put on a great show. The drum solo included "Moby Dick." Which just goes to show that today's artists continue to pay homage to the best.

As for the Beatles: while their place in history is undeniable, it's worth noting that led Zeppelin took what the Beatles did and went further as far as influences, different styles of music, weird and creative stuff in the studio. Led Zep also pioneered aspects of the busines, like bands taking most of the concert take and such. Plus, all four were absolutely amazing a what they did. Page and Bonham go without saying, Plant was excellent, and Jonesy was the backbone of the whole thing with his ability to play any instrument you throw out there.

Also: I think Kelly Clarkson has real staying potential. She wants to branch out into rock and such, not just be a pop geek. And she has one hell of a voice.

 

I firmly believe that had it not been for that crash, Elvis never becomes what he did. Holly > Elvis.

Anyway, back to the thread ... J-Timberlake's music could hold up in time.

 

Oz:
A. Probably
B. No fucking way. Crap.

 

Yeah, but is Journey better than Dennis DeYoung?