English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Led Zepplin, The Beatles, The Doors, Soungarden, AC/DC, etc.
These bands are DONE!! OVER WITH!!
Even if they influenced some current artists, they are still FINISHED!
Get over it!
This is a new era, a new generation!
Who are their successors?
I say TOOL, DEFTONES, MUSE, METALLICA, etc.
What do you say?

2007-03-21 06:09:34 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music Music

EARTHTOJOE: METALLICA IS ON THE LIST BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MAKING MUSIC! SOUNDGARDEN ISN'T!!!! DUH!

2007-03-21 06:20:05 · update #1

C'MON PEOPLE!!!!
You're kidding yourselves!!!
Who does TOOL really sound like?? Who are they imitating??? NO ONE!!!

2007-03-21 06:23:59 · update #2

NATHAN C: You think you're pretty f@cking smart, don't ya?? You bastard!
Not a bad answer, you are the frontrunner.

2007-03-21 06:41:16 · update #3

12 answers

It's a matter of opinion. Some people would say that Metallica died when they cut their hair.
I, for one, love old music. The beatles may be over and done with, but their songs are timeless classics that I will still enjoy when I'm an old man.
Once I was upset about a woman I loved (who didn't love me back). I heard this old Sam Cooke song, "Bring It On Home" and I suddenly realized that people have had broken hearts long before I was born. It helped me put my feelings into perspective.
I think that old music should not be forgotten. I can't wait for my daughter to grow up, so I can show her how cool Jimi Hendrix was, or how great a guitar player that Jimmy Page was.
To me, old music is like an old person. You wouldn't say, "Forget Grandpa. He's old. I'm young. Ignore him and pay attention to me."
You wouldn't do that. Why? I'll tell you.
Just because Grandpa is old, doesn't mean he's no good. There are some old people who are more active than young people!
Same with music. There is lots of old stuff that's good.
You wouldn't throw away the Mona Lisa, just because it's old, would you?

2007-03-21 06:20:59 · answer #1 · answered by Answer Schmancer 5 · 5 0

Whoa Cat..The Byrds ain't suitable? Ever listen Tom Petty? No Byrds..No Petty. also The Flying Burrito Brothers got here from The Byrds and no Burrito Bros, no Eagles. So i could could say the Byrds are rattling suitable. next Subect...all of us that thinks The doors haven't any relevance to well known song is lacking some thing important, like a mind. finally, i could could agree extraordinarily a lot with Silver's record. listed below are some Bands and/or Artists i imagine have dwindled thoroughly and performance no relevance to in the present day's song. (while not having too obscure. i could record about 500 heavily obscure Rock Bands that ninety 9.5% of human beings could have never heard of right here.) The Dave Clark 5 The Monkees Paul Revere & The Raiders The association Gerry & The Pacemakers Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band The Quicksilver Messenger service *Edit* Ladytron i could positioned Atomic chicken extra on the fence. they'd some impression on the earliest ranges of the shape of metallic, and metallic prospers in the present day. *Edit 2* rattling Will, relax and get extra valuable guy.

2016-12-02 08:45:59 · answer #2 · answered by kimmy 4 · 0 0

Yes, they are over. Just because there is new music doesn't mean it is any good, though. I'm 24 years old and I'll pick a Zeppelin album over a new Tool album any day (besides, Maynard isn't a nice person). The Beatles wrote great songs, and whether or not you like them, they will invariably go down in history as the greatest band ever. They revolutionized the way we hear music. Listen to "Helter Skelter" or the electric version of "Revolution" to hear your taste in music being born; all of the artists you mention as successors absolutely admire the Beatles and would probably laugh in your face if you told them their music was better. Ever visit a band on tour in a venue speifically designed for concerts? Before the Beatles, there was no need for these venues. So, do show some respect.

Now, as for your question. They are still relevant because rock n' roll is a youth movement. The words are written by the youth of yesterday. The climate around them changes, the technology changes, the envelope is pushed further and so the music, i.e. the voice of the youth, changes as well through the years. Youth is the only constant in rock. Everyone deifies Lennon but couldn't tell you more than 2 of his post-Beatle songs, why? Because he grew up.

Why do you think all these idiots shell out thousands of their parents' dollars to dress like the music they listen to? It's ridiculous. You don't need piercings to like punk. You don't need tattoos to like metal. You don't need grills to like rap. Just ears. They do it to show their affliation with youth.

EDIT: TOOL sounds like a combination between metal and the underground electronica work from the 1980s.

EDIT 2 FOR ASKER: Sorry if I come off as a condescending you-know-what, but I hear this question a lot. I'm not trying to come off as one of those elitist jerks, but it's hard to convey tone over the internet. I hope my answer helps you out! =)

I don't mind when the haters give me a thumbs down, but most people on this site don't know music as much as they enjoy watching music videos.

2007-03-21 06:25:56 · answer #3 · answered by Nathan C 2 · 4 0

They're still relevant because they make songs about identifiable issues and it's good music. It shouldn't matter when music was made, good music is timeless.

As a side point Metallica is as dead as the older bands, from a quality perspective. And your other bands are hardly up to the calibre of Led Zeppelin or The Beatles and whatnot. Not saying there isn't music as good or better than those old bands around now, it just isn't those ones you listed. That's for sure.

2007-03-21 06:19:41 · answer #4 · answered by Tim 4 · 3 1

Age has nothing to do with the quality of music. Are Beethoven and Mozart forgotten? No, lots of people still enjoy their music. Same with Led Zeppelin and The Beatles (have you even listened to them? They're incredible). I don't understand why you put Soundgarden on that list - Metallica's been around longer than they have, and you put Metallica on your list of "successors."

2007-03-21 06:17:29 · answer #5 · answered by earthtojoe 2 · 4 0

Because their music is better than most of the new stuff and I don't think I would put Soundgarden in the same class as The Beatles, Doors or Led Zep.

2007-03-21 06:19:56 · answer #6 · answered by go avs! 4 · 4 0

led zep and ac/dc are not over with.....there is just nothing tht can compare these artists especially led zep..... im 24 and classis rock is the best....stuff the likes of mc fly their finished in comparison to the REAL bands
oh metallica aint really tht new are they...
and deftones more like tonedef!!!!!

2007-03-21 06:33:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I think old rock bands are revered by rock fans for their innovation and freedom. A lot of the population grew up with these bands so they are still very loved. Plus, human issues don't change as much as we think they do, so some of what those guys sang about is still identifiable.

2007-03-21 06:16:24 · answer #8 · answered by .steph. 1 · 4 0

old bands never go out of style, they created awesome music that can be listened to at any time. some bands of today are lucky if they have a relevant single. although there are a few good albums out there

2007-03-21 06:16:07 · answer #9 · answered by applecore 5 · 4 0

AC DC is making a new album now
metaica is a waste of time now

2007-03-21 06:23:23 · answer #10 · answered by head_banger_yyc 4 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers