Today's music is centered around solo artists, which isn't bad at all, but all of the classic bands that everybody's heard of ( Beatles, Rolling Stones, ...) are all old enough to be grandfathers. Bands tend to stay popular longer, especially the ones that have been around longer. So what's changed?
2007-03-26 16:34:08 · 10 answers · asked by *Head in the stars* 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Because back in the days of the Stones and Beatles heyday, the bands had to actually write their own songs, play on their own albums. There was no computer auto-tune for the voice, they had to actually sing in tune. Thus when they went on tour they sounded very similar to their records without lip-syncing.
Also they tended to get better and better from just performing together for so long. Solo artist rarely use the same band, usually the Cd is recorded with top notch studio cats and the artist hires a backup band for the road. Problem is after several artists use the same studio musicians as in Nashville, things tend to start all sounding alike. Where as the bands that played on their own records formed a unique sound that only they had. It is much like cooking a stew, the magic combination of 4 or 5 guys created a signature sound (new tasting stew) that would be different from another band with different musicians. The goal for success in my book is to sound different than anybody else. a sound immidiatley identifiable. And thats what these bands had , not just in their vocals, but writing and performing. Hey whats wrong with growing old if these old guys can still wipe these new acts off the stage.Doesn't wine get better with age? So do most musicians. They play with more feel and emotion. Go check out the police this year, or sir paul Mccartney and you'll see what I'm talking about
2007-03-26 16:55:17 · answer #1 · answered by curious george 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the problem is with the industry. No one cares about spending that extra six months to make the harmonies perfect, especially when you can just tweak out the notes in the studio and 'boy bands' made sweet harmonies seem 'gay'. Being in a band takes a lot of humility and hard work, and a lot of musicians want to be artists in their own right rather than doing all the work while the front man takes all the credit. They've seen too many older musicians suffer in obscurity to want to go out like that, so they're all about the money as much as any Gangsta rappers.
Even apart from Record companies, people are working harder for less, so getting a 6 member band to meet up is nearly impossible, so why not just use a midi and do your own thing? This individualism that is affecting all genres of music is going to continue for a while, but I think it will eventually wane and there will be a nostalgia for groups, even in newer, artist centered genres like hip hop and dancehall. I think that the lack of boy bands is a promising sign that bands will become cool again, but it will take a while for people to realize that technology can't replace a band.
2007-03-27 00:03:33 · answer #2 · answered by Baddest_Bandulu 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your current favourite song/band/album may very likely remain your favourite song forever. The feeling you had when you discovered and found it and learned to love it may never come back again.
Don't let this push you into cynicism or heartbreak.
Even if what's on T.V, and what gets well produced because it sells to very casual listeners is steering away from your happy place, it doesn't mean music is in decline. A revolutionary or amazing artist could sell a million tomorrow, or could be playing at the bar two suburbs away.
Like an educational discipline, a marriage, a nintendo game, or a drug addiction, you have to work harder to get more as time goes by. It's the law of diminishing returns.
All that's 'changed' is that more recordings are sold, and therefore there's more marketing and the world seems to be full or more people who love music you don't.
2007-03-27 00:19:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Methinks your perception has changed :P
What about Dave Matthews Band? Rusted Root? Phish? OAR?
CSN(&Y) was as stable as jello, Freddie Mercury kicked the bucket, Rob Thomas ditched Matchbox 20. What ever happened to Thin Lizzy? The Kinks? Cheap Trick?
The music stays popular but the bands don't stick around. John Lennon - solo! Paul McCartney, still doing the solo thing. Neal Young - still at it. Stephen Stills - Still at it. Ozzy Osbourne split off. Stevie Winwood - how many bands has he been through?
Eric Clapton has been through more bands than I can count. He's the King of "solo trumps band". CCR? Fogerty is still doing his thing. Solo.
Who ever cared about the E Street Band? The Revolution? The Police? But we know Sting, Bruce and Prince! Solo artists have always been around. Genesis? KC & The Sunshine Band? hehehe
There are bands around, but until they make a name and have history, you rarely hear about them because no one listens to the radio any more - it's all MTV and iPods - you know what you want and you go get it, less exposure. They're still doing the same things in pretty much the same ways. Really! They can't be "classic" until a new generation pops up to label them as such.
I remember when Aerosmith, Kansas, Pink Floyd, Led Zep, ZZ Top, Cream and Black Sabbath were "new" and listening to my daddy lamenting "where did all the good bands go ..."
Course, he meant Big Bands... (And not Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, either!)
2007-03-27 05:17:14 · answer #4 · answered by pepper 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone is looking for a quick buck. Nothing in today's music is original. It's a big identity crisis. All the crap you here today is fabricated. Look at Fall Out Boy or Nickelback, for instance. You can put any four or five guys behind those instruments and play exactly what they play. You can't say the same for bands like The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Beatles, etc....etc....
99% of the bands that are on the charts today will be forgotten in 5 years. It's too bad that music is killing itself.
2007-03-26 23:40:57 · answer #5 · answered by Rick 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its becuase nobody is coming up with something completely new. like, the beatles were a completely differnt genre of music.. followed by the rolling stones and the hollies and all those bands. but these days its all the same thing. so until some band comes up with something new and hip then it will just keep getting worse.
2007-03-26 23:38:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What has changed?
No talent!
No originality!
Hey,Im not saying its easy,if it was easy I would do it.
Let me put it to you this way.....Its like if major league baseball had a 15-20 year stretch of NO powerhitters.
Where are todays POWERHITTERS!
I want another band like Guns n Roses or Nirvana even,to EXPLODE on us with an album worthy to buy. I had high hopes with linkin park but to me they didnt jump that hurdle into megarock stars
Now you get it..Oh and by the way,I will be nice in saying todays music is blahh. Thats as nice as I can be.
2007-03-26 23:54:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yeah i totally agree maybe because back then they didn't have the bad influences we have today. i mean think about it did they really have all these crack addicts we do now 20 years ago? or what about all these songs about being a crack addict and all that crap. thats whats changed. back then it was all about puppy love and stuff like that as opposed to being a heroin addict and shooting people out on the streets, face it todays generation is alot more vicious due to television and violent video games these days
2007-03-26 23:56:00 · answer #8 · answered by ace 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Old music is the best and new music is horrible.Today you can't even understand the words.Beatles are awesome.I guess what's changed is kids today have listened to this new music so much that it's brainwashed them.
2007-03-26 23:45:34 · answer #9 · answered by Macallister 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its because it used to be all about talent and originality. Now its all about image and trying to copy everyone else.
2007-03-26 23:41:13 · answer #10 · answered by Jaim Jaim 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋