|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 2, 2021 15:47:56 GMT
It's funny and possibly mostly a reflection of my age, but the bands I keep thinking of as "carrying the torch" are my "getting older now" bands. The bands that I saw as veteran, long-standing acts. So for me, what comes to mind are Wilco, the Flaming Lips, Eels, the aforementioned Bon Jovi, Radiohead, Belle & Sebastian, Beck, etc. Basically artists currently in their 50s--though actually the Lips should go in the previous post, because they're in 60s territory by now. (One forgets their breakthrough period of '98-'03 or whatever only began after more than a dozen years releasing albums and touring: they formed in '83!)
But clearly there must be more from that period, artists whose careers really kicked in through the 70s and earlier 80s, who would be the "elder statemen" still working.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 2, 2021 15:58:03 GMT
In the New Music thread, B.E. posted a new song/video from Bruce Springsteen and John Mellencamp, and I commented how those two 70-somethings are going to have to pick up the proverbial slack from the soon-to-be 80-somethings who are starting to thin out. Question - Who from that generation, the performers in their 60's/early 70's, will carry things live? Who will be around for us...to see? Well, who else is still around? The Eagles' current lineup is still out--and in fact, were here last night--and I'd imagine they will continue doing so as long as they can (and do good business). Fleetwood Mac and Lindsay Buckingham. Elvis Costello. Queen + Adam Lambert. I suppose Bon Jovi is getting into that territory (Jon is 59). Does Madonna still tour? For the time being, AC/DC? Hilariously, before too long, Guns 'n' Roses?
Those are the biggest ones that come to mind. It's amazing how many of the biggest acts of the '70s have already died, have lost key members, or have already (basically) retired. Michael Jackson, Prince, Daryl Dragon, Lou Reed, Phil Lynott, David Bowie, Ric Ocasek, several Gibb brothers, Karen Carpenter, and many others. Elton John, Billy Joel, Paul Simon, Linda Ronstadt, allegedly KISS (though they're "retiring" for the next couple years, per their schedule), and I'm sure many others I'm forgetting have more or less retired. Led Zeppelin, REM, the Replacements, and Van Halen won't return as units.
I do think the sorts of acts that can draw huge crowds every night--McCartney, the Stones--are going to diminish. Because now in the next decade or so, we also start getting into more niche and fewer mass market artists. There are fewer superstars that appeal to everyone.
I agree with your assessment. Like you said, it's amazing how many of those 70's acts have either passed away or aren't together anymore. I was thinking of that particular niche of glitter rock/punk/post-punk groups. Other than Blondie (and Debbie Harry is 76!), most are gone. kds, our beloved Blue Oyster Cult is down to two original members. Just thinking...maybe Heart, U2, as mentioned Guns 'n' Roses, Cheap Trick (I'm reaching, I know). We might need some reunions like The Police or R.E.M. Or, it might take even a younger generation like Pearl Jam or Red Hot Chili Peppers.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 3, 2021 0:42:42 GMT
For big rock acts who can still be big draws, you've got probably Aerosmith (for how long, who knows), U2, Bruce.
There are still a few hard rock and metal legacy acts out there. Then, you've got all the mostly fractured AOR & 80s rock acts.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 5, 2021 17:55:50 GMT
I'm not a fan, really, but Adele is teasing a new album, apparently titled 30. Whatever my taste may be, she is undoubtedly a really good singer, and she has been unbelievably successful.
Her three albums have all topped the UK charts and two of them topped the US charts (the first one "only" hit #4). According to her wiki discography page, her albums have sold more than 6.5 million, 31 million (!), and 22 million worldwide, respectively, for a total of an astounding 59.5 million. (The citations are also dated, meaning it's more than that.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 5, 2021 18:01:26 GMT
I do remember Adele keeping both Van Halen and The Beach Boys from having #1 albums at different times in 2012.
I think she's got a great voice, and in a way is a breath of fresh air when compared to other female pop stars of the last decade, but I just find the majority of music that I've heard by her to be incredibly dull.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 5, 2021 18:08:35 GMT
I think she's got a great voice, and in a way is a breath of fresh air when compared to other female pop stars of the last decade, but I just find the majority of music that I've heard by her to be incredibly dull. I agree entirely. A few songs, I have thought were OK: nothing I'd rush out to buy, but I enjoyed them well enough. A few. Out of three albums' worth. But regardless, as you said, she can sing! (Imagine that, a singer who can sing.) So I would be glad to have her out there succeeding in the marketplace over Billie Eilish or Lana Del Rey, people I'm told are interesting or revolutionary but who bore the hell out of me (except when they're annoying the hell out of me).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 5, 2021 18:11:28 GMT
I think she's got a great voice, and in a way is a breath of fresh air when compared to other female pop stars of the last decade, but I just find the majority of music that I've heard by her to be incredibly dull. I agree entirely. A few songs, I have thought were OK: nothing I'd rush out to buy, but I enjoyed them well enough. A few. Out of three albums' worth. But regardless, as you said, she can sing! (Imagine that, a singer who can sing.) So I would be glad to have her out there succeeding in the marketplace over Billie Eilish or Lana Del Rey, people I'm told are interesting or revolutionary but who bore the hell out of me (except when they're annoying the hell out of me). Not to disrespect Adele's abilities, but it speaks volumes about the talent level of pop music that this is the reaction Adele tends to get.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 8, 2021 11:36:36 GMT
I didn't know where to place this but it is fairly recent. Warning: Very emotional. Brought me to tears.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 12, 2021 18:29:29 GMT
Her label's president wrote a letter that, aside from being hilariously badly written for something presumably formal and meant to be seen and taken seriously, argues in part that the exclusion is a mistake because some other country artist used racial slurs but is still considered, and Musgraves is important to the genre of country for reasons of inclusivity.
I find those arguments absurd.
Is the music country? The aforementioned president also argued that this album is very similar to its predecessor, Golden Hour, which won Best Country Album. Musgraves straddled the line for a while, but I would argue she left country with that album. So for me, saying it is as country as that isn't a great argument. I'd just say they erred already last time around by putting Golden Hour in that category; that's no reason to double down with this one. It's pop. Are we going to put Taylor Swift back into country? She would also be a boon for the genre, a strong voice for women, etc. But the music is not country! Neither is Musgraves's. Not anymore.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 13, 2021 14:28:41 GMT
I came across this bit of "news" yesterday, and initially thought it was a piece from The Onion, poking some fun at Demi Luvato's insistence of being called by gender neutral pronouns. But, it is not. Seriously, I think this young lady, who nearly died after a drug overdose, might need a wellness check. www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/demi-lovato-aliens-1240678/
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 13, 2021 14:47:43 GMT
I came across this bit of "news" yesterday, and initially thought it was a piece from The Onion, poking some fun at Demi Luvato's insistence of being called by gender neutral pronouns. But, it is not. Seriously, I think this young lady, who nearly died after a drug overdose, might need a wellness check. www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/demi-lovato-aliens-1240678/This is the sort of silliness that trying to artificially coerce language changes causes.
Alien isn't a disparaging term whether related to a foreign human or an extra-terrestrial. (It meant the former first, the latter later.) Eventually people decided that the descriptive term "illegal alien" was offensive because "no human is illegal," which is not what the term "illegal alien" meant anyway: it meant that the alien (e.g. foreigner to the country in question) was there illegally. Not that the person was illegal.
Then the "alien" part of it became offensive, presumably because it was identified with creatures from outer space.
And now the creatures from outer space shouldn't be called that word, because it reminds you of it being offensive to call people by that name, which was only offensive because the creatures were called by that name? A little circular...
Why not recognize that the term "alien" is a descriptive one, neither compliment nor insult?
Lovato is, I hate to say, spouting nonsense. And if her biggest problem in the world is that humans might be insulting extra-terrestrials by using a nonjudgmental, descriptive term for (terrestrial or extra terrestrial) outsiders/foreigners, well, she might think about priorities.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 13, 2021 14:52:39 GMT
I came across this bit of "news" yesterday, and initially thought it was a piece from The Onion, poking some fun at Demi Luvato's insistence of being called by gender neutral pronouns. But, it is not. Seriously, I think this young lady, who nearly died after a drug overdose, might need a wellness check. www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/demi-lovato-aliens-1240678/This is the sort of silliness that trying to artificially coerce language changes causes.
Alien isn't a disparaging term whether related to a foreign human or an extra-terrestrial. (It meant the former first, the latter later.) Eventually people decided that the descriptive term "illegal alien" was offensive because "no human is illegal," which is not what the term "illegal alien" meant anyway: it meant that the alien (e.g. foreigner to the country in question) was there illegally. Not that the person was illegal.
Then the "alien" part of it became offensive, presumably because it was identified with creatures from outer space.
And now the creatures from outer space shouldn't be called that word, because it reminds you of it being offensive to call people by that name, which was only offensive because the creatures were called by that name? A little circular...
Why not recognize that the term "alien" is a descriptive one, neither compliment nor insult?
Lovato is, I hate to say, spouting nonsense. And if her biggest problem in the world is that humans might be insulting extra-terrestrials by using a nonjudgmental, descriptive term for (terrestrial or extra terrestrial) outsiders/foreigners, well, she might think about priorities.
Right, she's coming across as a total idiot in an effort to be you know, like totally, woke, or whatever. And, she got rightfully called out for her buffoonery. www.tmz.com/2021/10/13/neil-degrasse-tyson-demi-lovato-alien-derogatory-confusing/
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 13, 2021 22:53:50 GMT
Did woke reach The Rolling Stones?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 14, 2021 12:11:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 15, 2021 15:02:44 GMT
|
|