Segue Myles Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I feel sorry for kids today who don't really have their own generational music. Not their fault really, just a cultural thing. But when I hear about teenagers or people in their early '20s getting into Rush or Pink Floyd or whatever I always imagine an alternative universe where, as a teenager in the '70s, I was buying Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby records instead of Zeppelin and The Clash. That's the unfortunate world these kids live in; listening to the music of their parents or grandparents, bands that had their heyday long before they were born. Many of us listen too a lot of modern stuff, but don't bother mentioning it as so many older ones go "that's not real music we had it better", so meh. Pretty much, although I do think pop music was much better in the 70s/80s. Some of the worst pop came from those decades as well! Ignore the classics, pick up some random hit compilations: so much dreck! Same goes for today as well! I agree, but there is NOTHING I like from the most famous Pop artists now (Nikki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, etc.) At least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music, now it's just built on a computer with the "artists" name and face slapped on the cover. Lady Gaga at least writes her own music, and is an excellent live performer. The other two...guilty pleasure moments here and there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Slim-youre obviously out of touch with what's popular. I am too, but my brother teaches guitar to young kids, so he knows what they listen to and what they want to learn. It's like every other generation. if someone in their household (older sibling or parents) listened to a lot of music, they eventually come around to a fondness for what they were raised on, but at some point they all get into whatever everyone else their age is listening to, like the latest boy band if it's a girl, or the latest rapper or hip hop or commercial rock. We had the Bay City Rollers, Shaun Cassidy, etc. and the girls now have One Direction. Oh I appreciate that not all kids listen to Zeppelin, the Beatles, Floyd et al, though it's much more common for kids to get into the music of their parents than it was when I was 17. But even One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al are not really dramatically different from the music of 40 or 50 years ago, in the way that (say) the Pistols were different from Dean Martin or Sinatra, artists that came before them only three decades previously. My uncle, who is seventy, swears One Direction remind him of the sixties surf pop and rock n roll bands he grew up with! Ed Sheeran and Sam Smith are very old fashioned in their own way, as is Adele (who I think sounds like classic Petula Clark, Dusty Springfield and the like). Many great popnstars today! And I love Taylor Swift. Ashamed/not ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I feel sorry for kids today who don't really have their own generational music. Not their fault really, just a cultural thing. But when I hear about teenagers or people in their early '20s getting into Rush or Pink Floyd or whatever I always imagine an alternative universe where, as a teenager in the '70s, I was buying Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby records instead of Zeppelin and The Clash. That's the unfortunate world these kids live in; listening to the music of their parents or grandparents, bands that had their heyday long before they were born. Many of us listen too a lot of modern stuff, but don't bother mentioning it as so many older ones go "that's not real music we had it better", so meh. Pretty much, although I do think pop music was much better in the 70s/80s. Some of the worst pop came from those decades as well! Ignore the classics, pick up some random hit compilations: so much dreck! Same goes for today as well! I agree, but there is NOTHING I like from the most famous Pop artists now (Nikki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, etc.) At least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music, now it's just built on a computer with the "artists" name and face slapped on the cover. Lady Gaga at least writes her own music, and is an excellent live performer. The other two...guilty pleasure moments here and there. Lady Gaga's great. I will defend the fame Records forever. The other 2 she's on her own, lol. I love her piano versions of songs. Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I feel sorry for kids today who don't really have their own generational music. Not their fault really, just a cultural thing. But when I hear about teenagers or people in their early '20s getting into Rush or Pink Floyd or whatever I always imagine an alternative universe where, as a teenager in the '70s, I was buying Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby records instead of Zeppelin and The Clash. That's the unfortunate world these kids live in; listening to the music of their parents or grandparents, bands that had their heyday long before they were born. Many of us listen too a lot of modern stuff, but don't bother mentioning it as so many older ones go "that's not real music we had it better", so meh. Pretty much, although I do think pop music was much better in the 70s/80s. Some of the worst pop came from those decades as well! Ignore the classics, pick up some random hit compilations: so much dreck! Same goes for today as well! I agree, but there is NOTHING I like from the most famous Pop artists now (Nikki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, etc.) At least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music, now it's just built on a computer with the "artists" name and face slapped on the cover. Lady Gaga at least writes her own music, and is an excellent live performer. The other two...guilty pleasure moments here and there. Lady Gaga's great. I will defend the fame Records forever. The other 2 she's on her own, lol. I love her piano versions of songs. Mick Nearly all of Born This Way is glorious, especially live! Artpop sucks. I do like her work with Tony Bennet as well, and her recent live performances, like the Oscars , have been *jazz hands* fabulous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I feel sorry for kids today who don't really have their own generational music. Not their fault really, just a cultural thing. But when I hear about teenagers or people in their early '20s getting into Rush or Pink Floyd or whatever I always imagine an alternative universe where, as a teenager in the '70s, I was buying Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby records instead of Zeppelin and The Clash. That's the unfortunate world these kids live in; listening to the music of their parents or grandparents, bands that had their heyday long before they were born. Many of us listen too a lot of modern stuff, but don't bother mentioning it as so many older ones go "that's not real music we had it better", so meh. Pretty much, although I do think pop music was much better in the 70s/80s. Some of the worst pop came from those decades as well! Ignore the classics, pick up some random hit compilations: so much dreck! Same goes for today as well! I agree, but there is NOTHING I like from the most famous Pop artists now (Nikki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, etc.) At least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music, now it's just built on a computer with the "artists" name and face slapped on the cover. Lady Gaga at least writes her own music, and is an excellent live performer. The other two...guilty pleasure moments here and there. Lady Gaga's great. I will defend the fame Records forever. The other 2 she's on her own, lol. I love her piano versions of songs. Mick Nearly all of Born This Way is glorious, especially live! Artpop sucks. I do like her work with Tony Bennet as well, and her recent live performances, like the Oscars , have been *jazz hands* fabulous. i forgot the Bennett album. it is really good. i'm a Gaga fan......i said it, lol. just wish she could focus, lol Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRogers Posted November 23, 2015 Author Share Posted November 23, 2015 Imagine if you will a world in which RUSH made no new music after T4E. Neil went full on hermit mode. What would the band's legacy be? RR HOF? What would Geddy and Alex have done? Would TRF exist? How would you feel aboot the band? Eh? What's this RR HOF mean?? I think Rush would be bigger today than they are if they had called it a day after T4E. TRF would still exist. John Rogers, never mind. It's early and the brain is on dull and sluggish. Finally figured out it means rock and roll hall of fame. Good job on figuring it out! And remember, Google can often answer your questions faster than TRFers.I asked my question to Google and got answers aboot professional grade broadcasting headphones and the legacy of Rush Limbaugh. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) Slim-youre obviously out of touch with what's popular. I am too, but my brother teaches guitar to young kids, so he knows what they listen to and what they want to learn. It's like every other generation. if someone in their household (older sibling or parents) listened to a lot of music, they eventually come around to a fondness for what they were raised on, but at some point they all get into whatever everyone else their age is listening to, like the latest boy band if it's a girl, or the latest rapper or hip hop or commercial rock. We had the Bay City Rollers, Shaun Cassidy, etc. and the girls now have One Direction. Oh I appreciate that not all kids listen to Zeppelin, the Beatles, Floyd et al, though it's much more common for kids to get into the music of their parents than it was when I was 17. But even One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al are not really dramatically different from the music of 40 or 50 years ago, in the way that (say) the Pistols were different from Dean Martin or Sinatra, artists that came before them only three decades previously.I agree. The difference between Sing Sing Sing and, say, Something For Nothing is greater than the difference between Something For Nothing and Wrecking Ball. Edited November 23, 2015 by JARG 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) I feel sorry for kids today who don't really have their own generational music. Not their fault really, just a cultural thing. But when I hear about teenagers or people in their early '20s getting into Rush or Pink Floyd or whatever I always imagine an alternative universe where, as a teenager in the '70s, I was buying Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby records instead of Zeppelin and The Clash. That's the unfortunate world these kids live in; listening to the music of their parents or grandparents, bands that had their heyday long before they were born. Many of us listen too a lot of modern stuff, but don't bother mentioning it as so many older ones go "that's not real music we had it better", so meh. Pretty much, although I do think pop music was much better in the 70s/80s. Some of the worst pop came from those decades as well! Ignore the classics, pick up some random hit compilations: so much dreck! Same goes for today as well! I agree, but there is NOTHING I like from the most famous Pop artists now (Nikki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, etc.) At least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music, now it's just built on a computer with the "artists" name and face slapped on the cover. Lady Gaga at least writes her own music, and is an excellent live performer. The other two...guilty pleasure moments here and there. Lady Gaga's great. I will defend the fame Records forever. The other 2 she's on her own, lol. I love her piano versions of songs. Mick Nearly all of Born This Way is glorious, especially live! Artpop sucks. I do like her work with Tony Bennet as well, and her recent live performances, like the Oscars , have been *jazz hands* fabulous. i forgot the Bennett album. it is really good. i'm a Gaga fan......i said it, lol. just wish she could focus, lol Mick She would be the best artist on the planet if she concentrated her talents into a cohesive album! I still sense the metal influence on Born This Way, I truly believe the studio had that record airbrushed (can you imagine a hard rock Judas? I can!). She is close to being this generations pop icon above all, as is Beyonce. But they both lack the quality of the eighties greats like , Springsteen, Madonna or Prince (I said I don't like him, not that I overlook his worth). Taylor Swift, however, realised her potential with Red and 1989, and no one comes close! Edited November 23, 2015 by Segue Myles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Imagine if you will a world in which RUSH made no new music after T4E. Neil went full on hermit mode. What would the band's legacy be? RR HOF? What would Geddy and Alex have done? Would TRF exist? How would you feel aboot the band? Eh? What's this RR HOF mean?? I think Rush would be bigger today than they are if they had called it a day after T4E. TRF would still exist. John Rogers, never mind. It's early and the brain is on dull and sluggish. Finally figured out it means rock and roll hall of fame. Good job on figuring it out! And remember, Google can often answer your questions faster than TRFers.I asked my question to Google and got answers aboot professional grade broadcasting headphones and the legacy of Rush Limbaugh.What does Google know anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x1yyz Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Imagine if you will a world in which RUSH made no new music after T4E. Neil went full on hermit mode. What would the band's legacy be? RR HOF? What would Geddy and Alex have done? Would TRF exist? How would you feel aboot the band? Eh? What's this RR HOF mean?? I think Rush would be bigger today than they are if they had called it a day after T4E. TRF would still exist. John Rogers, never mind. It's early and the brain is on dull and sluggish. Finally figured out it means rock and roll hall of fame. Good job on figuring it out! And remember, Google can often answer your questions faster than TRFers.I asked my question to Google and got answers aboot professional grade broadcasting headphones and the legacy of Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure what you asked Google, but if you type in "RR HOF" it returns to me the following: Did you mean: RRHOFAnd then the first page of results is all about the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRogers Posted November 23, 2015 Author Share Posted November 23, 2015 I asked Google aboot Rush's legacy had they bailed after T4E. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) Slim-youre obviously out of touch with what's popular. I am too, but my brother teaches guitar to young kids, so he knows what they listen to and what they want to learn. It's like every other generation. if someone in their household (older sibling or parents) listened to a lot of music, they eventually come around to a fondness for what they were raised on, but at some point they all get into whatever everyone else their age is listening to, like the latest boy band if it's a girl, or the latest rapper or hip hop or commercial rock. We had the Bay City Rollers, Shaun Cassidy, etc. and the girls now have One Direction. Oh I appreciate that not all kids listen to Zeppelin, the Beatles, Floyd et al, though it's much more common for kids to get into the music of their parents than it was when I was 17. But even One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al are not really dramatically different from the music of 40 or 50 years ago, in the way that (say) the Pistols were different from Dean Martin or Sinatra, artists that came before them only three decades previously. yeah, me and a friend were actually joking about this recently. we were bitching about some new music, as we always do, and we started talking about what if there were people growing up in the 70s who loved frank sinatra and dean martin, and couldn't figure out why all their friends listened to led zeppelin and black sabbath. we mentioned how utterly lame that would be, and then it dawned on us that we, as fans of sabbath/zep/etc, appear just as lame to the majority of our peers. the culture thing is interesting, because I'm not sure why it is. I don't believe that "modern music" as a whole is inherently worse than it's ever been, but it is strange that half the crowd at an iron maiden concert is people my age. I think it might have to do with the internet giving kids my age easier access to older music, plus aging rock n roll fans control my generation's media - I've seen rush referenced a million times on adult swim, family guy, etc. plus, we haven't had a rock band come along and "change everything" since nirvana before I was born, and if you wanna get into good music that's not rap, country, or late night dance club shit, you either search the underground for a great band that's unknown (which is difficult for even long-time music listeners because obscure bands are, well, obscure), or you take the easier route which is to see what all the fuss is about concerning zep, hendrix, sabbath, etc Edited November 23, 2015 by bathory 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I asked Google aboot Rush's legacy had they bailed after T4E. What did Google say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnEggplant Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Why don't you guys Bing it? ... :laughing guy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Why don't you guys Bing it? ... :laughing guy: Dogpile would be more appropriate. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Dad Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Imagine if you will a world in which RUSH made no new music after T4E. Neil went full on hermit mode. What would the band's legacy be? RR HOF? What would Geddy and Alex have done? Would TRF exist? How would you feel aboot the band? Eh? What's this RR HOF mean?? I think Rush would be bigger today than they are if they had called it a day after T4E. TRF would still exist. John Rogers, never mind. It's early and the brain is on dull and sluggish. Finally figured out it means rock and roll hall of fame. Good job on figuring it out! And remember, Google can often answer your questions faster than TRFers.Don't forget I didn't grow up with having the ability to have any and all questions answered at my fingertips. My brain isn't geared toward google. When I ask on here, it is not because I am lazy. It is because I don't think to make use of the computer to get my answer.Hence my friendly "pro tip". Neither did I but I am freakin Wiki junkie. I am practically a savant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Imagine if you will a world in which RUSH made no new music after T4E. Neil went full on hermit mode. What would the band's legacy be? RR HOF? What would Geddy and Alex have done? Would TRF exist? How would you feel aboot the band? Eh? What's this RR HOF mean?? I think Rush would be bigger today than they are if they had called it a day after T4E. TRF would still exist. John Rogers, never mind. It's early and the brain is on dull and sluggish. Finally figured out it means rock and roll hall of fame. Good job on figuring it out! And remember, Google can often answer your questions faster than TRFers.Don't forget I didn't grow up with having the ability to have any and all questions answered at my fingertips. My brain isn't geared toward google. When I ask on here, it is not because I am lazy. It is because I don't think to make use of the computer to get my answer.Hence my friendly "pro tip". Neither did I but I am freakin Wiki junkie. I am practically a savant.I've never met a Wiki savant before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Slim-youre obviously out of touch with what's popular. I am too, but my brother teaches guitar to young kids, so he knows what they listen to and what they want to learn. It's like every other generation. if someone in their household (older sibling or parents) listened to a lot of music, they eventually come around to a fondness for what they were raised on, but at some point they all get into whatever everyone else their age is listening to, like the latest boy band if it's a girl, or the latest rapper or hip hop or commercial rock. We had the Bay City Rollers, Shaun Cassidy, etc. and the girls now have One Direction. Oh I appreciate that not all kids listen to Zeppelin, the Beatles, Floyd et al, though it's much more common for kids to get into the music of their parents than it was when I was 17. But even One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al are not really dramatically different from the music of 40 or 50 years ago, in the way that (say) the Pistols were different from Dean Martin or Sinatra, artists that came before them only three decades previously. yeah, me and a friend were actually joking about this recently. we were bitching about some new music, as we always do, and we started talking about what if there were people growing up in the 70s who loved frank sinatra and dean martin, and couldn't figure out why all their friends listened to led zeppelin and black sabbath. we mentioned how utterly lame that would be, and then it dawned on us that we, as fans of sabbath/zep/etc, appear just as lame to the majority of our peers. the culture thing is interesting, because I'm not sure why it is. I don't believe that "modern music" as a whole is inherently worse than it's ever been, but it is strange that half the crowd at an iron maiden concert is people my age. I think it might have to do with the internet giving kids my age easier access to older music, plus aging rock n roll fans control my generation's media - I've seen rush referenced a million times on adult swim, family guy, etc. plus, we haven't had a rock band come along and "change everything" since nirvana before I was born, and if you wanna get into good music that's not rap, country, or late night dance club shit, you either search the underground for a great band that's unknown (which is difficult for even long-time music listeners because obscure bands are, well, obscure), or you take the easier route which is to see what all the fuss is about concerning zep, hendrix, sabbath, etc I don't know why but you are basically typing essays like me today, and word for word I feel we are on the same page! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Slim-youre obviously out of touch with what's popular. I am too, but my brother teaches guitar to young kids, so he knows what they listen to and what they want to learn. It's like every other generation. if someone in their household (older sibling or parents) listened to a lot of music, they eventually come around to a fondness for what they were raised on, but at some point they all get into whatever everyone else their age is listening to, like the latest boy band if it's a girl, or the latest rapper or hip hop or commercial rock. We had the Bay City Rollers, Shaun Cassidy, etc. and the girls now have One Direction. Oh I appreciate that not all kids listen to Zeppelin, the Beatles, Floyd et al, though it's much more common for kids to get into the music of their parents than it was when I was 17. But even One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al are not really dramatically different from the music of 40 or 50 years ago, in the way that (say) the Pistols were different from Dean Martin or Sinatra, artists that came before them only three decades previously. yeah, me and a friend were actually joking about this recently. we were bitching about some new music, as we always do, and we started talking about what if there were people growing up in the 70s who loved frank sinatra and dean martin, and couldn't figure out why all their friends listened to led zeppelin and black sabbath. we mentioned how utterly lame that would be, and then it dawned on us that we, as fans of sabbath/zep/etc, appear just as lame to the majority of our peers. the culture thing is interesting, because I'm not sure why it is. I don't believe that "modern music" as a whole is inherently worse than it's ever been, but it is strange that half the crowd at an iron maiden concert is people my age. I think it might have to do with the internet giving kids my age easier access to older music, plus aging rock n roll fans control my generation's media - I've seen rush referenced a million times on adult swim, family guy, etc. plus, we haven't had a rock band come along and "change everything" since nirvana before I was born, and if you wanna get into good music that's not rap, country, or late night dance club shit, you either search the underground for a great band that's unknown (which is difficult for even long-time music listeners because obscure bands are, well, obscure), or you take the easier route which is to see what all the fuss is about concerning zep, hendrix, sabbath, etc I don't know why but you are basically typing essays like me today, and word for word I feel we are on the same page! my posts seem to be misread a lot, so I figure a few extra sentences can help get my point across, even if I risk appearing long-winded and a little up-my-own-ass. on other websites I can get away with hemingway, on TRF I have to do tolkien :7up: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Slim-youre obviously out of touch with what's popular. I am too, but my brother teaches guitar to young kids, so he knows what they listen to and what they want to learn. It's like every other generation. if someone in their household (older sibling or parents) listened to a lot of music, they eventually come around to a fondness for what they were raised on, but at some point they all get into whatever everyone else their age is listening to, like the latest boy band if it's a girl, or the latest rapper or hip hop or commercial rock. We had the Bay City Rollers, Shaun Cassidy, etc. and the girls now have One Direction. Oh I appreciate that not all kids listen to Zeppelin, the Beatles, Floyd et al, though it's much more common for kids to get into the music of their parents than it was when I was 17. But even One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al are not really dramatically different from the music of 40 or 50 years ago, in the way that (say) the Pistols were different from Dean Martin or Sinatra, artists that came before them only three decades previously. yeah, me and a friend were actually joking about this recently. we were bitching about some new music, as we always do, and we started talking about what if there were people growing up in the 70s who loved frank sinatra and dean martin, and couldn't figure out why all their friends listened to led zeppelin and black sabbath. we mentioned how utterly lame that would be, and then it dawned on us that we, as fans of sabbath/zep/etc, appear just as lame to the majority of our peers. the culture thing is interesting, because I'm not sure why it is. I don't believe that "modern music" as a whole is inherently worse than it's ever been, but it is strange that half the crowd at an iron maiden concert is people my age. I think it might have to do with the internet giving kids my age easier access to older music, plus aging rock n roll fans control my generation's media - I've seen rush referenced a million times on adult swim, family guy, etc. plus, we haven't had a rock band come along and "change everything" since nirvana before I was born, and if you wanna get into good music that's not rap, country, or late night dance club shit, you either search the underground for a great band that's unknown (which is difficult for even long-time music listeners because obscure bands are, well, obscure), or you take the easier route which is to see what all the fuss is about concerning zep, hendrix, sabbath, etc I don't know why but you are basically typing essays like me today, and word for word I feel we are on the same page! my posts seem to be misread a lot, so I figure a few extra sentences can help get my point across, even if I risk appearing long-winded and a little up-my-own-ass. on other websites I can get away with hemingway, on TRF I have to do tolkien :7up:It's travelling back in time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Slim-youre obviously out of touch with what's popular. I am too, but my brother teaches guitar to young kids, so he knows what they listen to and what they want to learn. It's like every other generation. if someone in their household (older sibling or parents) listened to a lot of music, they eventually come around to a fondness for what they were raised on, but at some point they all get into whatever everyone else their age is listening to, like the latest boy band if it's a girl, or the latest rapper or hip hop or commercial rock. We had the Bay City Rollers, Shaun Cassidy, etc. and the girls now have One Direction. Oh I appreciate that not all kids listen to Zeppelin, the Beatles, Floyd et al, though it's much more common for kids to get into the music of their parents than it was when I was 17. But even One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al are not really dramatically different from the music of 40 or 50 years ago, in the way that (say) the Pistols were different from Dean Martin or Sinatra, artists that came before them only three decades previously. yeah, me and a friend were actually joking about this recently. we were bitching about some new music, as we always do, and we started talking about what if there were people growing up in the 70s who loved frank sinatra and dean martin, and couldn't figure out why all their friends listened to led zeppelin and black sabbath. we mentioned how utterly lame that would be, and then it dawned on us that we, as fans of sabbath/zep/etc, appear just as lame to the majority of our peers. the culture thing is interesting, because I'm not sure why it is. I don't believe that "modern music" as a whole is inherently worse than it's ever been, but it is strange that half the crowd at an iron maiden concert is people my age. I think it might have to do with the internet giving kids my age easier access to older music, plus aging rock n roll fans control my generation's media - I've seen rush referenced a million times on adult swim, family guy, etc. plus, we haven't had a rock band come along and "change everything" since nirvana before I was born, and if you wanna get into good music that's not rap, country, or late night dance club shit, you either search the underground for a great band that's unknown (which is difficult for even long-time music listeners because obscure bands are, well, obscure), or you take the easier route which is to see what all the fuss is about concerning zep, hendrix, sabbath, etc I don't know why but you are basically typing essays like me today, and word for word I feel we are on the same page! my posts seem to be misread a lot, so I figure a few extra sentences can help get my point across, even if I risk appearing long-winded and a little up-my-own-ass. on other websites I can get away with hemingway, on TRF I have to do tolkien :7up:It's travelling back in time! sorry, over my head, man. :D-13: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JARG Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Slim-youre obviously out of touch with what's popular. I am too, but my brother teaches guitar to young kids, so he knows what they listen to and what they want to learn. It's like every other generation. if someone in their household (older sibling or parents) listened to a lot of music, they eventually come around to a fondness for what they were raised on, but at some point they all get into whatever everyone else their age is listening to, like the latest boy band if it's a girl, or the latest rapper or hip hop or commercial rock. We had the Bay City Rollers, Shaun Cassidy, etc. and the girls now have One Direction. Oh I appreciate that not all kids listen to Zeppelin, the Beatles, Floyd et al, though it's much more common for kids to get into the music of their parents than it was when I was 17. But even One Direction, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith et al are not really dramatically different from the music of 40 or 50 years ago, in the way that (say) the Pistols were different from Dean Martin or Sinatra, artists that came before them only three decades previously. yeah, me and a friend were actually joking about this recently. we were bitching about some new music, as we always do, and we started talking about what if there were people growing up in the 70s who loved frank sinatra and dean martin, and couldn't figure out why all their friends listened to led zeppelin and black sabbath. we mentioned how utterly lame that would be, and then it dawned on us that we, as fans of sabbath/zep/etc, appear just as lame to the majority of our peers. the culture thing is interesting, because I'm not sure why it is. I don't believe that "modern music" as a whole is inherently worse than it's ever been, but it is strange that half the crowd at an iron maiden concert is people my age. I think it might have to do with the internet giving kids my age easier access to older music, plus aging rock n roll fans control my generation's media - I've seen rush referenced a million times on adult swim, family guy, etc. plus, we haven't had a rock band come along and "change everything" since nirvana before I was born, and if you wanna get into good music that's not rap, country, or late night dance club shit, you either search the underground for a great band that's unknown (which is difficult for even long-time music listeners because obscure bands are, well, obscure), or you take the easier route which is to see what all the fuss is about concerning zep, hendrix, sabbath, etc I don't know why but you are basically typing essays like me today, and word for word I feel we are on the same page! my posts seem to be misread a lot, so I figure a few extra sentences can help get my point across, even if I risk appearing long-winded and a little up-my-own-ass. on other websites I can get away with hemingway, on TRF I have to do tolkien :7up:It's travelling back in time! sorry, over my head, man. :D-13:+like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy's Soul Patch Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I feel sorry for kids today who don't really have their own generational music. Not their fault really, just a cultural thing. But when I hear about teenagers or people in their early '20s getting into Rush or Pink Floyd or whatever I always imagine an alternative universe where, as a teenager in the '70s, I was buying Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby records instead of Zeppelin and The Clash. That's the unfortunate world these kids live in; listening to the music of their parents or grandparents, bands that had their heyday long before they were born. Many of us listen too a lot of modern stuff, but don't bother mentioning it as so many older ones go "that's not real music we had it better", so meh. Pretty much, although I do think pop music was much better in the 70s/80s. Some of the worst pop came from those decades as well! Ignore the classics, pick up some random hit compilations: so much dreck! Same goes for today as well! I agree, but there is NOTHING I like from the most famous Pop artists now (Nikki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, etc.) At least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music, now it's just built on a computer with the "artists" name and face slapped on the cover. Yeah, sure, all the most popular pop music is generally shite, but there are quite a few artists currently doing really interesting things with pop. Tame Impala, Future Islands, Tegan and Sara, The Asteroids Galaxy Tour, St. Vincent...no fair to say "at least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music" not all music today is made on a computer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I feel sorry for kids today who don't really have their own generational music. Not their fault really, just a cultural thing. But when I hear about teenagers or people in their early '20s getting into Rush or Pink Floyd or whatever I always imagine an alternative universe where, as a teenager in the '70s, I was buying Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby records instead of Zeppelin and The Clash. That's the unfortunate world these kids live in; listening to the music of their parents or grandparents, bands that had their heyday long before they were born. Many of us listen too a lot of modern stuff, but don't bother mentioning it as so many older ones go "that's not real music we had it better", so meh. Pretty much, although I do think pop music was much better in the 70s/80s. Some of the worst pop came from those decades as well! Ignore the classics, pick up some random hit compilations: so much dreck! Same goes for today as well! I agree, but there is NOTHING I like from the most famous Pop artists now (Nikki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, etc.) At least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music, now it's just built on a computer with the "artists" name and face slapped on the cover. Yeah, sure, all the most popular pop music is generally shite, but there are quite a few artists currently doing really interesting things with pop. Tame Impala, Future Islands, Tegan and Sara, The Asteroids Galaxy Tour, St. Vincent...no fair to say "at least artists back then had to put at least a little effort into their music" not all music today is made on a computer There are some good bands still out there but you have to really hunt to find them. You can't just turn on the radio anymore and hear anything decent unless it's Sirius XM or something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rutlefan Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) I always "discover" these threads after they've devolved into three or four side conversations. Back to the original question, if they had quit after T4E they would have been to me a once great (historically great, among The Greats) band that slowly ran out of gas like almost every band eventually does, Beatles and CCR excepted because they quit early (probably more, those two just come to mind). So, nothing to be ashamed of in that, they would have had a typical trajectory, except that their pinnacle was among the highest ever. But with the run they've had in the last fifteen years, where to my mind they've been much more vibrant and important than anytime since the '80s, or maybe even since Moving Pictures, they've elevated themselves to an almost unique, unheard of plane. I might have this slightly wrong, but don't they have the most gold albums outside of The Beatles and the Rolling Stones? Biggest concert draw ever, outside of The Grateful Dead or something like that. Rush's "stats" are absolutely freakish, especially for a band that was stubbornly dismissed and ignored by the establishment until just a few years ago. Finally, everyone had to recognize what Rush fans have known all along (even if, like me, they were kind of unfairly blind to their '90s material). Rush is now a "legendary" band, widely recognized as such. I don't think that would have happened if they would have stopped after T4E. If they had done that, they would have remained just the "world's biggest cult band." That might have been nice for the strange Rush/hipster hybrid, but I like to see them get their deserved due. The last fifteen years have made them monsters. I hate to quote Jack Black, but the last three albums, and all these tours, have shown they are still overflowing with Rocket Sauce, whereas other mere mortal bands quickly burn through their modest allotments. To end, the last fifteen years made me a Rush fanatic again; without them, I'd probably think of Rush with very fond nostalgia as a childhood obsession, returning to their albums once in a great while like when I dust off Get Your Wings or Close to the Edge every 3-5 years. Instead, Rush is a near daily listen and my four year-old boy has memorized the lyrics to Red Barchetta and is now working on Closer to the Heart and The Spirit of Radio (Exit Stage Left is his personal Rush disc). Rush has become a generational inheritance, and that's a d*mn good thing*. I think this is mostly due to the vibrancy they've shown from VT on. * A friend of mine was complaining that he can't listen to his iPad mix in the car when his kids are along because there's too many raunchy lyrics. I told him that I don't have that problem because mine just want to listen to Rush. Edited November 23, 2015 by Rutlefan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now