Skip to main content

And...

Buddy Guy
Roy Orbison
Ray Charles
Bob Dylan
Arlo Guthrie
Phil Ochs
James Brown
Otis Redding
Jackie Wilson
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
Buffalo Springfield
The Byrds
Jefferson Airplane
The Greatful Dead
Procol Harem (well, one song, but...)
Rod Stewart (and band, early)
Cream
Blind Faith
Traffic
Led Zeppelin
Jimi Hendrix
Janis Joplin
Joe Cocker
Joni Mitchell
Leonard Cohen
Richie Havens
Them
Van Morrison
Simon & Garfunkel
Paul Simon
The Doors
The Band
Neil Young
Crosby, Stills and Nash
Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young
Credence Clearwater Revival
Jethro Tull
Derek and the Dominoes
Allman Brothers Band
John Lenon
George Harrison
Stevie Wonder
Elton John
Billy Joel
Bruce Sprinsteen
Eagles
Jackson Browne
Aerosmith
Fleetwood Mac
Tom Petty (& the Heartbreakers)
Dire Straits
U2
Michael Jackson
Don Henly
Mark Knopfler
The Traveling Willburies
REM
Lenny Kravitz
Tracy Chapman
Metallica
Guns ‘n’ Roses
Nirvana
Pearl Jam

And in terms of talent in their fields...
Sam Cooke
B.B. King
Albert King
Chuck Berry
Little Richard
Jerry Lee Lewis
Elvis Presley
Buddy Holly
Soloman Burke
The Beach Boys
Carol King
Aretha Franklin
Santana
Elvis Costello
Prince
Eminem


Is a partial list of not so new music I definitely prefer to everything listed thus far Razz
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by steve8:
While I have a lot of the music on your list, it reads like one of a baby boomer who listens to classic rock radio. Razz


If you are referring to winetarelli, he is not a baby boomer, but he definitely has an old soul. Cool


He sure hit most everything I listen to. Ad Chuck Magione to list and the Animals
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by steve8:
While I have a lot of the music on your list, it reads like one of a baby boomer who listens to classic rock radio. Razz


If you are referring to winetarelli, he is not a baby boomer, but he definitely has an old soul. Cool


More like baby than baby boomer at least relative to the rest of us Big Grin
I mean, as a child of baby boomers I just far prefer the music I heard from my parents growing up than whatever was on the radio MTV back then. (We never listened to the radio in the car, and at home you’re your own disc jockey.) And as an adult I am capable of discerning that a lot of that stuff is better than anything now. There are actually dozens of acts I thought of including but did not because I’m not certain my preference for them isn’t due to familiarity or simple style preference.


A lot of my friends are in the same position.

Also, how did I leave off Chuck Berry? More of a talent than someone I actually listen regularly to, though.
Re-read my initial post. Subtracted Tim Hardin. Added Arlo Guthrie, pre-lounge lizard Rod Stewart, Sam Cooke.

There are of course dozens of acts mostly from the 60’s and early 70’s that I like as much or more than anything current that I purposely chose not to include because I want to make sure the list is acts that are genuinely better. But if others think:

Stevie Ray Vaughn
Eric Clapton solo
Roger McGuinn solo
The Yardbirds
Jeff Beck
Eric Andersen (well, “Thirsty Boots”, at least)
Tim Hardin
James Taylor
Smokey Robinson
Sly Stone
The Jackson 5
The Animals
The Kinks
Badfinger
Steppenwolf
The Velvet Underground
Lynyrd Skynyrd


Etc etc etc are also better, I won’t argue the point. Wink
Last edited by winetarelli
quote:
Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by steve8:
While I have a lot of the music on your list, it reads like one of a baby boomer who listens to classic rock radio. Razz


If you are referring to winetarelli, he is not a baby boomer, but he definitely has an old soul. Cool
Cool

quote:
More like baby than baby boomer at least relative to the rest of us Big Grin

It is strange, though, regarding this board. When I was 23 I made a “People Under 30, Reveal Yourselves” post. DJ Hombre and I may have technically been the youngest at the time, but the list of under 30’s was miles long. It is strange how more than a dozen years later I’m still young compared to the board. I do wonder why that is.
quote:
Originally posted by haggis:
I like winetarelli's list. My only objection is the insinuation that Procol Harum was a one-hit wonder. Their "A Salty Dog" and "Broken Barricades" albums are spectacular. They suffered a bit after Robin Trower left, but they were an outstanding group for many years. Gary Brooker is still touring.

I will check this out. I accept that my knowledge regarding these things might be limited.
quote:
Originally posted by steve8:
Winetarelli, good to see you added The Kinks and The Velvet Underground to your list, both serious omissions imo, but you're still missing Roxy Music.

Agreed, steve8; however, the most glaring omissions, imo, from the list are Pink Floyd, David Bowie and Marvin Gaye. Followed by:

Johnny Cash
Yes
Rush
The Clash
The Pretenders
The Ramones
The Cars
Journey
Queen
Talking Heads
The Police
Peter Gabriel
Van Halen
Joy Division
The Cure
Talk Talk
The Smiths
XTC
Love & Rockets
The The
Joe Jackson
Oasis
Green Day
When I think about the musicians from the 60s and 70s, it seems to me that so many of them were one of a kind: they were influenced by prior generations of musicians but they still created their own unique musical space. No one else sounded like Jimi Hendrix. He broke new ground with his musicianship and sound. The same could be said for the majority of the artists listed so far in this thread.

Are current young musicians in 2017 simply not making unique music? I'm not sure that's true.

No musician or band in 2017 will have the cultural impact that any artist had 1967. In the 60s and 70s our choices were limited to what the major labels promoted and AM/FM radio played. Everyone listened to (or at least was aware of) the classic rock artists listed in this thread.

In 2017 there is no end to the sheer volume of music and diversity of styles available. The major labels have far less influence. Very few, if any, of the artists listed in the "Current Musicians" thread are on a major label. There are so many genres and sub-sets of genres, its mind-boggling. Are you a fan of Afro-Cuban EDM? No doubt there's a musical community for you.

Our means of accessing music has also changed. We've gone from listening to whatever our local FM station deigned to play to having any and all music at the click of a mouse.

It makes fiscal sense that the artists who get the biggest push from the major labels these days are the ones who have the widest commercial appeal. The labels play it very safe. Unlike the 60s and 70s, the labels aren't willing to invest time and money in developing an artist. It used to be that when a label signed a new artist, it was accepted that they wouldn't break even until their third album. The labels took chances on new artists.

There's a whole lot of uninspired and uninspiring music out there today. Not bad music, but nothing original. That's bound to happen when there is just so much music available.

But remember that for every Janis Joplin, there were dozens of bands and musicians in the 60s and 70s who are rarely mentioned now. Not bad musicians, but nothing groundbreaking or memorable. In that regard, not much has changed.

There are still many artists who are breaking new ground in 2017. It's just much harder to find them. The artists who are taking the biggest chances in 2017 are on independent labels or self-released. The system has changed, and it takes a whole lot of sifting through chaff to find the wheat. That's why threads like "Current Musicians" are useful.
Guess what - large parts of every generation thinks that the music of their era (or even earlier ones for nostalgic folk) was the greatest and everything that came after stinks. This is not anything new and is particularly apt for the 60s to 70s where the entire form or rock music specifically was being developed (at least apart from their blues and other influences from African-American musicians)
quote:
Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Guess what - large parts of every generation thinks that the music of their era (or even earlier ones for nostalgic folk) was the greatest and everything that came after stinks. This is not anything new and is particularly apt for the 60s to 70s where the entire form or rock music specifically was being developed (at least apart from their blues and other influences from African-American musicians)

I actually don’t think that is the full story, and that was my point. When I said of The Kinks, of James Taylor, etc I would not object but wouldn’t say definitively, I was being serious. When I said Procol Harum for one song I was being serious...

But there is no modern day equivalent to “Gimme Shelter”.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnylea57:
When I think about the musicians from the 60s and 70s, it seems to me that so many of them were one of a kind: they were influenced by prior generations of musicians but they still created their own unique musical space. No one else sounded like Jimi Hendrix. He broke new ground with his musicianship and sound. The same could be said for the majority of the artists listed so far in this thread.

Are current young musicians in 2017 simply not making unique music? I'm not sure that's true.

No musician or band in 2017 will have the cultural impact that any artist had 1967. In the 60s and 70s our choices were limited to what the major labels promoted and AM/FM radio played. Everyone listened to (or at least was aware of) the classic rock artists listed in this thread.

In 2017 there is no end to the sheer volume of music and diversity of styles available. The major labels have far less influence. Very few, if any, of the artists listed in the "Current Musicians" thread are on a major label. There are so many genres and sub-sets of genres, its mind-boggling. Are you a fan of Afro-Cuban EDM? No doubt there's a musical community for you.

Our means of accessing music has also changed. We've gone from listening to whatever our local FM station deigned to play to having any and all music at the click of a mouse.

It makes fiscal sense that the artists who get the biggest push from the major labels these days are the ones who have the widest commercial appeal. The labels play it very safe. Unlike the 60s and 70s, the labels aren't willing to invest time and money in developing an artist. It used to be that when a label signed a new artist, it was accepted that they wouldn't break even until their third album. The labels took chances on new artists.

There's a whole lot of uninspired and uninspiring music out there today. Not bad music, but nothing original. That's bound to happen when there is just so much music available.

But remember that for every Janis Joplin, there were dozens of bands and musicians in the 60s and 70s who are rarely mentioned now. Not bad musicians, but nothing groundbreaking or memorable. In that regard, not much has changed.

There are still many artists who are breaking new ground in 2017. It's just much harder to find them. The artists who are taking the biggest chances in 2017 are on independent labels or self-released. The system has changed, and it takes a whole lot of sifting through chaff to find the wheat. That's why threads like "Current Musicians" are useful.

Great post, sunnylea57, with solid insight and perspective.

My oldest son is a big fan of the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' movies. I believe he enjoys the music from the soundtracks more than the movies themselves. It is fun to listen to him around the house, or in the car, singing lyrics from Fleetwood Mac, ELO, The Jackson Five, and Cheap Trick. And while I hope we share some musical tastes, I look forward to my kids discovering current musical artists that resonate with them.

I think the 'Current Musicians' thread is great. I listened to several songs from The New Pornographers the other day and really enjoyed their sound.

Oh, and how could we forget the incomparable Bob Marley? Smile
I have a theory of why there were so many good bands during the 60's and early 70's versus now. I believe there were many more people who played music back then versus now. It seemed almost everybody wanted to be in a band or were in a band when they were young. There were a lot of options for places to play for them too. I think there was more encouragement and support for kids to learn musical instruments also.

Now, there is a much larger focus on other activities, many of which involve computers or organized activities. Kids are more interested in gaming, computer related activities while there was none back then. Schools have dropped or reduced music education also.

There was a bigger well of talent to draw from then and more support as well.

This is not even getting into the issue of how labels used to support and develop so many bands in the past versus now.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×