#1 Posted on 11.6.04 0808.35 Reposted on: 11.6.11 0811.53
In the Ray Charles thread it was said that the soul of American music was dying with Cash and Charles gone. I wanted to ask the following question but not co-opt the thread. Where are the Charles' and Cash's of the last thirty or so years? Is the music business set up today that people like Cash, Cahrles, Presley, and The Beatles won't or can't happen?
Since last post: 3427 days Last activity: 2719 days
#2 Posted on 11.6.04 0817.14 Reposted on: 11.6.11 0819.00
There's certainly no one that can fill the gap left by them.
As far as people defining a genre and/or jumpstarting a style...honestly, right now I don't think so. There are some talented people out there but there is nothing even close to revolutionary being done right now.
Since last post: 1373 days Last activity: 1366 days
#3 Posted on 11.6.04 0824.52 Reposted on: 11.6.11 0826.31
Originally posted by DrDirtIn the Ray Charles thread it was said that the soul of American music was dying with Cash and Charles gone. I wanted to ask the following question but not co-opt the thread. Where are the Charles' and Cash's of the last thirty or so years? Is the music business set up today that people like Cash, Cahrles, Presley, and The Beatles won't or can't happen?
There will never be another Elvis or Beatles. I don't think huge stars that transcend the music business as much as those guys did will happen again. But guys like Ben Harper and bands like Pearl Jam are keeping "the soul of American music" alive by carving out a niche for themselves. It's just that what is truly good isn't what is being heard by a vast majority of the population. Musical attention spans are in fast forward, and people listen to a popular song for a few weeks until another new one comes out to listen to as they get bored of the last one. They are barraged by so much music that it doesn't matter if it is good or timeless, because it will be replaced as soon as its appeal is lost. Not to say that this hasn't always been the case (there were plenty of one-hit-wonder bands and songs in years past) but it is more prevalent today than ever.
Since last post: 3179 days Last activity: 1234 days
#4 Posted on 12.6.04 0233.28 Reposted on: 12.6.11 0234.10
From a musical standpoint, no; with the exception of rap, there hasn't been anything groundbreaking since the birth of MTV, nor can there be at this stage with Clear Channel in on the game. The bar is just too high for the upstarts to make an impact, and the suits have no reason to look under any rocks, not when they have Hollywood in their backyard and Madison Avenue at the front.
You can always mix and match for the kids to keep it fresh. 10 years from now you might have ska bands with a herion addiction, or a death metal act full of transvestites. But nothing those kids will remember once they work up the attention span to walk past the New Release section.
Since last post: 1191 days Last activity: 253 days
#5 Posted on 16.6.04 0441.21 Reposted on: 16.6.11 0445.47
Originally posted by DrDirtIs the music business set up today that people like Cash, Cahrles, Presley, and The Beatles won't or can't happen?
Sure seemes that way, doesn't it? It's such a studio-driven factory system that anything original or fresh is immediately squashed, lest it not fit in the desired demos, or worse, peak the interest of that damned Internet crowd.
I'd have to say the only possible exception right now is Outkast. I'll be damned if I can classify those guys under any real pre-existing genre of music.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE