I'm watching the concert channel on my Satellite dish (DirecTV) and they just had a festival concert by MUSE and now they have COLDPLAY playing to something like 50,000 audience members at some other festival. Well COLDPLAY is U2 Lite and MUSE is Queen lite but who really are the modern STONES/BEATLES/DYLANS of today. I don't mean U2 or Madonna or Prince or Springsteen or Pearl Jam but more recent bands? Is this the best rock and roll can do in 2011 - COLDPLAY/MUSE? They're OK bands (and each band has one great song) but come on, where are the genius bands of today - the one's that AMAZE you?

Any suggestions?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-24 14:51 by CrissCrossMind.

I would say no way. They just aren't that good enough to be put up to that level of comparison. Sadly, there aren't any groups that can honestly be thought of having had the torch passed to them.

Thanks whitem8, I was kinda thinkin' that cause there's just nobody with that high level of talent (unless we both missed em') I guess we just had a moment (not meant to go on forever. Good thing to have been there while both bands - Stones/Beatles - were cooking on super high flame) Take care (what country you in right now? Might hit India/Sri Lanka in November, hopefully) CCMind

I am in Indonesia in Jakarta:-) Living and working here. Have a great trip to India! Wonderful place. INTENSE! But a life changing trip.

COLDPLAY and MUSE are the new modern version of the BEATLES = they're both crap bands like the Beatles were...

The new modern version of the Sotnes would be the Queens Of The Stone Age. Rocking, eclectic, with a certain fondness for drugs, yeah they would my choice.

I'm not even sure who would be who in the comparison; Coldplay, the good or the bad guys? I can not stand Coldplay, eventhough they have several pretty songs.
And Muse has recently grown on me, but much of their lyrics are laughable. They remind me of the movie 'V for Vendetta'.

Last time there was a Beatles/Stones type scenario that I can think of was Blur/Oasis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-24 12:06 by Palace Revolution 2000.

There is NO COMPARISON. Music / bands are not as important to anyone anymore. Most people treat it as background music nowadays.(present company accepted)

Christ - I sound old !


sc uk

they shouldnt even be mentioned in the same sentance as the stones / beatles. truth is there is no modern day comparison. plently of relevant young bands though that are doing well, the artic monkeys new album is the best ive heard in a while.

No.

Quote
straycatuk
There is NO COMPARISON. Music / bands are not as important to anyone anymore. Most people treat it as background music nowadays.(present company accepted)

Christ - I sound old !


sc uk

i´m feeling sorry, but you´re right!

Can't believe you are even asking this question...Muse and COldplay are dross of the worst kind, and in 40 years will be long forgotten, thankfully. Their songs are just not good enough too formulaic and aimed at the charts. They don't push boundaries in any way, and largely appeal only estate agents and students. What annoys me with bands of this genre is that they appear almost out of nowhere and suddenly are only playing stadiums and large arenas. They didnt pay their dues like the Stones and Beatles. THe years of touring in a transit van, playing two shows a day. Spoilt kids basically, who had connections in the right places to propel them to their undesreved status and wealth. If I were king they'd be first against the wall.

crumbling_mice, yeah but the system worked until recently. You had Elvis/Chuck Berry/Roy Orbison/Johnny Cash. Then you had the Stones/Beatles/Dylan. Then you had Zeppelin/Elton John/Bowie/Springsteen. Then you had U2/Madonna/Prince/Michael Jackson/Mellencamp. Then you had Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Nine Inch Nails/Sheryl Crow and now it doesn't seem like there's ANYBODY. I think my theory flies, It's pretty accurate IMHO.... So who's gonna carry on?

Quote
originalstones
No.

+1.

No one will carry on I'm afraid. The world has changed irrevocably. It's all about fast bucks now, bands spring up and either burn straight out or as I commented above, are propelled via payola and connections to the dizzy heights of stardom on the back of one or two songs and then of course go on to produce meiocrity forever more until one of them decides he can make more money by going solo.

We will never see the likes of the super bands again; The Stones, Zeppelin, The Who, and many others will be just memories - fortunatly we have a lot of recordings to remind us of their music etc.

If someone can prove me wrong I'd be glad to hear your theories!

Quote
CrissCrossMind
crumbling_mice, yeah but the system worked until recently. You had Elvis/Chuck Berry/Roy Orbison/Johnny Cash. Then you had the Stones/Beatles/Dylan. Then you had Zeppelin/Elton John/Bowie/Springsteen. Then you had U2/Madonna/Prince/Michael Jackson/Mellencamp. Then you had Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Nine Inch Nails/Sheryl Crow and now it doesn't seem like there's ANYBODY. I think my theory flies, It's pretty accurate IMHO.... So who's gonna carry on?

It's true that in late 60's, early 70's there was an abundance of great bands, but even then the pop charts had to have a lot of fluff and also-rans on there.
I think there are plenty great people at any given time to carry the torch.
Today Arcade Fire, a great band.
Ryan Adams, already a bit of the older guard.
Arctic Monkeys - the dude is a brilliant lyricist. They are about due for their classic album.
Killers and Strokes are bands from the classic cut.
Kings of Leon COULD still take another left-hnd turn and get back on track towards greatness.
Radiohead and Wilco, are not personal faves, but they are surely considered the current great ones.
Some people been around a while and are reaching new plateaus like Nick Cave; he might be at his best right now.
Beth Orton under the radar; Deadstring Bros.

And me myself, I wouldn't count out Lady Gaga at all. I think she is very good.

Quote
CrissCrossMind
crumbling_mice, yeah but the system worked until recently. You had Elvis/Chuck Berry/Roy Orbison/Johnny Cash. Then you had the Stones/Beatles/Dylan. Then you had Zeppelin/Elton John/Bowie/Springsteen. Then you had U2/Madonna/Prince/Michael Jackson/Mellencamp. Then you had Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Nine Inch Nails/Sheryl Crow and now it doesn't seem like there's ANYBODY. I think my theory flies, It's pretty accurate IMHO.... So who's gonna carry on?

sonic shift in music style...today you have Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Eminem, Katy Perry and that lot.

I don't dislike all of it, but I hope the pendulum swings back.

first of all, the headline to this thread is just ridiculous. there will NEVER be a new Beatles or a new Stones. is joe blow the new jimi hendrix? no, jimi hendrix is the only jimi hendrix. the beatles are the only beatles, abba are the only abba etc. if you're in search of a new band to replace a former band then you're in the business of listening to music for all the wrong reasons. if the old saying "it's all been done before" is true, then what is the point in all these new bands? why not just fire them all and listen to your records of yesterday? because bands today are evolving and they're finding their influences from the bands that came before them and making it into an interesting new sound (a sound that you might not agree with). were the beatles influenced by AC/DC? of course not. but bands today have the luxury of being influenced by both bands therefore making their sound into something new. and let's face it, new music is generally directed towards the younger crowd. it's always been that way. always will. the older generations don't "get it". that's not to say it's not good music. they just don't feel a connection to it.
but you CAN feel a connection to it if you stop with the "back in my day..." mentality and stop putting new bands into a competition with old bands. then you will truly start to appreciate what's out there.

There is an element of truth in what you say Mr ineedadrink...new music is meant to appeal to the younger generation. However, why is then that many 'young' people still hark back to The Stones and Zeppelin and say how they wished they had lived through it. I myself say this as I just missed out on the 60's and so the 70's music was essentially my time and I liked some of it, but still listened to the previous generation's music and thought I'd missed out on something.

The main difference I guess is that these days there are more genres to choose from and the fan base gets more fragmented, so everything is a little more dilute than it used to be. At one time you either liked the Stones or the beatles, today you can choose from 20 0r 30 current bands/artists. The trouble is, none stand out from the crowd,

Radiohead, might be the exception to the rule on all tis. Love em or hate em, they have turned their back on the big record companies to ensure they play what and when they want and are not pressured into trying to make money.

They're both crushingly dull, careerist groups. Music and innovation takes third place to make money and marketing. No vim, no fire, just the dull glow of bank statements.

Quote
crumbling_mice
There is an element of truth in what you say Mr ineedadrink...new music is meant to appeal to the younger generation. However, why is then that many 'young' people still hark back to The Stones and Zeppelin and say how they wished they had lived through it. I myself say this as I just missed out on the 60's and so the 70's music was essentially my time and I liked some of it, but still listened to the previous generation's music and thought I'd missed out on something.

The main difference I guess is that these days there are more genres to choose from and the fan base gets more fragmented, so everything is a little more dilute than it used to be. At one time you either liked the Stones or the beatles, today you can choose from 20 0r 30 current bands/artists. The trouble is, none stand out from the crowd,

Radiohead, might be the exception to the rule on all tis. Love em or hate em, they have turned their back on the big record companies to ensure they play what and when they want and are not pressured into trying to make money.

Love Radiohead, but they aren't exactly a new band anymore...they formed in 1985, and Creep, their first single, was released in 1992.

Quote
ineedadrink
first of all, the headline to this thread is just ridiculous. there will NEVER be a new Beatles or a new Stones. is joe blow the new jimi hendrix? no, jimi hendrix is the only jimi hendrix. the beatles are the only beatles, abba are the only abba etc. if you're in search of a new band to replace a former band then you're in the business of listening to music for all the wrong reasons. if the old saying "it's all been done before" is true, then what is the point in all these new bands? why not just fire them all and listen to your records of yesterday? because bands today are evolving and they're finding their influences from the bands that came before them and making it into an interesting new sound (a sound that you might not agree with). were the beatles influenced by AC/DC? of course not. but bands today have the luxury of being influenced by both bands therefore making their sound into something new. and let's face it, new music is generally directed towards the younger crowd. it's always been that way. always will. the older generations don't "get it". that's not to say it's not good music. they just don't feel a connection to it.
but you CAN feel a connection to it if you stop with the "back in my day..." mentality and stop putting new bands into a competition with old bands. then you will truly start to appreciate what's out there.

Maybe I wasn't 100% clear but I meant the new "Stand out" bands (just like we had/have stand out actors such as BRANDO, DeNiro, PACINO - whether it's MUSIC, FILM, THEATER, ETC. THE CREAM ALWAYS RISES TO THE TOP. I was watching the 2011 Cochella Music Festival feed last weekend on the internet and I have to tell you that most of the music/bands that played there jut SUCKED (first time I felt that way about a musical festival - ever). So why are most bands such sh*t these days? WHAT HAPPENED !?!?!?

Quote
CrissCrossMind

Quote
ineedadrink
first of all, the headline to this thread is just ridiculous. there will NEVER be a new Beatles or a new Stones. is joe blow the new jimi hendrix? no, jimi hendrix is the only jimi hendrix. the beatles are the only beatles, abba are the only abba etc. if you're in search of a new band to replace a former band then you're in the business of listening to music for all the wrong reasons. if the old saying "it's all been done before" is true, then what is the point in all these new bands? why not just fire them all and listen to your records of yesterday? because bands today are evolving and they're finding their influences from the bands that came before them and making it into an interesting new sound (a sound that you might not agree with). were the beatles influenced by AC/DC? of course not. but bands today have the luxury of being influenced by both bands therefore making their sound into something new. and let's face it, new music is generally directed towards the younger crowd. it's always been that way. always will. the older generations don't "get it". that's not to say it's not good music. they just don't feel a connection to it.
but you CAN feel a connection to it if you stop with the "back in my day..." mentality and stop putting new bands into a competition with old bands. then you will truly start to appreciate what's out there.

Maybe I wasn't 100% clear but I meant the new "Stand out" bands (just like we had/have stand out actors such as BRANDO, DeNiro, PACINO - whether it's MUSIC, FILM, THEATER, ETC. THE CREAM ALWAYS RISES TO THE TOP. I was watching the 2011 Cochella Music Festival feed last weekend on the internet and I have to tell you that most of the music/bands that played there jut SUCKED (first time I felt that way about a musical festival - ever). So why are most bands such sh*t these days? WHAT HAPPENED !?!?!?

You got old.

yep. CrissCrossMind, sorry to report but you got old. and out of touch. i'm pretty sure the older generation in the 1960s were looking at the bands you listened to and said "what is this hippie crap? this ain't no glenn miller orchestra!"

Quote
ineedadrink
yep. CrissCrossMind, sorry to report but you got old. and out of touch. i'm pretty sure the older generation in the 1960s were looking at the bands you listened to and said "what is this hippie crap? this ain't no glenn miller orchestra!"

Exactly. He sounds like my grandfather, trying to tell me about all the great stuff that happened in 1938.

YOU GOT OLD... Not the answer my man - too easy. I still love some new bands but the good ones are dropping out FAST - WHY is that happening ??? Think a bit DEEPER tats, you can do it !!!

LOL.., GRANDPA, MUCH TOO EASY, come on BOYZ, use some "Brain Power" GIVE IT A SHOT....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-04-24 18:30 by CrissCrossMind.

Quote
CrissCrossMind
YOU GOT OLD... Not the answer my man - too easy. I still love some new bands but the good ones are dropping out FAST - WHY is that happening ??? Think a bit DEEPER tats, you can do it !!!

Because rock and roll is OVER. The art form peaked 40 years ago and was pretty much over 30 years ago. The most creative people in music today are not even doing rock and roll because it's BEEN DONE. I sound more like you now than I care to admit, but it's true. Every mode of expression has its peak. Oil painting peaked 500 years ago. Some Italian dude looked at his work and said "There. That's it. That's the best that I, or any other member of the human race, will ever be able to do".

OK Tatter's, now that's a good answer. Sadly, that's probably exactly what is going on, it's over !!! Thanks, bad news but sounds like the truth ....

Quote
CrissCrossMind
OK Tatter's, now that's a good answer. Sadly, that's probably exactly what is going on, it's over !!! Thanks, bad news but sounds like the truth ....

Well, it's the answer you wanted to hear, that you, CCM, are SPECIAL because you lived in interesting times. This seems to be attitude that is generally shared by people our age, that we grew up in a time when popular culture was producing the best material it had ever, or would ever, produce, and that anything that came afterwards is of worth only if it PAYS HOMAGE to the stuff WE like. Unfortunately, because time has forever locked us into our own personal "golden age", we can never look at this issue objectively enough to know if our perceptions are correct. It could very well be that we are all full of shit.

Quote
tatters

Quote
CrissCrossMind
OK Tatter's, now that's a good answer. Sadly, that's probably exactly what is going on, it's over !!! Thanks, bad news but sounds like the truth ....

Well, it's the answer you wanted to hear, that you, CCM, are SPECIAL because you lived in interesting times. This seems to be attitude that is generally shared by people our age, that we grew up in a time when popular culture was producing the best material it had ever, or would ever, produce, and that anything that came afterwards is of worth only if it PAYS HOMAGE to the stuff WE like. Unfortunately, because time has forever locked us into our own personal "golden age", we can never look at this issue objectively enough to know if our perceptions are correct. It could very well be that we are all full of shit.

We're just doing what previous generations do: we become fixated on whatever music we listened to when we were 19. My 86-year-old father-in-law still blasts the XM big band station all the time, God bless him. He doesn't care to know about any music that came out after the '40s. That's OK with him and isn't for anyone to judge.

And, BTW, we ARE special because we grew up in a time when rock music was growing up. A lot of it was a damn thrilling time to grow up, with different people at their creative peaks coming out with new and different things every few weeks, all on vinyl. I don't get that buzz from new releases very often anymore.

Quote
ab

Quote
tatters

Quote
CrissCrossMind
OK Tatter's, now that's a good answer. Sadly, that's probably exactly what is going on, it's over !!! Thanks, bad news but sounds like the truth ....

Well, it's the answer you wanted to hear, that you, CCM, are SPECIAL because you lived in interesting times. This seems to be attitude that is generally shared by people our age, that we grew up in a time when popular culture was producing the best material it had ever, or would ever, produce, and that anything that came afterwards is of worth only if it PAYS HOMAGE to the stuff WE like. Unfortunately, because time has forever locked us into our own personal "golden age", we can never look at this issue objectively enough to know if our perceptions are correct. It could very well be that we are all full of shit.

We're just doing what previous generations do: we become fixated on whatever music we listened to when we were 19. My 86-year-old father-in-law still blasts the XM big band station all the time, God bless him. He doesn't care to know about any music that came out after the '40s. That's OK with him and isn't for anyone to judge.

And, BTW, we ARE special because we grew up in a time when rock music was growing up. A lot of it was a damn thrilling time to grow up, with different people at their creative peaks coming out with new and different things every few weeks, all on vinyl. I don't get that buzz from new releases very often anymore.

Fantastic exchange here between tatters, innedadrink, ab, and crisscrossmind! This is what keeps me comin back to IORR! I like to refer to it as the "discussion form" of what Keith calls the "Ancient Art of Weaving"! Collectively, you have woven a fine piece of truth on this subject!