For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
frankotero
This subject is hard to tackle. It makes me wonder what people thought of Beethoven and Mozart at their time. Maybe people thought they were talented, but did they revere them the way we do with The Beatles and Stones? For instance could they walk freely through town without being tackled? And did they wait impatiently for new music for inspiration as we do/did? Another thought I'm having lately is why there isn't something as great as our heroes. It's kind of strange to see young people digging the dinosaurs. I know I didn't care about somebody that was 50 years older than me back in the day.
I think this will be the bare minimum core of musicians who are remembered. I'd also add:Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
The Who
Bob Dylan....at least I hope these are the guys that get remembered 300 years from now...
I hate to say it, but the Stones won't be TRULY appreciated by society at large until one of them is no longer with us and they've broken up for good.Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Slewan - "....Stones – less for the music but rather for the fact of being too successful over half a century to be ignored."
I beg to differ. The Stones are responsible for a huge chunk of what is now considered classic rock. Yes, the longevity can't be denied but neither can the songs they created, especially during their prime of mid sixties to early seventies and then many isolated classics from the late seventies to early eighties.
Quote
keefriff99I hate to say it, but the Stones won't be TRULY appreciated by society at large until one of them is no longer with us and they've broken up for good.Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Slewan - "....Stones – less for the music but rather for the fact of being too successful over half a century to be ignored."
I beg to differ. The Stones are responsible for a huge chunk of what is now considered classic rock. Yes, the longevity can't be denied but neither can the songs they created, especially during their prime of mid sixties to early seventies and then many isolated classics from the late seventies to early eighties.
I remember in high school in the '90s, I was the only kid who loved the Stones. You'd see Beatles and Zeppelin shirts, but no one was into the Stones. I think it's because they were all still alive and touring, and to most kids my age, they reminded them of their parents trying to rock, like, "Oh my god, Mick Jagger is my Dad's age...imagine him dancing like that?? Embarrassing."
The Stones have gotten over that hump and are culturally "cooler" than they've been since the early '80s, but I don't think people will TRULY appreciate their brilliance and longevity until they're gone. It's really a sad commentary but that's the way it goes.
Quote
frankotero
If I lived to be 300 I'm sure John Lennon would still be my hero. He has my vote for first place. Jimi Hendrix would be a close second, only drawback for him was that he wasn't the vocal activist John was. But musically he was the greatest thing ever in my opinion. And, oh yeah I do love The Stones too!
Quote
stonesrule
Dylan, surely, will always matter.
Quote
camper88
Which Rock Star Will Historians of the Future Remember?
One quote from the piece: "When I think of rock and who might survive, I immediately think of the Rolling Stones. They’re a band that sounds like what we’ve all decided rock ’n’ roll should sound like: loose and wild. Their story reflects that ethos and sound: loose and wild. And also, they’re good.”
Quote
DeanGoodman
The "correct" answer has been mentioned only once in this thread. It's a fun piece of provocative writing, so I hope people get to the end. I have been in one of the scenarios Chuck Klosterman mentioned - talking to a classroom of kids about rock 'n' roll. And I might as well have been discussing ancient Egypt. So its slow crawl to a cultural footnote is under way, with room for only one person (not band).