Are Today's Rock Stars as talented as those from the 60's or 70's

[spotlightkid]

I had a discussion the other day with a guy in his 20's.i am in my 40's.i asked if he thinks that today's rock stars were as talented as those from the 1960's or 70's.i told him that i thought artists from my rock n roll era were far superior musicians than those from the era of today-he rattled off some guitarist's from-pearl jam,mettalica and some other bands.i just said they could not come near the talent of Hendrix,Beck,Clapton or Page.What are your opinions on this subject

[BradOlson]

I agree that many of today's rock guitarists aren't as talented as those that recorded in the 60's-70's although I'm only in my 20's.

[Grant]

I would say that most of the current or recent musicians are pretty much restricted to a certain musical form. There's little chance of growing there. Also, their influences seem to be more or less restricted to other metal bands like Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and the like. I'm sure they listen to other styles but their playing doesn't reflect it.

The guys like Beck, Hendrix, Clapton, and others of their generation had more varied influences to draw on.

So, who's better? Who's to say? Who's more versitile? The 60's generation.

[pigmode]

Very hard to say--talent is talent. Was Ali a more talented boxer than Holyfield? Are you talking technical proficiency or creative talent?

A thought. If you go back to the days of the names you mentioned, rock and roll was still fairly new. The fields were more fertile and the trees full of fruit, so to speak. Here it is in the new millenia and we're still trying to do rock and roll. Just how far can you milk something like that?

The biggest joke I heard was when someone said Pearl Jam was the Led Zeppelin of the '90s. Har Har Har :rolleyes:

[Dave]

Funny this topic should come up right now.

Last night I observed with great satisfaction my best friends 20 year old son and his 19 year old girlfriend watch a live performance of Eric Clapton playing at our "Variety Club Telethon", which is a means to raise funds for handicapped children up here, with their eyes wide open and their feet tapping as Clapton gave a blistering performance of Layla. :D

Ahhh... There is still hope for our youth yet.;)

[Grant]

Dave, by "blistering", do you mean he played the herd rock version? I can't stand the mellow, easy-going version.

[Patrick M]

In answer to the subject line:

Absolutely not. Not only is instrumental proficiency a completely lost art, all artists are today and for the last 20 or 30 years are simply derivative of the true innovators from the '60 and '70s. Those are the true artists, who borrowed nothing from the past and created a new lexicon in music forged on the tabula rasa presented by the combination of idealism and a zeitgeist marked by creativity and open-mindedness.

[Grant]

So, Patrick, do you mean to say that the guys from the 60s and 70s invented what they knew and didn't borrow anything from the blues and jazz artists that preceded them? I can almost see the steam rising from Robert Johnson's grave right now.

You mean NO ONE copied Carl Perkins or Chuck Berry?

[Dave]

Grant,

Yup sure do!;)

Awesomely done screaming guitar solo included!:D

No wimpy accoustic version here!

[Grant]

:rolleyes::D

[pigmode]

Originally posted by Patrick M
In answer to the subject line:

Absolutely not. Not only is instrumental proficiency a completely lost art, all artists are today and for the last 20 or 30 years are simply derivative of the true innovators from the '60 and '70s. Those are the true artists, who borrowed nothing from the past and created a new lexicon in music forged on the tabula rasa presented by the combination of idealism and a zeitgeist marked by creativity and open-mindedness.

Same here. I'm gonna have to take issue with your tabula rasa. It's a concept that has never existed in reality.

[Dan]

I think many of today's artists are probably more musically and technically proficient. But they also lack individuality, creativity, and originality.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan
I think many of today's artists are probably more musically and technically proficient. But they also lack individuality, creativity, and originality.

Surely Dan you can't be serious.:rolleyes:

[Patrick M]

Hey, I'm just trying to fit in here. All new stuff sucks! I hate compression. I hate NR. How'm I doing?

[Andrew]

Remember, some people consider 70s music to be, for the most part, rubbish. I grew up with it and love it, but my older brother (for example) think the 1970s were nothing more than disco, John Denver and Kiss. My point is that "talent" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Thirty years in the future today's Gen-Xers will be saying "these young whippersnappers don't have a clue about great music, dude!"

[ED in NY]

I'll participate in this discussion if somebody can answer these following questions:

What is defined as talent ?

Is this comparison strictly limited to Top 40 material or all styles of music ?

Thanks all !

Best - ED

[Grant]

Originally posted by Patrick M
Hey, I'm just trying to fit in here. All new stuff sucks! I hate compression. I hate NR. How'm I doing?

Nope, I agree with you, but, we're talking about musicianship, not sound quality.

[lbangs]

This really depends on how we chop words. Yes, there are ARTISTS as talented as the folks from the 60s and 70s. Are our current STARS as talented? I doubt it. Record companies pull the strings at extremely narrowly-formatted radio stations where only certain 'sounds' can get airplay. Talent usually has little to do with who becomes stars. That is sad.

But there are loads of great artists today. They're just not playing on your radio or your video station, and they take some work to dig up and to find.

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

[Grant]

Originally posted by Andrew
Remember, some people consider 70s music to be, for the most part, rubbish. I grew up with it and love it, but my older brother (for example) think the 1970s were nothing more than disco, John Denver and Kiss.


I guess he never heard my 70s collection.

..."talent" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

As shown many times on this very board!

[Michael]

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!! This is a joke right? For starters 99.9% of all( if you call them singers)sound exactly the same, that low throaty I'm trying to be cool monotone drone...Pretty much all play the same(LOOK AT ME I KNOW SCALES!) lead guitar with variable speeds, No melody, no...I'm tired.

[Michael]

PLEASE don't get me started on Drum Machines & The Boy,Girl Bands. Let's see I hear one on now...Backed by looped drum beat.... GIRL, GIRL ,GIRL, GIRL, I LOVE YOU, GIRL, GIRL , GIRL, GIRL, OOUUU,AHHH,OOUU,AHHH,GIRL,GIRL,Girl,Girl ...end of moan, OK! Now Lock & Load anyone?

[BradOlson]

The modern R&B singer who had the remake of the Rose Royce hit I'm Going Down is Mary J. Blige. I prefer Rose Royce's music over Mary J. Blige.

[ED in NY]

If you are judging talent by what is on the radio and on MTV then I would have to say no but, there are just as many talented "musicians" now as their was 25-30 years ago, you just have to look a bit harder. If you have any doubts check out Gov't Mule. They came out in the mid-90's and are phenomenal. Stevie Salas is another one. He's been putting out new material for 10 years, it's just that his releases only come out overseas. And they're is no funkier living guitarist then Stevie Salas-hands down. Another great guitarist-singer-songwriter is Matt Smith. You probably never heard of him unless you went to a Hamer/Ovation Guitar clinic or attended the National Summer Guitar Workshop. Matt's got more talent than anyone in the top 40 realm. I watched him play with Al DiMeola some years ago and Al was just blown away by an "unknown" who could play so incredibly. He's released 5 albums over the past 10 years. Each one better than the next.

I don't waste my time with radio & MTV; it is nothing more than image. Talent has nothing to do with it. Then again, I wouldn't know what is new because I stopped listening to the radio & watching MTV years ago.

For me talent is Duke Ellington, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Charles Mingus, The Beatles and Elvis Presley just to only name a few, and folks those days are over. The world is a different place and music is big business and business and talent don't blend real well. I wouldn't hold my breath for the music business to find talent. In this day and age we are on our own to find it.

Best - ED

[BradOlson]

Originally posted by Grant


Yeah, that's her name. She's terrible! And, people put her in the same catagory as Aretha Franklin.:mad: :rolleyes:

Another sign of the Apocalypse?

Yes it is another sign of the apocalypse and Mary J. doesn't belong in the same category as Aretha Franklin at all. Aretha is Aretha.

[Patrick M]

Originally posted by Grant
Nope, I agree with you, but, we're talking about musicianship, not sound quality.

Forgive me, I'm new here.

In that case, no one has musicianship anymore. No way has any taste or talent these days.