Vedder is McCartney ; McCartney is Vedder

[hlniv]

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/01/04 ... ource=t.co

Say What? Yes, it’s true: Somewhere along the timeline of rock ’n’ roll, Pearl Jam met Paul McCartney and split the difference. It’s no news that ’90s alternative has slid into looser flannel, but it is interesting that a Pearl Jam and a McCartney record released near-simultaneously are viewed and presented in the same way. A 12-year-old kid now will view these two as belonging to one era: Classic Rock. When exactly did this happen? Why?
--------------------------

Classic Rock = 60's Beatles through 90's Pearl Jam

This does seem like the new reality. Especially to a teenager today.

[stip]

that makes some sense. Pearl Jam is the last of the great classic rock bands.

[Anders]

Interesting, but sort of made us all sound old.

[hlniv]

There's no getting around it. We are old

Ten is older today than Led Zep II was when Ten was released in 1991.

[Anders]

Speak for yourself.

[Tuolumne]

Very interesting take.

We are at a point in history where bands and their fans need to understand and decide what rock n roll is. Is it an irrelevant art form, sort of like jazz? Or is it now another of many niches that are part of an ADD popular culture? I'm thinking more of the latter right now.

But, if rock bands and their fans aren't careful, it could very much be irrelevant if rock bands don't go out and SEEK and INVITE fans into the rock "umbrella". That's where rock is at right now. So, I see some of these silly conversations of PJ "selling out" and doing "moneygrabs" as really myopic. Rock bands need to be more inviting, or it will be gone 20 years from now.

Rock will never be the huge cultural force it was, but it can still inform and influence in it's own small way. It'd be sad to see it comlpetely disappear.

I think PJ is a great band to be an elder statesmen at this point and sort of "teach" the public on what a real deal rock band is, while still keeping alot of it's integrity. Used be that punk and classic rock didn't play nicely with each other, but PJ sort of synthesizes all of that and can be a good band to introduce a music-loving kid to those traditions. It doesn't have to pander and play to the teenybopper market, but it can grab a small section of music lovers every generation produces that wants to look back on history and take the good parts and continue certain traditions that deserve to stick around.

[Anders]

I can't look at all the great music that came out between 89-94, and think that it wouldn't have been a major success in 2014 as well. Metallica, Guns'N Roses, Pearl Jam, Nirvana in their prime would have tore up the charts. It's all about the music. Pearl Jam makes good music, but it's very understandable why Backspacer and Lightning Bolt will never climb to the mountains of early 90s rock, it's not only the times that have changed, the music isn't what it used to be either. Same with Metallica, while Nirvana is gone, obviously whatever Guns N'Roses are now, is nothing at all.

[Tuolumne]

Don't agree with that at all. The demographic of the population, particularly the US is just different. The younger generation especially is much more racially diverse. I believe certain things are balancing a little more appropriately now. There are more Latin rhythms and beat-driven music that dominate that all-races produce and love that are reflective of the diverse audience. This is a generation that's now grown up to listen to as much hip hop, dance/electronic, pop, and Latin music as they have rock. Rock is just one of 5-6 musical "languages" they know and they want something that speaks all of those musical "languages".

If a GnR were to come out these days, they'd lack that sort of diversity within their music. It just wouldn't be as big because the larger populace crave something with a little more of a diverse touch than just 5 white guys playing raggedy-sounding blues riffs over a screechy vocal and no swing or rhythm in the music. A GnR would fill a certain niche. pretty big but not some zeitgeist capturing force they were at that time. As it good as that can be, it wouldn't fulfill the hunger people have for something that blends in more styles.

[Anders]

It doesn't have to be as big, if the quality is there it will be more than big enough. Rock is not dead, and sooner or later a band or a scene will come out that will have what it takes. Sadly, there is no such band around now.

As for hip hop, pop etc, there is room for all.

[Tuolumne]

It doesn't have to be as big, if the quality is there it will be more than bog enough. Rock is not dead, and sooner or later a band or a scene will come out that will have what it takes. Sadly, there is no such band around now.

As for hip hop, pop etc, there is room for all.

People have been saying that it's "cyclical" and there will be another "movement" or another Nirvana or whatever. It won't happen. Atleast not in the form you expect. If there is a new Cobain, it'll be someone that has the ability to unite many many different races, socioeconomic classes, sexual preferences, etc. We won't have a new band bubble up that way, it's a new world with a completely different mass media dynamic. I'm not even sure what a "rock band" is anymore. Is it any group that has 4-5 white guys with guitars? It's all blending together. Overall, I think that's a good thing, but I do want to rawness and realness that a band like PJ has continue to have a presence among younger acts.

[Mine]

I think the fact that rock music is spread over more smaller niche markets in its different sub genres, which has been the trend since the early 90's, is the decisive influence on this. Pearl Jam is one of the last bands to do music that fits the classic definition of rock.

[Heathen]

Pearl Jam is one of the last bands to do music that fits the classic definition of rock.

what

[Anders]

Skin color or nationality means nothing, there are plenty of people all around the world that love or even play rock. Look at Freddie Mercury, Jimi Hendrix, Santana, Phil Lynott, James Iha, Kim Thayil, Slash, Kirk Hammet and lots more. The world hasn't changed that much. Trends are ever changing, as is sadly the quality of modern rock.

[bada]

Rock is dead. Hip Hop will be dominate forever. Hundreds of years of guys rapping over ancient samples. No one will ever get tired of it.

[Mine]

Pearl Jam is one of the last bands to do music that fits the classic definition of rock.

what

I think my post provides the context to make that clear. What i meant is they fit the classic rock definition because like most of what is considered classic rock their music isn't a well defined narrow style, which has been a trend for the last 3 decades. They're generic by today's standards which is what classic rock has always been, and i don't mean that negatively.

[stip]

I can't look at all the great music that came out between 89-94, and think that it wouldn't have been a major success in 2014 as well. Metallica, Guns'N Roses, Pearl Jam, Nirvana in their prime would have tore up the charts. It's all about the music. Pearl Jam makes good music, but it's very understandable why Backspacer and Lightning Bolt will never climb to the mountains of early 90s rock, it's not only the times that have changed, the music isn't what it used to be either. Same with Metallica, while Nirvana is gone, obviously whatever Guns N'Roses are now, is nothing at all.

The infrastructure to capture an audience in that way no longer really exists.

[Anders]

Then you might argue that modern artists don't, while I think they do.

[Birds in Hell]

Is it an irrelevant art form, sort of like jazz?

Uh

[stip]

Then you might argue that modern artists don't, while I think they do.

I'm not sure I followed this. Which post was it in response to?

[Anders]

The one above mine. Yours.