True but maybe in say 20 years they will be being listened to. Maybe then they would be regarded in the same category. A lot of those bands also haven't had as much prolonged success which older bands seemed to have had.
Posted using Partiko Android
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's much harder to have prolonged success now, as there's much more competition. I also think almost all the groups from the 60s and 70s signed bad deals. They made almost nothing and had no choice but to keep making great music. Now, they make lots of money playing live and don't need to spend so much time making albums. Having said that, bands like Arctic Monkeys and Muse have had prolonged success. Damon Albarn has made over 25 albums, he's as good as any from earlier decades.
Posted using Partiko Android
True money is definitely a factor, but a lot of those bands have prolonged success that isn't really the same as previous generations. Like they haven't gotten many top charts recently and are really riding success on previous hits.
Posted using Partiko Android
Who cares about the charts now? It used to be a big deal but now it's all about playing live, as that's how they make the most money and its fun. Muse tour lots, they don't care about the top 40.
Posted using Partiko Android
True true, live is where the money is.
Posted using Partiko Android
The new is inspired by the old, most of the Beatles songs are based on older ones. I like this, bits of old and new
Posted using Partiko Android
I'll check it out thanks
Posted using Partiko Android