|
|
Joined:
January 2009
Posts: 4535
Location: Flahdaw | Anyone else miss the era of the “supergroups” , and the musicians that were part of them? Notice that FEW of today’s big artists have any “resume” to back them up? They just seem to burst on the scene from nowhere… no roots, no history. I’m not saying they’re not good or are undeserving; it’s just so seemingly different from our generation.
If you compare a few big artists of the past and review where and how they started, it’s a veritable who’s/who of rock history. For example…
Eric Clapton: Yardbirds, John Mayall, Cream, Blind Faith
Greg Lake: Emerson/Lake/Palmer, King Krimson, Asia
Joe Walsh: James Gang, Eagles,
Even solo guys like Jim Messina: Buffalo Springfield, Poco, Loggins & Messina
I mean, EVERY one of those bands was huge unto itself, and nearly every member in them was famous and sought out. It was BIG news when one member left, or the band split up. “Where would they go? What cool new band will now form?”
TODAY, no one knows any band members (for the most part), you just know the lead singer. Who’s the guitarist for Foo Fighters? Who plays drums for Maroon 5? Who’s the keyboardist for Hot Chili Peppers? If any of them left, would you even care? Now, Jimmie Page, Ginger Baker, Richie Blackmore…those guys could go anywhere and it would have been HUGE news.
What super groups did John Mayer, Jack Johnson, Dave Matthews play for before making their big solo splashes? Answer: None
| |
| | |
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 616
Location: cincinnati, ohio | Have you noticed there's a trend AWAY from groups in general as well? John Mayer, Jack Johnson, Dave Matthews - all great artists in their own rights, but all of them have always been solo. Their back up bands could change every week and no one would notice. I like Green Day - but the only name I know is Billie Joe Armstrong. I like Maroon 5 - couldn't tell you ANYBODY'S name in that one. Back in the day you knew where you stood. CCR - John, Tom, Doug and Stu. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young - the epitome of a supergroup with a name like a law firm and one of my all time faves.
And don't even get me started on the manufactured "talent" that comes off shows like "The Voice" and "American Idol." With few exceptions (Carrie Underwood, Kelly Clarkson) most of the "Idols" have been lame. And Justin Bieber? Gaaaahhh! All I have to do is see a picture of that wimpy-voiced little twerp and I want to put my fist through his face. Come back after you reach puberty, Biebs, and let's see if you have anything resembling a real voice after the testosterone kicks in.
Like so many good things, I'm afraid the day of the supergroups has come and gone, and we're poorer for it...
Edited by rick endres 2012-10-12 9:35 AM
| |
| | |
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | That is because you are a bunch of old farts.
If you voraciously read all the current mags and online forums you would probably know the members of current bands just like you did when you actually were relevant 30-40 years ago.
And yes, I fall into the same demographic as you guys.
| |
| | |
Joined:
January 2009
Posts: 4535
Location: Flahdaw | I would bet that today the Rolling Stones would go by the name "Jagger" and no one would know Keith Richards, the Who would be "R, Daltrey, and no one would know the name Pete Townshend | |
| | |
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 12754
Location: Boise, Idaho | This old fart spent the second half of the 60s in North Dakota, so I never heard of any of those bands Bob mentioned. I do know of the lead singer on Maroon 5, though. I saw him on The Voice, but I had heard of Maroon 5 before I ever heard of him. I have watched a few minutes of that show and thought they had some talented singers. Several of them have struggled for years, but many also think they've paid their dues and deserve stardom just because their moms say they have a great voice.
I didn't care for most any of the hair bands of the 80's, but people that did know most of the lead singers from the bands of that era. I'm sure the kids today know the members of their favorite bands, although solo acts do seem to be promoted by the entertainment industry these days. | |
| | |
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | darkbarguitar - 2012-10-12 8:55 AM I would bet that today the Rolling Stones would go by the name "Jagger" and no one would know Keith Richards, the Who would be "R, Daltrey, and no one would know the name Pete Townshend totally disagree. | |
| | |
Joined:
November 2002
Posts: 3611
Location: Pacific Northwest Inland Empire | The changing of the demographic; maybe we don't need, or have , all that hubris, as much.
Now, it's morphed into reminiscence & raging against the dying of the light. | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 4619
Location: SoCal | I'll bet I would know them if my daughter was a teenager...and, I would probably be disagreeing with her taste of music, as well as yelling for her to turn her music down. | |
| | |
Joined:
January 2009
Posts: 4535
Location: Flahdaw | Well, I have a 17 yr old daughter, VERY into music. She knows almost NO band members other than lead singers. My theory is that, where we had album jackets and cd jackets to at least look at, so much music today is downloaded onto mp3 players that young people have no idea what the band looks like, what their names are, where they came from, etc.
I didn't "voraciously read" ANY magazines when I was young, yet I knew tons of band members...particularly the members of the Super Groups.
Name me a single WELL KNOWN super group today, that has been formed by members of other fantastic bands that have disbanded | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 3736
Location: Sunshine State, Australia | I didn't know the names of the band members of most of the bands I listened to, with the exception of the Beatles, the Stones, the Monkees and a couple of big name (at the time) Aussie bands.
You guys heard of INXS? They don't come much bigger down under and the only one I knew was Michael Hutchence, the lead singer. | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | darkbarguitar - Name me a single WELL KNOWN super group today, that has been formed by members of other fantastic bands that have disbanded Chickenfoot. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2006
Posts: 6994
Location: Jet City | I agree with Steven... Except for the falling into the category with the rest of you old geezer thinking people. The industry has changed yes. Back in the ice age there was no instant fame because there was no medium to make that happen besides radio.
Too say a Dave Matthews Band fan wouldn't know if the members changed is just pure ignorance. Carter Beauford is widely regarded as one if the most innovative and talented percussionists on the planet, the world mourned when Leroy Moore died, and Jeff Coffee's done an awesome job of stepping in to fill the gap. Stefan Lessard is a bass playing wizard who was just a young teenager when the band started, and lets not forget Boyd Tinsley who just flat out wails on the fiddle, in so many different ways too, stucatto, even with a wah pedal! Then there's the "non-original" guys like Tim Reynolds that has toured with the band since Nutch the piano player (another non-original) got tired of the constant touring, and one of my favs, Rashan Ross on the trumpet.
Shall I go on about Pearl Jam? Alice in Chains? Soundgarden? If you're a true fan of any of these bands you'd know that they all do other things, other projects,etc... You'd know Stone Gossard had played in several bands before starting pearl jam, or maybe you'd even know that these people have formed bands since that are popular and successful.
I'll stop there, I could go on and on. I still love music, old and new... I think maybe some are stuck in the past and wearing blinders | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2006
Posts: 6994
Location: Jet City | stonebobbo - 2012-10-13 9:07 AM darkbarguitar - Name me a single WELL KNOWN super group today, that has been formed by members of other fantastic bands that have disbanded Chickenfoot. or Them Crooked Vultures, or how about looking at even a single individual like Chris Cornell (Temple if the Dog, Soundgarden, Audioslave) open your eyes and ears people. Or don't, but quit your bitchin' and moanin' about how new artists are somehow lesser than the old dudes. If anything I think they have a harder time now trying to thing of something fresh and new | |
| | |
Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777
Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR | damon67 - 2012-10-13 9:27 AM
Shall I go on about Pearl Jam? Alice in Chains? Soundgarden?
Hey Damon (you old fart) those bands are all Decades-old.
Which might prove Bob's point.
Plus they are all Seattle local bands.
Which is kinda like me reminiscing about New England bands.
-------------------------
Today's Quote:
Let's face it. The great classic rockers of yore — those who survived, that is — aren't getting any younger. In fact, most of them are downright old. And old looking: gray locks, wrinkles, sags, the whole nine yards. Sadly, the rallying cry "Hope I die before I get old" has been replaced with "Hope this fiber really does keep my colon healthy." 
-------------------------
| |
| | |
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | Well said Damon.
While I knew some of the info you posted, I did not know a lot of it (mainly due to lack of interest on my part) but I think you more than proved a point. | |
| | |
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 2683
Location: Hot Springs, S.D. | OK, they are not exactly "new", but to an old fart like me, anything that came out after 1990 is "new":
Mad Season. In my opinion, this was one of the best supergroups of all time. I put them right up there with Blind Faith. As a matter of fact, I listen to them a LOT more than any of the older supergroups. | |
| | |
Joined:
January 2009
Posts: 4535
Location: Flahdaw | arthurseery - 2012-10-13 1:36 PM
damon67 - 2012-10-13 9:27 AM
Shall I go on about Pearl Jam? Alice in Chains? Soundgarden?
Hey Damon (you old fart ) those bands are all Decades-old.
Which might prove Bob's point.
Plus they are all Seattle local bands.
Which is kinda like me reminiscing about New England bands.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Exactly. Let's try bands that have formed since 2000 (that's actually 12 long years). I'm talking NEW bands. Name me one new SUPERGROUP, formed since 2000. (And just 'cos you like a particular band doesn't make them a supergroup. They have to be a worldwide phenomenon)
Beyond that, as good as Chickenfoot, Them Crooked Vultures, or Chris Cornell might be, they are not gonna do a world tour and sell out Tokyo, London, Madrid, Sydney, Berlin in 3 days as did Asia, Cream, ELP, etc.
Edited by BobG 2012-10-13 1:44 PM
| |
| | |
Joined:
December 2006
Posts: 6994
Location: Jet City | It takes a couple decades for ANYONE to have a "resume". And as for the Seattle thing, I'm not from here. All of my influence came from growing up in the SF Bay Area. I moved here well after the main push of the Seattle Sound, however... this sound changed music as we know it now back in the early 90's and it's very evident still in all the new stuff coming out.
AND, just because you don't like them, or it doesn't fit your own personal criteria for "superband", it doesn't mean that the rest of the general population shares your opinion. As a matter of fact, if you want to go ahead and wiki up 'superband' you find quite a few bands made up of individuals from other well known bands, maybe not from you genre, but still well known and selling out arenas. Some of the ones that stuck out to me that I actually have albums or songs from...
Audioslave formed in 2001
Velvet Revolver in 2002
Alter Bridge in 2004
Angels & Airwaves 2005
Five Finger Derath Punch 2005
And how you can discount Them Crooked Vultures is beyond me. Dave Grohl? Josh Homme? JOHN PAUL FUCKIN JONES??!?! all monster stars with huge mainstream and underground followings. Had they decided touring was something they wanted to do, I can assure you those dudes could fill a stadium on any continent (Antarctica aside, cuz I'm sure you'd come back with that)
Edited by Damon67 2012-10-13 2:39 PM
| |
| | |
Joined:
January 2009
Posts: 4535
Location: Flahdaw | Okay, I'll give you TCV's. (I'm not sure why you're getting so hot and bothered Damon. "Or don't, but quit your bitchin' and moanin' about how new artists are somehow lesser than the old dudes" I SAID in my opening post "I’m not saying they’re not good or are undeserving; it’s just so seemingly different from our generation." Things today ARE different. I can't think of a guitar player today that would the worldwide IMPACT of an Eric Clapton or Jimmie Page leaving a group. Maybe YOU can. GREAT. I thought I was starting a conversation...not an argument.
Edited by BobG 2012-10-13 4:44 PM
| |
| | |
Joined:
December 2006
Posts: 6994
Location: Jet City | I would think you of all people could take a bit of text at what it is Bob, criticism to what I believe is a very closed-minded opinion. The old dude mentality permeates through this site, probably because that's pretty much what we all are here, and it gets a little old after a while, almost whiny... and that's my opinion, feel free to disagree.
I'm just saying I disagree with pretty much your entire statement, and I think it's the case of looking into a box and not being able to see what's outside of it. And, I'm adding to the debate... or were we all just supposed to agree with you?
Sometimes people disagree in a conversation.
On to the next thing, I don't think guitarists of the caliber of Jimmi or Jimmy or Eric, or Keith, or whoever come along very often. Those sorts of guys had an unfair advantage though... they had a whole brand new instrument, and it wasn't even really just the electric guitar... it was distortion and gain and loudness! Of course there were some more innovative things happening then. Since there have been many, but I don't know that any could ever live up to what I would consider "the founding fathers" of rock and roll guitar, and it's for this reason that these sorts of guys could make a "world impact" whatever that might be.
But... there have been some that have made large impact since. Eddie, SRV, Randy, and the rest from the 80s, then the 90s with guys like Vernon Reid, or Satriani, Vai, etc.
And even the currently there are some that I feel are amazing and innovative, one mentioned somewhere in a post here lately in particular, Jack White.
A worldwide impact? no... But a severe blow to a band? yeah... what would White Stripes be without him? A very poor drum line LOL. | |
| | |
Joined:
August 2005
Posts: 3736
Location: Sunshine State, Australia | Damon, the ONLY band I've heard of in your last few posts is the Dave Matthews Band, and one would assume that one of the members names is 'Dave Matthews'. Are you saying that all the bands you mentioned are 'Supergroups'? What exactly constitutes a 'Supergroup'? (in your opinion) If someone doesn't know all the names of all the members of bands they like, they're 'ignorant'? That's harsh! To me it's just fan club trivia. It's like some of the OFC members know EVERYTHING about either all their guitars or all ovations in general. I don't even know what sort of bracing my Ovations have and I don't really give a ****. Does THAT make me ignorant? I don't think so. I've just got different priorities. BTW, Crosby Stills & Nash (or C,S,N & Y) would be considered a supergroup (in MY opinion) but who's the bass player? Who's the drummer? Or are they just the first internationally successful 'boy band'? Yhey mate, it's OK to disagree and criticise, but our responses ARE coming over as pretty aggressive. Just sayin'. | |
| | |
Joined:
January 2009
Posts: 4535
Location: Flahdaw | damon67 - 2012-10-13 6:38 PM
On to the next thing, I don't think guitarists of the caliber of Jimmi or Jimmy or Eric, or Keith, or whoever come along very often. Those sorts of guys had an unfair advantage though... they had a whole brand new instrument, and it wasn't even really just the electric guitar... it was distortion and gain and loudness! Of course there were some more innovative things happening then.
Ok, truce.
I absolutely agree. I don't even think Clapton or Page or Keith were that good. They DID have an unfair advantage. A lot of today's guitarists would blow them away. BUT, back to my original point..... I kinda miss the days when certain band members were sooooo influential to a group or band that it changed the dynamics of the era. When the music world froze when a band split up, when a Clapton left, etc.
Great guitarists are a dime a dozen these days. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2006
Posts: 6994
Location: Jet City | Come on Muzza, I didn't call anyone ignorant for not knowing band member names, what I said was "Too say a Dave Matthews Band fan wouldn't know if the members changed is just pure ignorance."
And it is... you'd know this if you ever talk to a DMB fan, they're just that.... FANATICS (I should know).
As for the definition of superband, I suppose that's subjective, but from from wiki...
"Supergroup (music), a term describing a rock music group whose performers are already notable from having performed individually or in other groups."
Stephen hit it on the head again when he said "I did not know a lot of it (mainly due to lack of interest on my part)", which is exactly why you don't know who any of those bands are. Let's face it, most of the new stuff doesn't appeal to our generation, therefore you don't follow it, therefore you do't know of bands like Audioslave or Velvet Revolver.
I guarantee most of the generation above us didn't know ELP, Asia, etc... And honestly I'm not that familiar with them either... I do do a great rendition of From The Beginning if I do say so myself. That's only cuz my old guy drummer introduced me to it. :D
Everyone has their own definition I suppose.
| |
| |
|
OT- Today's Rant