Post by sayne on Jul 24, 2009 12:07:00 GMT -5
I was watching Bill Maher the other day and Billy Bob Thornton was on (and cogent). They were talking about music and Billy Bob was bemoaning the state of music today. He told a story about a converstation/debate he had with a "younger" person about how Billy Bob's generation of music was better than the "kids" generation.
He told the kid to make 2 lists of all the pop/rock artists whose music will honestly continue to be seen as major and important well into the 21st century. One list of artists from 1955 to 1980 and one list from 1981 to 2005 (each 25 year periods).
He said he would give the younger person U2 and REM. Then challenged him to complete the list. The kid wrote down Bruce Springsteen. Billy Bob said, "Nope, he's ours. Then the guys writes "Michael Jackson". "Nope, he's ours," responded, Thornton.
The point of his story to Bill Maher was that the artists who came out during the first 25 years of rock were more vibrant, interesting, cutting edge, creative, and just plain better collectively than the artists of the latter 25.
What do you think of his assertion? I think I agree that a list that starts with U2, REM, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Radiohead soon starts to get pretty hard to fill while a list that starts with Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry and ends with Prince and the Clash is pretty long and powerful in comparison.
Do you agree with this viewpoint? Whether you agree or disagree, please note whether you came of "musical age" in the first 25 years of rock or the second 25 years. I'd say high school through college age would be the musical coming of age years for most of us.
He told the kid to make 2 lists of all the pop/rock artists whose music will honestly continue to be seen as major and important well into the 21st century. One list of artists from 1955 to 1980 and one list from 1981 to 2005 (each 25 year periods).
He said he would give the younger person U2 and REM. Then challenged him to complete the list. The kid wrote down Bruce Springsteen. Billy Bob said, "Nope, he's ours. Then the guys writes "Michael Jackson". "Nope, he's ours," responded, Thornton.
The point of his story to Bill Maher was that the artists who came out during the first 25 years of rock were more vibrant, interesting, cutting edge, creative, and just plain better collectively than the artists of the latter 25.
What do you think of his assertion? I think I agree that a list that starts with U2, REM, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Radiohead soon starts to get pretty hard to fill while a list that starts with Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry and ends with Prince and the Clash is pretty long and powerful in comparison.
Do you agree with this viewpoint? Whether you agree or disagree, please note whether you came of "musical age" in the first 25 years of rock or the second 25 years. I'd say high school through college age would be the musical coming of age years for most of us.