Classic Albums that have lost stature

Agreed. Frankly, if people are still listening to the Beatles and Stones in 100 years, then the pop music of the future went horribly awry.

 

Right, those are the observations of a teenager. I'm not trying to be mean but you have no idea how much your music appreciation is going to grow, much less any other teenager you know. Teenagers not knowing Carol King or Joni now means absolutely nothing.

 

in 100 years? robotic beings rule the world. the humans are dead.

 

I really enjoy Carole King's music despite her horrendous vocals, and Joni is obviously quite talented even if she's a massive prick. I was making observations regarding people I know, not necessarily myself.

 

The robots will all be listening to Kraftwerk.

 

Unless we are the robots!

 

this is so off base I don't know how to respond

 

It already has.

 

I don't know, I think it's excellent right now. IMO there has been so many great albums released in the last 25 years, I'd rarely need to revisit the old stuff.

 

That depends on the cultural environment in which one is living. In my musical biotope most of this band’s music was not taken seriously even when Grand Funk Railroad still existed and was active.

I think their music was mostly collective and primitive roaring, stomping and hand clapping rituals similar to the dull and aggressive group rituals of excited football/soccer fans, but to each his own.

 

Yes there has been many great albums, but not many that I would classify as Pop.

 

This is interesting but also kind of narrow minded. I doubt you speak for “everyone” - I see teenagers in the Bay Area wearing Stones t-shirts, so they have some type of cachet left. I agree that it’ll continue to wake as time goes on; that’s just how these things work.

I’ve never heard of the “inauthenticity” of the Beatles’ lyrics pissing people off; that’s a new one. I suspect that the group’s later albums will continued to be listened to, albeit in lesser and lesser numbers, for the same reason that people do still listen to Beethoven or Mozart or go see Broadway revivals - even if it’s not hip or “popular,” it’s canon.

 

Oh, sorry for any confusion. I consider all of it to be pop music, at its core. Dylan, Hendrix, Beatles, Nirvana, Soundgarden. It's the "popular music" of the day - or in the case of music that wasn't actually all that pouplar, of the same general style as other music that was popular.

 

Probably over 50 of the top 100 Australian albums of all time are presently out of print. If you're under 20yo you've probably never heard Daddy Who, Living in the 70s or even Fever.

 

I have the impression many people got fed up with Jeff Buckley's "Grace" overtime.

 

So what are these teens listening to?

 

Funnily enough, I see teens wear Rolling Stones tee shirts all the time, just like a brand of beer. It's just that Stones tee-shirts are sold everywhere and it doesn't mean they'd listen to the music............

 

I don't think you are speaking for more than just yourself.
I call BS.

 

I really want to know what these teens listen to today that are the equivalent of the Beatles and Stones.
And I don't ask this as someone who no longer listens to new music because I do. I love the band Wolf Alice so if some great band has slipped under my radar I'm genuinely curious to know who stacks up against these two bands.

 

To reinforce that, I would say that most people in Australia old enough to have been into popular music in the 1980s would regard "Spirit of Place" by Goanna as a "classic album". Mention it to anyone not from Oz and you will probably get a blank look.

 

I guess it all comes down to terminology. What I consider to be Pop(ular) is what is played on radio & mainstream media etc . What I hear on the radio these days (In Australia) it total rubbish(trash). There is still great music being created but one has to seek it out.

 

As recently as ten years ago, when I was 19, teens were still listening to the Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys, and Dylan. I think Dylan will always be listened to because he’s timelessly cool the way that Ginsburg, Kerouac, or Picasso are cool, and a brilliant poet. I suspect that The Beach Boys will also remain popular for a few of their songs/Pet Sounds, which express universal feelings in beautiful and timeless ways. As far as I can tell, teenagers still like “Wouldn’t it be Nice” and “God Only Knows,” and people who otherwise didn’t know a thing about sixties pop loved those songs when I was in high school and college.

The more I think about it, the more I think the Stones might retain some kind of an audience, albeit a much, much smaller one, for the simple reason that there have been fifty years of Stones imitators, but the Stones remained interesting to and loved by new generations, including up to now. That says to me that there’s something in their music that has staying power and appeal beyond its original context. My guess is that they tapped into a certain type of anger, rebellion, and sexuality better than anyone else did, and so much of what followed was Stones-derivative. The inventors usually endure even after the movement they create is subsumed into the mainstream and time rolls on—ordinary people don’t remember or care about the names of a lot of impressionist painters, but they know Manet and Monet. Likewise, I think people will remember “Gimme Shelter” and “Wild Horses,” which have become classics, and that will probably always lead the curious to their 1968-72 albums. I doubt the rest of their stuff will matter, but those four plus a couple of the early singles will ensure they’re not totally forgotten.

As for the Beatles, I think they’re going into the Monet category, so to speak. The public doesn’t care about painting the way they did in 19th century Paris, but people who otherwise pay no attention to visual art, never took an art class, and don’t have any other involvement with the art world willingly seek out and look at Monet pictures in museums, and buy them and put them in their homes, on calendars, etc. While the public arguably engaged with that art on a more thoughtful and deeper and active level in the 1800s, the fact that it’s still known and enjoyed today is more than can be said for most art from any era. I suspect the same will be true of the Beatles. Their music will sound less edgy, new or alien with each passing year, but it will still excite people and make them happy, because whatever alchemy the group had isn’t related to musical trends.

I think this board sometimes gets preoccupied with whether teenagers are still listening to this music. It doesn’t matter if teenagers are. I think at some point in their lives, though, people will continue to discover and enjoy the artists I mentioned above, in sufficient numbers that they’re not simply consigned to the footnotes of history books. I stumbled onto Sinatra in my twenties, after I had rebellion out of my system, and I loved it for what it was. People discover jazz and love it for what it is. Teenagers will find new genres to shock and offend, but I think the great stuff tends to endure.

 

Yeah those are the big three along with Hendrix as far as a monetary standpoint.

 

I have a 15 and 17 year old and radio is a pretty rare listen.

 

Heh. Surely that's the ultimate oxymoron?