Rolling Stone had this article title in 1975 - New Dylan From Jersey? It Might as Well Be Springsteen
If modern bands don't want to be compared to older bands then try not sounding exactly like those bands.
Asking who is the new Glen Miller in the age of guitar groups in the 60s is hardly the same as asking if some new guitar group is the new Zeppelin.
Per wiki: (Re John Prine)…”which Prine later said was his favorite of all his songs. The album received many positive reviews, and some hailed Prine as "the next Dylan". I suspect various crooners were billed as the “new Bing Crosby.” (Andy Williams? Perry Como? I don’t know but just guessing.)
I understand what the OP is saying. I can't remember my parents or their friends asking why kids today (which would have been in the late 70's in my case) don't listen to World War II era music instead of that damned Earth Wind and Fire -- in other words, the rock generation of the 60's and 70's is the only generation to care that younger kids weren't into their music. I've often thought this myself.
All this nonsense started in the '70s with people being bummed out that The Beatles were gone, and so they started searching for "the next Beatles". It just took hold from there. That said, I don't know that anyone actually considers Greta Van Fleet to be "the new Led Zeppelin" so much as they accuse them of basically ripping off Zeppelin's sound. Just like Kingdom Come, 35 years ago, they got attention for blatantly copying their sound. But what comes around goes around, I guess, considering how much borrowing Zeppelin did, then one really can't get too upset about them being copied.
Excellent piece. “Later on Wainwright wrote the humorous tribute “Talking Bob Dylan.” “We were new Bob Dylans, your ******* kid brothers,” sings Wainwright. “Bein’ the new you is one hell of a job.”
Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, Vol. 38, 1853: "Long before Wagner's name was mentioned, we heard the awareness expressed...that a new Mozart was necessary. Now the new Mozart is here..." Auguste Ludwig, 1893: "The next Mozart, a forthcoming Schubert, a future Lortzing and so on will never again have to spend their days in poverty and affliction." Anton Rubinstein, 1896: "Perhaps the next Beethoven and the next Liszt will be women!" People have been looking for -- and, conversely, naming -- the "new X" or the "next X" or "today's X" for a long time. Comparison is at the heart of cognition.
In the 60's and 70's the narrative was the "Generation Gap." So everything was about how the younger generation was into one thing and the adults were on a completely different wavelength. Now the narrative is that boomer culture set the standard and it's expected that the next generations carry on their culture. Basically there's not enough of a difference between old people's music and young people's music. If the Zoomers had all gone polka we'd not be having these ridiculous stories.
People have always compared songwriters to Mozart (especially if they are young,) and to Bach (especially if their counterpoint is strong.) This happened in the 1960s and continues to this day, even by people who wouldn't know Beethoven from Stravinsky.
Because I don’t think Bing Crosby was ever considered “The Voice of his generation“. Music was just “entertainment” back then. As the boomers came of age, certain music was more considered a “way of life“, and “important”. And as boomers held their influence, anything resembling a singer/songwriter with a vision or some good ideas was inevitably called “a new Dylan“. As boomers age and die off, you’re not gonna hear that as much anymore. Music has returned to being just “entertainment“, for the most part. For better or for worse.
