30 years from now....

[J Wilson]

I always giggle thinking about a 'Hip Hop Cruise' 30 years from now with all these seniors with all those tats stretched WAY past being recognizable, and their pants down low enough you see Depends instead of their Calvins . . . . Somebody busted a move and busted something . . . .

 

[WG Plum]

Given that I'll almost certainly be dead I don't care too much. That and the fact that the artists I listen to mostly never have and likely never will play stadiums.

 

[Swizzledoop]

The Phish, from Vermont, just celebrated 40 years with the same four members. Can still sell out MSG.

 

[chris1327]

yes, young people go to stadium tours, and imo there will undoubtedly be real bands with real instruments playing live music in stadiums in 30 years.

on a related note, i just saw the eras tour in london and i can confirm that yes, taylor swift has a live band lol

 

[Wood and Wire]

30 years from now....​

...someone will reply to this thread, and be immediately chastised for resurrecting a zombie.

 

[Bar Band Bassman]

Just as an aside: Cage The Elephant does "Whole Wide World" which is a Wreckless Eric cover from 1977. Metallica and Iron Maiden will still sell out shows, Black Keys, too, I would think. I don't expect "us" to be the largest army in the musical world, but I'm glad we are willing to be standard bearers and are still getting some new recruits!

BBB

 

[mambo4]

So I feel like stadium shows just aren't how people go to see live music anymore.

True for me. Small clubs have better sound, less hassle, cheaper tickets, and decent drinks at a reasonable price
Stadiums were *never* meant for concerts

 

[Medicine Man]

I always giggle thinking about a 'Hip Hop Cruise' 30 years from now with all these seniors with all those tats stretched WAY past being recognizable, and their pants down low enough you see Depends instead of their Calvins . . . . Somebody busted a move and busted something . . . .

I saw Public Enemy at a festival a couple years back and it was the oldest crowd of any show I've seen, including many from veteran classic rock bands.

 

[turf3]

...

ps
Bands that have been touring for 30+ years are old and feeble and lame rehashes, generally without exception.

...

So Willie Nelson, George Strait, Asleep at the Wheel, Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra, Steve Swallow, are old and feeble and lame rehashes?

Duke Ellington started playing professionally and touring in 1923. Do you think he and his music were "old and feeble and lame rehashes" in 1953? The Carter Family? Johnny Cash?

Lift up your head, look out of that tiny little 2024-hard-rock box you've painted yourself into. Casals was kicking ass at 90.

 

[Killing Floor]

So Willie Nelson, George Strait, Asleep at the Wheel, Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra, Steve Swallow, are old and feeble and lame rehashes?

Duke Ellington started playing professionally and touring in 1923. Do you think he and his music were "old and feeble and lame rehashes" in 1953? The Carter Family? Johnny Cash?

Lift up your head, look out of that tiny little 2024-hard-rock box you've painted yourself into. Casals was kicking ass at 90.

I LOVE Willie. But you're nertz if you think he's as good live today as he was in the 80s. Sorry, he isn't. But if you've never seen him before you owe it to yourself to see him while you can.

Johnny Cash, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, he is no longer with us. Same for Duke Ellington.

If you're asking whether recorded music can stand the test of time, certainly it can. Carter Family is a great example of that. If you're asking if Steve Swallow was great, yes.

But in no case does an octogenarian "used to be great" negate the greatness of current performers.

As far as "little 2024-hard rock box", which I am unclear what that hyphen means, I'll give you Makaya McCraven, the greatest living durmmer.
Or for something else, I'll give you Mark Speer. In 30 years musicians will be talking about him the way we talk about Jeff Beck.

You are free to like what you like.

 

[turf3]

I LOVE Willie. But you're nertz if you think he's as good live today as he was in the 80s. Sorry, he isn't. But if you've never seen him before you owe it to yourself to see him while you can.

Johnny Cash, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, he is no longer with us. Same for Duke Ellington.

If you're asking whether recorded music can stand the test of time, certainly it can. Carter Family is a great example of that. If you're asking if Steve Swallow was great, yes.

But in no case does an octogenarian "used to be great" negate the greatness of current performers.

As far as "little 2024-hard rock box", which I am unclear what that hyphen means, I'll give you Makaya McCraven, the greatest living durmmer.
Or for something else, I'll give you Mark Speer. In 30 years musicians will be talking about him the way we talk about Jeff Beck.

You are free to like what you like.

What I'm saying is that you seem to be judging all "old musicians" according to the tenets of hard rock, i.e., hope I die before I get old...

But there's tons of music that isn't based on youthful rebellion; and a great deal of that is made by people who have been doing what they do for more than 30 years. The statement "any band that's been touring for 30 years their eyes have dimmed and their natural forces abated" is not a universal statement, and I listed a few counterexamples.

Nothing I'm saying here has anything to do with whether there are some young performers right now who're killing it. Of course there are. But that's not the question at hand. The question at hand is, does age by itself make one a less meaningful musician? And I would answer, NO, not by itself. There are those who burned out, and all they can do is rehash their 20s. But not all musicians past 50 are like that.

For that matter most of the hard-rock musicians now have grey hair. What are we supposed to make of that? What I make of it is that it was a very limited art form to begin with, which has gotten narrower and narrrower in its appeal, and people by and large have moved on.

 

[Altitude]

Foo Fighters goes on the list of current bands for sure. As mind blowing as it seems, they founded in 1994. And they are touring now and just broke their own attendance record at Empower Field (Mile High Stadium) in Denver.

As for 30 years hence. The stadium thing is the high hurdle. There are some really excellent live acts that I think or hope will be here in 30 years but football stadium shows are a hard thing. John Mayer maybe? He’s not as young as he once was though.

 

[Killing Floor]

What I'm saying is that you seem to be judging all "old musicians" according to the tenets of hard rock, i.e., hope I die before I get old...

But there's tons of music that isn't based on youthful rebellion; and a great deal of that is made by people who have been doing what they do for more than 30 years. The statement "any band that's been touring for 30 years their eyes have dimmed and their natural forces abated" is not a universal statement, and I listed a few counterexamples.

Nothing I'm saying here has anything to do with whether there are some young performers right now who're killing it. Of course there are. But that's not the question at hand. The question at hand is, does age by itself make one a less meaningful musician? And I would answer, NO, not by itself. There are those who burned out, and all they can do is rehash their 20s. But not all musicians past 50 are like that.

For that matter most of the hard-rock musicians now have grey hair. What are we supposed to make of that? What I make of it is that it was a very limited art form to begin with, which has gotten narrower and narrrower in its appeal, and people by and large have moved on.

I love music. All types. I also believe music is as good today as any time in history and that to me a large part of the joy is the search and discovery. Granted that can be overwhelming compared to when I was a kid.

Good music is good music. Don’t write off new creators. And I’ll try not to write off older ones.

 

[J Wilson]

It's fine going to see the bands and artists I grew up with who now . . . are as old as I am (70 next year). . . . . IF they are still really digging deep in their performances today.

I have seen bands my age that essentially showed up, did a perfunctory at best walk through of their 'greatest hits', took the check, hit the bus, and that was that.

While the old geez part of me can understand that to a point, a 50-odd year old band, maybe with no original members at all, is still gigging to rake up the money that's out there for them, the matador, the musician in me that thinks you're supposed to walk out there and take the audience somewhere special, to own that stage at that time, can't abide it. Just stay home and live off the mailbox money !

 

[logdrum]

Since me and my wife passed on our passion for improvised jazz, indy punk, new classical and Reggae, they are able to afford and go to smaller shows and interact with the musicians. When my son went to Europe, he was in heaven seeing all these small concerts and also enjoyed the punk scene in Japan. When we went to NYC we saw a lot of jazz shows and in some cases 15 feet from the pianist or soloist. Even Reggae shows are accessible. For one Ariana Grande ticket, you can probably see 10 - 15 shows. My daughter did see Ariana and the Jonas brothers but she realized what good music really is and that's what she digs now. She regularly borrows LPs and CDs and plays them the old fashion way.

 

[friskinator]

I’m more concerned about whether or not we’ll have clean water and a functioning society in 30 years. If music is still thriving then, it’ll be icing on the cake.

 

[htown098]

Taylor Swift, duh.

1000%. But...the 3 criteria!

 

[htown098]

Being old enough to have functioning kids doesn’t mean you have to be “old”.

The difference between the 1960s and 2020s is your kids and their kids can choose what THEY want to hear. And that very well might be The Beatles or Herman’s Hermits or Hot Tuna or whatever.

But when you were young “good” and “best” and “popular” and even “real instruments” are things that were handed to you by others at the expense of all others and fully without regard to YOUR preferences.

And if you were to ask those young people in bands today, I doubt many or any would choose to gamble their chances on being the 1 in 10,000 who actually got listened to live or via any medium. As selected by a room full of dulled old men like in the 70s.

ps
Bands that have been touring for 30+ years are old and feeble and lame rehashes, generally without exception.

In other words, NO, it wasn’t better in the 60s, 70s, 80s, it was a lot worse.

Art does not exist in generations of repetition FWIW.

I totally hear you. It was simpy a criteria curiosity question.

 

[htown098]

yes, young people go to stadium tours, and imo there will undoubtedly be real bands with real instruments playing live music in stadiums in 30 years.

on a related note, i just saw the eras tour in london and i can confirm that yes, taylor swift has a live band lol

Oh I'm aware! But it's all her...and good for her of course. But I'm guessing her typical fans cannot name the other band members. Perhaps they can!

 

[ajkula66]

I'll most certainly be dead in 30 years so I'm not sure I necessarily care...

With that being said, classical music will be alive and well.

The great experiment called Rock & Roll that most of us here enjoyed over the past ~70 years is coming to an end, as it should. Sure, there will be some kind of "popular" music out there but I'm not at all certain that it will include guitar/bass/drums/etc. and/or be conceived/performed by the humans.

My $0.02 only...