The Next Led Zeppelin

[JimMcGrath]

I thought this was an interesting question and radio is mentioned. What are the thoughts here?






http://trueslant.com/michelecatalano/2010/04/16/who-will-be-this-generations-led-zeppelin/

 

[Lee Rust]

There's apparently new rock & roll still being made, but it doesn't seem to be on many rock radio stations.

The big rock bands of the 60's thru 80's were driven and financed by record sales that don't happen anymore. I would also expect that the proliferation of musical genres, formats, media and channels serve to fractionalize audiences to the point that the general notoriety that defines a 'supergroup' is very hard to achieve these days.

However, 'American Idol' proves that the starmaking machinery still works as long as the mass audience is tuned in.

 

[landtuna]

However, 'American Idol' proves that the starmaking machinery still works as long as the mass audience is tuned in.

AI seems to be a modern clone of the late 50's/60's teen idol machinery. Questionable talent surrounded by slick marketing and the clueless teeny-boppers eating it up.

Considering the enormous effort put forth in promotion and the very small amount of professional-level talent extracted AI has to be one of the biggest failures of all time.

 

[Element9]

However, 'American Idol' proves that the starmaking machinery still works as long as the mass audience is tuned in.

AI seems to be a modern clone of the late 50's/60's teen idol machinery. Questionable talent surrounded by slick marketing and the clueless teeny-boppers eating it up. Considering the enormous effort put forth in promotion and the very small amount of professional-level talent extracted AI has to be one of the biggest failures of all time.

Forget to turn on the [sarcasm] tag? It seems more than a few TV shows would like to be such a failure and more than a few jocks would like to get the national face time Ryan Shecrest gets. That said, yeah, Shecrest works better on TV than his voicetracked radio show and there's some weak talent every year on AI, but it's produced some quality performers, notably Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson, both of whom are legitimate Country performers.

 

[J-Mark]

If we're talking about "the next Led Zeppelin" based on music style....The White Stripes are really the only well-known 2000's band that immediately come to mind as being comparable.

If the question is more "who is a current pop artist likely to have sustained popularity and be well-remembered in 30-40 years", I would have to give the nod to Lady Gaga (who actually seems to have some musical talent, aside from being more Madonna than Madonna).

 

[SirRoxalot]

Anybody under the age of 50 want to take a crack at answering this question?

Green Day comes to mind.

 

[Oldbones]

it's produced some quality performers, notably Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson, both of whom are legitimate Country performers.

While she has performed with Reba a few times, I'm not sure I'd consider Kelly Clarkson a country act (though she certainly has a long string of AC/Hot AC/CHR hits). Perhaps you meant Taylor Swift?

 

[SirRoxalot]

it's produced some quality performers, notably Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson, both of whom are legitimate Country performers.

While she has performed with Reba a few times, I'm not sure I'd consider Kelly Clarkson a country act (though she certainly has a long string of AC/Hot AC/CHR hits). Perhaps you meant Taylor Swift?

My point exactly, OB. Kelly Clarkson is hardly a country artist. The familiarity with newer artists among the people represented here seems to be sketchy at best. Most have heard of Lady Gaga, but few could hum one of her songs.

 

[John C]

I agree with what was said earlier in that with so many options these days it's hard for an individual or group, especially so in the "rock" category to acheive the super status of the 70s groups mentioned in the article. I would submit that had Van Halen kept their egos in check they might have been able to acheive that level. Tom Petty and the HBs are very popular, still making music and still touring. I find a surprising number of young people at his/their concerts. In my opinion THE hottest artists right now are the aforementioned Lady Gaga and I'd put the Black Eyed Peas in that category, two artists that most would not consider rock. Of course they might end up in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame before Rush does, but that's a different thread.

 

[landtuna]

Forget to turn on the [sarcasm] tag? It seems more than a few TV shows would like to be such a failure and more than a few jocks would like to get the national face time Ryan Shecrest gets. That said, yeah, Shecrest works better on TV than his voicetracked radio show and there's some weak talent every year on AI, but it's produced some quality performers, notably Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson, both of whom are legitimate Country performers.

Sarcasm not intended.

I could put a dozen naked teens on TV and draw ratings that would make your head spin. But it wouldn't be talent and for most of us wouldn't be worth watching. Similarly, I find AI a simple popularity contest by millions of I-have-nothing-better-to-do people. Consider the hundreds of performers and the one or two that actually have the talent and other characteristics to perform at a middle-to-high level. That is a ratio that could be duplicated at most any large high school.

Watching AI is painfully like being back in junior high and observing the classroom cat-fight between two faux prima donnas. Suffering through lengthy discussions of how a performer is dressed or their choice of hair is juvenile if not downright idiotic.

If AI were truly engaging, people on the street would be discussing it in the same vein as sports, politics or even human interest and not only by media mongers or Fox employees.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Sorry to disagree, Tuna, but AI was discussed in the same vein as sports, politics, and human interest for a long time. It started to fall off last year, and has really lost steam this year.

There are more than "one or two that actually have the talent and other characteristics to perform at a middle-to-high level". Kelly Clarkson, Clay Aiken, Kimberly Locke, Fantasia Barino, Jennifer Hudson, Carrie Underwood, Constantine Maroulis, Chris Daughtry, Elliott Yamin, Kellie Pickler, Jordan Sparks, David Archuleta, and Adam Lambert have all scored hits. Some have Grammies on their shelves.

I agree that the show is too long, and there's too much filler, but there are some great performances. The last few seasons have added too much glitz and diluted the really interesting part of the show, which is watching talent develop from week to week. Simon sees that the show is in decline, and he's jumping ship instead of going down with it.

BTW, we still haven't had anybody under the age of 50 comment on this topic. What does THAT say about the state of radio today?

 

[landtuna]

Sorry to disagree, Tuna, but AI was discussed in the same vein as sports, politics, and human interest for a long time. It started to fall off last year, and has really lost steam this year.

It may be my age of course but in listening to the age groups who should be interested not only do most not watch the show but even those that do don't seem to talk about it - only the media types.

And given the current state of music I'm not sure it is all that difficult to register a "hit". Even Tiny Tim had a "hit".

 

[J-Mark]

BTW, we still haven't had anybody under the age of 50 comment on this topic. What does THAT say about the state of radio today?

I'm under the age of 50 and I commented.

And I can't remember the last time I switched on a radio.

 

[Bob1370]

"I'm under the age of 50 and I commented.

And I can't remember the last time I switched on a radio."

But you're here and commenting because you clearly care about radio as a medium. Therefore, there must be something we can do to get you back, along with millions of others like you. The problem is, we're clearly, as a medium and a business, not doing enough or trying hard enough to bring you into the tent. I blame the big companies that continue to program on the cheap and think of quarterly cash flow first, the long term value of their businesses only later.

We need to turn back the consolidation clock and force companies to sell off a lot of their properties to regionally based buyers who have to care about their service areas to survive. That's what America did back in 1941 with the FCC-mandated bustup that forced NBC and CBS to sell off dozens of stations (and in NBC's case a whole network which became ABC), and began 40 years of community based radio and television that served us well. The consolidation that happened in stages over the last 30 years looked tempting at the time to many firms (and forced some good owners out of the business because they rightly felt the risks of growth would eventually become too great). But can we say the business is healthy now, the way it was in 1980?

People turned off radio not because of new media--radio's still the most user-friendly audio medium there is and user-friendliness usually triumphs. They turned off radio and gave new media a chance despite their limitations and user-unfriendliness because radio programming became so bad, so cheap.

If we build it better, we might yet get you back. Hey, GM and Ford started building good cars again, and now people are starting to give them a second chance...so there's hope for radio to thrive again too if we bring back the principles of service and entertainment value that used to make stations great.

 

[Element9]

We need to turn back the consolidation clock and force companies to sell off a lot of their properties to regionally based buyers who have to care about their service areas to survive.

Is that Tyrone Davis singing in the background? The likelihood of a government mandated sell-off in 2010 ('11,'12 or '13) is highly unlikely. Even if this happened, I doubt we'd see much of a difference. 'Course, I could be wrong, there's a first time for everything. [/sarcasm] A more effective move might have the gobmint mandate a high percentage of local programming, but this isn't gonna happen either. So why don't we all move merrily along. There's nothing to see here.

 

[OldNumber7]

There's apparently new rock & roll still being made, but it doesn't seem to be on many rock radio stations.

The big rock bands of the 60's thru 80's were driven and financed by record sales that don't happen anymore. I would also expect that the proliferation of musical genres, formats, media and channels serve to fractionalize audiences to the point that the general notoriety that defines a 'supergroup' is very hard to achieve these days.

However, 'American Idol' proves that the starmaking machinery still works as long as the mass audience is tuned in.

I see a huge distinction between "the starmaking machinery" of AI and the transformational role that seminal bands of the 60s and 70s had on our culture. Led Zep, the Stones and a few others among the rock elite (I'll even throw in The Beatles), put out unique sounds that defied the conventional pop wisdom and yet were embraced by sizable numbers of young people spanning all races and social classes. The next Led Zeppelin will have to be a band that transcends the conventional to unite big numbers of rebellious, angst-ridden young people with an image and a new sound that they can call their own. Otherwise, it won't be the next Led Zeppelin. With the many sub-genres of music and the fragmentation of tastes that have cropped up over the last 30 years, it's hard to believe there will be a next Led Zeppelin -- but it is possible.

 

[umtrr-author]

I'm under 50, but when Jim first posted the link I couldn't get into the page for some reason and didn't want to take a shot at a comment until I'd read the piece.

Now that I have, I think I find myself in agreement with those who commented on the original blog post: there may not be a "this generation's Led Zeppelin" because the underlying environment has changed. It would be somewhat like asking people in the 1970's who would be "this generation's Frank Sinatra." (Arguably, it was, well, Frank Sinatra.)

On the other hand, it was Paul Simon who sang, "Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts" ("Boy in the Bubble") and maybe he's right, although the pop charts are a lot different in my opinion than when Casey Kasem was countin' 'em down.

Even so, I have to question whether "under 50" is the right demographic for the proper answer to this question-- maybe it's more like "under 25"? Maybe I should disqualify myself. The music I tend to listen to is often as old now, or older, than the music my father listened to when I was a child. Example: A 45 in the family cabinet was Sinatra's "Witchcraft" which charted in 1958. A couple of nights ago I watched the video for Blondie's "Rapture" which is now approaching 30 years of age as it hit #1 in 1981.

As for American Idol... I've never been a viewer but my iTunes does have some product from a few of its contestants. AI probably owes more than it admits to "The Original Amateur Hour" although it certainly uses a lot more wattage.

 

[Lee Rust]

I was on the thruway this past Sunday and caught a little bit of "American Top 40" on WNYR, out of Waterloo. Casey hasn't hosted AT40 for quite a while. This particular show was a rerun from the week of April 23, 1973. In about a half-hour I heard songs by Gladys Knight, the Four Tops, Dobie Gray, and Helen Reddy that are still in constant rotation on oldies stations today, forty years later.

Imagine yourself back in 1973, regularly listening to popular music on your radio that dated from 1933. I'm sure there were a few nostalgia programs that did this back then , but what is it about our music culture and radio industry that makes this kind of programming standard operating procedure in 2010?

 

[One Who Knows]

I'm under 50, but when Jim first posted the link I couldn't get into the page for some reason and didn't want to take a shot at a comment until I'd read the piece.

Now that I have, I think I find myself in agreement with those who commented on the original blog post: there may not be a "this generation's Led Zeppelin" because the underlying environment has changed. It would be somewhat like asking people in the 1970's who would be "this generation's Frank Sinatra." (Arguably, it was, well, Frank Sinatra.)

On the other hand, it was Paul Simon who sang, "Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts" ("Boy in the Bubble") and maybe he's right, although the pop charts are a lot different in my opinion than when Casey Kasem was countin' 'em down.

Even so, I have to question whether "under 50" is the right demographic for the proper answer to this question-- maybe it's more like "under 25"? Maybe I should disqualify myself. The music I tend to listen to is often as old now, or older, than the music my father listened to when I was a child. Example: A 45 in the family cabinet was Sinatra's "Witchcraft" which charted in 1958. A couple of nights ago I watched the video for Blondie's "Rapture" which is now approaching 30 years of age as it hit #1 in 1981.

As for American Idol... I've never been a viewer but my iTunes does have some product from a few of its contestants. AI probably owes more than it admits to "The Original Amateur Hour" although it certainly uses a lot more wattage.

Very interesting comment and insight. Though I am over 50, I remember quite well the "Led Zep" audience when they were at both their discovery and peak stages...and the people most into them tended to be mostly boys/men between the ages of 13 and 24 (who are now 45-58 or so). So that just might be the right age to comment on that question.

 

[umtrr-author]

ONK, I think you're right about the "discovery" demographic. Many of my high school classmates were very into Led Zeppelin at the time and I'm sure I'll find any number of quotations from their songs in my yearbook, should I dare to look that is. If yearbook quotes were to be used as a metric, then Lynyrd Skynyrd, Styx, and Bruce Springsteen (allowing for the New Jersey bias) would also be contenders for "my" generation.

If the 13 to 25 demographic is roughly right, and my 13 year old son is indicative of the norm, then we're in a lot of trouble since my son rates music from video games above anything he's ever heard from either the radio or my music collection. My not quite ten year old daughter has a much wider taste but still skews rather heavily Disney/Nick in her choices. On the other hand, her elementary school "singers" group included in its debut performance "Don't Stop Believin''-- you know, that song from "Glee" and "The Sopranos"? Or for me, the top ten Journey single... from 1981, and here we go with nearly 30 year old songs again.

Which leads me to Lee's fascinating comment. I would have been listening to NYC radio in 1973, mostly my parents' choices of stations, and I can't remember a lot of music that was forty years old. Not even "Rambling With Gambling" went back that far. (John was still playing the occasional record, particularly towards the end of the show.) Maybe WNEW-AM would have been the best chance to hear songs from the 1930's on a regular basis, but I must admit that I just don't remember. I think the short non-scientific non-ruthless MBA answer to the question "why is this SOP now" is that "it's what 'we' grew up with" and "we" now "control" the airwaves in a manner of speaking. We're not alone though; the song "1985" by Bowling For Soup is a sendup of sorts of growing older-- "when did Motley Crue become Classic Rock?" (And there were lots of Debbies in my class. They got the lyrics completely right.)

What is probably scariest about the AT40 rebroadcasts is how many of the songs I actually own...