Will anyone ever write another 'classic'

No i don't think so , times are changed to get a classic it needs to have along time airplay and exposer ,and in these days time goes to fast.
what today is a hit, is tomorrow historie .
Its al about fast in ,and faster out, to cash in.
Don't forget its a business and time is money

But maybe it will go like this ,if a song is about a year old people will call it a classic?
 
Last edited:
Few things come to mind here...
1. Media is much different today vs just live shows, records and radio of the 20's,30's, 40's,50's,60's etc...
2. Due to changes in media the music business has change.
3. I would thing some the musicans of the 30's and 40's were having the same discussion about developments in the 50's and 60's..Let's say from big band swing to rock.

Things change and new classic's will develop...Denis
 
The last wedding I went to was of a cousin who is in his 30s, and we danced to a lot of 90s music.
 
I think it's generational. The biggest difference between 40 years ago and now is the way music is consumed. In the 1960s and 1970s, music was everything. There was no YouTube, no social media, no Spotify; a band coming to your town was a once-in-many-years occurrence that you lived for. Music was the great escape from life. There weren't as many distractions that were instantly accessible, like the internet, video games and fantasy sports. Just like radio shows used to be before the TV came along.

Yes, there were other things to do then; I know, I was there. But music was the main thing for people in a way that it isn't as much today. So it's harder to build these epic life associations with music for people now. Music is digested via hit singles now. Back then, we set aside time to listen to albums and pore over the cover art and study the lyrics and what it was all about. You didn't even have easy access to what the band looked like, let alone how they performed live, unless you went to a show. It was such a huge part of growing up, of our experiences at critical moments of our lives, that it took on a meaning for us that is not so likely to occur anymore.

I love all those classic tunes and I'm biased towards thinking they're really special. But I don't really believe that alone explains why we're so stuck in those early decades. I think the way the world has changed plays a big role in it.
 
Not at the rate the 1960s-70s were churning out hits. I've heard the argument that radio today just doesn't play the good stuff but it's still out there. I don't think so. I listen to independent stations and the new stuff today just isn't that good.

We do a lot of original tunes that sound like they were written in the 60's. Is it good? That's for you to decide.

http://youtu.be/tUwRqJYnRm0
 
The songs are being written every day-- there's no shortage of writing talent. The question is more whether a new song that's-- good enough? substantive enough?-- to have a life beyond its original recording, and initial publicity push, will ever be marketed to large numbers of people again. Maybe it's happening, and it's just off my radar, but it does seem like most of the new music that gets put in front of a lot of people is pretty disposable.
 
The songs are being written every day-- there's no shortage of writing talent. The question is more whether a new song that's-- good enough? substantive enough?-- to have a life beyond its original recording, and initial publicity push, will ever be marketed to large numbers of people again. Maybe it's happening, and it's just off my radar, but it does seem like most of the new music that gets put in front of a lot of people is pretty disposable.

Well, just remember how the majority of songs that have been described as classics were disseminated. Sheet music and a combination of amateur and profesional renderings. Recorded sound been around a long time in the scheme of music history. write the song down on paper in proper notation and it will last and someone will discover it someday and hopefully read through it.
 
Listening to classic rock stations mostly, I can her Metallica, STP, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, and numerous other bands from the 90's mixed in with the numerous 60s/70s/80s music normally heard on classic rock stations. All this tells me is that I am getting old, and the stuff I listened to as a teenager is now considered classic, and the classic rock I listened to as a kid is turning into oldies.
 
I think it's generational. The biggest difference between 40 years ago and now is the way music is consumed. In the 1960s and 1970s, music was everything. There was no YouTube, no social media, no Spotify; a band coming to your town was a once-in-many-years occurrence that you lived for. Music was the great escape from life. There weren't as many distractions that were instantly accessible, like the internet, video games and fantasy sports. Just like radio shows used to be before the TV came along.

Yes, there were other things to do then; I know, I was there. But music was the main thing for people in a way that it isn't as much today. So it's harder to build these epic life associations with music for people now. Music is digested via hit singles now. Back then, we set aside time to listen to albums and pore over the cover art and study the lyrics and what it was all about. You didn't even have easy access to what the band looked like, let alone how they performed live, unless you went to a show. It was such a huge part of growing up, of our experiences at critical moments of our lives, that it took on a meaning for us that is not so likely to occur anymore.

I love all those classic tunes and I'm biased towards thinking they're really special. But I don't really believe that alone explains why we're so stuck in those early decades. I think the way the world has changed plays a big role in it.

The biggest difference is as you said, the way music is consumed.

It used to you only heard new music on the radio (later MTV), and the radio could only play so much. The record companies more or less controlled what songs were on the radio. So millions of people could and would focus on a few artists.

Where as today, you don't have to focus on radio. The internet means you can find what ever kind of music floats your boat. And instead of being focused on a few bands, the average listener has their interest and money spread out over a wider number of artists.

.... but it does seem like most of the new music that gets put in front of a lot of people is pretty disposable.

Not that I disagree.

But if you step back, much of the pop music put in front of people has always been pretty disposable.

Perry Como, Pat Boone, Barry Manilow, David Cassidy, Donnie and Marie Osmond, Sonny and Cher, Captain and Tennille, Olivia Newton John, much of the disco era, Debbie Gibson, Tiffany, and the list goes on and on of pop artists.

I'm reading the autobiography of record company executive Clive Davis now. One thing he's said is he felt a record company always needed a mix of pop singles to infuse quick cash into the company, bands that would sell over the long run, and then some jazz to make the label well rounded. Disposable music to make a quick buck was always part of the overall picture.
 
It really depends on what we are defining as a "classic", and that's mostly a personal decision, but..

For most people "classic" immediately refers to the 50s-80s: classic rock, classic R&B, classic cars, etc.. so in that sense, its an easy no. No one will ever be writing songs in the era ever again.

Furthermore, its hard to forecast what songs from the the past 20 years will stand the test of time and continue to influence people 50-70 years from now. You have to expect that this same conversation took place during the 60s as a lot of what we call classic were coming out for the first time. No one had any idea that James Taylor would be performing 'You've got a Friend' at every concert he ever did for the rest of his life. The same could probably be said for many other artists and tunes, I'm sure.

Generationally, anything this encapsulates a time and/or place for the majority of listeners can easily become a classic. Nostalgia is power like that.. Boy Bands and punk rock come to mind as musical vehicles that perfectly represent the 90's, for me at least. Sure it may not be everyone's cup of tea, or even mine right now, as someone who grew up in the 90's, you bet your ass I still have some Green Day on my iPod... it takes me back :) haha

The best I think we can do is compare accolades and who spear-headed stylistic shifts in popular music. On that note:

Katy Perry's Teenage Dream is the first album to top Thiller for most #1's on a single album...
Do I have to remind anyone how ubiquitous Britney Spears, nysc, and backstreet boys were...
post boy-bands: John Mayer, Jason Mraz, Jack Johnson, etc led the pack with acoustic-y pop/alternative stuff in the early 00s...
From what I can tell, Mumford & Sons brought that kind style to the pop scene....
Daft Punk won best album of the year with their electronic/pop fusion which is coming in in a big way....
Green Day is easily the most recognized punk rock band ever, Basket case anyone? Time of your Life?..
Alanis Morissette's hits are still getting a lot of air time everywhere (Jagged Little Pill has sold more copies than Sgt. Pepper!.. in less than half the time!!!)

There are lots of possibilities, only time will tell.
 
Awesome! :) Got any more???

Thank you. There's nothing recorded in a proper studio. This one was barely post-worthy, we have plans to record a CD sometime in the future though. I don't know if it was ok for me to post this one. haha!

I don't hear people writing songs like these anymore. The A&R guys don't look for bands like this anymore. We're all old and ugly.
 
Back
Top