Which band(s) less than 5 yrs old will have the staying power of the Rolling Stones?

[bertha katzenengel]

If any?

Anyone?

I can't even name a band less than five years old. I don't listen to much current music.

So: who?

[Generic Brad]

1. There is no one out there at the moment

But I would have said the same thing about U2 back in 1984. Take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[derby378]

2. I heard as early as 1981-82 that U2 would become the new Who or Stones

This was the Boy era, and they weren't getting a huge amount of airplay in the States just yet. That all changed when War came out.

[Generic Brad]

5. Back then my vote would have been for Men Without Hats

I had no clue.

[Generator]

3. I don't know but how and why do people go to Stone's concerts?

I do not get it. IT's like trying to live another era and it's OVER. (not listening to the music per se but going to the concerts) Mick and the boys look old. I don't want my rock stars old. They are filthy rich. And if I hear that damn commercial for the credit card one more time..how much freaking money does Mick Jaggar need? Is he saving Africa? I doubt it..probably impregnating some 28 year old as we speak.


YEEK.

[begin_within]

4. It's because their fans now are at the age where they have disposable incomes.

And prefer spending $400 on a Stones concert than $2400 on a cruise.

[Oeditpus Rex]

6. Why does anyone go to see anything live?

We can listen to virtually any music we want almost anywhere we want. We can watch sports on teevee. Et cetera.

It's about being there.

[Ava]

7. Audioslave, Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes, The Hives

at least i hope so :p

[Left Is Write]

13. The Strokes are more than five years old.

:)

[Ava]

17. only by 2 years though

;)

[RandomKoolzip]

8. Why would any young band see the staying power of the Rolling Stones as an ideal?

They started off great, excelled in a field in which it wasn't all that hard to be a major innovator (in the 60's, if the ACTUAL Beatles and Stones hadn't invented "self-concious rock," then someone else woulda - it was inevitable), got old gracelessly, and continue to exist long past their sell-by date, thus embarassing the hell out of anyone who ever gave a fuck about them. Their acheivements were indeed awesome once upon a time, but to use the Stones as a template is to try and force a rather outdated ideal upon a generation for whom the Stones mean little. There's literally no more trails to be blazed these days and that's not such a bad thing. Not every period of music can be densely packed with sonic and lyrical innovators working at such a furious pace like they did back in the 60's and 70's - sometimes there's fallow periods in whcih people take simple pleasures where they can find them instead of expecting NEW Beatles, NEW Dylans, etc. Expecting a NEW band to fill the old ones' shoes is a limiting and unfair phenomenon, IMO.

The 60's are not coming back. We've had forty years to get used to it, and yet people are still expecting an adult culture to behave like a spoiled adolescent genius.

[Skittles]

11. there's no more trails to be blazed these days?

please

[izzybeans]

29. There was some really good stuff going on back then

These bands were just the more widely popular part of what already was a shared sound.

If you have sirius radio or can listen to Little Steven's Underground garage there are about 10 or 15 real old gems from that era that get played. You can see a real lineage there.

No band emerges from out of thin air. No matter how much their fans are convinced of it.

[Skittles]

9. none of them

none

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. No one.

[lildreamer316]

12. Seconded. n/t

[chknltl]

14. Carrie Underwood

Ok so she is not a band nor is she a rock band but I suspect that she has it in her to go as far as Dolly Parton which is quite respectable nonetheless.

[tuvor]

15. I think the Killers plan to try to stick around.

When Flood produces your 2nd record, and Anton Corbijn is taking your photos, I'm thinking you're in it for the long haul.

Time, of course, will tell.

[rockymountaindem]

16. I was going to say them too.

I like both their albums. In fact, I think I'll listen to them right now.

[idgiehkt]

18. yeah, the Killers could, Audioslave could

Disturbed could end up going as long as Metallica, who have had a good run.
Actually I don't know if Disturbed has been around for less than 5 years or not, though.

[Divameow77]

25. Disturbed

has been around longer than 5 years.

[bbernardini]

22. Amazing. I had the same thought. nt

[ghostsofgiants]

19. None that I can think of.

And that's probably not a bad thing, for the reasons KoolZip stated.

[chrisau214]

20. Probably No One Ever

Of course this depends on what you mean by staying power. If by staying power you mean that people will still be listening to a particular band 40-50 years from now the answer is probably no one. If by staying power you mean that the band in question will still be active and touring 40-50 years from now then the answer is almost definitely no one.

As far as category two goes there is no band in the history of rock and roll that has had the active longevity of the Stones. Only the Who comes close and they haven't really been the Who in a long time. Even including solo artists the only names that come immediately to mind in the active category are Chuck Berry and Little Richard. And while they may still perform they aren't, to my knowledge, releasing any new music on any kind of regular basis.

In the first category there are only a handful of bands that have had any true longevity. These bands are the staple of every classic rock station. For good or bad in addition to the Rolling Stones these bands would include Led Zeppelin, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Aerosmith, KISS, Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles, Pink Floyd, maybe Cream and of course the Beatles. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few but the list really wouldn't be much longer. I'm not judging any of these bands on the quality or the merits of their work just on the fact that there music is still played on the radio today.

Of these bands only the Beatles predate the Rolling Stones. From the above list most are '70's era bands. Even among these bands only Aerosmith and KISS remain truly active.

In the end most bands get a three to five year window. Some will burn out even quicker and a few might hang around for a full decade but I can't see any band ever lasting as long as the Rolling Stones if only for the simple fact that it is hard enough for a normal person to live that long much less a group of people leading a rock and roll lifestyle.

Plain and simple The Rolling Stones are freaks of nature.





Chris

[PVnRT]

21. Oasis existed BEFORE the Rolling Stones

In fact, Oasis invented all music, so you really should be comparing bands to them. Which is pointless, since no one can compare to GLORIOUSNESS that is Oasis.

[RetroLounge]

23. Franz Ferdinand

Their first 2 albums are really good, their 2nd one being freaking amazing.

RL

[ceile]

24. I haven't bought it yet.

Is it really that good?

[RetroLounge]

27. Second Album is amazing...

yes, it really is...

RL

[ceile]

28. Definitely going my xmas list then!

[izzybeans]

26. There are tons and tons of bands as good or better than the stones

there have been and always will be bands better than some other band in some other persons opinion. Whether any band has the staying power or not depends on fans.

Most of the good ones these days, as in times past, have little interest in that type of spectacle. Fan chasing bands are pretty appear absurdly mass produced because music consumers do not have the staying power themselves and would much rather here cover songs than anything fresh. You will be hard pressed to find an example of a really talented and authentic musician who has a powerful distribution network. The good music is in the mid-level market with the small labels that most often distribute regionally. But thank Gore for the internet. We can find those bands without leaving our 'jammies.

There are musicians that have that kind of staying power but they are likely to form new bands, go solo, or have rotating members in long running bands.

When the Stones were five years old I am guessing no one would have predicted that they would be here today. Prison or death would have been a better guess.

[bedpanartist]

30. drexel - Appalachian Lounge Music influenced by Ween, Tom T. Hall and Isaac Hayes

http://myspace.com/drexelohio

better songwriters.

[LynneSin]

31. You mean have the career where the early stuff is brilliant but...

...everything you've put out the last 20 years has artistically sucked horribly but you put it out because people are dumb enough to pay $200 for a ticket to see you in concert in hopes that at least 1 or 2 of the songs you do is one of your classics from 30 years ago.

I hope these new bands strive for something better!