Posts: 155
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2009
Someone once told me that Neil Young would never have had the success he did if he had been around at a different time. I've thought about that theory on and off ever since.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think classic artists are products of evolutionary forces beyond their control, or do you think they are unique entities, existing apart from time and place, and would be successful in any era?
Just a discussion topic. Have fun!
Posts: 572
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2009
If he had been around a different time, his music would have been slight different coz of the difference in influences on hsi life..
But his talent would have still remained legendary...
Posts: 42
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2009
It's a hard question. Yes I think that most of the big artists in the past decades would have been recognized and famed no matter what decade they would be in. But the music would be totally different, and relate much more to what problems, culture, politics etc. would be present in that era.
Those artists/bands that mean something for a genre will always form as an reaction to another band/genre. Like The Beatles/Stones, then Zeppelin, (lots in between, quick sketch) then Motley Crue/Guns/Def Leppard/Michael Jackson/stuff from the 80's, then Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Soundgarden/Radiohead, then Oasis/Blur, then big record industry sucks up all small niché labels and now look how much good, inspiring, innovative music is made today.................... (NOT!!)
:blah:
I always thought the good thing about the guitar was that they didn't teach it in school.
-- Jimmy Page
Posts: 5,551
Threads: 146
Joined: Jan 2008
02-11-2009, 18:45
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2009, 18:47 by Tiggi.)
Neil Young's prolly not the best example, since his music has changed dramatically over the years, and he does seem to reflect musical trends in his own stuff.
That being said, I don't think someone like Neil Young would stand out adequately if he was just now putting out his first album... There are loads of great artists around that just won't get the breaks.
I think lots of now-household names have been lucky zeitgeist-surfers.
The other determining factor is the ability of artists to keep producing high quality material time after time. This is what keeps consumers returning to the Dylans, Youngs etc, even after they've entered a rough patch.
Posts: 29,762
Threads: 8,841
Joined: Aug 2009
Won't speak of Neil Young specifically. Who knows? All speculation. Ok to kick around I guess, but the same would be true of any artist.
In fact the same is true for any endeavor we choose to pursue in life. We are all victims of lifes circumstances and surroundings. The reverse could be true also. Someone whos life is a total disaster could be the opposite had they lived in different surroundings/connections. Obviously some can overcome adverse conditions, others can't due to a multitude of reasons.
We do the best we can with what we have available to us. At least most of us do.
Posts: 224
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2009
A worthy topic.
Imagine metalcore in the 50's.... Not gonna happen :wink:
