Their reputation will die with their audience

[Muskrat]

Ke$ha not Kesha

You're so out of it, daddy-o!

Say goodbye to the dollar sign and Ke$ha. Hello (again) to Kesha.

The singer is starting fresh after leaving rehab, and that means she is reverting back to her birth name.

The "Timber" crooner's rep confirms to E! News that she is using the letter "S instead of the symbol "$." The pop superstar also changed her Twitter handle from @Ke$haSuxx to @KeshaRose.

[Count Machuki]

booo
rehab!
pfft!
quitters never win



(kidding, everybody, kidding. She looks healthy. Though I don't look for either health or sobriety in my Kesha, good for her)

[Piggly Wiggly]

Same situation with the Stones as with Clapton: they far outlived the period when they were fresh and exciting, and kids talk a look at their present-day incarnations and don't see any worth in going back to the early work.

I mean, yeah, it's great that some professional musician* from Maroon 5 knows Mick Jagger's surname, but...I feel like the last 25 years have been an increasing case of the Rolling Stones (who I like) becoming this juggernaut that come through town every few years and play to an increasingly wealthy (their last Chicago stop had them selling the nosebleed seats at "front row for Macca" prices) and aging crowd of corporate types who are easily more at home with season tickets to some local sports franchise, but want to "rock out" once in a while. The Rolling Stones have probably earned this stature on endurance alone (YOU try keeping a rock band together for 50 years!)...live long and prosper, by all means - but, they are Glenn Miller to a lot of kids in a way that the Beatles (who split up in their 20s - i.e. frozen in Aspic....and their gigs are not getting talked about around the water cooler at Fortune 500 companies) can't be. McCartney once made some remark about generally trying to keep his favorite music away from his kids because "Can you imagine if my Dad had been into Elvis?", and...I think one can at least acknowledge the phenomenon he's describing, as it applies to the Rolling Stones (WHY the Beatles seem to get grandfathered out of this is less of a certainty than the fact that they clearly DO).

*I mean, is he anything BUT that? I feel like he makes "some guy from Sugar Ray/Cracker/Little Village" look like Syd Barrett.

[Piggly Wiggly]

*I mean...look at Dave Grohl...

He's got David Cassidy in that freezer. He's gonna bring him back to life.

[Piggly Wiggly]

David Beckham was seen wearing a Motorhead t-shirt. It's nothing to do with music. A student of mine once had a handbag with some slogan about The Clash on it, I asked her about them and she said she knew nothing about them, she just liked the way it looked.

I'm sure that most people I see on the streets wearing Ramones t-shirts couldn't name five Ramones songs if put on the spot. The Ramones logo is a successful brand that has nothing to do with music anymore, much like Warhol's 'lips' logo for the Stones.

Most people I see in "Ramones wear" haven't started talking yet! Their success as a merch brand was a reality before they started dropping like flies, and...it only seems to grow - people want to have cool infants.

The business of "the shirt as signifier" - does anyone here remember a band called Elastica? EVERY picture of them had their frontwoman in some well chosen band logo shirt (Cheap Trick, Clash, The Masked Marauders)...fast forward a year or so, and there's the Dandy Warhols ALL wearing these immaculately chosen vintage T replicas (Dylan, etc. - I can't be bothered to look for the picture AND keep my dinner down) in their publicity photos.

I mean, fucking Johnny Cash "flipping the bird, man!" - you can't tell me that any real percentage of people who post that goddamn picture on Facebook don't think he was in Social Distortion.

[Piggly Wiggly]

There was a kid in my class, dyed hair, a bit alternative looking and he was ranting, as kids do, about the manufactured music of today to his disinterested mates. He then talked of the proper music, what he called the "classic" music of the past and he gave as his example...Queen.
Funnily enough I wasn't surprised as he's not the first kid I've heard talk about Queen in those terms. They seem to think they're on a level with The Beatles. I think we've got all sorts of nasty surprises in store like that in the future.

People of...well...prior generations to your ranting alterna-student talk about far lesser acts than Queen as if they are/were/will someday ever be worth a fuck, and I just accept it - as part of some basic interpersonal "live and let live" encroaching middle-aged form of tolerance/harmony. Good for me, right? I mean, there's people who think the drummer from Blondie was even half as good as Keith Moon (I'm inflating the figure, I hope). There are people who rate Blondie! I can't arm wrestle them all.

But, listen - any kid who lived through "Country House" vs. "Roll With It" (you know I love you, Betty and Goat Boy) has every right to see Queen as a totem of a sadly bygone era. Not everyone can see "Bohemian Rapsody" or 10cc's "I'm Not In Love" as the missing link between "Good Vibrations"/"Strawberry Fields" and Loveless, and...I guess I don't need them to. But, yeah - records that fundamentally "give a fuck" are not a thing to be belittled, in my eyes.

I went through this shit during my own incarceration in the great "Quiet is the new loud" era of UK indie rock - all of the tastemaking publicists, journos, producers and indie label folks convinced that some band like fucking Wheat or Modest Mouse or Lambchop were worth trying to stay awake for, and just...if you dared mention something like Rush around them, it was as if you'd farted with the strength of an overcrowded boys school assembly. Meanwhile, Flaming Lips are spoon-feeding them "Queen for/by dummies" in some new form of quadrophonic sound to a rapturous response, and Starsailor (and any sort of Radiohead/Travis-lite band, if you can still remember such a thing) are getting crazy money for making Gilbert O Sullivan look like the Germs. With a big enough stick up my ass, I'd have fit right in!

I have two young sons. The 8 year old has VERY prominent ADHD (spend a minute around him and then tell me whether or not this is a real thing), and my 4 year old is..well, he's 4, I guess. THEY hear Queen songs on the radio and they go absolutely fucking NUTS! "Another One Bites The Dust", "We Will Rock You", "Bo Rhap", etc. - it fucking gets their attention and wakes them up. Freddie Mercury has a certain "I'm actually here to fucking sing these songs, people!" presence that...well, some people view it as a virtue, I guess (how quaint or "naff" it must seem to, say, the Bluetones). This student of yours is right to view these very creative and lovingly created records as superior to...I dunno, whatever he may have been comparing them to. They are considerably closer to the Beatles than they are to Adele or Daft Punk or Robin Thicke. They are ultimately sticky taped together as a labor of love...so much so that you don't even realize that Roger Taylor is in way over his head as a drummer (a pre-punk Buckler/Joyce!).

What should I be telling my kids? "No, man - Queen are the ENEMY, like! You ever hear 'Rip It Up'? 'My Ever Changing Moods'?!??! 'Losing My Religion'? FUCKING 'GENO'?!?!?!?!?!?!"*

I'm not sure they'd wear it.


*(I'm only now realizing how many indirect "Their reputation will die with their audience" references are contained within this post! Nasty!)

[...]

My 14 year old daughter (favorite musical acts: One Direction, Panic at the Disco, Ed Sheeran) went to school today in a Stones t- shirt, bought at Target, marketed to kids her age.

There ain't much in the way of lasting reputation or artistic legacy in being the logo of a band or the face of an artist you know absolutely squat about on a cool-looking T-shirt you'll eventually probably throw away without a second thought

Jeff K just argued that The Stones don't matter much now. Did he miss "Moves like Jagger" or that awful Kesha song that namechecks Mick?

There's even less of a worthwhile heritage in being name checked in a Ke$ha (surely the Tiffany or Debbie Gibson of her day) song…


While Jagger's undeniable charisma and the logos of bands like Motorhead and The Ramones' ubiquity on T-shirts endures they are likely to have some kind of presence, that's also no kind of enduring relevance (for want of a better phrase).

While he has got a few great tunes, Clapton has neither charisma or marketability

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I think you guys just want to believe what you want to believe. Pretty quaint to even be musing about which of our acts the kids care about.

Eventually all musical acts become t-shirts.

[The Modernist]

You were the one who brought up the t-shirts in the first place as some kind of 'evidence'.

What exactly will excite future generations about Clapton? Let's remember the point made in the OP that he'd seen that Clapton's fanbase was pretty much of a certain age, whereas I would guess someone like Led Zeppelin could still draw a cross-generational audience. You've been pretty vague Davey on why Clapton will endure. He's very much a faded icon now, I doubt there's some unquenchable desire for tasteful blues solos.

[never/ever]

While he has got a few great tunes, Clapton has neither charisma or marketability

Plays bloody good guitar though.

[Belle Lettre]

My kids loved Cream when I used to play them in the car.

[...]

I think you guys just want to believe what you want to believe. Pretty quaint to even be musing about which of our acts the kids care about.

Eventually all musical acts become t-shirts.

While not witting to score points here, VRZ, the original poster raised an interesting topic which has generated some extremely well argued replies.

All you have done is to simply parrot your opinion that Clapton, his music and legacy will endure without bothering to tell us why you think that would - or even should - be.

Ultimately, it was you and not another poster who brought up Kei$ha's (KeSha's??? WTF) song and the ubiquity of band names/logos on T-shirts as some kind of barometer of permanent artistic relevance. To say that all musical acts end up as T-shirts is disingenuous at best (seen the kids getting down while wearing any Scott Joplin or WC Handy T-shirts lately?)

If we followed your advice and continued to 'believe what we want to believe' and didn't bother to waste our time indulging in 'pretty quaint' musings, this board wouldn't last five minutes.

At the end of the day, have any of us ever given a shit about 90% of the music our Mums and Dads listened to? Have we fuck.

Thirty years from now Clapton and the Stones et al are going to end up marginalized on some late night Charlie Chester-style radio show hosted by some newly cleaned up Lemmy-type

[Davey the Fat Boy]

You were the one who brought up the t-shirts in the first place as some kind of 'evidence'.

What exactly will excite future generations about Clapton? Let's remember the point made in the OP that he'd seen that Clapton's fanbase was pretty much of a certain age, whereas I would guess someone like Led Zeppelin could still draw a cross-generational audience. You've been pretty vague Davey on why Clapton will endure. He's very much a faded icon now, I doubt there's some unquenchable desire for tasteful blues solos.

Bluesbreakers
Yardbirds
Cream
Blind Faith
Derek & the Dominos
Long solo career
Played with everyone.

He's just an unavoidable presence for anyone interested in pop music over the last several decades.

You guys are nuts if you think he'll be forgotten before any of your pet heroes. You think the fact that Kurt Cobain really captured the zeitgeist once for a few months in 1992 is going to make him more relevant 50 years from now than the Yardbirds, Cream and Derek and the Dominos all put together??? Absurd.

As for the t-shirts - if you don't think there is power in getting a generation to identify with your iconography, you are kidding yourselves.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I think you guys just want to believe what you want to believe. Pretty quaint to even be musing about which of our acts the kids care about.

Eventually all musical acts become t-shirts.

While not witting to score points here, VRZ, the original poster raised an interesting topic which has generated some extremely well argued replies.

All you have done is to simply parrot your opinion that Clapton, his music and legacy will endure without bothering to tell us why you think that would - or even should - be.

Ultimately, it was you and not another poster who brought up Kei$ha's (KeSha's??? WTF) song and the ubiquity of band names/logos on T-shirts as some kind of barometer of permanent artistic relevance. To say that all musical acts end up as T-shirts is disingenuous at best (seen the kids getting down while wearing any Scott Joplin or WC Handy T-shirts lately?)

If we followed your advice and continued to 'believe what we want to believe' and didn't bother to waste our time indulging in 'pretty quaint' musings, this board wouldn't last five minutes.

At the end of the day, have any of us ever given a shit about 90% of the music our Mums and Dads listened to? Have we fuck.

Thirty years from now Clapton and the Stones et al are going to end up marginalized on some late night Charlie Chester-style radio show hosted by some newly cleaned up Lemmy-type

Well first off, I don't think the original post was all that interesting. Fine - you guys don't like Clapton. You want to pretend that he doesn't matter. Who do you think WILL matter? So far what I'm reading here is that enshrinement in establishments like the hall of fame are no barometer, and the fact that actual kids actually name check a band or brandish their logo doesn't prove anything... So what are you arguing DOES matter?

Further - someone ought to remind folks that this stuff changes all the time. Someone puts a song in a soundtrack or a commercial, that act becomes relevant. The fact that you subjectively perceive an act's stock as low today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. Given this, the best indicators we can have of what will endure is what has endured. Like it or not, Clapton has endured.

[The Modernist]

You were the one who brought up the t-shirts in the first place as some kind of 'evidence'.

What exactly will excite future generations about Clapton? Let's remember the point made in the OP that he'd seen that Clapton's fanbase was pretty much of a certain age, whereas I would guess someone like Led Zeppelin could still draw a cross-generational audience. You've been pretty vague Davey on why Clapton will endure. He's very much a faded icon now, I doubt there's some unquenchable desire for tasteful blues solos.

Bluesbreakers
Yardbirds
Cream
Blind Faith
Derek & the Dominos
Long solo career
Played with everyone.

He's just an unavoidable presence for anyone interested in pop music over the last several decades.

You guys are nuts if you think he'll be forgotten before any of your pet heroes. You think the fact that Kurt Cobain really captured the zeitgeist once for a few months in 1992 is going to make him more relevant 50 years from now than the Yardbirds, Cream and Derek and the Dominos all put together??? Absurd.

As for the t-shirts - if you don't think there is power in getting a generation to identify with your iconography, you are kidding yourselves.

That list of bands isn't as impressive as you think it is, most of them belong to history. You still haven't explained why they'd have any kind of lasting cultural legacy.
I'm no Nirvana fan myself, but they erupted with a strong voice and made angry, supercharged music that took hardcore into the mainstream -they impacted (sorry Baron) pretty much across the world. Cobain lives on as a poster boy for the punk outsider spirit. Whether or not he deserves to is a moot point, but one can see why young metal and punk fans would continue to look up to him. Clapton by contrast is very much a figure of his time, some people transcend their time because their art or their artistic persona has something which continues to resonate with people, nothing you've said yet tells me that Clapton belongs in that category.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Wait...so Cobain will remain important because of his iconography, but it's just a matter of fashion when kids gravitate to the Stones'?

Interesting.

[The Modernist]

Wait...so Cobain will remain important because of his iconography, but it's just a matter of fashion when kids gravitate to the Stones'?

Interesting.

Anyway your Stones t-shirt example is of pretty limited value, unless you're also telling us that there are a load of kids going round in Derek & The Dominos tshirts.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Wait...so Cobain will remain important because of his iconography, but it's just a matter of fashion when kids gravitate to the Stones'?

Interesting.

Anyway your Stones t-shirt example is of pretty limited value, unless you're also telling us that there are a load of kids going round in Derek & The Dominos tshirts.

I'd change the subject too if I were you .

[...]

Further - someone ought to remind folks that this stuff changes all the time. Someone puts a song in a soundtrack or a commercial, that act becomes relevant. The fact that you subjectively perceive an act's stock as low today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.

But then surely the opposite is also true?

Just because someone sells well today doesn't mean they are going to sell well five or 10 or 50 years from now.

Writers are a good example. While there were undoubtedly lots of best-selling authors in - say - the 1950s and 60s, how many of them are still read today? I bet most people would be hard pushed to even name 10 and fewer still would have actually read anything by one.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

The opposite may be true, but the single best indicator of future success is past success.