What music from today will stand the test of time?

A harsh assessment, to be sure. But in a music culture where it is important to look good, have a good voice, be able to shake your moneymaker, have no need to write your own songs, and have members of the opposite sex go crazy for you . . .I can see exactly what you're saying.

 

Elvis absolutely was as much about marketing as music and his popularity probably would have been the same regardless of anything.

But there is little doubt Holly, had he lived, would have had a greater overall impact on the future of rock music

 

Who knows? Maybe Buddy would've gotten drafted and came out of the Army completely changed like Elvis did.

Not true. Yes, Elvis had a lot of style, but he had the credentials to back it all up. He may not have been able to write a song from scratch but he had no peer when it came to interpreting a song or synthesizing various musical styles into something raw and new.

 

J-Timberlake's going to have the benefit of molding his image via produces with each CD to keep the sound fresh. His songs just sound smooth, and I can see them holding up in a pop/R&B sense.

As for new bands, I'm drawing blanks without being able to resort to U2, RHCP, Pearl Jam, Green Day, etc.

 

I would agree AIC is the best rock group to emerge in my adult life (I'm 35). They often get mentioned as the other grunge pioneer, with Nirvana and Pearl Jam listed 1-2. And while I like both of those, AIC's music, at least for me, gets better with age. For my tastes, a perfect blend of music and lyrics.

 

I don't think Apple Records comes out on the credit side of the Beatles' ledger, unless Badfinger or Mary Hopkin really deserve that much props. What is on the plus side:
--Revolutionized music video as a promotional tool and as an artistic statement.
--Pretty much initiated the cultural obsession with pop culture.
--With George Martin's help, pretty much established many studio tricks (instrumentally, that is; no one can touch what Phil Spector and Brian Wilson did with vocals).

And I'm sure they were others. BTW, people wonder what Buddy Holly would have done had he lived. Perhaps Eddie Cochran would be more a bit worthy of that pondering.

 

Queen was just pure overdubbing, and Yes and Def Leppard aren't anything special vocally. None of those approach the subtlety and nuance of Spector or Wilson.

 

I will be listening to Live in 20 years. That is all.

 

I can't believe nobody has mentioned OutKast yet.

They're so fresh and unique and popular that they will surely withstand the test of time. "Hey Ya" will be played in clubs 20 years from now. Bank on it.

I'd also nominate Eminem, and I'll think of more after I get all this beer out of my system...

 

What George and his team of engineers did for John Lennon's vocals on songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" was simply unheard of.

 

Leave It was what I figured you were getting at. Again, massive overdubbing. As for Def, I would best describe Joe Elliott's vocals as earnest and raw. Queen had better pure vocals than that, but again, theirs were merely overdubbed to create depth, not subtley: THE key difference between your examples and Spector and Wilson (and yes, I realize the girl groups and the Beach Boys weren't exactly more than popsters for the most part)

 

Holy god.
Nothing Yes ever did touches "Caroline, No," let alone any of the major Beach Boys stuff.