Rolling Stone loves to make lists that they feel are definitive. 100 best songs, 100 best albums, and now, the 100 best singers. It is great to look through the list reading the little blurbs by various artists about the greatness of the person that is being honored. I am always transfixed by these lists. Growing up, Rolling Stone was the renegade music magazine that had articles that swore, pictures of barely dressed artists, and reviews of music that was important to me. This was in the 90's, way past the heyday of Rolling Stone's renegade status. Though this too is hard for me to claim. Rolling Stone has been an establishment since well before I was born. Still, in my teens, it was something important. It didn't matter that poptart princesses often graced the cover, at the time, it was a good thing. Now, I look at Rolling Stone with a more critical eye. I see the big companies all up in it. It is tough to see. Ads for multiple pages, and bands that are only in the magazine being hyped as the next big thing because they are in half the ads in the magazine. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but the leap from "breaking new artist" to mcdonalds ad fodder is growing smaller.
It is the reality of the times. Artists are more accessible now than they have ever been through myspace, the internet, and various other forms of media. It is interesting to look through the top 100 singers and notice that very few of them are from the modern era. The nearly all the singers in the top 25 had their peak in the 50's, 60's, or 70's. At number 25, Michael Jackson is the first crack the "classic artists". Why is this? Part of it could be attributed to the fact that Rolling Stone was coming into being during that time. So while I am more attached to indie rock and the music of the 90's-2000's, Rolling Stone editors are attached to what is now defined as "classic rock". The term "classic rock" suggests a bias for the music of that time anyways. Anyways, as I stated before, access to rockstars is now nearly complete. There is no mystique anymore. No separation between audience and performer. Warts and all, these people can be stuck in the constant spotlight of audience appreciation and revulsion.
The new artists are mass media products. It is not their fault. It is what the system always was. Now, the technology is more demanding than it was in the past. Record labels want their artists to post blogs and be in web videos because it is free advertising for the label. A self-propulsive blur smashing into the collective mainstream's mind as fast as it can burn out the other side. Artists are only as relevant as their last single. It is the perspective of the record companies. Why should the consuming masses feel any different?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/24161972/page/103
Anyways, it's a good read. It is absolutely biased, but some of the blurbs are interesting. I suppose this type of writing just makes me a little depressed. The glory days are past for those who love truly classic music according to Rolling Stone. Long live this era...whatever it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think the reason that most of the artists are from a "past" era is because the latest bands don't have that "test of time" factor to them yet. People fly in from other countries to see Led Zepplin, decades after its peak. We can't say yet that people are going to do that for Coldplay in thirty years, so the greats have to be defined by their legacy as much as the popularity at their heights.
Post a Comment