Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SoCalCoug
Quote:
|
The thing that sets them apart is that they have been continuously churning out hits for decades.
|
A music teacher I had at BYU told us that musicians who have longevity usually have it because they are very talented.
You see bands like the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, U2, Rush, Metallica (his specific example) and musicians like Eric Clapton, Prince, Madonna who have been around (and popular) forever - it's because, regardless of your taste, they are truly talented musicians. |
I've gotta register a strong vote here for 'your BYU music teacher was on crack.'
The correlation between actual musical talent and popular success is not always a strong one. In fact, often they seem inversely related. :P I would argue, myself, that for those bands whose popularity endures for decades, it has less to do with talent level and more to do with culture, context, marketing, personality, a recognizable style, and the extent to which certain generations form strong attachments to them.
I'm not knocking them--It's a fact that a band has to be at least good enough and catchy enough to be liked by the masses.
But "very talented" as musicians??? Puhhleeeeease. Give me ten minutes in the local Jr High band room and I'll find you 17 band geeks with braces and acne that have more musical talent than, oh, say the drummer from the Stones.
'Talented Musicians' and 'Popular Music' are like Cougar and Ute fans: occasionally they'll get along and unite, but the majority of the time they're antithetical to each other.