|
why are 90s music bands not as old as 60s music bands ?
recently i started liking some music from the 90s to the present day and musicains and bands from the 60s and 70s seem to have aged and ones the 90s and 2000s are still going strong and not real old curious to know why bands from the 90s to now are not as old as the ones from the 60s to the 80s ?
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Hobbies category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Music?
Well, the people who grew up with the 90's and 2000's music are still quite young so that music gets played more often for that age group. The older music is just that, older. The people who grew up with it are retiring and the younger people are not always a big fan of that era of music. Basically "hit" radio stations play for people who are teens-40's, meaning the 90's music is still good for them.
The "oldies" stations play the older things catering toward people 40+ so really only people who already liked that music are the ones listening to it and that era isn't gaining in popularity because of it.
Hope that makes some sense.
]
As this isn't a problem but just something you wonder about, I won't have to offer any advice, just try to help you see how if you look at this by counting years, you can have the answer.
Most all bands, whether started in the 50s, 60's 70s, 80's 90's or after 2000, have members who were teenagers at the time they started or at least in their twenties.
Lets take the Beatles for just one example.
John met Paul in 1957 so at the time John was 17 and Paul was 15. John asked Paul to join his band the Quarry men. A year later, Paul had managed to convince John to let George join even though he was 14. I may have the age wrong but he was very young. They finally met Ringo when Ringo was 22. The band the Beatles was together and creating songs long before they bacame known as a hit by the public. It is pretty much the same for todays bands. It is not often that 30 40 or older people start up a band. By then they are settled into other careers and playing music and jamming on the side with friends is something they only do for fun, not for a way to earn a living.
So if band members were teenagers when they started, no matter the year, they age accordingly. So a Band form the 90s if lets say all were 20 at the time they started and we'll say the yeaer 200o, then today they'd be 18 yaars older, and so are 38.
The Beatles were in their 20s sometime in the 60's or late 60s. Lets use the age 20 again. The start we'll say is 1968. So 2018 is 50 years later and you add 50 to their age. That would be 20 plus 50 and they'd be in their 70s or close to it today. As you know, not all of the Beatles are even alive anymore at this point, only McCarthy. So comparing band members of a 90s band to those of 60s and comparing ages today, ofcourse the older bands have older members.
If you mean that the age of 90s band members are younger and not as old as the ages of those who started in the 60s. Well, if most started in their teens and twenties, that would mean that the newer bands have members who start out as elememtary school aged to teens as the oldest. That does not make sense. i do not know of any bands with 5th or 6th graders who started popular bands in the 90s and up to today. If you meant something else, please reword it as these are the only two ways I could interpret what you were asking
]
Hi there. I should say that muscians from the 60's to the 80's appear older because they are physically older men and women. There were less very young performers too in this period. A band or star would generally become famous over a longer period, touring and recording and learning their craft. We spoke then of a band or artist 'paying their dues' with perhaps years of gigs and studio work before they hit the limelight. The 90's onwards saw many more 'boy bands' and 'girl groups' where recording companies and management agencies would fast track sometimes very young performers to instant stardom. Their material would be written for them, with slick production and full multi-media promotion. They would often be at the peak of their careers at a very young age, and thus are not especially old today. And as you say, many are still performing and bringing out new material. Since music styles change over the decades, the older stuff you mention will tend to sound 'old' as well. The instruments were basically accoustic, although electrically amplified. A guitar and a drumkit are fundamentally not 'electronic' devices after all. Recording was not the super-clean digital pathway it is today either. Although we see 'digitally remastered' versions of old recordings (I listened to some by old rock band Led Zeppelin, who I like a lot) they cannot of course create detail that was missing and not captured in the original recording session. So it's really about the years adding up, isn't it? An act like the Rolling Stones can and do still put on live shows with bags of musicianship, and lots of on-stage energy. But we cannot expect our Mick Jaggers, Ronnie Woods
etc...etc...to be young men anymore, or that their music will not sound representative of it's era. Some of the themes are as relevent today as they were. And some will seem 'very seventies' for instance, concerning stuff that was hot then but now mostly forgotten. Listen to a bit of everything, I should say. Like, if you hear some very beautiful and meaningful lyrics in a modern tune, you might find the group or artist are covering a track written maybe 50 years ago by a master songwriter like Bob Dylan. Personally? I can listen to music by say, Bowie from the seventies and think 'this is still really cool stuff'. Or I can listen to a city radio station in the car where a hot DJ is mixing and mashing-up brand new club music and think 'Hey, this cool, fresh stuff with so much energy, I like it!' There's always room for good music, new or old!!
]
More Questions: |