Musical Longevity: From the Sixties to the Twenty Fifties

With members of Soulshine's forums seemingly endlessly debating the greats of music's past, we decided to take a look at what may come to pass for the greats of music's future in 2050. Soulshine's Max Easton delves into the depths of past and future in this Editorial.

Looking back at the last 50 years of music with the power of hindsight makes you wonder what's to come. Who, out of the people recording music right now in 2010, will still be on the hundredth generation iPod in 2050? It's kind of a ludicrous question since it's based on the rawest of the raw forms of speculation, but really, who's out there right now that will last long enough into the future as to still be listenable in 40 years time? 

Looking at the bulk tastes of this country, last year's end-of-year ARIA chart toppers were Susan Boyle, Pink, Black Eyed Peas and Taylor Swift. True story. Does anyone seriously think that anyone could still be listening to that crap in 40 years time? I mean, I'm stunned that people were even listening to that in 2009. Yet, based almost exclusively off the scowl on my Dad's face when I played a Bruce Springsteen album once, maybe it's the power of hindsight that's going to make a song called 'Boom Boom Pow' by the Black Eyed Peas stomachable in time. John Lee Hooker did it with 'Boom Boom Boom,' and really, he was no more deep than the Peas...but he didn't make you want to leap out of a building. The point being; that while something right now smells like a steamed heap of aural turd, maybe in a couple of generations time it will mature to a steamed heap of cool nostalgia. If my Dad can hate Bruce Springsteen to this day to my disbelief, how am I gonna feel about my future child when it starts listening to Taylor Swift? 

But like all good History students will tell you whilst trying to justify the purpose of their degree, future behaviour can be predicted by the actions of the past. So as an illustration, the end-of-year ARIA chart of 1989, 20 years prior to the '09 Susan Boyle headliner, featured names like Fine Young Cannibals, Daryl Braithwaite, Madonna, Bette Midler, Michael Bolton and Simply Red. That makes up a list that either makes me shudder, ask 'who the fuck are the Fine Young Cannibals' or nod in resignation at the fact that Madonna is somehow not only relevant, but still kinda hot. Interestingly though, the Travelling Wilbury's topped out that list which is a nice dosage of reputability for 1989, but we'll turn a blind eye to that for the purposes of this article (how good is internet 'journalism?')

So 1989 sucked for music, and most of it, thankfully, has faded into obscurity in the 20 years since it dominated radio. By 2050, it's safe to say that probably the only name out of those that will still be known will probably be Madonna. So despite the fact that Simply Red are bordering on nauseating, (and really, so is Madonna) how can anyone make claims as to who will achieve longevity? Even the world's biggest Susan Boyle fan knows that she was never going to last. She was a phenomenon based off a good story. Pink rode in off the back of a generation raised on girl power in the 90's, and Taylor Swift made carbon copies of old country songs, threw latter day pop production onto them, and marketed them to what is probably the most impressionable youth time has ever seen. We live in a world where Justin Bieber can flourish because the internet tells kids to buy his little mp3 off the iTunes. In the 70's, radio and TV were doing all the talking. Sure, money talked then as it does right now, but the very essence of TV and radio meant that to get music out there, it still needed to be actually played. Today, you get enough followers on Twitter and your records are as good as sold. Yes, blah blah, Youtube; but it stands that its the trends that dictate tastes in 2010 more than ability. But hasn't that always been true?

Case and point; The Beatles. Hysteria. If you didn't like the Beatles in 1963 you weren't just square, you had a mental defect. They rehashed 1950's rock and roll and sold it in a way that appealed to enough people that it steamrolled. Yet 50 years from their hey-day, they're still topping the Best Ever charts. How? They remained relevant. They evolved from their initial sound to take aspects of Psychedelia and drug culture into their recordings and managed to not only follow the attitudes of the time, but in subtle ways, dictate it. The same goes with David Bowie; music's ultimate chameleon. From rocker as Ziggy Stardust to disco king on 'Scary Monsters,' he, as well as Madonna, evolved with the technology, fashions and mindsets of the public. The Beatles, David Bowie, The Rolling Stones and Madonna were all pioneers not so much in the music created, but in how they sold it...by fucking you through your headphones. The common theme that binds them together after all this time was an underlying sexuality...and sex, no matter how hard you close your eyes, will always remain relevant. 

But whilst longevity can be bred out of marketing and their place in popular culture, there are three guys in particular who've remained as some of the planets most loved artists with as good as zero sexuality whatsoever. Neil Young, Tom Waits and Bob Dylan. Where Bowie evolved to remain constantly relevant, to varying extents, these three remained continually irrelevant, to the point that they created some of the most unique and influential pieces of music in our history. Waits evolved from soulful jazz man to consummate psycho, Young went from folkie to rock-god to experimentalist, and Dylan went everywhere. All of them followed their muse with barely a concern given to commerciality whatsoever. Indeed, Neil Young was sued by Geffen Records for deliberately making non-commercial music in the 80's after the robot-voiced 'Trans' somehow failed to sell well. He went from someone who labelled himself an old hippy trying to understand computers on 'Trans' to prematurely accepting his age and playing white-man blues on 'This Note's For You.' Yet in his time, he had created the music that would eventually become the rock that we know today, and indeed, the thousands of grunge acts of the 90's. 

On that note, will the artists spawned from 90's grunge last? With Nirvana and Pearl Jam at the forefront of that movement, regardless of their quality, the scene was dictated and dominated by MTV, who in turn spawned enough grunge acts to create a world where even three 15 year old boys from Newcastle could take on the world. It's hard to say whether they'll last. Pearl Jam, for all their greatness, have been achieving commercial success of rapidly decreasing importance. It's easy to imagine that had things gone differently, Nirvana would be navigating the same route, and by 2050, failing a revival of the ironic torn jeans fuck-you-corporate-America attitude that was once sold on MTV, it's hard to imagine their prosperity. 

So at the end of that long-winded, jumble of a retrospective, what can the future possibly hold? There's very little being released today which has proven itself as startlingly unique. The 80's comeback has torn the soul out of half the music industry (as it did then), whilst the Grammy's are dominated by variations on the Blues and anything the indie movement has come to adore also plays out as variations on a theme. We're living in a world where music is spread incredibly thin by the ease in which it is distributed. Some of my favourite releases of the last few years come from bands who split or release sporadically outside of their day jobs. There's very little which has really broken the mould this decade and we've essentially entered a time that relishes nostalgia above all else. Jack Johnson's folk movement is just Greenwich village all over again. Disco is back and it still sucks. And the most successful experimental record of the 2000's came from Radiohead plugging shit into other shit until it worked. Like any era, you can't imagine who the next pioneer will be, but really, what's your best guess of what comes next? Will we ever relive the impact of Neil Young's 'Hey Hey My My,' toasting the death of Elvis and the Sex Pistols whilst stepping forward into the new iteration of the genre they helped create? At this stage in time, I just don't believe that we're going to get anything that isn't more of the same.

If that really does pan out to be the case, how could anything from our era remain relevant in 2050? Maybe they'll still be putting out lists crowning Dylan and the Beatles as the best ever musicians of that time, they probably will...but it's kind of disheartening being a part of the generation that time will forget. Look at what we've been wearing, look at what we've listened to...even the protestors are still banging on about war and the environment. This isn't so much about music as it is about the essence of our lives...and man, everyone just wants to be somewhere else. If The Beatles end up voted the best band of all time in 2050, I will deadset do myself in. In fact, I just set a reminder on my phone. But using as much foresight and hindsight as your mind can muster is still overlooking the facts and the reality, so who knows, maybe we're at the dawn of a new age. It's certainly a nicer feeling. Bring it on. I'm looking at you will.i.am...