The Beatles or The Rolling Stones or who ? ( or even the Who ? )

Mercury won't be matched, but it's probably easier to find someone who can do well in his place than it would be to find someone who could step in for Brian May and still have the output sound like Queen.  Nothing like his Red Special blasting through a bank of Vox AC30 amps, anyway.

It's really a worthless comparison, cystem. In no way can a member of any band be the same as the replacement.

Lets just enjoy the great music that was made.

cabadenwurt wrote:

Javan64 wrote:

I'm having a great deal of trouble imagining anyone with a voice like Freddie M.

Yes, good point Javan64. It will be interesting to see if the fans like this new version of Queen. On the other hand there must be at least one million Elvis impersonators out there so who knows.

.

.

When Journey lost Steve Perry, they got on the Internet, and looked up their own cover bands, to find a replacement. They found Arnel Pineda, who could be Perry's vocal twin.

I remember hearing lots of local bar bands playing (way back then) current Journey songs that I thought sounded just like Journey.  But then, I never particularly cared for Journey, and didn't think their material was too difficult to reproduce.  I figured that was one reason so many bar bands chose Journey's songs for their sets.

^Yep. Don't see too many Tool or Radiohead cover bands around. There are a plethora of cover bands for many 70's bands, though.

That's because rock was perfected in the 70's. Everything sinse then has been "Well, that was nice. Now what do we do?"

Heck, the entire 80's was just one KISS cover band after the other.

Huh?

Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Rage Against the Machine, Alice in Chains...

Just to name a few from after your so-called age of perfection.

You just listed some of my favorites. 

Those are excellent bands in their own right. I won't argue that. 

But when I hold them up to say, Pink Floyd, who dared to use a cash register as a rock instrument, or a clock shop, well...

That sort of artistic freedom was never available until the late 60's, and was completely impossible again by 1980. 

The bands you listerd did beautifully, despite the many restrictions of their era. 

But somehow, in the 70's, all books were thrown out, all bets were off, all rules were re-written. There was no magic cookie-cutter to crank out rock hits.

There was no "This is how long a rock song must be. This is what chord a rock song must be performed. This is how a rock song must be structured." As a listener, you never knew what to expect next.

Thanks for the posts.

One group that I have mentioned before is the  Beach Boys. So " Help Me Rhonda " I do like their music a lot. Of course it is true that things went downhill a bit after Brian Wilson started to have his serious problems but their sound was still quite nice and lively. So let's go on a Surfin Safari ! " 

I seem to recall that, a few months back, they sacked Brian Wilson!  What utter BS!  That Mike Love character is turning out to be a real scumbag.

                  He's turning into Dickey Betts.

Thanks for the new posts.

I luv their California sound but the Beach Boys could conduct seminars in how to NOT get along as a musical group  lol.

There was a time when bands looked at the duration of the song so that it could be played on radio. This doesn't matter anymore. Some artists may get more radio play, but the good ones will get enough hits on YT, and word of mouth will have others listen.

Tool, one of my faves, has many songs over five minutes-some close to ten. They did not suffer lack of radio play, and their fans arewell aware of their music.

Okay.

But bands like Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath, or the Beatles routinely turned out hits much longer than 5 minutes.

And that was continued in the 80's by bands like Rush, U2, Gun's 'n Roses, and Metallica.

I have heard Bob Dylan credited with being the first one to blow the doors off the old 3:30 time limit. Couldn't swear to that one, though.

Yes. Which is one of my points. Artists create, and, after the realization that a song didn't have to be at a time limit, they did what they wanted. The fact that some fine bands didn't have long songs does not make them any less creative than any other.

Also, the artists you mention that "routinely turned out hits much longer than that" were well known and considered proven "commodities" well before their longer tunes were played.

I think we're on the same page here, v, and the only point I'm trying to convey is that bands of today can make longer tunes, like PF in Animals. There is no difference with radio play. If anything, it's gotten worse with the corporate takeover. However, artists can be heard outside of that medium, and they know it.

To continue:

A large part the reason for the creation of Punk Rock in the mid 70's was to try to bring back the shorter song format. It was a rebellion against the "rock excesses" of the period.

And the same again for the Punk Revival of the mid 90's. Which were the bands Tool competed against. (Green Day, Offspring, Presidents of the United States of America)

(I really hate history. Unless it's either chess history, or rock history. Then I can't get enough.)

I'm guessing the bands you noted did not consider the other bands as competitors. I'd bet they liked the music of those other bands.

Perhaps I don't know rock history as you do, but I thought the so-called punk revival (as you call it) was just artists being themselves.

                       I think you could throw The Grateful Dead in there too. Their jam sesions were not what the radio stations wanted in the early 70's.  Eventually, they had a couple of commercial successes.

Wow, rough Avicii concert night in Boston yesterday.  When I saw the headline that dozens of people had been hospitalized I thought it was due to one physical cause, like a collapsed section of stands or something, but it looks like it may have all been a combination of heat, pills, and booze.