Ground Control's Editor-In-Chief, Bill Adams, and I had a discussion recently about who might be this generation’s Led Zeppelin. That is, which of today’s bands might be able to maintain their popularity and influence thirty or forty years into the future?
I’m not talking about who the it bands of the moment are and what chance they may have of writing songs that people will still care about in five years, this is both a broader and more focused question than that. Likewise, I'm not talking about as comparatively petty as wondering who will get inducted in to the Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame in 2037 (if it still exists then). No, I'm asking about a question of image association; I’m asking who is going to be the next lasting icon of rock. What do I mean by that? I’m talking about bands whose presence continues to loom large over the music scene. Bands which not only maintain their old fans, but continue to gain new fans. Which not only continue to influence rock music, but whose influence is pervasive.
Okay, still not really that objective. How about bands which have more than two songs in heavy rotation on classic rock radio, and which regularly make the covers of the major music magazines? At least we can measure that, and it does seem to narrow it down to the type of band I’m talking about. Artists which clearly make the cut include Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Stones, the Who, Dylan, Hendrix, the Doors and David Bowie. By this standard, Nirvana makes the cut, but the Clash doesn’t (they only have “Rock the Casbah” and “Should I Stay or Should I Go” in heavy rotation, but we'll get back to the Clash in a bit, because they do help illustrate what I’m getting at) – but, conversely, there are other highly influential musicians who don’t make the cut because they still aren’t actually all that popular.
So how does a band achieve this seemingly undying status? What is it about the artists listed which makes them still popular, still influential? There are several factors but not one of them on its own is enough. It takes a combination of many variables to live forever.
Let’s start with basic popularity. All of the aforementioned bands listed were popular in their day. All of them had chart topping albums (and singles, in most cases). Current popularity lays a foundation on which their later status can be built, and current popularity enables a band to build up enough hits that later radio stations feel they need to play them all. Of course, popularity has many dimensions, some of them easy to measure (record sales), but some of them less tangible.
This is the problem with the Clash. They weren’t that popular when they were around, which is why they don’t get played on the radio that much today, even though London Calling is consistently recognized as one of the greatest albums ever. (Ironically, neither of the songs which do get airplay are from that album.)
Of course, popularity, by itself, is not enough. The Monkees (to pick just one easy example) were hugely popular in their day, but would never be considered true icons. An artist also needs artistic integrity. They need to be respected for their talents. Now, this respect can be built over time, especially when a band is popular out of the gate. The Beatles, of course, were just teen idols at first, until the sheer weight of their talent had to be recognized. Likewise with the Doors, who had to actively fight that image (based primarily on the popularity of “Light My Fire,” very much a mainstream hit, and Morrison’s propensity for posing suggestively in leather pants). Critics dismissed Led Zeppelin when they first came out; it was only later that they acknowledged their talent and influence.
Yes, influence. Along with talent comes influence. To become a lasting icon you need to be influential. All of the bands mentioned meet this criteria. But again, it is not enough in itself; there are many influential bands which fail to meet this criteria. Perhaps primary among them are the Velvet Underground. Sure, they influenced a ton of bands, but even today, how many people actually listen to them, rather than just name-checking them? And when was the last time you heard any VU song played on the radio, on any station?
On the other hand, being massively influential can compensate for moderate popularity. Take David Bowie, who, while certainly popular, was never huge like the Beatles, Stones, or Zeppelin. And if you go by record sales, he barely makes the grade. But he was influential enough to balance that out, and he makes the list.
The next factor is innovation, which obviously goes with influence — a band needs to innovate in order to influence future bands. But the catch is, they can’t be too innovative. They need to move rock music forward, but only incrementally. Their music has to still sound familiar, just a touch different. This is the real problem with the Velvet Underground. They were too innovative; music has still barely caught up with them. Likewise artists such as Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart.
Let’s go back to the Clash here. This, the question of innovation and influence, is where I think they qualify (in addition to producing one of the greatest albums ever). The strange, but key, thing is that their innovation was almost an anti-innovation. They showed that punk rock could be more than three-chords thrashed out by people with minimal talent. Their innovation was to show that punk (which had started as a break from everything rock had become) really did link back to what had come before. And then, on Sandinista, they showed that it connected to music from all around the world. This essentially opened the way for U2, R.E.M., and every other alternative band of the 80s. (I do realize that this is still a tenuous argument; you are free to disagree with me about their status.)
So we have popularity, talent, influence, and innovation. But there is still one more thing, something much more elusive, which moves an artist into true icon status. I can only call it mythos. All of the artists which make it to this level have some background story, usually involving mystery and myth, which exists outside of their music.
Take Led Zeppelin, for example. In 1970, there were a number of bands doing the same thing as Zep (mixing old blues with hard rock)i – bands such as Ten Years After and Mountain. As guitarists, both Alvin Lee and Leslie West (those bands’ guitarists, respectively) were at least as good as Jimmy Page. In fact, if someone were to have asked a rock fan who might go on to be legendary in 1970, the smart money was probably on Mountain – who had at least as much supergroup cred as Zep (West had already established himself as a guitarist, and bassist Felix Pappalardi was well known for working with Cream as a producer and side musician). So why did Zeppelin conquer the mountain of fame and reputation, and the other two are mostly forgotten today? Zeppelin built a myth around themselves, whether it was rumors of Satanism, or of pleasuring groupies with dead fish.
This is also how the Doors overcame their teen idol rep. Morrison replaced it with his own myth of Native American mysticism, drug use, and outrageous stage behavior. Suddenly they were a “dangerous” band. Once they were freed of the teen idol label, people could actually consider the darkness of Morrison’s lyrics and the actual musical talents of the band.
Then, of course, Morrison died young, and their mythology was complete. Ah yes, dying young. The ultimate myth builder, all the way back to Buddy Holly. This is especially true if the method of death already fits the reputation of the artist. Imagine for a minute that Kurt Cobain died in a plane crash; would that have enhanced his reputation nearly as much as his suicide did? Jimi Hendrix dying from drugs, John Bonham from alcohol, Sid Vicious OD’ing after murdering his girlfriend – they all fit the myth.
On the other hand, dying young doesn’t guarantee anything. Take poor Janis Joplin, who, at one time, seemed destined for certain icon status. Her star has faded considerably in recent years. It’s hard to say why – was she not innovative enough? Not really popular enough? Maybe the reason that her influence waned was just symptomatic of blues belters falling out of fashion; there aren’t enough singers today who cite her as a key model. It does show just how fickle and, to a degree, inexplicable this whole icon thing can be.
Then there is the opposite of dying young – a long career. Perhaps strangely, there is almost an inverse relationship between the length of an artist’s career and their lasting status. A certain body of work is necessary, but four or five years is plenty to accomplish that. The Beatles only lasted eight years (as a group) in the public eye. The Doors four, Hendrix and Nirvana really only had three years each as stars. If anything, a finite, rather than open-ended, career seems to help. Sure, the Stones have hit fifty years as a band, but their reputation is still based on their first ten. Nothing they have done since 1972 (except Some Girls) has added anything to their reputation. They are only lucky it hasn’t detracted from their status. Pretty much the same is true of David Bowie.
The artist who can truly extend his/her/their career without damaging their status is very rare. Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and Neil Young come to mind, and all three endured long slumps when the public mostly dismissed their work. Dylan’s status as a true icon was unassailable, but his work since the 90s has enhanced it. Springsteen and Neil Young can be inconsistent, but they put out an album good enough to, at the least, maintain their rep every few years.
Each of those case histories is a glowing endorsement of how (theoretically) simple it can be for an artist to live forever if they play their cards right and really work their strengths, but take U2. Like the Clash, they are a borderline candidate for this list. We could probably argue forever about whether they qualify as a true icon. My objections to them are the exact opposite of the Clash. They had the popularity, they have multiple songs on the radio today; but who did they influence? More to the point, are there any bands today which will eagerly admit to being influenced by U2? Their problem, as I see it, is that they stuck around for too long. If they had broken up after Joshua Tree or even Achtung Baby!, their reputation would be secure. But instead they limp along, and every lackluster album they release actually diminishes their reputation.
So where does all this leave today’s rock artists? Can they rise to true icon status? I won’t say it’s impossible, but it would be very difficult. An examination of the factors I just listed will demonstrate why.
1. Popularity: Today’s music market is far too fractured for mass popularity, at least on the scale of the Beatles, or even the Doors. Those musicians who do manage to achieve widespread popularity are usually pop, or rap, not rock. Rock music itself no longer has the base to build massive popularity on.
2. Artistic Integrity: This is probably the one area where today’s bands have it good. Without mass popularity for them to chase and be distracted by, they are free to produce artistically relevant music. Most rock artists today are doing it for the music, not because they crave stardom. So, what rock music is being put out today is usually pretty good. But…
3. Innovation: Unfortunately, despite their integrity, today’s bands aren’t very innovative. How can they be? What’s left to innovate in rock music? Most successful rock bands today achieve that by refining already existing sounds and styles. Those bands which are truly innovative fall off the other end of the scale — they are too innovative, are too unlike anything else out there.
This is the crux of the problem for today’s bands. Rock is basically played out. There’s nowhere else to go, nowhere to lead other bands. And that leading is key to becoming an icon. Which brings us to..
4. Influence. Frankly, influence who?
5. Mythos: Mythos is so much harder to accomplish these days. There are two reasons for this. One is that the “rockstar lifestyle” so vital to the mythos of bands like Zeppelin and the Stones has become a stereotype, even a caricature. And the alienated loner (such as Kurt Cobain) has also become a cliche.
Those musicians who manage to achieve some level of mythos aren’t even in rock anymore. They’re pop stars like Lady Gaga and Ke$ha; and their mythos is so obviously manufactured: “Look at how outrageous I am!”
The other problem is that, with the internet, rumor can be verified, or debunked, pretty quickly. Part of mythos is mystery. Did Jim Morrison really expose himself on stage? Did Led Zeppelin really pleasure a groupie with a fish? (Or was that Vanilla Fudge?) A couple of clicks of your mouse, and you can probably find the video which proves or disproves the chicanery of the current breed of rockstar. Without ambiguity and great events occurring (or not occurring) which are impossible to prove (because everyone would prefer they're not proven), it's awfully difficult to to build the story of a legend.
So things don’t look good for today’s rock artists. I just don’t see much opportunity to become the Led Zeppelin of 2035. Sorry.
Postscript: Rap, on the other hand, is still open. It’s popular enough to gain a reputation. There’s still room for innovation (personally, I think rap is ready for its own punk revolution). And there still a possibility of creating mythos. But that’s a discussion for a different writer.
