Well, playing thrash metal adequately is quite involved and demanding.
Also, as per the OP, how “lucky” is someone who just plays on one or two records and a bunch of shows, and doesn’t receive almost any of the perks of stardom?
It depends on the performer and the era. Earlier productions were relatively static, modern ones are more dynamic, even quite physical sometimes.
As for Pavarotti, he was known, and at times criticized, for his relative immobility. He basically stood on stage and sang (wonderfully). So, not a good fit for The Stones.
All musical styles need emotion. Moreover, technique and emotion are not incompatible, quite the contrary. An artist can be far more expressive with solid and wide-ranging technical skills.
Yep. I’m pretty much not interested in his post-White Stripes output. White Stripes had the correct amount of charm, balls-to-the-wall rock-and-roll, and songwriting.
I mean, it’s just an opinion and all, but in the early 2000s, I was living in Hungary and their music (along with bands like The Strokes and Yeah Yeah Yeahs) was big among the indie rock scene even there. If you had me name the ten best rock bands of this century, I would most likely name them. I don’t think there’s anything crazy about the statement. And I’m not like a White Stripes fanboi. I don’t have a single album by them. Between them and also the iconic Michel Gondry videos, they are cemented in rock history.
Now influence – I might quibble about that. I don’t know how much influence they’ve had with their 70s garage rock sound. Seemed like everyone at the time was doing some version of that, whether digging though more blues sounds or post-punk sounds.
Well, I’d say they were influential in that there were quite a few rock n’ roll duos that popped up after they did. Even if they didn’t give the other bands the idea, a two person lineup became much more common after their success.
Yes, I’d think there were no Black Keys without the White Stripes. Same basic concept and style, derived from the blues.
I’m not all that familiar with The White Stripes, but it didn’t strike me as a particularly ludicrous statement.
If you had kept the video on for another two seconds, and/or paid attention to the on-screen graphics, you would have seen their support for that claim. It’s not just something they pulled out of their ass.
Keep in mind that their “modern era” seems to mean roughly the twenty-first century, which is past the heyday of most of the all-time “greatest and most important rock bands.”
Yes, if you like them or not, the White Stripes sure were one of the most important and successful pure rock acts of the last 25 years, in a world though where rock becomes more and more unimportant.
You raise a good point. I’m not sure there are 10 influential rock bands in the last 25 years. The genre had long seen its best days by the late 90s. So sure, I’ll give them the “one of the most influential” of the last 25 years, because I can’t even think of another 5 that are worth mentioning. But that’s not a compliment to them; it’s a reflection of the sorry state of rock and roll. Had the White Stripes shown up in the 70s, they would have been laughed off the stage. We’ve lowered our standards quite a bit in this century.
I don’t think so. Remember that the early punk bands were “laughed off the stage” by all those endlessly noodling rock dinosaurs. In the end, the punks had the last laugh. The White Stripes surely also had a punk ethos and would have fitted well in the late seventies among the Cramps, the Blasters, X etc.
I highly, highly doubt it. Have you ever been to one of their shows? I’ve been to exactly one and it’s among the best shows I’ve ever seen and heard. Maybe even the best.
Of course, they’d have been 4 year olds.
I have easily been to over two thousand shows in my life. My primary genres are jam bands, blues, bluegrass, funk and jazz. In my retirement and post covid, I go to three or four shows a week. I am a bit of a music snob.
I have also seen the White Stripes. And they kicked fucking ass. People have different tastes and I get that they might not be to your taste but there is no denying that Jack White is a rare talent and hugely influential. Saying that the White Stripes wouldn’t have been successful in the 70s is just ignorant.
You must not have been around in the 70’s. We think of these eras as being non-stop great music and talent, because that’s the music that survives. But if you were in the thick of the 70’s, man it was often a wasteland of absolute dreck.
You could listen to the radio for an hour without hearing a classic song. Instead you might get treated to “Wildfire”, “Disco Duck”, “Convoy”, “You Light up My Life”, “Feelings”, “Muskrat Love”, “Having My Baby”, about a million bad disco songs, and all kinds of other dreck. The 60’s had its own garbage.
The White Stripes would have been fine, and much better than 90% of the stuff on the air. Because as Theodore Sturgeon said, 90% of everything is crap. That’s been true of music in every decade. Well, maybe I’d bump that to 95% in this decade…
They were the subject/victim of a Weird Al style parody. 'nuff said.
I’ve seen the White Stripes as well, and I agree that they kicked ass.
I don’t know how you can criticize a drummer for being exactly what the creative force in the band wanted. It doesn’t matter that she can’t play Rush songs. What matters is that she plays White Stripes songs exactly the way they were intended to be played, and it sounds great.
How could anyone think most Aerosmith or Black Sabbath fans back in the day wouldn’t have liked White Stripes?
The look Chuck Berry had when playing with John Lennon on The Mike Douglas Show in 1972 and Ono started screeching into the microphone:
I don’t disagree with you on The White Stripes.
I will, however, say that the last 25-30 years has been much worse than the 60s/70s/80s and part of the 90s.
There is a reason so much music has survived and is still played from those eras today.
When I am at a wedding (of kids who were born in the late 90s) there is almost no music played from the 00s and 10s. Not nothing but, 85% of what the DJ is playing or the cover band is playing is much older stuff. I see the same when going to street fairs in the summer. Cover bands are doing older stuff. Not newer stuff despite most people in the audience being 20-30 years old.
I get music appreciation is subjective but I think it is without doubt music is worse today. While there was a lot of dreck in the 70s/80s at least there was a lot of experimentation and different things happening. Now, labels seem to have a formula meant to maximize sales and that does not encourage new things. We see something similar in the movie industry.
/rant off
My tastes (I’m old) favor the first 40 years of Rock and Roll, too. But I think its endurance may be a result of demographics rather than quality (whatever that might mean in an evolving artform). Most of the Rock played is old because most of the people who listen to it are old.
My son (in his early 20’s) tells me that all his friends listen to classic rock. So does he. His favorite band is the Beatles. And it’s not because his parents listen to classic rock, because we have a lot of modern stuff in our playlist (not pop, but indie stuff).
This Pew report is from 2009, so it’s a bit dated. But it has a few surprises.
IV. Rock's Rise | Pew Research Center.
At the time, the demographic with the least interest in Rock was 65+ at 8%. The demographic that liked rock the most was 16-24, at 45%. They liked it more than rap, hip-hop, etc. 30-49 was second at 42%.
The demographic group that had the least interest in rock was the one that came of age during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, so it’s not just nostalgia. Of course some of those pre-date rock and might have thought it was kid’s music or something.
Every single group except those over 65 chose rock as their favorite genre. There is something enduring about rock music that isn’t captured in other pop music.