First, I would add a band to your list of timelessness. Pink Floyd is still amazing and has withstood the test of time thus far. I am pretty sure that trend will continue because the ethereal qualities and vague nature of the subject matter will capture music fans attentions for a long time.

That leads me to the heart of my point. Certain bands will forever live on if they have captured enough of a sound that will influence for generations to come. The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin have certainly done that. Black Sabbath has also done it to a lesser extent as they have influenced primarily the heavy acts of today. I think anyone who isn't into the heavy music of today would have a tough time picking it up and enjoying it for the first time.

Personally I have never liked the Rolling Stones. I am not sure what their musical impact has been over the years. They still play and tour, so they haven't faded, but by the same token I don't think they are as much of an influence musically as some of their peers. Stylistically, Mick Jagger will live on forever because of the "front man" qualities, but I am not sure about the actual music.

As for today's acts living on, I think it depends on who catches on as far as the influencers. You have Radiohead and Coldplay who are both some of the biggest bands out there right now. It wouldn't surprise me if Radiohead lived on forever, but Coldplay is forgotten about eventually. It all depends on the bands that will eventually come from the generation of kids listening to the two bands today.

The image-based artists ie popstars will also disappear as time goes along unless they actually have some talent. For example, Britney Spears is an image. She isn't really that talented a singer. She won't have a lot of staying power. Christina Aguilera on the other hand has the image thing going, but it has been noted that she has some real tangible singing ability, so she has the potential to live on depending on where her sound goes.

Anyway, it would be really fun to go artist by artist and predict where you think they will fall in the future, but it isn't a science so there are no right answers.

Craig, it was most certainly an oversight to not mention Pink Floyd as one whose music remains timely. I think they are an exception in the rock world. There is a significant number of rock artists whose music remains relevant, but I think they are vastly outnumbered by those whose art has faded with time.

One might also rank pre-Abacab Genesis with the timeless.

Please define timelessness. I am 37, and as someone who was never cognizant of the "context" of the Who and the Kinks, I find much of their music meaningful and thrilling. Perhaps this is more about the evolution of your own aesthetics than about the value of the music you describe. If you don't think that the Kinks have aged well for yourself as a listener, that's one thing. If you think that they have not aged well for posterity, I think that it might go the other way. You say that Blues has entered a time warp, but it is intricately tied to a certain milieu that has long gone from this world. I would agrue that it is just context-dependent as the Who. And it is just as enjoyable right now.

Perhaps experiencing the music out of context is the only way to appreciate "timelessness?"

Gotta disagree. While we might not be talking about David Lee Roth in reverential tones in 30 years, we will about U2, Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M., The Ramones, Radiohead, Neil Young, Oasis hell even Guns and Roses. Add to this the country specific bands like The Tragically Hip, Cowboy Junkies and Blue Rodeo in Canada and any other number of bands that I don't have time to name. When I listen to Muddy Waters I am listening to a man who really made his mark in the '50s and who is still excellent today. When I'm talking about Springsteen I don't yet have that hindsight since he's still cranking music out today. As far as the context of the times go, yah some of the political tunes haven't aged well but I somehow think that "Everybody Hurts" and "Where the Streets Have No Name" will still tingle spines 30 years from now. Anyhow, it's all subjective since some people still don't care for jazz no matter how well it's aged and they will still take "Get Off Of My Cloud" in it's place any day. Don't write off rock and roll so soon since right now my 8 year old son seems to be enjoying the CD he's listening to on headphones right now: Rush's Test For Echo. I'll go down and remind him that it's crap. I'm sure he will disagree. And then he will rummage through the CDs looking for another favourite of his: Hot Rocks by the Rolling Stones. The kid's got taste.
Later.

First of all, I'd like to clarify a bit. I did not mean that all popular music recorded between 1960 and 1990 should be relegated to the trash can. I did not attempt to create a post that encapsulated all musical performers whose art dates itself, versus those whose art survives the test of time. I gave a very few examples of those who, in my opinion, fit into each category. I mentioned roughly 40 artists in my post, which is obviously an infinitesimally tiny slice of music history.

It seems that Mark (comment 5) wants to create a list of musicians whose art will still be timely and honored, spoken about with enthusiasm and creating followers 30 years from now. While I might disagree with some of his choices, I'm certain that some of today's performers will still sound great 30 years down the road. I'm also convinced that a much larger number of them will date themselves. While Casablanca and Room with a View remain timeless classics of the silver screen, the Tarzan serials and Randolph Scott westerns have not aged as well. I'm certain that some music of today will fit the Casablanca mold, while other music will seem, twenty years from now, as dated as a Johnny Weissmuller film.

Drew disagrees with my opinion about the Kinks, and with Dan's opinion of the Who. That's why I created this post, to discover what other folks thought about older rock - whether it's aging gracefully or turning into a bloated old hag.

i'm with mark. true, some rock has become dusty and meaningless with age, but a lot of it -- including old jefferson airplane -- still fills me with excitement.

this topic is particularly relevant to me because i have spent a lot of time driving lately, and when not listening to cassette tapes (old and new) or news stuff, i flip between baltimore's classic rock station, the "modern rock" station, the "progressive rock" station, and the "adult hot contemporary" station, so i can go from hearing creedence ("who'll stop the rain") to outkast ("hey ya") to linkin park ("numb") to britney ("me against the music") to aerosmith ("sweet emotion") to coldplay ("in my face") to greg kihn band ("867-5309/jenny") to steely dan ("peg") to allison krauss to the stones ("beast of burden") to the eagles ("life in the fast lane") to the ataris ("boys of summer"; interesting coincidence) to steely dan again; lucky me ("the royal scam") to soft cell ("tainted love") to foo fighters ("ready to fly") to zep ("kashmir") to REM ("it's the end of the world") to richard thompson ("bathsheba smiles" and so did i) to dave matthews ("that's what you say") to liz phair ("why can't i") to styx ("renegade," yeah!) to simply red ("sunrise") to fittycent ("p.i.m.p." -- what? oh, hit the hip hop station by mistake) to disturbd ("prayer") to u2 ("where the streets have no name") to the beatles ("get back") to foutains of wayne ("stacy's mom") right in a row. on the whole, i find the older rock more memorable and of higher quality than most of the newer stuff. and i am convinced that a lot more of the older stuff will stand the test of time. i love jazz, classical, blues, and all, but this kid lifts her goblet to memorable rock. and i don't care what others may say, it's a beautiful day will always be memorable to me.

Oh Lordy, if I disagreed any more I'd pop something.

ALL of the great rock 'n' rollers from the '50s hold up like they were recorded yesterday: tremendous energy, vitality, insouciance, rebelliousness. I couldn't love Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison, Carl Perkins any more than I do, and it only grows over time.

The '60s is different and more varied but just as great in composite: Beatles of course, Dylan, the Band, I can't imagine a blues fan not swooning over the Stones! "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" and "Sticky Fungers" are two of the greatest blues albums of all time. The best of the British Invasion holds up just as well: "Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy" has EVERYHING: great melodies, amazing riffs, the best drumming in the history of rock 'n' roll, touching and funny lyrics. "Can't Explain," "Substitute" and "The Kids Are Alright" are three of the greatest songs ever recorded by anyone anytime. The Kinks are a step down, but not far - "Muswell Hillbillies" is still an amazing album. Hendrix, The Byrds, the Doors, Cream, early Led Zep, Creedence, Phil Spector, the best of Motown, even early Jethro Tull and Moody Blues, and on and on. Truly "classic" rock 'n' roll holds up as well as anything else.

I also totally disagree about surf music. What could be sweeter than the "teenage symphonies to God" of the Beach Boys at their best? The surf guitar of Dick Dale, the Ventures, and isolated hits from so many others?

How about the Velvet Underground? It just goes on and on. I'll leave it at '50s and '60s rock 'n' roll - there's so much it hurts. I can't imagine ever feeling a scintilla less about any one of them - if anything I value greatness of any era more over time.

ooh, i'm with eric too. the beach boys' timeless "god only knows" is running through my brain right now, and i'm getting an itch to hear the who's tommy it its entirety. in fact, i'm going to grab that album and put it onto the turntable in a sec. and the next time i go out, later this afternoon, i will listen to the oldies station and immerse myself in the vibrancy of jerry lee, the big O, and all. roll over beethoven and tell tchaikovsky the news. long live rock.

Seems I'm a minority of one...

Nat, what a great run of tunes - how fun! I love how much you love the things that you love! Part of the advantage of oldies formats of whatever kind is they have th eluxury of sifting through the very best and by now the things they emphasize have stood the test of time. The current stations have to play what's current and don't have that telescoping ability. Their emphasis can't be so much "quality" as it is the "excitement' of the new, the currency of current.

And by the way, my pet, "867" was Tommy Tutone, though Greg would be honored.

Eric, as I stated in the original post "Notable exceptions are the heavily blues-influenced performers". Zep, Cream, Hendrix, Creedence and early Moody Blues certainly fit that description.

It was Dan who mentioned the Who. I should have specifically disavowed that one, but it got me thinking, and prompted me to write this post.

We'll never agree on surf music (Dick Dale excepted) or the Stones.

Nat - As for It's a Beautiful Day, I loved them enough to try out for David LaFlamme's band in 1981 (didn't make it) but to me they now sound faded, like a beloved pair of jeans that's been through the wash too many times. Steve Miller and Quicksilver, too.

Oh, god, that's right, Eric, thanks. The downside to my method of radio listening is that you don't always hear the backannounces (usually no loss [except that i can't recall the name of the krauss tune, which was awesome]; jocks today are nowhere near as memorable as the DJs of old). And being old, my memory -- which is still pretty good, obviously -- isn't always running at 100 percent. Cheers to Tommy Tutone, and thanks for setting me right after my "senior moment." Greg Kihn did the "Jeopardy" song, right? ("Our love's in jeopardy, baby, ooooooh") Not particularly memorable, that one. I do recall his "Breakup Song," which complains, ironically, "They don't write 'em like that anymore..."

You're right about modern vs. oldies formats; the nature of the beast is that the oldies stations have to be better than those featuring current hits -- they have to play quality music in order to justify their existence, whereas "currents" stations have to play what's new and hot, whether or not the music is good. (although props to them for often picking cool "recurrents" to spin.)

I've worked in broadcasting for eons and when recalling radio in the '70s and '80s, there was a lot of then-popular stuff that isn't getting play on today's oldies stations, and for good reason. At the same time, I still believe a higher percentage of older rock will end up being remembered than stuff from this era. I hope that changes; I would like my kids to have more quality stuff to revere from their generation than, say, "The Thong Song." It isn't fair for them to have that when we get Bad Company's seductive and rockin' "Feel Like Makin' Love."

You mentioned the greatest drumming -- I'm listening to Keith Moon at work now. Man -- wow!

Tal -- you auditioned for IABD? I am so impressed!!! They will always be awesome to me, along with all that stuff a lot of people consider pass&eacure -- Fairport, Renaissance, early Plainsong.

Oh, and right on about pre-abacab Genesis. Abacab was the last of their albums that I bought (save Three Sides Live, which I purchased because I interviewed Collins during that tour, which wasn't bad). Stellar production aside, I still can't wrap my heart around what became the Phil Collins Band. But early Genesis, particularly the Peter Gabriel-era stuff, is masterful and absolutely timeless. Can you recall the spiralling piano intro into "The Lamb Lies Down..."? AAAAAH! And when Phil did his damnedest to be PeterRedux on the fab "A Trick of the Tail"? "Sail away, away / Ripples never come back..." Sublime.

Tal, I sense a lack of regard for the "pop" end of pop-rock. As a musician, surely you can appreciate the medodies, harmonies and structure of the Beach Boys? It's some of the sweetest music ever recorded.

Do you like power-pop? I can't live without the Raspberries, Bad Finger, Shoes, Artful Dodger, early Tood Rundgren, 20/20, the Records, even the Cars, etc, etc.

Nat, exactly right about Genesis down to the punctuation, although I fizzled out after Trick of the Tail. Abacab was an interesting comeback, though.

I agree that some of the West Coast arty-crunchy stuff sounds a bit dated, and the songwriting sounds a bit spotty now, but the best of IABD (I like the LaFlamme rerecordings as much or better), Quicksilver (dig the big, reverbed sound), New Riders, Steve Miller #1, Joy of Cooking, etc., still sound really great.

Tal, you must have been good! That's cool about LaFlamme - I love those violin bands from around then: IABD, McKendree Spring, Pavlov's Dog, Sugarcane Harris with Zappa.

By the way, did you know Charles Johnson (LGF) was a touring and recording guitarist with Stanley Clarke, Al Jarreau, and George Duke?

Nat, yes, "Jeopardy" and "The Breakup Song" were Greg Kihn. I loved that guy. If you get a chance, check out my history of Beserkley Records post here.

Pavlov's Dog!!!

Pop-rock is a beautiful and serious thing. Its best practitioners -- from the brill building denizens to the barenaked ladies -- are successful because they are skilled artists and craftspersons. so good to see that there is another fan of it here. :)

I worship worship worship Todd Rundgren. Especially his pop classics. But i liked the nazz and really dug the quirky utopia too. Todd is all about the art, and that is a laudable attitude.

The Berserkley piece is great, Eric. I love so much of that stuff (Jonathan Richman's music is etched on my soul). And it was news to me that Matthew King Kaufman was a Baltimore boy! Very cool.

Natalie -
LaFlamme got kicked out of IABD long before I tried out for the David LaFlamme Band, and IABD was many years defunct. David and his then (and perhaps still) wife were fronting a five-piece outfit, playing out-of-the-way little shitholes. They were looking for a guitarist to replace and be better than the guy who was about to leave the band. I didn't cut it. I was about the middle of the pack of 5 guys who auditioned that weekend. It was fun performing Grand Camel Suite and White Bird with him, though. No way could I play the White Bird licks from Live At Carnegie Hall, however.
And BadCo still sounds great.

Eric, I have a thing against most pop. I heartily dislike Rundgren's music (with the exception of a couple of songs). I missed the whole Madonna thing, never liked Cyndi Lauper, hated the 80s hair bands, avoided radio-worthy Bowie, never bought a Fixx album, etc. etc.

Charles Johnson (LGF)??? I'm missing the reference, sorry.

I saw Greg Kihn at one of the very last shows at a theatre on the main road between the campus and the docks in Berkeley in '84 (haven't been back since, so I've forgotten the name of both the venue and the road.) He was awful. Of course, I saw Roy Buchanan the night before at the same place, and Zappa the next night at the Greek Theatre, so it might simply be an unfortunate comparison.

I must have misunderstood exactly what we were talking about. You are saying that for you guys the stuff of yesterday remains viable. That's fine, but I am speaking about the next generation who hasn't had any connection to it. Will they hear it from their parents and say "hey, I need to listen to more of this!"? You, having been the ones who grew up with it can't say whether it will last. It isn't your decision to make. I don't know, I was looking beyond myself because when you have specific experiences that relate to when an album came out you really have no reason for it to fall away. For example, obviously the Velvet Underground will always be special to you Eric, but will the subsequent generation carry it on after you are around? Tough to say.

Thanks Nat, I love the helium weirdness that was the first Pavlov's Dog album, produced by Pearlman and Krugman of Blue Oyster Cult, Dictators, etc. fame. Kind of like alternative-Kansas or something.

Beserkley was the coolest - Matthew is married to my friend Jaan.

Tal, it's never too late for pop my friend. Charles Johnson runs the Little Green Footballs site, one of the biggest warblogs.

I'll admit it, even though I have trouble admitting even to myself that I like some pop. I love Boston and Del Amitri.

You make a good point, Craig, but there is much timeless music I revere that came before my birth. Just got back from my afternoon run and, as promised, listened to the oldies station, which primarily plays stuff from the '50s and early '60s (meaning, before I was born or musically conscious). I heard:

chuck berry - maybelline
beatles - things we said today
stones - honky tonk women
jay & the techniques - apples, peaches, pumpkin pie
smokey robinson & the miracles - goin' to a gogo
jimmy ruffin - what becomes of the brokenhearted
byrds - mr. tambourine man
zager & evans - in the year 2525
buddy holly - oh boy
rivieras - california sun

you're right - we have no idea what the kids will treasure in the future. i do know that my son (age 7) loves '60s and '70s stuff, grateful dead, and bob marley -- he's especially a huge hendrix nut and zappa zealot -- and my hop hop aficionada daughter took a serious liking to steely dan without her mom's prompting (of course, i do a lot of surreptitious "music appreciation" activities with them so that they get to hear the good stuff, just as my relatives passed jazz, blues, big band, '50s rock and classical on to me. i'm thinking of installing a chalkboard here, a la school of rock, that has a rock-n-roll family tree scrawled all over it). we geezers have to take the initiative of introducing kids to quality music of old if we expect them to revere it and pass it on to their kids. and, in my experience, a lot of young'uns know the beatles and the doors and motown and zeppelin and black sabbath and hendrix, etc. AS THEY SHOULD!

there's no shame in it Tal - let yourself go, dude.

Craig, the answer is "yes."

Oh, you want more? How old do you think I am? I was born in '58, so I didn't experience anything in real time until the mid-'60s and didn't really know what was going on until the early-'70s. I worked my way back through all of this mostly after the fact. I didn't know about the Velvet Underground until "Transformer." We are now almost 50 years after the birth o rock in the '50s and Elvis is selling like hotcakes. The greats hold up regardless of era. Sinatra sells, Billie Holiday sells, Benny Goodman sells, Robert Johnson sells, Duke Ellington sells - and there aren't a whole lot of people left alive who were digging those guys in their prime.

At this point in time, you'd have to be in your early-60s to have been a teenager in '55 when rock 'n' roll exploded - anyone younger than that has gone back and picked up on da bombs after the fact.

Right, Eric. I spent my pre-teen, teen, and college years digging through old record shops, going to concerts, and inhaling everything I could get my hands on that came before (I turned 42 Thursday). What a sad life it would be if I only had music made from, say, 1970 on. I remember seeing Frank Sinatra perform twice -- at New York's Carnegie Hall and, a few years later, at the more laidback Merriweather Post Pavilion in Columbia, Md. The first gig had an audience of people mid-30s and up (I was in my mid-20s at the time); at the second, there were tons of college kids. And everybody loved it -- loved Frank. Good music is appreciated, and age has nothing to do it. People just need the exposure. When kids get serious about music, they appreciate quality stuff of many generations. And I believe Eric is right: Twenty-five, 50, 100 years hence, Lennon/McCartney will still be among the top songwriters, classic rock will still be cranking with Zep, Sabbath, et al, and Hendrix will still be revered as the best electric guitarist ever.

Mr. Tambourine Man now goes by the name Brother Bru-Bru, and sells hot sauce.

I just heard J.J. Cale's "Crazy Mama" on the radio on the way back from getting Master & Commander tickets. Man, did that bring back memories!

Well, I have an appreciation for the stuff my dad gave me too, but the thing is, do you think I am going to be passing a lot of motown, Hall and Oates, Chicago, Blood Sweat and Tears, etc to my kids? Or do those bands that I know because of my dad stop?

"Hey, Mr. Tambourine Man
Bring that sauce to me.
Eating chicken
And I need some sauce to spice it up..."

If you can judge a band's timelessness by whether "the kids" today like it, I have a few anecdotes about my high school students here in Guadalajara, Mexico which may be useful.

One of my female students is a big Iron Maiden fan. Several of the boys are big on Ozzy and Sabbath. A really high percentage of them seem to like Pink Floyd. One kid skipped class last year to attend a Yes concert in Mexico City. I saw several students at a Red Hot Chili Peppers concert. U2 is big among them also, as are the Clash.

I'm not sure how much that means.

Fascinating! Thanks Greg. I see you have a blog - you should join us. What brings you down Maxico way?

i'm sorry, but i actually like many of the older rock bands.
The Kinks, The Who, The Doors (heheh, history is kinda repeating itself now what with the rash of bands named "The ", the Beach Boys, The Clash, etc. (not forgetting those you have already mentioned)
i'll admit that alot of the 80s rock is "cheesy" rock, and doesnt sound too good IMO. Although there is still some good 80s rock (Judas Priest and Anthrax spring to mind)

I didn't read all of the above comments very carefully but what about Bob Dylan? What about Patti Smith? Even some of the Velvet Underground sounds pretty good to me today. The Eagles, too. And what wrong with the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations"? It's a pretty great recording I think. To suggest Jazz holds up better than rock 'n roll doesn't make sense to me. They both have gems that make it. One is not better than the other in my opinion.

Personally I'd just like to know, if this music is as impossibly dated as all that, why do I still listen to so much of it...

I think Tal's point is... do the kids listen to it? And will their kids and the generation after that listen to it? After all, we still listen to, say, Duke Ellington and Wolfgang Mozart long after their deaths.

Anecdotally I'd say the answer is yes. There are different kinds of listeners, and a certain percentage are really into it for the social aspects of popular music, which means current and popular. But another percentage enter into music from the current/popular door and then follow their own path of exploration. There are all kinds of young people who listen to oldies and classic rock radio.

tal's added text (basically, it's not the music, it's me) gets right to the point about one of the ways i think about music.

i have this kind of argument all the time with friends of mine. one guy in particular is forever tossing music into the 'i hate this pile' because he a) doesn't like the artist's political stance b) thinks the album photo is pretentious c) is sick of song x (pick anything that might have been 'overplayed'), etc.

i think all of these reasons for disliking an artist reflect more on the listener than the artist.

somebody writes a tune and puts it out there...and it doesn't change.

take Prince as an example...find any particular tune with one of his classic uber-funk guitar riffs (i'm sure that Mr. Barger can come up with a few)....it may be that over time a lisenter can decide that that he doesn't like Prince anymore because he's a pretentious twit...that just doesn't change the fact that the guitar riff is still great. sorry, baby, that shit's cast in stone.

Actually, a lot of jazz and classical music is dated. Verdi was an inspiration to the movement to unify Italy; now that that's history, who cares anymore? And who riots at Stravinsky concerts anymore? While the songs from "Porgy and Bess" have lasted, has anybody actually seen the opera? Now THAT's dated. And is anybody really shocked and outraged by "Bitches Brew" anymore? Let's not talk about Third Stream music because, well, who's even heard of it nowadays?

Perhaps if rock isn't aging well for some of us, it's because we were aware of the original context. As the politics become dated, we're conscious of that meaning fading away, so it seems as if the music is not as powerful anymore. But if the music holds up, future generations will be able to add their own meaning to it. Otherwise it will fade away like the vast majority of jazz and classical music that is long since forgotten.

This can all be summed up by one quick statement: if we're still talking about them today, they're indeed relevant and have definitely stood the test of time. If they're causing a controversy over whether they've stood the test of time, they have stood the test of time. If they hadn't we wouldn't even think about them, plain and simple.

And is anybody really shocked and outraged by "Bitches Brew" anymore?

No, but that's not the point. Bitches Brew still remains an intriguing piece of music. Miles didn't make it to shock, he made it because that is where he wanted his music to head. It doesn't sound dated today, and it will likely never sound dated, except in terms of sound quality.

Mark, re comment #35, oh yes, I certainly can. No matter how much he degrades himself now with "slave" nonsense or knocking on doors as a Jehovah's Witness, he wrote and performed "Bambi" and "Play in the Sunshine" and "Tick, Tick, Bang." You can't take that away from him, ever.

For an even far more extreme example of falling apart, consider Michael Jackson. Yeah, at this pint I'd about as soon slap him as look at him. However, he DID make "Bad" and "Billie Jean" and "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" and "Will You Be There?" Even if MJ were to become OJ, he still made Thriller.

I'll add for your consideration, The Mystic Knights of the Mau Mau in New Orleans.

Taking into account Sturgeon's Law, and considering that over 90 per cent of copyrights in books and music are out of print, and the sheer volume of releases in the past 30 years, it is inevitable that most titles don't age well. Over the last 20 there has been steady inflation of the number of releases, and just like monetary inflation, it isn't good for the system.

One significant difference between jazz and da blues and rock ('n' roll) is that jazz 'n' blues are primarily live performance arts, while rock 'n' roll came out of the shift of popular music being a recorded medium from the 50s on.

Also, a lot of consumer items are meant to be consumed. Sure it's a coffee cup, but the question should be, is it a paper cup from Tim Horton's or is it a steel thermos or fine china?

Taloran says, "I very much doubt that the majority of today's popular music will sound good twenty years hence." There's no doubt about that. Music from the 60s, even top hits, from groups such as The Spiral Staircase, The Buckinghams, The Five Americans, The Blues Magoos, Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, Jr. Walker and the All Stars, The Electric Prunes, Peter & Gordon, and so forth, sounds like music from the 60s, i.e., old. If you like any of those (and I'm not saying that I don't), I claim that it's just nostagia. I still like "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies because it reminds me of certain events from my childhood. Foghat used to kick ass in my book. Now they just sound silly, although I get that nostalgic kick from hearing "I don't wantcha to be sad and blue, I just wanna make love to you."

The Beach Boys and The Doors are representative of the very small minority of groups from 30-40 years ago that are still respected today. Similarly, the vast majority of popular acts today will fade away. It doesn't strike me as an arguable point. 'Twas always thus. However, I would extend that claim to all forms of music -- jazz and classical are not immune. For every Debussy there are 100 Delalandes (who? exactly).

I think I agree with Duane the most so far. Sure we will remember Nirvana and some of those bands from the 90's but will anyone be keeping the Gin Blossoms alive for years and years? How about the Spin Doctors with their 3 big hits? Does anyone even remember those guys today? Hyperbole, yes, but I think you get my point.

I agree with me most of all.

Different strokes for different folks. To me most Jazz sucked. However I did like the Jazz of the late 50s and early 60s -- Monk, Coltrane, Mingus, Miles, Eric Dolphy. The fusion Jazz of the 70s was contrived. There are very few new Jazz faces these days ... at least none that have captured me. If Diana Krall is Jazz then I like her but calling her Jazz seems unusual to me.

Hi Marty, I would call her cool cocktail pop

This is my list of "Essential CD's of 2005" you should own!

(1.) RIC OCASEK ......................... NEXTERDAY

This CD showcases former CARS frontman/singer Ocasek's talents as a songwriter from the instant classic "Crackpot" to his clever synthesizer hooks on the song "Bottom Dollar"

(2.) TODD RUNDGREN .................. BEST OF TODD RUNDGREN LIVE

For you Cars fans, fasten your seat belts because after you listen to this CD you will find that NEW CARS singer Todd Rundgren is "just what you needed" and its time to let the "good times roll"!

(3.) PAUL MCCARTNEY ................ CHAOS AND CREATION IN THE BACKYARD

McCartney plays the majority of the instruments on this album including bass, guitar, keyboards, and drums. Hear that 50 Cent, Kanye West and Eminem? Yes, they are called musical Instruments! Standout songs include "Promise To You Girl" and "Fine Line".

(4.) HERBIE HANCOCK ................ POSSIBILITIES

Possibilities, by jazz piano/keyboard/ legend Herbie Hancock is a multigenerational masterpiece. Hancock's tight synthesizer solos energize all of the songs. Special guest musicians include Sting, Trey Anastasio from Phish, Annie Lennox, Santana, Joss Stone, and blues guitarist Jonny Lang.

(5.) DAVE MATTHEWS BAND ........ STAND UP

Longtime fans of the DMB will find all of their favorite elements here. World music inspired grooves and riffing, (jaw dropping drum beats) which I like especially, extended jams, and of course Matthews unique singing voice. Check out songs "American Baby" and "Everybody Wake Up".

(6.) KATE BUSH .......................... AERIAL

Often called the female version of a Peter Gabriel. Kate Bush's Aerial is a welcome return from one of pop music's true icons and vocal wonders! With its Depeche Mode influenced synthesizers the song "King Of The Mountain" is vintage Kate Bush.

(7.) BECK .................................. GUERO

Essentially a sequel to Beck's 1996 magnum opus "Odelay". High points include the songs "E-pro", Guero, and "Black Tambourine".

(8.) THE WALLFLOWERS .............. REBEL, SWEETHEART

With this CD, Jakob Dylan, yes the son of Bob Dylan and The Wallflowers strike a complete balance between a full band sound, witty lyrics and skillfully constructed song hooks. Standout songs include "All Things New Again" and "God Says Nothing Back"!

(9.) OASIS ................................. DON"T BELIEVE THE TRUTH

Highlights include the stampeding opener "Turn Up The Sun" and "Part Of The Queue". This cd proves Oasis can still crank out psychedelic yet energetic rock.

(10.) WEEZER ............................ MAKE BELIEVE

A diverse album filled with Beatleesque hooks. Featuring the song "Freak Me Out" which has an intriguing texture of layered guitar harmonics. Cool Mon!

Deep Purple a classic band, that are still doing something NOW, not just nostalgia.

Their latest album "Rapture of the Deep" is great, and sold over a million copies worldwide. Without the help of the media.

I agree. Deep purple are one of the greats, that has aged well.

Many bands of their age (Stones & Who) are embarrasing. Ripping apart their legacy. Not Purple.