Will we always need rock stars?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Or have we just needed them for a certain few decades? Not to be replaced with something else, but just to be made unneccessary, or not all that important? I ask because, well, when I was little, I felt like my rock stars were incredibly necessary for me and now, they are not so much, much less the new rock stars that have come along lately. But stumbling across a livejournal page or two, it's clear to me that music, and rock stars, continue to be huge life-giving infusions to millions. So, am I just getting older or what?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 03:42 (nineteen years ago)

you are getting old, yes.

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 03:44 (nineteen years ago)

So, rock stars will be a going concern in 2030?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 05:53 (nineteen years ago)

Even while you drink up your Metamucil.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 05:54 (nineteen years ago)

Feck that's what I was afraid of.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 05:54 (nineteen years ago)

"What a DRAG it is getting old!"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 05:55 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, I can imagine needing the rock stars of today, when I'm like, 60. But by then "rock" will probably mean something totally different.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 05:57 (nineteen years ago)

"Rock" will be like "ragtime" or something, and people will play it in period movies.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 05:59 (nineteen years ago)

But they'll get it wrong, and they'll play their guitars and it'll come out sounding like techno.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 06:00 (nineteen years ago)

i wish there were more ragtime in period movies these days!

― having fun with stockholm cindy on stage (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 06:04 (nineteen years ago)

why does people hate the rock?

― shadow foot (van dover), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 06:08 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.musicdawn.by.ru/images/the_chemical_brothers/chemical_brothers_2.jpg

― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 06:27 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/images/bank/programmes_tv/ent/300look_serafinowicz2.jpg

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 06:49 (nineteen years ago)

speaking of needing rock stars...
watched a pretty cool docu-thingy on jesse james on a tv station tonight. all about the myth v. reality disparity thing. he was kind of like a rock star in his day. crazy "performances" (cold-blooded murders). lots of hype in the press and whatnot. then he fell out of favor (killed too many innocent bystanders and stuff like that) and disappeared for a time. then he started missing the good press and tried to get the gang (or band) back together and go on a new killing spree (or dinosaur rock tour playing county fairs). but it just didn't have the same pizazz or pinache or flare and one of his replacement gang (band) members ended up shooting him in the back of the head from 3 feet away when he stepped up on a chair to do some dusting around the house. so, in conclusion, jesse james was like a rock star that we needed then in those days and always will no matter what. but hopefully without all the killing people in cold blood and cutting off of genitals and stuffing them into their cold dead mouths to frighten the local townsfolk.

― andrew m. (andrewmorgan), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 08:01 (nineteen years ago)

You may not need rock stars, but are you sure you don't have any musical heroes that you find inspirational and stuff? The posturing on stage is peripheral - wizened old music theory profs look to Schoenberg to reaffirm that man can conquer history, the odds and himself, high school kids look to the lead singer of Staind.

― Lukas (lukas), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 08:09 (nineteen years ago)

"music theory profs", errrrr

― Lukas (lukas), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 08:11 (nineteen years ago)

I would say that the majority of the bands I listen to have precisely ZERO rock stars. I guess that means that a band doesn't need any "rock stars" to be good. That is of course when you say "rock star", you mean a self indulgent "musician" with big hair.

― xgurggleglgllg (xgurggleglgllg), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 08:13 (nineteen years ago)

Obsession with celebrities has replaced rock stars. Paris Hilton, for example. No talent or big hair required, just be rich, stupid and slutty.

― Fastnbulbous (Fastnbulbous), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 05:54 (nineteen years ago)

or just slutty

― xgurggleglgllg (xgurggleglgllg), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 06:58 (nineteen years ago)

"without all the killing people in cold blood and cutting off of genitals and stuffing them into their cold dead mouths to frighten the local townsfolk."

Yeah, settle down, Paris.

― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 07:06 (nineteen years ago)

either scare people or make them horny and you've got it made!

― xgurggleglgllg (xgurggleglgllg), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 08:26 (nineteen years ago)

whatever happened to COOL rockstars?

― Vintage Latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 12:18 (nineteen years ago)

Replace "rock stars" with "role models" and the answer is yes. We (or the generation below us) will always need role models.

However, I think for me especially my role models were almost exclusively rock stars. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. But I'd rather a rock star than a vaccuous "celebrity" - but this goes along with what people were saying on the Smash Hits threads. That giving pop stars press training removes a lot of what was interesting and bonkers and compelling about stars in the first place.

― She's In Parties (kate), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 12:46 (nineteen years ago)

who were the role models before rock stars?

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 14:24 (nineteen years ago)

nazis

― Vintage Latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 14:30 (nineteen years ago)

as rock stars provide the security that one can trancend a workaday life where the individual is displaced and not part of history they will be needed in some form. it may not be "rock" but some sort of star. people, untill they can feel content with the benefits of daily life and take pleasure in their simple being (rather than constantly fixating on becoming), will need supermen and glowing "immaterial" things to reach for.

you can find the answer by adressing what you once needed yr idols for and comsidering what happened to those needs. yr not so different from the rest.

― bb (bbrz), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

Jazz Stars, Film Stars, Cowboys, Kings...

― She's In Parties (kate), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 15:15 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, I understand this business about celebrity and hero worship, but this question is specifically about rock stars. In the thousands of years prior to the 1950s, people apparently didn't need them at all, so it seems presumptuous and egotistical to imagine people always would from here on out.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

they wont...there will be an eventual obselescence when something cooler comes along...

― bb (bbrz), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 20:10 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.