I guess, if you look at RYM's Rock chart ( https://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1960-1979/g:rock/pop:4/ ),

you'll have a quite good answer to your question, or at least some answers to look further at.

Certainly don't base your conclusions based on classic rock radio stations that seem to be nothing but party music for aging fans who are musically stuck in that era.

While some bands like Pink Floyd and The Beatles are universal and timeless, other bands like The Stooges, Can and Velvet Underground who weren't very popular during their time are now considered some of the best examples of classic rock of the era.

 ^ But if you ask the average 25 year-old about the Velvet Underground they're gonna stare at you like you're a college professor.   And Can, well you can forget about a German Experimental rock band making many new listeners.   AC/DC on the other hand, or Zeppelin or the Stones or Floyd or even Aerosmith, and you have yourself an instant set of new fans.

Queen (31), The Beatles (44), Elton John (102), AC/DC (96) Fleetwood Mac (139), Pink Floyd (144) The Rolling Stones (148), David Bowie (175), Led Zeppelin (198) are the nine classic rock (or pop/rock) in Spotify's top 200. It's good indication because of the listeners age demographic.  And it looks about right to me. These are the bands that typically re-enter the charts every once in a while. Even with a couple of songs. Some of their albums never leave and have been in the charts for decades. It's not just because old folks still listen to them. It wouldn't be enough.

Hipper bands such as VU, Stooges and Can are bigger than they ever were, but I think you'd need a top 10 000 list before they start appearing. 

^ I think a band such are Humble Pie is considered a footnote in the history of rock. More simply forgotten rather than obscure. They didn't really sell that many albums, and they didn't inspired thousands of young men to form a band. Like VU and Stooges has done. I'm not saying it's not an accomplisment to have a scored US gold album, but it's nothing compared to Led Zep. Not then, and most certainly not now. Humble Pie weren't a world wide phenomena either (like all those nine in the Spotify 200 were), and sold virtually nothing outside the anglosphere.

Well to be fair, the AVERAGE 25 year old doesn't even favor rock any more. Many are lost in the world of electronica, hip hop or indie rock post 2000. I'm talking about those who are hardcore music fans and look beyond the shallow radio playing lists, sanctioned top albums by music rags etc.

In all honesty, the public has never been more scattered regarding music but if you go by college radio stations and more aware youngsters, Stooges, Can and proto-punk acts are quite popular.

music they can do by themselves, (hip-hop...

Nowadays, a lot of MCs simply buy pre-made beats to rap over. I'm not a huge fan of that personally. I prefer it when the music is made specifically for the song.

I'm an actual young person, so let me enlighten you guys.*

Steely Dan is probably the biggest one from my experience. I see them referenced literally all the time by young people on Twitter. There's probably more Millenials that know the album Aja by heart than boomers. Fleetwood Mac is one, and it seems like Tusk is especially getting reappraised by the younger generation. Some more new-wave era and later stuff like The Smiths and Talking Heads I see talked about a lot. Young people really like David Byrne for some reason. Also Weather Report much more often than other fusion artists from that period, strangely. That might just be a coincidence honestly. The Grateful Dead seem to come up frequently, as do YMO. Lastly, though I might be especially sensitive to Zappa references (and thus might be a bit biased), he seems to still attract a lot of new fans, which I'm glad to see.

Some specific albums also come up a lot. ITCOTCK is still fairly well known among a surprising amount of people, but I don't see a lot of talk about their other stuff. And I've noticed people who aren't really into older rock music play Black Sabbath's Paranoid a ton. And I mean the album, not just the hit single.

Of course artists like the Beatles and Pink Floyd keep getting discovered by each new generation. But there's some bands commonly seen as classic that don't get brought up that much. Like, for their legendary status, I don't think people talk about the Stones that much anymore. They receive plenty of airplay and most will recognize a lot of their songs, but I don't see them talked about that much.

Also, slightly related, but younger folks have been digging up a lot of Japanese city pop/jazz fusion/yacht rock type artists for some reason. I think the popularity of music you can listen to while you study or work has played a big role in that.

No, Can is pretty popular these days, surprisingly. I've seen Tago Mago referenced a decent amount by people you wouldn't expect it of. That's one of those albums that has for some reason gotten a big boost in popularity compared to how popular it was back in the day.

At record stores I hear kids looking for the normal classic rock bands, especially Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Queen.....some are even looking for 80's new wave bands like Duran Duran.

-

Steely Dan's current popularity among the younger generation is beyond compare (in the grand scheme of things) - and Fleetwood Mac too, obviously.

The Rolling Stones

Queen

Led Zeppelin

The Beatles

Pink Floyd

AC/DC

Metallica

Guns N Roses

Def Leppard

Aerosmith

Rush

The Doors (although maybe not as much as they should be)

Bands most younger people don't have a clue about:

Humble Pie

Uriah Heep

Mountain

Wishbone Ash

Ten Years After

The James Gang

Nektar

ELP

Yes (although more well known than the others in this list)

Thanks for that!  I'm a certified STEM teacher (science, technology, engineering & math)  in Arizona (US grades 6 through 12), and I once queried my students on musical choices.  They were nearly all into rap, although the girls enjoyed the modern dance music as well.  

They asked what Mr. Stack liked, and I said "well, I like the band Yes!" and on their own, they looked up "Close to the Edge!"  They boys said "not bad!!" 

I think it is a matter of exposure.  The young don't quite get the same exposure us old folks had to amazing progressive rock, hard rock etc., and they call that stuff "Dad Rock!"  

However, some bands like Queen are going through a real resurgence!  

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/28/entertainment/queen-music-catalog-sale/index.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/28/entertainment/queen-music-catalog-sale/index.html

^ they play a lot of classic rock songs in modern films such as the Marvel Comics films. The Redbone song "Get Your Love" has been exposed to a whole new generation as have many other sci-fi flick soundtrack additions.

It's weird because the younger generations are the first to have the entire history of music at their fingertip so obviously it takes quite a while to digest a lot of music. It's taken me decades to consume somewhere around 25,000 albums (my best estimate).

MortSahlFan wrote: remembering reading that 70% of the commerce is from bands/artists from the 60/70s, and I'm curious which ones are popular with the young people.

If I included typically 1980's-early 1990's acts, like some of you do:

Metallica (79), Nirvana (120), Guns N' Roses (146), U2 (189) would be added.

-Bon Jovi, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Billy Joel, Aerosmith, Pearl Jam and Johnny Cash follows in the top 200-300.

I used to check out these live YouTube listening parties (prog-rock), and Yes was a common listen, and most of the people in the live chat were younger than 40.

^ No I fundamentally disagree.   People listen to what they like not what's most popular, then or now.   There are reasons Zeppelin were so successful and considered by many to be the greatest rock band and that's because, 1) they kinda were, and 2) a whole bunch of people loved their music, and they all recognize the mistakes, flubs, shortcomings, and sloppiness of the band.   In fact for many, it was a plus and showed the character & soul missing from much music of that era.  

There's also a reason some people think the Beatles were the greatest or the Stones or the Who, and it's not because those people are sheep any more than those who loved Michael Jackson or David Bowie or Prince.

I can't believe I forgot to mention Queen. It really seems sometimes that for some people, Queen is almost the only band they're aware of from the 70's, or the only one where they dare to go back that far anyway. I don't mind Queen, but I feel that they sometimes get a lot of praise for being bombastic and show-y and epic, whereas there are a lot of bands from that era who did that kind of stuff better IMO. But ah well.

[/QUOTE]

Sure, but I'm not being influenced like that, because I don't give a sh*t about Can myself, I didn't grow up in the 70's, and I don't have any friends who listen to them. I'm just going on the fact that they (and Tago Mago specifically) seem to be referenced a lot more than you'd expect based on their albums sales back in the day. Look at the amount of ratings they have on RYM, for example. It might be surprising, but they seem to really resonate with younger people.

Hi,

In general, in those "classic rock bs-stations", do not do things that they do not have an interest in and do not own a portion of, at least, the distribution of the works. In my book, all of these, and many more, would have a voice on the air, with one exception ... the moron that put together 5 tapes for those FM stations, wouldn't know music from his _________! And worse, he wouldn't care, either ... he's getting paid to do a job, and he took the money and run!

The hard side of it is, that years later, the same "tapes" are still being played and those stations are not people oriented and don't care what is in the tapes. For the price they are paying for those tapes, a low level employee on regular wages would be cheaper and more fun to listen to ... but "radio" ... is no longer radio and we need to let it kill itself for being cheap, stupid and down right malicious!

Bach and Beethoven weren't contemporaries, so it's better to compare how society praise the latter composer over Johann Nepomuk Hummel and Luigi Cherubini. Which, like it or not, society does. Bach and Beethoven are the leading "stars" of the Baroque and the (early) Romantic era and overshadow a lot of great composers. Not all of course, Schubert and Vivaldi mm are also household names. Just like Black Sabbath and Deep Purple are.

Led Zeppelin is Beethoven, Humble Pie is Cherubini. I'm sorry that's just how it works. Not how I want it to be, and there's nothing wrong with being Cherubini.

^^ Wow you really have a Led Zeppelin chip-on-your-shoulder.

I understand your grievances against a band as popular as they were, the illusions of music and show business in general--  Zeppelin can be faulted for a great deal, it's true:  musical poaching, aggressive business tactics, debauchery.   But on a good night they brought it in a way none of their peers could ever consider matching---  not Hendrix, not Floyd, not the Who, not Yes, none of them could match Led Zep's astounding ability to improvise, musically expand, and take bold risks in concert most musicians wouldn't dare trying for fear of failure.  

Zep weren't afraid and for that they must pay the price of history's scorn.

That's how I see it.  I couldn't agree more. 

I think you have issues that transcend Led Zeppelin. They were a great band, and opposed to your nonsensical take, I am continually pleasantly surprised at all the "reaction" videos on YouTube where younger folks are discovering Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath for the first time. The wide-eyed amazement seems genuine. Genuine shock that they have gone most of their lives without hearing these legends of rock, and now they're listening to bands that evidently the older population has taken for granted (or overheard over time). 

It's quite interesting to see these millenials hearing "Stairway to Heaven" or "Kashmir" for the first time, and then comparing it to the dross and offal that's flung about as music currently ("Hey, he's actually singing without auto-tune!"). I'm not sure what "music business" you're in that is shoving Led Zeppelin down your throat. I've been in bands since the late 70s...Zeppelin has never been a requirement; in fact, bands that mimicked Zeppelin over time like Kingdom Come, Great White or even today with Greta Van Fleet are often mocked for their Ledded pretensions. 

Please, explain how they are "overrated". Perhaps "overplayed" would be more precise, but then you could say that about another great band, Pink Floyd. I can't count how many times I've heard people say they won't listen to Dark Side of the Moon anymore because of the oversaturation. And, as I've stated, I never had an issue not playing Zeppelin in Michigan. I have been in bands where we played acoustic Zep like "Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp", "Gallows Pole", or "Hey, Hey What Can I Do", but that was of our own volition because they were fun to play. No one twisted our arms and demanded "Whole Lotta Love" be played every set. 

And Jethro Tull is doing just fine. Without the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Sabbath, The Stones, The Who? They are still selling albums. Hell, you could trot out half-dead Ozzy for one more tour and he'd sell out venues. You might as well argue about the immortal status of The Beatles. It is what it is. They are immortal, and young people still listen to them, and whether you consider them overrated is meaningless.

 

"^" refers to the previous post.

"^^" refers to the post before the previous post. So Atavachron was referring to Jacob Schoolcraft.

"^^^" would refer to the post before the post before the previous post.

...

"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^" would be better off quoting the intended post.

 

 

Well that's what it's supposed to mean. I'm not sure that everyone follows that meaning.

 

That's not important at all. "Overrated" is a subjective term. I don't like U2, but they're a very popular band, so from my perspective they're overrated.

You seem to be under the impression that if people would just educate themselves and seek out other bands from that era, they'd see that objectively, Led Zep isn't that good. But again, taste is subjective.

There's other bands from the 70's that I prefer over Led Zep, but they're pretty much the best in their genre IMO. Page and Bonham are outstanding on their instruments. Also keep in mind that you can't think an artist is better than others or one of your favorites unless you're actually familiar with them. There's way more people familiar with Led Zeppelin than Humble Pie, so no sh*t will there be more Led Zeppelin fanatics than Humble Pie fanatics. Also, bands being more obscure or less remembered, while sometimes unfair or hard to understand, often is just a result of people prefering one over the other. The "people just like X because it's popular" argument is tempting at times, but also a little cheap. Popularity and how much people actually like something do go hand in hand to some degree.

I also don't buy the fact that Led Zeppelin is a requirment for bar bands for even a second. They're not that ubiquitously popular or demanded by the masses, and I can't find anything online that backs it up. If anything, it's easier to find people asking why bar bands don't play Led Zeppelin - despite their popularity. if you want bands that people generally see as the best ever, try the Beatles or Pink Floyd before Led Zeppelin.

It's a natural implication of how markets (and actually general social processes) work that some who are popular and who can sell/be sold well win over a popularity that is somewhat out of proportion, and may detract attention from less visible acts. Chances are there is always some truth in saying "XXX are overrated" and "people should really pay attention to Y but they don't" in a situation like this, but there is hardly any way around such phenomena. Better people get to know Led Zeppelin and some of then explore things further than not even starting at all. Also I don't see any particular problem with Led Zeppelin different from Beatles, Pink Floyd, or even Queen etc. I haven't experienced any pressure to like LZ or in fact anything - among people I know  it's fine to say "I don't like XYZ" whatever popularity XYZ have.

No, I don't think anyone is pressurised into liking LZ. They're just very visible, so people will see them first, and decide whether they like them or not. Sadly some will not move on, but maybe those would've been hopeless from the beginning anyway.

I'm not a big fan of Zeppelin's live stuff either, and I've never really enjoyed The Song Remains the Same. Keep in mind, though, that most people don't judge music from a musician's point of view. Page could be the worst or the best guitar player in the world, but as long as the end result is something people like to listen to, they'll evaluate him as a player they like. I do like him and Bonham especially on the studio albums. As for Plant...let's just say he's a good singer with a bad voice. But at the end of the day, it's subjective, like you say. I don't know how good Plant is, technically speaking, since I don't play guitar, but I know that I like the end result, so he must have some kind of feel, or "soul" or whatever you want to call it. And I don't like the Ramones any less just because they were poor musicians.

And as for this...

Unless people in New Jersey are completely different from the rest of the world, I don't think the average person really tends to like what their parents are into. They tend to reject that kind of stuff. Now, maybe, in later years they found out that their mom and pop's taste wasn't that bad after all, but I highly doubt people just parrot their parents' views because they're their parents. Most people don't consider their parents geniuses. Even if you take it to mean that a band's popularity will often live on from generation to generation, sure, but that can be said about any band that's still popular these days. That just comes back around to things that are popular finding a new audience more easily, but that doesn't discredit Led Zeppelin's popularity IMO.

Yesssss, that's why we love them.  They are real, they didn't play games, use gimmicks or backing players, and they gave you more in an hour & a half than most bands did in a month of touring.

How dare the lowbrow people of New Jersey assume Zeppelin are the greatest rock band ... it was obviously Creedence Clearwater Revival.   Right ?