More guys who innovate and play with tons of energy and speed the whole time.
More bands like Haiduk with extreme non stop riff attacks.
Negative Old Man Warning
Guitar music will never, ever again be as popular as it was in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Not even close and not even a question. The world has long since moved on.
Think about it for a minute.
Everything from how music is created to how it is shared and viewed is different. With perhaps the exception of the instrument itself (a Strat is a Strat, and tube amps prevailâŚsort of) - everything else is different. From the cord you use to plug in, all the way to how people listen. Itâs ALL different.
In the late 50s and through 60s, 70s and 80s the guitar was new. Young people love new. Hendrix, EVHâŚand then the 80s excess.
At that time, guitar was something that wasnât part of their parentsâ generation. It helped that it also pissed parents off. Now, your parents can sing the lyrics to every retro tune in the local froyo joint.
For kids? ThatâsâŚewe.
I am a child of the 80s. I love guitar, and graduated high school in '89. The 80s ruined Rock guitar for the masses.
SRV was well on his way to reigniting a love of guitar when fate stepped in. He wasnât a Rock player - but for a time everyone was buying a Strat and a Tube Screamer (me included - still have both).
Sorry to be a downer - but it ainât gonna happen. No Rock band is going to fill arenas or occupy the mainstream like that ever again.
Thatâs not good or bad. It just is.
âŚand who cares? Electric guitar is still the coolest thing ever.
1 Like
Unless people can have a career at it it isnât going to happen, and I mean beyond playing live all the time. Records arenât selling any more so where is the drive to write songs? One could play in a good tribute band and make a paycheck on a regular touring schedule. I went to see George Lynch recently and hes still good but heâs 68 and there are young guys who grew up learning his riffs and can play just like himâŚit isnât that t young guys arent as good, its just they had someone else write the riffs they mimickâŚthere is no room for the music to evolve if no one is writing anything new.
2 Likes
Great answer. My view is unless there is incentives (million dollar contracts - fame etc) then I canât see how it would happen. In the 80âs even though virtually no-one achieved that relatively speaking, there was at least the hope for that. Kind of like winning the lottery - now the lottery is not even being run!
3 Likes
Still feel NFTs are part of the answer with fractional ownership, backer royalties etc. Basically an extension of kickstarter. Something like www.fandefi.com
Disclaimer: I was hired to write that code for fandefi. But itâs still a good model, the the free lunch speculators of course have destroyed the crypto scene, sigh, we cannot have nice things, passive income vultures never cease to exploit 
Yep, completely agree!
As much as I have loved all the music available at my fingertips with the power of streaming, can it be argued that anything has been more damaging to the music industry?
Honestly, I think artists are going to have to fight back against it and stop being taken for a ride. It would be nice if it was actually financially worth putting time and money into your music again 
Fight back with what, though? The distribution model has irrevocably changed and wonât go back. Sure, they can battle for a bigger piece of the streaming fees. But the idea of an arena-tour rock band (or most any band/artist) is dead and buried.
And so what?
Itâs never been financially worth putting time and money into original music. Ever. Those that âmake itâ essentially hit the lottery - or would be playing music even if they had to live in a box, or sleep on bar room tables (as SRV did when he was a teenager).
1 Like
In this video (which is a sort of promo for one of her courses), Mary Spender gives a nice discussion of what are the typical opportunities for the âmodernâ musician (I guess the main focus here is on musicians who want to make a living via social media).
TLDR: making it as a âstadium fillerâ band has always been extremely hard (and it perhaps is harder now). However, nowadays thereâs infinitely more opportunities for âmiddle incomeâ musicians, who wonât get stinky rich, but could still make a decent living out of their craft.
Iâm not trying to advertise her course, I just like the way she discusses the topic.
1 Like
Personally, I think artists should group together and remove all their content from streaming services.
Even in the early 2000s when I was starting to get into music as a kid there was more of a goal to get a record deal. I remember a Rick Beato video where he talked about all through the 90s, young bands he would work with had record deals, shortly after this period this almost completely stopped. (Not that record deals are the be-all and end-all but they can certainly make a difference)
Thatâs probably true but itâs okay if artists want to be paid for their work 
I feel like this miscategorises lots of passionate musicians who just donât see the value in creating records anymore i.e. Blues Saraceno moving to mainly sync work
Blues Saraceno is 51. His Rock Icon opportunities left decades ago.
I think heâs an example of someone who figured out how to make a living in music besides trying to be the Next Big Thing. Pete Thorn, Tim Pierce, Tommy Tedesco, Steve Lukather (beyond Toto) etc.
What about from the other end of the spectrum, people who are Rock Iconâs who showcase having some financial incentive? Hereâs a famous Ritchie Blackmore quote about Jeff Beck:
âI donât put myself on Jeff Beckâs level, but I can relate to him when he says heâd rather be working on his car collection than playing the guitar.â
2 Likes
Iâve thought a lot about this and I think the only way to get a next âVan Halenâ type guitar icon would be for someone whoâs decently talented, a best of the best personality and for some company or group to finance marketing that person beyond all hell. We already see tons of elite talented guitar players all over, so itâs not that you have to be soooooo talented. Some flashy talent and then a very big, catchy personality that gets financially backed somehow. Sort of how that guy Liver King exploded out of nowhere. If I understood correctly, he was basically used as marketing tool for higher ups for profit until he got caught. He still made a killing and makes his own living.
EVH was far more than just talented. He changed music.
No amount of marketing budget can do that.
I agree that he was very talented and creative and a pioneer of such. My point is he wasnât the most talented in terms of just pure skill. He also was part of a different era where there was still plenty of guitar discovery, album selling, and sold out tours. I was making a hypothesis for our current times. My point (to further clarify) is that now there are plenty of ppl talented enough or even more so to play Van Halen stuff and more. So it would need to be a very good personality along with tremendous marketing to reach that level. Or eventually someone will just discover something new in rock and roll or guitar
I think its a combination of being talented and also an exceptional stage performer⌠I think Edward Van Halen had all of that wrapped into one. Him and David Lee Roth put on an awesome show. The two of them were excellent front men and the rest of the band was great also. For example there are alot of âbedroom playersâ who can sit and riff, but try running around on stage and playing the same rifs while running aroundâŚalthough Ill admit its a different time now,maybe people wouldnât care if someone stood like a statue riffing or even sitting at a live showâŚ?
1 Like
Neither were any number of influential players. Jimmy Page gets hammered for his sloppy playingâŚHendrix had anâŚinteresting relationship with the beatâŚ
If technical savvy meant anything to listeners, Shawn Lane wouldâve won a hundred Grammies.
1 Like
Yes hence why i said in my initial statement, âdecently talented,â lol
Personally, I would rank Eddieâs technical abilities pretty highly. Those tapes from the '78 tour are just as terrifying to me as anything Yngwie would be doing a few years later. Both players in their respective primes give me the same vibe of having any level of technical ability at their disposal that they wanted. Of course they both chose very specific things that didnât really overlap. But if you just look at the purely mechanical stuff, like Eddieâs shuffle or his ridiculous forearm tremolo, you definitely think, ok this is one of those special people who can figure out the techniques as a teenager that took me decades to pick apart.
5 Likes
I agree and I really wasnât trying to discredit Eddie in any way. I was really just trying to make the point that I donât think in current times it would come down to technical ability as much as personality, marketing and situation (In a very very basic nutshell lol). Let me try to explain it this way. Letâs pretend The Rock was a pretty good guitar player; like good enough to play some ACDC tunes or crazy train whatever. His personality and financial situation to reach so many people would put him in a position to reach a guitar status
1 Like
What if that actually happened but he crossed over into the country genre and he changed his name to âThe Countryâ?
2 Likes